Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General assessment

The present paper mobilizes a set of ideas about the recent urban evolution of Jabal Al-Hussein Amman in a context of hosting multiple waves of migration that the place has registered and how urban development patterns and residential typologies have reproduced the impact of this immigration phenomenon.

It´s a supported study and based on good statistical and indicators analysis, complementing and integrating quantitative and qualitative analysis. But above all, this paper is important because it bridges the gap of studies in the area of segregated morphological structures in contexts of the global south.

It is well written and structured, and in spite of some theoretical, conceptual and methodological shortcomings, we recommend the article for publication, but only after major changes introduced by the authors. The suggested changes, some more profound, others are more superficial, follow the next point with a more specific comment.

Specific assessment

1.     The introduction is insufficient in it’s current form. It should be an overview of the contents of the research in the paper without going into too much detail. Only a few paragraphs are enough. Briefly describe the importance of the study area. Specify the relevance of the publication of the current paper, explaining how this present work contributes to the progress of knowledge in this line of research in this field of studies.

2.     The selected case studies must also be mentioned in the introduction and justify this decision.

3.     The article needs a robust literature review section on immigration and spatial distribution patterns in destination cities, which the authors confuse with residential typologies. In urban studies, ethnic enclaves, ethnic succession and residential mobility are not residential typologies. These are distribution patterns of immigrant communities or others with specific ethnic characteristics. In this matter, the authors limit themselves to citing two or three authors.

4.     The issue of ethnic enclaves is not formulated incorrectly but the focus should be on residential segregation and socio-spatial fragmentation.

5.     What do the authors mean by “more sustainable residential patterns” in p.6?

6.     Figure 4 is not perceptible. Please introduce a figure with the best resolution level.

7.     The data worked on in figure 8 needs to be relativized, that is, put into percentages. Otherwise, they make a comparative reading of the various residential areas very difficult.

8.     The aspects mentioned by the authors in the table in figure 7 as major trends in socio-spatial recomposition must be developed in length and adequately deepened in the descriptive text.

9.     In section 5.1. the authors never delve into urban spatial distribution trends, what they call "residential typologies". They limit themselves to mentioning the problem of vacant properties and empty houses and also urban decay in general, without specifically specifying which phenomena we are talking about. Is their a On the other hand, they record cases of gentrification but without ever mentioning the concept and the process, as in this page and the beginning of the 13.

10.On p.10 there is talk of vertical expansion of some houses. These phenomena are typical in periods of housing crisis and a strong influx of demand that is not usually met by the private market. It is also typical of some informal urbanization. Do public authorities authorize these expansions? What are the particular causes for them to occur? are they done without the risk of existing buildings collapsing?

11.What is discussed theoretically in a synthetic way in section 2.3. has no correspondence to the empirical material analyzed in the results discussion sections. Theory and empirics must form a strong relationship, otherwise the article will be left with loose ends and not very coherent. In p.13 we in fact understand what are the residential tipologies.

12.The last area of recommendations needs to be much better worked on. It cannot be reduced to a vague comment on urban planning principles, or some recent urban trends. It should include concrete recommendations and measures to combat the closure of ethnic enclaves and the reinforcement of residential fragmentation and segregation. How can we combat these aspects? Promoting more open urban forms, new urban developments with inclusive zoning and social and functional mix. Urban redevelopment / regeneration must be more resilient, inclusive and sustainable. We challenge the authors to find recommendations in urban plans or other strategic government documents already made or to propose two or three strategies of their own in this regard.

Final assessment

The paper presents an important contribution to urban studies, presenting a good empirical demonstration of results and being drafted clearly and objectively. Also reveals a sufficiente scientific terminology and vocabulary in the study of southern urbanization patterns of development and sustainable urban development.

Despite the requested changes, the authors should understand that the paper is good and just sometimes what it takes is to add a small paragraph or phrase on the subjects required, or even change or replace a reference, to significantly improve the work. In short, in spite of the considerations outlined in the field of specific assessment, this review is in favor of publishing the manuscript but with major modifications, with the expectation that this will surely be an important contribution to the academic and political debates surrounding the southern urban redevelopment and new forms of urbanism.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback, We have took it into account and incorporated it within your manuscript, along with the general notes. Please find the attached table of feedback revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The literature review is not well-structured and comprehensive. Besides, it would be weird to have sections (or sub-sections) without any sources of reference (e.g. there is no literature mentioned in Section 2.3).

The numbering for the sections is also problematic. Why does 2.2.1. come after 2.3 (page 3)? 

Some information about the references is not complete or accurate. For example, for the reference "Network, 2018", the author name should be "EMBARQ Network" instead of "Network, E.". The authors should have paid more attention to the accuracy of the information in the references throughout the whole paper.

It is mentioned in Figure 2 (page 5) that there will be some hypothesis tests in the research. However, I cannot find any hypothesis at all in the paper. In fact, I doubt if hypothesis tests are relevant because the study is qualitative essentially.  

In Figure 2, what is "guided line interviews"?

How was the theoretical snowball sampling conducted?

What are the limitations of the research? How did these limitations affect the interpretations of the findings of the research?

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

We would like to thank you for your valuable feedback, We have took it into account and incorporated it within your manuscript, along with the general notes. Please find the attached table of feedback revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the authors made the modifications in the revision of the first version of the paper, it is now ready to be publish.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I don't have any further comment on the paper.