Critical Infrastructures in Informal Settlements of Maputo City, Mozambique: The Importance of Interdependencies for Interventions Prioritization
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study investigates the interdependencies among critical infrastructures in the informal settlement of Inhagoia B, Maputo, Mozambique. It provides a detailed examination of the interdependencies between critical infrastructure systems, offering a holistic approach to upgrading informal settlements. Comments can be found below,
- The study is highly localized, focusing on a single neighborhood, which limits the generalizability of findings to other regions or urban contexts.
- There is limited quantitative data to support the claims about the specific impacts of infrastructure interdependencies, making it difficult to fully validate the proposed intervention strategies.
- The discussion of financial and logistical challenges in implementing integrated infrastructure projects is underdeveloped, leaving a gap in understanding practical feasibility.
- The study could benefit from a deeper exploration of the social and community dynamics that influence infrastructure usage and maintenance, which are critical for sustainable outcomes.
- Visual aids like maps and figures could be better integrated into the narrative for easier reference.
- References to previous studies could be more thoroughly integrated into the discussion to strengthen the connection between this study and existing literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Methodology Detailing: The methodology section lacks sufficient detail regarding the data collection process, especially in terms of how the interdependencies were identified and analyzed. A more rigorous explanation of the analytical framework used to assess these interdependencies is needed.
Quantification of Interdependencies: While the paper discusses interdependencies qualitatively, it does not provide a clear method for quantifying these relationships. Introducing quantitative measures or indices to assess the strength of these interdependencies would greatly enhance the rigor of the analysis.
Socio-economic Factors: The paper does not adequately consider the socio-economic factors that influence infrastructure development and prioritization in informal settlements. A deeper exploration of how poverty, land tenure insecurity, and informal economic activities affect infrastructure planning would provide a more holistic view.
Implementation Challenges: The paper proposes an integrated infrastructure approach but does not thoroughly discuss the practical challenges of implementing such an approach in a resource-constrained setting like Maputo. This could include issues such as governance challenges, financial limitations, and the socio-political dynamics of informal settlements.
Literature Review: Although the literature review covers a broad range of topics, it could be more focused on previous studies specifically addressing infrastructure interdependencies in similar urban contexts. This would help to better position the current research within the existing body of knowledge and identify gaps that this study aims to fill.
The paper presents valuable insights into the complexities of infrastructure planning in informal settlements and contributes to the existing body of knowledge on urban infrastructure interdependencies. However, to strengthen the paper, I recommend major revisions. These should include a more detailed methodology, a focused literature review, and a discussion on the implementation challenges of the proposed approach. Addressing these issues will significantly enhance the scholarly merit of the work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageGood
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript provides an interesting case study, Inhagoia in Maputo, Mozambique, where sanitation calls for rehabilitation interventions. The case study problems and rehabilitation process is clear, but there are several elements of weakness in the manuscript which make it unfit for publication in the present form. Please, consider to resubmit after having addressed the follwing issues:
1) the manuscript focus is clearly on sanitation, so iii) and v) (226-229) are virtually not adressed. Remove or clarify or include.
2) The manuscript is a long narrative describing the Inhagoia experience, but what is the research question? And the research goal(s)? Please state them clearly, also in sight of the transferability of the Inhagoia's lesson elsewhere.
3) The literature review needs to be expanded. Aside form Table 1, I do not see much of: "a bibliography assessment .....mostly of scientific papers related to urbanization in the world, the challenges of informal settlements, and the contextualization of integrated infrastructures". Please, include a specific comparison of Inhagoia to other case studies and highight the specificity/uniqueness of Inhagoia, as a case study
4) Virtually there is no discussion or conclusions, they are just bullet-point lists. This is not proper in a scientific paper. Engage in a full discussion, also corroborated by scientific sources (if need be), extensively comment Table 2 (which is not readable); and draw conclusions, stressing also limitations/caveats of the present work and future developments. In the discussion, please, highlight how the results can be applied elsewhere, and which are the actual policy implications.
5) Change the title, focusing on "sanitation"
6) rewrite the abstract clearly stating research question and goal, the narrative quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am good with this paper. Please accept this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors met the majority requirements, although the conclusions look like a short summary. Please, improve this section highlighting elements of innovation, caveats, next steps
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
