Development and Application of Urban Social Sustainability Index to Assess the Phnom Penh Capital of Cambodia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a nice scientific article focusing on urban issues in Phnom Penh. However, I have found some areas in the manuscript to be improved, such as:

1. In the abstract, the research method should be emphasized. The author has mentioned that other standard viable models are used. However, it is not clear which method is appropriate in this particular case.
2. In the introduction section, theoritical review section looks lose and it requires to be well connected in the previous section. I recommend that the author clearly demonstrate the different strategies and initiatives adopted in different part of the world and then provide the evidence in support of the methods of analysis for the present study.
3. Data collection in 2.2.2 section: This section does not explain how the author did capture the data to be analyzed. 14 ditricts are demarketed, however, the number of samples or SDG initiatives may not be similar. How did the author scientifically tackle this challenge is completely missing. It is understood that the survey has been completed in local language and then translated. However, the method is not clear enough. I will suggest that the author prepare a schematic diagram in this section to demonstrate the critical components of the methods adopted.
4. The result section just demonstrates the summary of the data. Why is there a change among 14 several districts is missing. It should be incorporated as result and discussion as a section to explin the unique nature of this study.

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks for your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript and providing insightful comments. I really appreciated and took them all into account.

The revised parts are shown in red in the manuscript, while the English writing has been improved in the whole text. The following is a summary of the revisions based on all Reviewers' comments:

1. The ‘English’ writing style has been extensively improved throughout the whole text by reducing the repetition and descriptiveness of the contents.
2. The ‘Abstract’ has been revised to make its methods clearer, including an improvement in the English writing style to reduce the repetition of the contents.
3. The ‘Introduction’ section has been revised to further clarify the research problems and strengthen the theoretical review by adding some literature on applying relevant tools and methods.
4. ‘Methods’: An Analytical Framework has been added with a figure while updating new Figure 1 to clearly show the indicator review and selection framework. AHP pairwise comparison matrices have been added, while all matrices were put in Supplementary Materials, together with data converted from the database, to improve transparency and reproducibility. Z-score methods were also rephrased with strengthened explanations.
5. ‘Results and Discussion’ were combined to be able to present and discuss results at the same time, especially to connect the results with their discussion. With this combination, both results and discussion have reduced their repetitions and descriptions. A discussion on the weight (lines 350-368) and inter-district with a new Table 4 in lines 583-606 has been added to strengthen the interpretation of the results, and the new Figure 14 has been moved from the appendix to the main text to further support inter-district discussion.
6. ‘Conclusions’ have been strengthened by improving the structure styles, clarifying the limitations of the research and the index's framework, by adding a new sentence in lines 771-773.
7. ‘Appendix and Reference’ lists have been updated accordingly.

More importantly, please find the point-by-point revisions based on your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely yours,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• An interesting paper that should be published after some corrections.  
• Data used are from which year?  There is a reference (33) but not year. Anyway, discuss further the datasets used 
• Not clear if the set of 32 variables were selected from a larger set of variables.  Explain.
• Discuss how the panel of 102 experts were selected and rewrite  and clarify the section in lines 184-195
• Authors could/should clarify/simplify further the discussion on variable standardization (section 2.2.1).  Also correct the English.
• There are undue repetitions (variables used are in Table 1) but are also mentioned elsewhere.
• The spider graphs are ok but also a simple thematic map that shows the different districts would make it easier to assess the relative differences among the various districts.
• A table (14 districts x 8 sections) that summarizes the relative position of each district must be included and the verbal discussion should be shortened.

 

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks for your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript and providing insightful comments. I really appreciated and took them all into account.

The revised parts are shown in red in the manuscript, while the English writing has been improved in the whole text. The following is a summary of the revisions based on all Reviewers' comments:

1. The ‘English’ writing style has been extensively improved throughout the whole text by reducing the repetition and descriptiveness of the contents.
2. The ‘Abstract’ has been revised to make its methods clearer, including an improvement in the English writing style to reduce the repetition of the contents.
3. The ‘Introduction’ section has been revised to further clarify the research problems and strengthen the theoretical review by adding some literature on applying relevant tools and methods.
4. ‘Methods’: An Analytical Framework has been added with a figure while updating new Figure 1 to clearly show the indicator review and selection framework. AHP pairwise comparison matrices have been added, while all matrices were put in Supplementary Materials, together with data converted from the database, to improve transparency and reproducibility. Z-score methods were also rephrased with strengthened explanations.
5. ‘Results and Discussion’ were combined to be able to present and discuss results at the same time, especially to connect the results with their discussion. With this combination, both results and discussion have reduced their repetitions and descriptions. A discussion on the weight (lines 350-368) and inter-district with a new Table 4 in lines 583-606 has been added to strengthen the interpretation of the results, and the new Figure 14 has been moved from the appendix to the main text to further support inter-district discussion.
6. ‘Conclusions’ have been strengthened by improving the structure styles, clarifying the limitations of the research and the index's framework, by adding a new sentence in lines 771-773.
7. ‘Appendix and Reference’ lists have been updated accordingly.

More importantly, please find the point-by-point revisions based on your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely yours,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

See the pdf file attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Respected Reviewer,

First of all, I would like to express my sincere thanks for your time and effort in reviewing my manuscript and providing insightful comments. I really appreciated and took them all into account.

The revised parts are shown in red in the manuscript, while the English writing has been improved in the whole text. The following is a summary of the revisions based on all Reviewers' comments:

1. The ‘English’ writing style has been extensively improved throughout the whole text by reducing the repetition and descriptiveness of the contents.
2. The ‘Abstract’ has been revised to make its methods clearer, including an improvement in the English writing style to reduce the repetition of the contents.
3. The ‘Introduction’ section has been revised to further clarify the research problems and strengthen the theoretical review by adding some literature on applying relevant tools and methods.
4. ‘Methods’: An Analytical Framework has been added with a figure while updating new Figure 1 to clearly show the indicator review and selection framework. AHP pairwise comparison matrices have been added, while all matrices were put in Supplementary Materials, together with data converted from the database, to improve transparency and reproducibility. Z-score methods were also rephrased with strengthened explanations.
5. ‘Results and Discussion’ were combined to be able to present and discuss results at the same time, especially to connect the results with their discussion. With this combination, both results and discussion have reduced their repetitions and descriptions. A discussion on the weight (lines 350-368) and inter-district with a new Table 4 in lines 583-606 has been added to strengthen the interpretation of the results, and the new Figure 14 has been moved from the appendix to the main text to further support inter-district discussion.
6. ‘Conclusions’ have been strengthened by improving the structure styles, clarifying the limitations of the research and the index's framework, by adding a new sentence in lines 771-773.
7. ‘Appendix and Reference’ lists have been updated accordingly.

More importantly, please find the point-by-point revisions based on your comments in the attached file.

Sincerely yours,

The Author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf