Social Capital and Sustainable Social Development—How Are Changes in Neighbourhood Social Capital Associated with Neighbourhood Sociodemographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics?
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Author, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity of reading your manuscript. Follows some suggestions.
Please reduce the number of keywords to maximum 6 and try to make the abstract a bit more appealing and effective, moving some methodological and technical information in the following section and better focusing on results, strengths and weakness as well as on the originality of the study.
More importantly, into the introduction should better clarify the main aim of the study as well as the theoretical approach that they have chosen to frame the analysis itself. This section is definitely too long and lacks a file rouge that support the readers in understanding the reason why, the goals, the implemented methods, and the contribution/results of the study. Moreover, it is not clear the contribution and relation with the study of the long section dedicated to sustainability. Finally, it would be useful add a reminder of the paper at the end of the introduction.
Please, move the survey protocol into a final appendix and just describe it and its development into the methodological section. Lines 247-252 must be formatted. Independent variables should be better presented and argued.
Conclusions are too narrow and don't focus on any theoretical or practical implication.
Author Response
We are grateful for the comments given by the reviewer to help improve the manuscript. In the attached file we provide a point-by-point response to the concerns raised.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript seems to be perfectly prepared. No changes are needed.
1. the structure is ok.
2. the language seems to be scientific enough.
3. the literature review is enough although I would use other sources, but it is a matter of choice, no need for other suggestions.
4. the method is justified and presentation of results is appropriate.
Author Response
Please attached find our response to your review comments
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is interesting and well-written. Good job!
Only minor comments:
- the title should be shorten and rethought to make it clearer;
- Figure 2 is not seen well, should be increased the resolution;
- include a suggestion, in the future research avenues, where to do the same analysis in other Municipalities in Europe/other countries to test your findings (if you think that could be interesting for other researchers).
I congratulate you for the excellent work.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments. Please attached find our response to your comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors, I really appreciated the effort done for improving the overall quality of your manuscript.
This amended version better qualify and argue the concept of social sustainability, which is the core of the study itself, since from the introductory section. This has contributed to make the main aim of the study a bit more clear. At the end of the introduction, should be useful providing some information about the organization of the paper. Implications and further research paths remains a bit narrows.
Author Response
Dear reviewer.
Thank you for the additional comments on our paper. Please see our response attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
