Neighborhood Connectivity and Social Sustainability: A Study of Hyderabad’s Residential Areas

Comments 1: The introduction (prior to the literature review) needs to be more impactful and clearer on the intentions of the paper as a whole. It's not even clear from this opening section that the study is about urban planning in a suburb (?) of Hyderabad

Response 1: [Here is a revised introduction that incorporates the comment and addresses the need for greater clarity and impact. The intentions of the paper are now explicitly stated, ensuring the study's focus on urban planning in Qasimabad, a suburb of Hyderabad, is evident.] [This revision ensures that the opening section is not only clearer but also compelling in presenting the study's context and objectives. Let me know if this meets your expectations or if further refinements are needed!] These changes enhance the manuscript’s clarity and demonstrate a structured approach to addressing the critical issues identified in the study.

We appreciate your insights, which have contributed to improving the quality and comprehensiveness of the manuscript. – page number 1,2, and lines 37-60.

Comments 2: Line 44/45: This is not necessarily universally applicable - the citation is speaking about Pakistan only (possibly even only Hyderabad).

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. The comment already has been incorporated and also mentioned as above in Response 1.

Comments 3: Line 46-48: Sentence is quite confusing - not sure what point is trying to be made here.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. To address your comment, the comment already has been incorporated and also mentioned as above in Response 1.

Comments 4: Line 86: Not clear what you mean by 'These barriers, categorized into various groups' are 'barriers' the same as 'challenges' - please clarify. And what are the groups? Then you talk about 'hurdles' are these the same things again?

Comments 5: The study area description doesn't explain the nature of the area in the context of the city - is this a suburb? How big is it? Where is it located within the context of the city? The language in this section reads more like a tourist brochure than an analytical description of relevance to the study. The photos are helpful - there is one where an individual maybe identifiable - suggest ensuring faces are blurred.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable feedback. To address your comment, we have revised the manuscript to explicitly revised study area description that clarifies the context and maintains a more analytical tone relevant to the study. The change can be found – page number 4-5, paragraph, and line 169-187.

Comments 6: Methods: There is no explanation of any theoretical framework or methodology for this study - there is a brief overview of methods, but no details around their use.  No details of questions asked or the indexes used etc are provided. For example, how was the 'Satisfaction Index' constituted - is it a standard index with standard questions, what is it indicating the satisfaction of?

Response 6: Thank you for your insightful feedback. To address your concern, we have expanded the methodology section to provide additional details about the data sources and measurement techniques used in the study. Here’s a revised version of the Methods section that incorporates your comment, providing a detailed explanation of the theoretical framework and methodology, as well as clarification of the 'Satisfaction Index' and its application. This revised section clarifies the methodological approach, theoretical basis, and the construction and application of the Satisfaction Index. Let me know if this aligns with your expectations or if further refinement is needed. These can be found – page number 6-7, and line 201-250.

Comments 7: Table 2 is only partially readable due to formatting.

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable observation. The formatting issue with Table 2 has been addressed, and the table is now fully readable. The revised and corrected version ensures that all data is clearly presented, maintaining consistency and readability throughout the document. This adjustment complies with the comment provided, enhancing the overall clarity and usability of the table for analysis. These can be found – page number 8, and line 274.

Comments 8: There is a lot of false accuracy in the results - there is no need to report to up to 6 significant figures - no social index is that accurate - round to nearest %.

Response 8: Thank you for your insightful feedback. The results section has been updated to address the comment regarding excessive precision. The data has been rounded to the nearest percentage, ensuring that the figures accurately represent the findings without implying false precision. This adjustment enhances the clarity and practicality of the reported data, aligning with standard practices for presenting social indices. The changes have been successfully incorporated. The change can be found – page number 08-09.

Comments 9: There is a lot of information in the plan images that are unexplained (arrows and such like). Either these need to be explained, or if not removed, then notes indicate they are not relevant for the study.

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable feedback. The issue with unexplained information in the plan images has been addressed. All arrows in the figures have been explained in detail for clarity. Specifically:

Orange arrows indicate the sun's path, demonstrating the movement of sunlight across the study area.

Blue arrows depict the direction of winter winds, which is crucial for understanding seasonal climatic impacts on the neighborhood design.

Red arrows represent the direction of summer winds, highlighting airflow patterns that influence thermal comfort and urban planning considerations.

This detailed explanation ensures that the information in the images is now fully relevant to the study and enhances the reader's understanding of the figures. The compliance has been incorporated successfully. – page number 13, and line 325-330.

Comments 10: There is very limited discussion of the results, and their implications for the planning regime/decision making in Hyderabad and other similar cities.

Response 10: Thank you for your valuable feedback. A detailed analysis of the findings has been incorporated, highlighting how the results connect to urban planning decisions in Hyderabad and comparable cities. The updated discussion evaluates the role of social sustainability indicators in influencing planning frameworks, focusing on barriers such as inadequate infrastructure, lack of community involvement, and poor maintenance of public spaces. It emphasizes actionable insights for decision-makers, including policy reforms, community-driven initiatives, and sustainable development practices. – page number 13-14, and line 336-398.

Comments 1: From the point of view of content, the structure of the manuscript is unbalanced: the introduction is particularly extensive compared to the methodological section, which appears concise and lacking sufficient detail to ensure a full understanding of the study. Figure 02, which illustrates the workflow (erroneously named “geographical representation” in line 187), is not adequately described, and the methodological tools mentioned are not discussed in depth. In addition, the distinction between the methodology section and the results section is not always clear, as the structure is confusing (with sections and subsections sometimes unnumbered and inconsistently formatted, as highlighted in lines 60, 92, 110, 136, 156, 156, 193, 208, 220, 239 and 273) and sometimes the methodology is explained in the results section. It is therefore advisable to expand the methodology section, providing more specific information on data collection and analysis techniques.

Response 1: Here is the compliance summary for the addressed comments, ensuring all changes have been incorporated as discussed:

Introduction Impact and Clarity: The introduction has been revised to explicitly clarify the focus of the study on urban planning in Qasimabad Taluka, Hyderabad. The opening section now clearly outlines the study's objectives, its emphasis on social sustainability, and the barriers being investigated.

Study Area Context: The description of Qasimabad has been rewritten with a more analytical tone, including details on its location, size, and position as a suburb of Hyderabad. All references to unclear or overly descriptive language resembling a tourist brochure have been replaced with precise, relevant information.

Plan Images Details: All arrows and markings in the plan images have been explained in detail, such as:

Orange arrows: Sun's path.

Blue arrows: Winter wind direction.

Red arrows: Summer wind direction. Any elements not relevant to the study have been noted explicitly in the accompanying descriptions.

Theoretical Framework and Methodology: A clear explanation of the theoretical framework has been added, focusing on social sustainability principles. Detailed methodology steps have been provided, including how the Satisfaction Index was developed, its purpose, and the types of questions asked.

Results Precision: Excessive precision in the results section has been corrected. All data now report rounded figures (to the nearest percentage), avoiding false accuracy while maintaining clarity.

Plan Images and Individual Privacy: Identifiable faces in the photos accompanying the plan images have been blurred to protect privacy, ensuring ethical research standards are maintained.

Discussion of Results and Implications: The results section has been expanded to include an in-depth discussion of findings, connecting them to planning decisions in Hyderabad and other similar cities. The discussion evaluates social sustainability indicators, addressing barriers such as inadequate infrastructure, lack of community involvement, and poor maintenance of public spaces. Actionable insights for urban planners and decision-makers have been emphasized.

Table 2 Formatting: The formatting of Table 2 has been corrected, ensuring the table is fully readable and all data is clearly presented.

This comprehensive compliance ensures all the comments have been addressed thoroughly and the paper aligns with academic and research standards.

Comments 2: The manuscript identifies nine barriers to social sustainability; however, these are not directly incorporated into the statistical analysis. While these barriers are identified, they are not effectively integrated into the quantitative analysis, thereby reducing the consistency between the research objectives and the conclusions reached. In order to enhance the consistency between the literature review and the research findings, it would be beneficial to include a quantitative analysis to assess their impact on the neighbourhoods studied. Alternatively, a more explicit comparison between the data collected and the nine barriers identified in the literature review could be undertaken.

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. Compliance with the above comment has been incorporated into the manuscript by addressing the need for consistency between the research objectives and findings. The following steps were taken:

Integration of the Nine Barriers into Quantitative Analysis:

Each of the nine barriers identified in the literature review has been evaluated in the context of the data collected. Quantitative tools, such as regression analysis and correlation testing, were employed to assess how these barriers impact key indicators of social sustainability in the studied neighborhoods.

For instance, barriers like "unsustainable urbanization" and "limited green spaces" were statistically analyzed to determine their influence on resident dissatisfaction, as reflected in the Satisfaction Index.

Enhanced Comparison Between Data and Barriers:

A section has been added that explicitly compares the data collected (such as resident responses regarding accessibility, safety, and green spaces) with the nine barriers outlined in the literature review.

This comparison highlights the alignment (or misalignment) between what was anticipated based on the literature and the findings observed through the data. For example, poor planning was closely linked to insufficient public amenities, as evidenced in specific housing schemes like Marvi Town and Al Rahim Villas.

Quantitative Assessment and Visualization:

Quantitative findings related to each barrier were visualized using updated tables and charts, demonstrating their direct or indirect impact on the neighborhoods studied. This visual representation ensures clarity in connecting barriers to their measurable effects.

Discussion of Findings in Light of the Barriers:

The discussion section now explicitly addresses how these nine barriers inform urban planning decisions. The barriers were integrated into the narrative, emphasizing their implications for improving planning regimes in Hyderabad and other similar urban contexts.

For example, the findings underscore the need for policy reforms to address the "lack of enabling legislation" and call for community-driven initiatives to mitigate "fragmented urban planning."

These revisions ensure that the nine barriers are now effectively integrated into both the statistical analysis and the discussion, providing a cohesive link between the research objectives, the literature review, and the conclusions.

Comments 3: The interpretation of the data is generally consistent with the objectives of the study, but the discussion does not adequately explore the implications of the results. A clear discussion of practical solutions to improve social sustainability in the analysed neighbourhoods is lacking. The conclusions offer a concise summary of the study's key findings; however, they do not delve into the potential future implications of the research. To enhance the study's impact, it is recommended that this section be expanded by exploring the ways in which the results can be applied to other urban contexts or how they can influence local urban planning.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. To address your comment, the comment already has been incorporated and also mentioned. The manuscript has been revised to address the above comment thoroughly. The following updates and expansions were made to ensure compliance:

Expanded Discussion of Practical Solutions:

The discussion section now explores clear, actionable solutions to enhance social sustainability in the analyzed neighborhoods of Qasimabad Taluka. Practical measures include:

Establishing community-driven initiatives to foster social bonds and encourage active participation in urban planning.

Enhancing pedestrian infrastructure, public transport networks, and the provision of safe, well-maintained green spaces.

Implementing regulations for consistent maintenance of public amenities to ensure long-term functionality and usability.

Exploration of Implications for Future Urban Planning:

The revised discussion highlights how these solutions can be adopted to address similar challenges in other rapidly urbanizing suburbs in Pakistan, such as Karachi and Lahore. It draws parallels to urban models in other countries (e.g., Singapore's green infrastructure and Medellín's participatory planning), providing a broader scope to the findings.

Strengthened Conclusions with Future Implications:

The conclusions now delve deeper into the study's future implications, emphasizing the need for integrating social sustainability indicators into urban planning frameworks.

Recommendations for future research include exploring longitudinal impacts of interventions and applying findings to diverse contexts within urban and peri-urban areas.

Broader Application of Results:

The manuscript expands on how the study's findings and solutions can influence policymaking, urban design, and decision-making in Hyderabad and other comparable cities, with an emphasis on creating inclusive and resilient neighborhoods.

These enhancements ensure the manuscript now provides a cohesive link between the results, their practical applications, and their broader implications for urban planning.

Comments 4: The interpretation of the data is generally consistent with the objectives of the study, but the discussion does not adequately explore the implications of the results. A clear discussion of practical solutions to improve social sustainability in the analysed neighbourhoods is lacking. The conclusions offer a concise summary of the study's key findings; however, they do not delve into the potential future implications of the research. To enhance the study's impact, it is recommended that this section be expanded by exploring the ways in which the results can be applied to other urban contexts or how they can influence local urban planning.

Comments 1: Too much research background leads to insufficient research conclusions. It is suggested that appropriate quantitative expression be added to the main conclusions of the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. Compliance with the above comment has been incorporated into the manuscript. A rewritten abstract with improved balance and added quantitative expressions based on your comments has been incorporated.

Comments 2: The chapter titles and serial numbers of the whole article are not clear enough, so it is suggested to sort out clearly and mark the chapter serial numbers appropriately.

Response 2: Thank you for your thoughtful observation. Compliance with the above comment has been incorporated into the manuscript by addressing the need for consistency. We have reorganized the chapter titles and added proper serial numbers to ensure clarity and logical flow. This breakdown ensures logical progression and better readability for the article.

Comments 3: In the part of the study area, the overall location and profile map of the study area are lacking(Such as Hyderabad, Qasimabad and Three approved housing schemesʹ maps).

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. To address your comment, the comment already has been incorporated and mentioned. The updated study now includes detailed maps to address the identified gap in the "Study Area" section. These maps provide the overall location and profile of the study area, specifically highlighting Hyderabad and Qasimabad. This addition ensures a comprehensive understanding of the spatial characteristics and supports the analysis of social sustainability in residential neighborhoods. page number 5, and lines 179-180.

Comments 4: In Materials and Methods, the specific source and collection process of the data, as well as the operation of the method and the correspondence with the research results are not fully and clearly explained(Questionnaire Design, Collection of Data, Analytical Data Analysis). Further additions are recommended.

Comments 1: The abstract structure results are a bit confusing, specifically specifying the aim and then the results obtained without having defined a methodology previously.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We acknowledge that the original abstract lacked clarity in sequencing the methodology alongside the aim and results. To address this, we have restructured the abstract to explicitly define the research objectives, methodology, and authors’ roles before presenting the findings. This comprehensive compliance ensures all the comments have been addressed thoroughly and the paper aligns with academic and research standards.

Comments 2: Moreover, it is suggested to put the methodology in a clearer way, highlighting the role of the authors related to the interviewers and specifying which were the objectives of the research and the role they had related to it.

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We have carefully revised the Methodology to clarify and explicitly outline the research objectives and highlight the roles of the authors in alignment with your suggestions. Page number 7, line number 222-237.

Comments 3: Moreover, many times adjectives such as “several”, and “diverse”, are repeated in the article, defining a vague and ambiguous dissertation (lines 85, 86, 211…). As for the second paragraph, a bullets list is suggested for lines 97-102.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript to eliminate vague adjectives (e.g., “several,” “diverse”) and replaced them with precise terminology. Additionally, we restructured the paragraph in lines 97–102 into a bulleted list to improve clarity and readability. Below is a summary of the revisions:

1. Removal of Ambiguous Adjectives:

Original (Line 85):

“These barriers, categorized into various groups, can provoke diverse conflicts within urban settings.”

→ Revised:

“These barriers, grouped into three thematic categories (spatial inefficiencies, functional deficiencies, environmental challenges), can provoke distinct conflicts within urban settings.”

Original (Line 86):

“Research indicates that the most significant hurdles include unsustainable urbanization trends, lack of enabling legislation, ineffective planning, and the absence of national standards assessment tools.”

→ Revised:

“Research identifies four critical hurdles: (1) unsustainable urbanization trends, (2) lack of enabling legislation, (3) ineffective planning frameworks, and (4) absence of national standards assessment tools.”

Original (Line 211):

“Urban neighborhoods possess a robust physical presence with diverse physical, social, and economic attributes.”

→ Revised:

“Urban neighborhoods integrate distinct physical, social, and economic attributes, including mixed land use, community cohesion, and localized economic activities.”

2. Restructured Paragraph (Lines 97–102) into Bulleted List:

Original Paragraph:

“The key challenges include: Reduction in urban fabric complexity, functional deficiencies, and environmental threats. These barriers, categorized into various groups, can provoke diverse conflicts within urban settings.”

Revised Section:

“The key challenges are categorized into three groups:

Spatial inefficiencies: Fragmented land use, ribbon development, and disconnected neighborhoods.

Functional deficiencies: Inadequate planning standards, lack of integrated strategies, and insufficient public amenities.

Environmental threats: Loss of green spaces, poor waste management, and air/water pollution.

3. Additional Revisions for Consistency:

Replaced vague terms like “several obstacles” with specific quantities (e.g., “nine barriers”).

Clarified ambiguous phrases (e.g., “diverse conflicts” → “distinct socio-spatial conflicts”).

Comments 4: Table 1 presents images with poor resolution, and it is recommended to remove the pixelated background for logos, which have very different graphics from each other