Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Planning to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from the Case Study of Moundou, Chad
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are a number of serious issues in this paper.
One of the most significant of them is that the argument is contestable. This paper is titled "Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Plans to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from Moundou, Chad." What is implied in this title cannot be scientifically established and this paper does not do so either. As we know, case study findings cannot be generalized to a whole universe. In other words, findings from this case study in Mondou cannot be used to make conclusions and recommendations about integrating sustainability goals into urban plans to advance sustainability in Sub Saharan Africa as claimed. The findings are valid only to the case study. Therefore, the title must be modified as "Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Plans to Advance Sustainability in Moundou, Chad: Problems and potentials".
The paper has language issues: first and foremost, please separate paragraphs when the ideas being discussed change. This does not happen and the argument is thus unclear.
Usually, an abstract must present three aspects: (1) introduction to the issue and what is being specifically examined within that issue, (2) the research methods employed to examine that issue and (3) the findings and conclusions. This abstract has all these information. However, it is all in one paragraph. This is not proper. Please divide them into three separate paragraphs.
Introduction is reasonably well done. However, it goes on and on explaining the issue including the absence of previous research. Be brief and get to the point. Leave the extensive discussion about the paucity of research to the literature review.
Research questions are too general. They must be specific to Moundou, Chad. If general questions are asked, they cannot be answered by a single case study which this paper offers. As we know, case study findings cannot be generalized. Findings about Moundou, Chad cannot be projected to the entire Sub Saharan Africa as claimed. This is a basic principle about case studies as research methods.
This research paper has no "theoretical framework", although it investigates a number of theoretical ideas. It talks about "sustainability, sustainability development goals, urbanization, and a plethora of specific concepts. They must be defined, and discussed in relation to each other to establish the theoretical framework of this research, under a subtitle "theoretical framework". Some references exist here and there, in the introduction, in the review of literature and even under research methodology. They must be brought together under this subtitle and presented by using the authors voices with statements such as according to Rapoport (1969) or as Oliver (1972) says. Do not make statements by yourself and put references within brackets. The authors of this paper cannot theorize. They are not theoreticians: at least not yet.
Review of literature is confusing: the task of a critical review of literature is to establish the status of current knowledge and demonstrate where the gaps of knowledge exist with regard to the issue being examined. Current literature review has some statements doing so but is also fused with theory. This must be made clear.
Research methodology must be revised. Please explain that this employs case study as a method first and the data gathering techniques employed afterwards. The case study must be introduced afterwards. It is currently Moundou, Chad. However, it could have also been another city. In fact this research can be done in many other cities too.
Findings are reasonably well done. However, it does not provide all the data. For example, it says that it employed an extensive documentary review of key urban development plans for Moundou, (page 439). However, none of these are presented. Similarly, it has conducted interviews and not a single interview has been cited.
Most critically, the conclusions are poor. while claiming to "identify the primary barriers to SDG integration in Sub Saharan Africa" it offers half a paragraph on this. None of the 3 research questions have been answered comprehensively. Instead, it says that Moundou case exemplifies the complex realities of sustainable urbanization in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is inadequate. Please list the specific conclusions: (1) what are the viewpoints, expectations, and concerns of the key stakeholders about this integration? (2) What are the primary barriers hindering the integration of the SDGs into urban plans in Moundou and (3) What are the strategic and practical approaches to effectively support the integration of the SDGs into urban plans in Moundou.
Finally discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this research.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Please separate paragraphs when the ideas change.
Author Response
Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer
We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing such insightful and comprehensive comments on our manuscript, particularly given your undoubtedly demanding schedule. Below, we have outlined our detailed, point-by-point responses to address your feedback.
Manuscript title " Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Plans to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from Moundou, Chad."
Comment
There are a number of serious issues in this paper.
Point 1: One of the most significant of them is that the argument is contestable. This paper is titled "Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Plans to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from Moundou, Chad." What is implied in this title cannot be scientifically established and this paper does not do so either. As we know, case study findings cannot be generalized to a whole universe. In other words, findings from this case study in Mondou cannot be used to make conclusions and recommendations about integrating sustainability goals into urban plans to advance sustainability in Sub Saharan Africa as claimed. The findings are valid only to the case study. Therefore, the title must be modified as "Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Plans to Advance Sustainability in Moundou, Chad: Problems and potentials".
Response 1: We deeply appreciate your insightful feedback, which provides us with the opportunity to clarify the intent and scope of our study, as well as the rationale behind the title of our article.
We fully acknowledge that findings from a case study cannot be generalized to an entire region. However, the inclusion of “Sub-Saharan Africa” in the title does not imply a generalization of the results across the region. Instead, it aims to situate the study within the broader context of urban planning challenges specific to Sub-Saharan Africa, emphasizing the relevance of the research while focusing specifically on Moundou, Chad.
To precisely address your pertinent comment, we have made a slight reformulation of the title as follows: “Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Planning to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from the Case Study of Moundou, Chad.” The latter part of the title, “Barriers and Practical Solutions from the Case Study of Moundou, Chad” now clearly demonstrates that the study is specific to the city of Moundou, thereby suggesting that the findings and recommendations are specific to this context.
To further reinforce this point, we have revised the concluding section of the introduction (line : 170) to ensure clarity. The revised text now emphasizes that while the findings are specific to Moundou, the study highlights methodological approaches and lessons that could inspire similar analyses in other cities, always taking into account their unique characteristics and challenges. This modification strengthens the alignment between the title and the scope of the study.
We firmly believe that the current title, “Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Planning to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from the Case Study Moundou, Chad,” appropriately balances the regional contextualization of Sub-Saharan Africa with the specificity of Moundou as the focus of the study. It reflects the localized nature of our findings while acknowledging the broader context that underscores the relevance and urgency of this research.
Point 2: The paper has language issues: first and foremost, please separate paragraphs when the ideas being discussed change. This does not happen and the argument is thus unclear.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the structure and clarity of the manuscript. We fully acknowledge the importance of clear argumentation and paragraph separation. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have carefully improved the language from the abstract to the conclusion. Furthermore, we have enhanced the text’s flow by effectively using connectors and ensuring that paragraphs are properly separated when the ideas change. We believe these improvements have significantly enhanced the readability of the manuscript.
Point 3: Usually, an abstract must present three aspects: (1) introduction to the issue and what is being specifically examined within that issue, (2) the research methods employed to examine that issue and (3) the findings and conclusions. This abstract has all these information. However, it is all in one paragraph. This is not proper. Please divide them into three separate paragraphs.
Response 3: Your comment is entirely correct. However, as per the journal's guidelines, the abstract is required to be written as a single paragraph. Consequently, we adhered to these requirements. Nonetheless, to address your concern, we have incorporated logical connectors to enhance the flow of ideas and ensure greater clarity and coherence within the abstract.
Point 4: Introduction is reasonably well done. However, it goes on and on explaining the issue including the absence of previous research. Be brief and get to the point. Leave the extensive discussion about the paucity of research to the literature review.
Response 4: In the introduction, we have first highlighted the major challenges related to urban development in the Sub-Saharan context. To achieve this, we relied on several recent studies conducted specifically within this region, which helped to clearly outline the key urban development challenges specific to Sub-Saharan Africa. We then explored the necessity of integrating the SDGs into urban planning as a means to address these challenges. To support our arguments, we referred to recent studies addressing the integration of SDGs into development planning, particularly those focusing on urban development.
Given the absence of empirical studies on the barriers to SDG integration in urban planning in the Sub-Saharan context, it was essential to strongly justify this gap in our introduction. For this purpose, we drew on various works that address SDG-related issues in this context, consistently highlighting their limitations. Our aim here is not only to provide a solid contextualization of our study but also to emphasize the necessity and urgency of conducting such research.
Relocating these examples to the literature review section would severely compromise the coherence of the introduction and diminish the reader's understanding of the critical need for this research.
Point 5: Research questions are too general. They must be specific to Moundou, Chad. If general questions are asked, they cannot be answered by a single case study which this paper offers. As we know, case study findings cannot be generalized. Findings about Moundou, Chad cannot be projected to the entire Sub Saharan Africa as claimed. This is a basic principle about case studies as research methods.
Response 5: Your observation is highly pertinent. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have carefully reformulated the research questions and objectives to contextualize them specifically to the city of Moundou, Chad. We acknowledge that case studies do not allow for the direct generalization of findings to other geographical contexts, in accordance with established methodological principles for case studies. The revisions made have been highlighted in red for clarity.
Point 6: This research paper has no "theoretical framework", although it investigates a number of theoretical ideas. It talks about "sustainability, sustainability development goals, urbanization, and a plethora of specific concepts. They must be defined, and discussed in relation to each other to establish the theoretical framework of this research, under a subtitle "theoretical framework". Some references exist here and there, in the introduction, in the review of literature and even under research methodology. They must be brought together under this subtitle and presented by using the authors voices with statements such as according to Rapoport (1969) or as Oliver (1972) says. Do not make statements by yourself and put references within brackets. The authors of this paper cannot theorize. They are not theoreticians: at least not yet.
Response 6: We sincerely thank you for your constructive observations regarding the absence of an explicit theoretical framework in our manuscript. In this revised version, we have developed a dedicated section entitled "Theoretical Framework" in line with your suggestions. This section establishes a robust conceptual foundation for our research by defining and critically discussing the core concepts, including urbanization, urban planning, sustainability, and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
All additions and revisions have been clearly highlighted in red to facilitate your review.
Point 7: Review of literature is confusing: the task of a critical review of literature is to establish the status of current knowledge and demonstrate where the gaps of knowledge exist with regard to the issue being examined. Current literature review has some statements doing so but is also fused with theory. This must be made clear.
Response 7: In this revised version of the manuscript, we have clearly separated the theoretical aspects of the literature by relocating them to the newly established "Theoretical Framework" section, as suggested. The literature review section now focuses exclusively on the current state of knowledge, identifying specific gaps in relation to the research issue at hand.
Point 8: Research methodology must be revised. Please explain that this employs case study as a method first and the data gathering techniques employed afterwards. The case study must be introduced afterwards. It is currently Moundou, Chad. However, it could have also been another city. In fact this research can be done in many other cities too.
Response 8: In the revised manuscript, we have restructured this section to better clarify that the case study methodology underpins our research. Initially, we elaborate on the rationale for selecting the case study approach, emphasizing its suitability for exploring complex, context-specific challenges such as integrating the SDGs into urban planning. However, for reasons of coherence, we have decided to place the "Justification for Selecting Moundou, Chad, as the Case Study" (line : 496) immediately after the subheading "Case Study as the Chosen Research Methodology," (line : 478) followed by the data collection techniques. This new organization, we believe, better reflects the logical flow of our approach and enhances the overall clarity of the manuscript.
Point 9: Findings are reasonably well done. However, it does not provide all the data. For example, it says that it employed an extensive documentary review of key urban development plans for Moundou, (page 439). However, none of these are presented. Similarly, it has conducted interviews and not a single interview has been cited.
Response 9: We sincerely appreciate your observations regarding the presentation of the data. In our study, the documentary analysis and stakeholder interviews contributed significantly to the construction of the section "Practical Solutions" (from line : 995 to 1085), particularly in Table 14: "Concrete Means and Tools" (line : 1084). In addition, we have incorporated selected verbatim statements from the interviews in the "Discussion section ‘’ (Line : 1118 and line : 1148) to illustrate key points. However, due to the nature of our analysis, we did not present the full set of verbatim responses within the main text, in order to maintain conciseness and ensure the relevance of the argumentation.
Point 10: Most critically, the conclusions are poor. while claiming to "identify the primary barriers to SDG integration in Sub Saharan Africa" it offers half a paragraph on this. None of the 3 research questions have been answered comprehensively. Instead, it says that Moundou case exemplifies the complex realities of sustainable urbanization in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is inadequate. Please list the specific conclusions: (1) what are the viewpoints, expectations, and concerns of the key stakeholders about this integration? (2) What are the primary barriers hindering the integration of the SDGs into urban plans in Moundou and (3) What are the strategic and practical approaches to effectively support the integration of the SDGs into urban plans in Moundou.
Response 10: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback regarding the conclusions of the study. In response to your concerns, we have significantly revised the manuscript to ensure a comprehensive and clear answer to the three research questions. The revised conclusions now explicitly address: (1) the viewpoints, expectations, and concerns of key stakeholders regarding SDG integration in Moundou, (2) the primary barriers hindering SDG integration in urban plans in Moundou, and (3) the strategic and practical approaches to effectively support this integration. These revisions are aimed at providing a more detailed and direct presentation of the findings, as per your suggestions.
Please note that all modifications have been highlighted in red for easy reference.
Point 11: Finally discuss the strengths and weaknesses of this research.
Response 11: In this revised version of the manuscript (line : 1191), we have replaced section 6.4 - Research Limitations with 6.4 - Research Strengths and Limitations, providing a thorough analysis that addresses both the strengths and the limitations of our study. This revision aims to offer a more balanced and comprehensive evaluation of our research, highlighting its contributions as well as its limitations.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. I appreciate this paper because it incorporates sustainable development goals into urban planning in an innovative way. It is also very legitimate to offer the city of Moundou, Chad, as an example.
2、This study used a mixed technique, combining in-depth interviews with questionnaires, which is an excellent method for this topic and yields decent findings.
３、This article explores the challenges of merging the Sustainable Development Goals and urban planning. The main causes of the issues are then identified through investigation, and more reasonable and feasible responses are proposed.
4. Part 6.4 of the thesis explains the study's limits and proposals for further research, however I still have a small suggestion:
Specifically, the authors feel that there is no successful case of perfect integration of SDGs and urban planning in previous research papers on urban planning in the Sub-Saharan region, hence this study is a pioneering effort in this area. So, are there success tales from other regions of the world? If so, it would be beneficial to provide a succinct analysis of the case's successes and failings.
Author Response
Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer
We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing such insightful and comprehensive comments on our manuscript, particularly given your undoubtedly demanding schedule. Below, we have outlined our detailed, point-by-point responses to address your feedback.
Manuscript title " Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Planning to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from the Case Study of Moundou, Chad."
Comment
Point 1 : I appreciate this paper because it incorporates sustainable development goals into urban planning in an innovative way. It is also very legitimate to offer the city of Moundou, Chad, as an example.
This study used a mixed technique, combining in-depth interviews with questionnaires, which is an excellent method for this topic and yields decent findings.
This article explores the challenges of merging the Sustainable Development Goals and urban planning. The main causes of the issues are then identified through investigation, and more reasonable and feasible responses are proposed.
Response 1: Thank you for your positive and encouraging feedback on our study. We are pleased that you found the integration of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) into urban planning, as exemplified by the city of Moundou, Chad, to be innovative and relevant. We also appreciate your acknowledgment of our mixed-methods approach, which combined in-depth interviews with questionnaires to yield robust findings.
In the revised manuscript, we have ensured that the discussion and conclusions fully highlight the innovative aspects of our approach and the practical implications of our findings. We have also reinforced the clarity and coherence of the proposed solutions to address the identified challenges, aligning them more effectively with the study’s objectives.
Point 2: Part 6.4 of the thesis explains the study's limits and proposals for further research, however I still have a small suggestion:
Specifically, the authors feel that there is no successful case of perfect integration of SDGs and urban planning in previous research papers on urban planning in the Sub-Saharan region, hence this study is a pioneering effort in this area. So, are there success tales from other regions of the world? If so, it would be beneficial to provide a succinct analysis of the case's successes and failings.
Response 2: To the best of our knowledge, no prior study has specifically focused on the barriers to integrating the SDGs into urban plans. While we cannot rule out the existence of such research, the available literature has primarily addressed related themes, such as the inherent complexity of the SDGs. These studies have provided valuable insights that significantly contributed to the foundation and development of our research.
In the revised version of the manuscript, we have further refined Section 6.4 to underscore both the strengths and limitations of our study. These revisions aim to clearly articulate the originality and contributions of our research while identifying potential avenues for future investigation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article provides a solid approach to the challenges of urbanization on the African continent, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It becomes even more significant as Chad is still undergoing its urbanization process, making this study especially useful for monitoring the quality of ongoing urban expansion.
The structure of the article appears well-conceived, and most sections are robustly developed. However, I have identified certain issues that detract from the clarity and objectivity of the text, which I believe require attention:
1. A significant portion of my concerns relates to the authors' use of the term *Urban Plan* in the title, research questions, and objectives, which is not consistently employed throughout the body of the text. Instead, they seem to substitute it with *Urban Planning*. The same inconsistency arises in the literature review.
2. In the “Methodology” section, the authors refer to several planning documents, but it is unclear whether these are urban plans or another type of documents.
3. Consequently, it remains ambiguous what the authors understand by *Urban Plan*.
4. Urban planning can be implemented through instruments other than urban plans, such as urban policies, taxes, fees, various urban programs, etc.
5. In the “Methodology” section—Table 2, line 488, page 12—the uniformity of the survey numbers (all multiples of 10) raises concerns about the credibility of the data collection process.
6. Are the data and survey instruments deposited somewhere for consultation?
7. In subsection 3.2.1—page 9, lines 414-416—there seems to be a contradiction with the earlier statement regarding the relevance of all SDGs. Additionally, on page 10, line 421, the only SDG not explicitly designated is SDG 11, which ultimately appears to be the most relevant.
8. In the results discussion, the objectives and research questions are addressed, but no further emphasis is given to the *Urban Plan*. This issue recurs throughout the text.
In my opinion, the article should not be approved until the authors adequately address the aforementioned concerns.
Author Response
Dear Mr./Mrs. Reviewer
We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to providing such insightful and comprehensive comments on our manuscript, particularly given your undoubtedly demanding schedule. Below, we have outlined our detailed, point-by-point responses to address your feedback.
Manuscript title " Integrating Sustainable Development Goals into Urban Planning to Advance Sustainability in Sub-Saharan Africa: Barriers and Practical Solutions from the Case Study of Moundou, Chad."
Comment
The article provides a solid approach to the challenges of urbanization on the African continent, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. It becomes even more significant as Chad is still undergoing its urbanization process, making this study especially useful for monitoring the quality of ongoing urban expansion.
The structure of the article appears well-conceived, and most sections are robustly developed. However, I have identified certain issues that detract from the clarity and objectivity of the text, which I believe require attention:
Point 1: A significant portion of my concerns relates to the authors' use of the term *Urban Plan* in the title, research questions, and objectives, which is not consistently employed throughout the body of the text. Instead, they seem to substitute it with *Urban Planning*. The same inconsistency arises in the literature review.
Response 1: Thank you for your insightful comment. The appropriate term should indeed be urban planning, as it encompasses a wide range of tools and strategies, whereas urban plan typically refers to a more specific document or project. Urban planning, on the other hand, includes various strategies, policies, and sectoral development tools that contribute to shaping urban development. In the revised manuscript, we have made slight adjustments to the title by replacing urban plan with urban planning. Furthermore, we have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript and systematically replaced urban plan with urban planning to ensure consistency throughout the text. We believe this change clarifies the scope of our research and aligns the terminology with its broader conceptualization.
Point 2: In the “Methodology” section, the authors refer to several planning documents, but it is unclear whether these are urban plans or another type of documents.
Consequently, it remains ambiguous what the authors understand by *Urban Plan*.
Urban planning can be implemented through instruments other than urban plans, such as urban policies, taxes, fees, various urban programs, etc.
Response 2: C’est vrai que nous avons mentionné plusieurs planning documents dans la méthodologie. En déhors du Plan urbain de référence est un document de Planification de la ville, les autres sont des outils ou stratégies développés dans le cadre de développement urbain durable de la ville de Moundou. Par conséquent, tous ces documents doivent et regroupés sous le vacable de « Urban planning », comme nous l’avons fait dans la version révisée du manuscrit.
Thank you for your valuable comment. Apart from the Plan urbain de référence (line : 557) which is an official urban plan of the city, the other documents are tools or strategies developed as part of the city's sustainable urban development framework. Therefore, these documents should be grouped under the broader category of "urban planning," as we have done in the revised manuscript. This distinction clarifies that we are referring to a wide range of planning instruments that contribute to urban development, beyond the specific urban plan itself.
Point 3: In the “Methodology” section—Table 2, line 488, page 12—the uniformity of the survey numbers (all multiples of 10) raises concerns about the credibility of the data collection process.
Are the data and survey instruments deposited somewhere for consultation?
Response 3: Thank you for your comment regarding the uniformity of the survey numbers. In the quantitative section of our methodology, we first determined the sample size for our study (see line 592). Using Slovin’s formula and based on the 2023 population of Moundou (240,000), we calculated a sample of 400 respondents. To collect the data, we selected socio-professional categories from both the public and private sectors. Each category was allocated a specific number of survey forms to ensure adequate representation. We aimed to capture a diverse range of perceptions in order to obtain a nuanced understanding of the issues.
Regarding the data collection process, we employed a face-to-face survey method (see line 603) to ensure that respondents fully understood the questions and provided relevant, reliable answers. This approach was crucial for the accuracy and depth of our study.
Point 4: In subsection 3.2.1—page 9, lines 414-416—there seems to be a contradiction with the earlier statement regarding the relevance of all SDGs. Additionally, on page 10, line 421, the only SDG not explicitly designated is SDG 11, which ultimately appears to be the most relevant.
Response 7: In our study, we aim to highlight the barriers preventing the integration of the SDGs into urban planning. To achieve this, we focus on SDGs that are particularly relevant to the context of our study. For us, relevance is defined by the potential of an SDG to contribute to the urban development of Moundou.
In reality, all the selected SDGs are relevant to this study. However, to demonstrate their relevance within the specific context of our research, we defined selection criteria (see lines 534–541). Given that SDG 11 is directly linked to urban settings, we used it as a reference point to illustrate how the targets of the other nine selected SDGs are interconnected with those of SDG 11. Some targets from these SDGs contribute to achieving the goals of SDG 11, while certain targets of SDG 11, in turn, reinforce those of the other selected SDGs (see Table 1, line 551).
Ultimately, this approach demonstrates the relevance of all these SDGs to the context of Moundou, ensuring that they form a solid foundation for our study. We believe this clarification addresses the issue raised and reinforces the coherence of our methodology.
Point 8: In the results discussion, the objectives and research questions are addressed, but no further emphasis is given to the *Urban Plan*. This issue recurs throughout the text.
Response 8: In the revised manuscript, we have thoroughly addressed this aspect.
In my opinion, the article should not be approved until the authors adequately address the aforementioned concerns.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for addressing all the concerns and observations and responding well to the suggestions. The paper is now scientifically well executed and makes a significant contribution to knowledge.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI've no more comments or suggestions regarding this paper.
