A Vision of Sustainable Design Concepts for Upgrading Vulnerable Coastal Areas in Light of Climate Change Impacts: A Case Study from Beirut, Lebanon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper discusses the challenges and possibilities for developing the coastal informal settlements in Lebanon, using a combination of theoretical/conceptual development, review of existing intervention, qualitative data gathering, a SWOT analysis, and a visioning process.

I reviewed the previous submission of this paper, and I am very glad that the authors have persevered and re-submitted it. The topic was always interesting and the approach is clever and given the challenges of researching these areas. Importantly, this article now flows much more logically, with a clear explanation of the approach and presentation of results.

Minor corrections:

Line 172: It isn't clear what why the titles 'Strategies', followed later by 'Climate Change' and 'Urban and architecture' are being used. I do not think these need titles, or if they are used there needs to be a explanatory sentence beforehand. In my view these sections make important points related to upgrading slums, and this would be the link to the previous paragraph. I think the structure and links just need to be made clearer by editing what is there slightly. Perhaps the authors could discuss climate change as a driver of slum upgrading first (climate change adaptation and resilience is encouraging urban change including slum upgrading), then discuss strategies for upgrading slums, of which Urban Design and Architecture are a key part. 

Line 186: Urban Design (rather than just Urban)? Although see note above about the title.

Line 195: I suggest that you title this"Aspects of Sustainability in the Context of Informal Coastal Settlements/Coastal Slums" or something similar. It maintains the link to the previous part, but also the aspects of sustainability are well-known, what this does is conceptualise them in the context of coastal slums and the case study area specifically.

Line 240: "The authors accommodate..." could be "We consider..."

Line 242: "based on two criteria" instead of "based on two facts".  I think the word criteria works better than facts here. (I think this might appear in the introduction as well?).

Table 3: SWOT Analysis. This is generally very good, but I think a few identified weaknesses are too vague and general. I recently published an article with a SWOT analysis and got some good feedback from the referees which helped improve it. In particular, they pointed out that the key to a SWOT is two-fold (i) being clear what you are assessing - in this case the coastal slums and (ii) being consistent about what each of the four categories are. It can help to think of strengths and weaknesses as 'internal' (things that the slums themselves have or suffer from) and opportunities and strengths as external (things that will positively or negatively impact the slums).

I think "empower women" and "achieve social justice" are too general and need to be made more specific - what is the opportunity within the slums or within upgrading the slums to empower women. For example, building a market in the slum might empower women by providing employment (if it is women who tend to sell things within the slum?). Similarly, upgrading the slum might help address social justice if it includes affordable housing? These are just examples. 

Similarly, build an engaged community can be more specific - e.g. build an engaged community by including them in the re-design/re-development? It could also be linked to the fact that a sense of community already exists?

Training programs and University attendance also need linking to the slum and its redevelopment. How might these opportunities be harnessed (e.g. outdoor places for training; transport links to schools/University)? These are only suggestions, of course, I don't know the context.

Human losses in the Threats section is also very general. I think the other ones mentioned (disasters, crime, etc.) include loss of life, and it does not need to be included on its own.

The other opportunities have a much clearer link to the slum, the observations and the review of renewals, and are clearly explained - but the ones mentioned about stand out as too general.

On a personal note, I am glad to see this paper again and the authors have clearly worked hard to improve it. I think it is valuable an interesting, and I like the use of speculative visions that look beyond the slum as only a problem.

Author Response

General comment:

This paper discusses the challenges and possibilities for developing the coastal informal settlements in Lebanon, using a combination of theoretical/conceptual development, review of existing intervention, qualitative data gathering, a SWOT analysis, and a visioning process.

I reviewed the previous submission of this paper, and I am very glad that the authors have persevered and re-submitted it. The topic was always interesting and the approach is clever and given the challenges of researching these areas. Importantly, this article now flows much more logically, with a clear explanation of the approach and presentation of results.

Response: We highly appreciate your feedback. We are in mutual understanding of the context of the paper as it was previously developed and structured (first submission - four rounds) in response to your valuable suggestions and feedback. However, in the second submission, additional reviewers were invited who added valuable suggestions that we considered appropriate in extending and developing the context of the paper.

[Comment 1] Line 172: It isn't clear what why the titles 'Strategies', followed later by 'Climate Change' and 'Urban and architecture' are being used. I do not think these need titles, or if they are used there needs to be a explanatory sentence beforehand. In my view these sections make important points related to upgrading slums, and this would be the link to the previous paragraph. I think the structure and links just need to be made clearer by editing what is there slightly. Perhaps the authors could discuss climate change as a driver of slum upgrading first (climate change adaptation and resilience is encouraging urban change including slum upgrading), then discuss strategies for upgrading slums, of which Urban Design and Architecture are a key part.

Response: The titles that were marked in bold have been removed and now the entire section has moved to the introduction and merged it into a different part. The current version does not contain a theoretical framework. In conclusion we combined your opinion and (referee #2) opinion. In fact, both suggestions contributed to building a coherent structure and a readable link, at least from our perspective. Existing strategies are highlighted in the introduction as they lay the foundation for the subsection to be divided into (sections 4 and 6) where they are explored in more detail.

[Comment 2] Line 186: Urban Design (rather than just Urban)? Although see note above about the title.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention this. See line 176 (subsection 1.3)

[Comment 3] Line 195: I suggest that you title this “Aspects of Sustainability in the Context of Informal Coastal Settlements/Coastal Slums" or something similar. It maintains the link to the previous part, but also the aspects of sustainability are well-known, what this does is conceptualise them in the context of coastal slums and the case study area specifically.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this points. We agree with you. Changed occurred. Please see (section 3)

[Comment 4] Line 240: "The authors accommodate..." could be "We consider..."

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these points. We agree with you. Changed occurred. Please see line 331

[Comment 5] Line 242: "based on two criteria" instead of "based on two facts".  I think the word criteria works better than facts here. (I think this might appear in the introduction as well?).

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this points. Changed occurred. Please see line 333. And 237 in the introduction

[Comment 6] Table 3: SWOT Analysis. This is generally very good, but I think a few identified weaknesses are too vague and general. I recently published an article with a SWOT analysis and got some good feedback from the referees which helped improve it. In particular, they pointed out that the key to a SWOT is two-fold (i) being clear what you are assessing - in this case the coastal slums and (ii) being consistent about what each of the four categories are. It can help to think of strengths and weaknesses as 'internal' (things that the slums themselves have or suffer from) and opportunities and strengths as external (things that will positively or negatively impact the slums).

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these valuable points. Your suggestions regarding the SWOT analysis have been considered sharply. Please see our response in the up following.

[Comment 7] I think "empower women" and "achieve social justice" are too general and need to be made more specific - what is the opportunity within the slums or within upgrading the slums to empower women. For example, building a market in the slum might empower women by providing employment (if it is women who tend to sell things within the slum?). Similarly, upgrading the slum might help address social justice if it includes affordable housing? These are just examples.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these points. Changed occurred. The key words are too general; we agree with you. We expand them by giving relevant explanation in regards to opportunities in informal settlements particularly in the context of the case study. Please see table 3 opportunity and threats section

[Comment 7] Similarly, build an engaged community can be more specific - e.g. build an engaged community by including them in the re-design/re-development? It could also be linked to the fact that a sense of community already exists?

Response: Changed occurred. Please see table 3 opportunity and threats columns. We believe is more clear to the readers

[Comment 8] Training programs and University attendance also need linking to the slum and its redevelopment. How might these opportunities be harnessed (e.g. outdoor places for training; transport links to schools/University)? These are only suggestions, of course, I don't know the context.

Response: Ok, please see table 3 opportunity Column

[Comment 9] Human losses in the Threats section is also very general. I think the other ones mentioned (disasters, crime, etc.) include loss of life, and it does not need to be included on its own.

Response: Ok, please see table 3 Threats Column

[Comment 10] The other opportunities have a much clearer link to the slum, the observations and the review of renewals, and are clearly explained - but the ones mentioned about stand out as too general.

Response: Ok, all what mentioned are explained clearly in the updated version.

[Comment 11] On a personal note, I am glad to see this paper again and the authors have clearly worked hard to improve it. I think it is valuable an interesting, and I like the use of speculative visions that look beyond the slum as only a problem.

Response: The speculative insights emphasize the novelty of the study, highlighting two sensitive topics (informal coastal settlements and climate change risks in coastal areas). This at least from our own perspective. The integrated themes were not discussed in the context of Lebanon and this is addressed in the paper. (discussion part)

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides valuable insight into development aspects in coastal areas in Lebanon. The author employs a combination of theoretical (literature review) and practical (field interviews) approaches that produce noteworthy results. However, I think that both the readability of the manuscript and its potential contribution to the literature could benefit from restructuring the text and emphasizing the following issues:

To my mind, the introduction inefficiently introduces a reader to the problem. The discussion of the sustainability-climate paradigm is too scarce. The author starts with the case territory right away without explaining the overall relevance of the topic and specific challenges to the sustainable development of coastal territories in light of climate change. I consider emphasizing sustainability-related problems through a comprehensive discussion of literature critical for a paper submitted to Sustainability. The author should review the problem, identify major threats to sustainable development, discuss whether these threats are exclusively attributed to climate or not, discuss whether they are specific to coastal areas or to other territories as well, discuss whether they are specific to developing countries or the entire global community, etc., etc. A separate literature review section is ineffective, it could be merged with the introduction. The goal is to demonstrate problems and challenges, discuss how they are addressed in the literature and policies, define the gaps, and formulate the aim of the study based on these gaps. 

After developing the overall picture of the sustainability-climate paradigm in coastal areas, the author could proceed with Lebanon by explaining how the revealed problems and gaps are applicable to the country. That would explain the selection of the territory and make the approach to this selection applicable to future studies (selection parameters could be introduced to formalize the selection - why this particular area around Beirut, not other coastal areas in the country?). 

The methodology must be detailed. What is the review of literature - how many papers, how they are selected, what parameters, which databases, and many other parameters. The literature review section fails to demonstrate all these issues, as it fails to summarize the review results.  The same applies to interviews - how many respondents, how they are selected, how they are approached, what questions are asked, how the answers are measured, etc. Interviewing as a method implies certain procedures and requirements, they have to be demonstrated.

The findings are poorly discussed. Section 6 has nothing to do with the discussion. The author must critically discuss the findings in light of previous studies, demonstrate similarities and differences, explain both similarities and differences, emphasize the novelty of the study and its potential implications for future research and sustainability-related policies. 

The conclusion should be more focused on summarizing the results and major sustainability-climate issues revealed in the study. The limitations and problems should be addressed to guide other researchers who would explore similar issues in the future.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 2:

General comment:

The paper provides valuable insight into development aspects in coastal areas in Lebanon. The author employs a combination of theoretical (literature review) and practical (field interviews) approaches that produce noteworthy results. However, I think that both the readability of the manuscript and its potential contribution to the literature could benefit from restructuring the text and emphasizing the following issues:

[Comment 1] The introduction inefficiently introduces a reader to the problem. The discussion of the sustainability-climate paradigm is too scarce. The author starts with the case territory right away without explaining the overall relevance of the topic and specific challenges to the sustainable development of coastal territories in light of climate change. I consider emphasizing sustainability-related problems through a comprehensive discussion of literature critical for a paper submitted to Sustainability. The author should review the problem, identify major threats to sustainable development, discuss whether these threats are exclusively attributed to climate or not, discuss whether they are specific to coastal areas or to other territories as well, discuss whether they are specific to developing countries or the entire global community, etc., etc. A separate literature review section is ineffective; it could be merged with the introduction. The goal is to demonstrate problems and challenges, discuss how they are addressed in the literature and policies, define the gaps, and formulate the aim of the study based on these gaps. 

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these crucial points. We took your suggestion very seriously and we see your point exactly. Therefore, the current version went under structural changes: the introduction and the theoretical framework are merged in one section (Introduction is divided into subsections 1.1/ 1.2/ 1.3/ 1.4, that will make the readers follow up and being informed about the main themes in this this study before going forward. These themes considered as foundation. (overall picture)

the introduction constructed as the following (problem and challenges – discussing the phenomena global and highlight Lebanon case) (present well known scholar’s discussion regarding slums and informal settlements and the polices) (address the climate change risks and impacts, on urban areas and coastal zones, relying on evidence and well known studies) (Policies and strategies –urban coastal zone addressing international and national measurements, to make readers aware on global level – defining the gaps).

We believe that the current structure in more solid and informative in the context of climate paradigm particular in coastal zone areas that are most sensitive and vulnerable to climate change impacts.

 [Comment 2] After developing the overall picture of the sustainability-climate paradigm in coastal areas, the author could proceed with Lebanon by explaining how the revealed problems and gaps are applicable to the country. That would explain the selection of the territory and make the approach to this selection applicable to future studies (selection parameters could be introduced to formalize the selection - why this particular area around Beirut, not other coastal areas in the country?). 

Response:  Thank you for your comment. Subsection 1.4 stress on this point (the problems and gaps addressed in the Physical Master Plan for the Lebanese Territory (NPMPLT). More details mentioned in the discussion and conclusion section as main finding)

[Comment 3] The methodology must be detailed. What is the review of literature - how many papers, how they are selected, what parameters, which databases, and many other parameters. The literature review section fails to demonstrate all these issues, as it fails to summarize the review results.  The same applies to interviews - how many respondents, how they are selected, how they are approached, what questions are asked, how the answers are measured, etc. Interviewing as a method implies certain procedures and requirements, they have to be demonstrated.

Response: Thank you for your comment. In the current version, the research methodology has been developed based on your suggestions. However, we did not find it necessary to address the number of papers reviewed (The references support the case) at least from our perspective. Other suggestions were considered carefully (please see section 2). Regarding interviews. We would like to point out that the studied area does not welcome outsiders and this part includes many challenges and threats, and this is mentioned briefly (please see line 420). So, our practical approach was hands-on (unstructured and spontaneous) despite the challenges we tried to target different groups and let them reflect about some of the issues in the area (documented in photographs). (They are answers considered as evidence and backed up by our photo-corroborated notes.) Please check subsection 5. 2.

[Comment 4] The findings are poorly discussed. Section 6 has nothing to do with the discussion. The author must critically discuss the findings in light of previous studies, demonstrate similarities and differences, explain both similarities and differences, emphasize the novelty of the study and its potential implications for future research and sustainability-related policies. 

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these points. The discussion section was developed, dealing with the main findings of the article, addressing previous studies, (polices) and discussing the actions and outcomes of the different interventions. In addition to emphasizing the study's novelty (new horizons, new ideas that benefit international and national readers on the main themes that further the purpose of the article). Some questions were posed to establish future research interests in certain issues discussed in the context of the paper mainly in relation to Sustainable development tackling climate change impacts on coastal zones.

[Comment 5] The conclusion should be more focused on summarizing the results and major sustainability-climate issues revealed in the study. The limitations and problems should be addressed to guide other researchers who would explore similar issues in the future

Response:  Thank you for drawing our attention to these particular issues. In the current version the conclusion response to these factors Please see section 7

Reviewer 3 Report

The new version of the article presents a significant effort to improve, and, in general, the authors incorporated the reviewers' comments in the text. The data is much better systematized and the arguments are presented more consistently. Subjective and unnecessary aspects have been removed and the intervention component appears less speculatively.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 4:

General comment:

The new version of the article presents a significant effort to improve, and, in general, the authors incorporated the reviewers' comments in the text. The data is much better systematized and the arguments are presented more consistently. Subjective and unnecessary aspects have been removed and the intervention component appears less speculatively.

Response: We highly appreciate your feedback and your motivation. It was your recommendation and valuable comments that contributed to the development of the context of the paper (1st submission - four rounds). However, in the second submission, the context is developed and the structure was slightly edited based on the suggestions and comments of the additional reviewer (recently invited) which we deemed appropriate in developing the context of the paper which you can see in the current version.

(Track Changes are on – All Markup)

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is interesting from the point of view of the sustainable development and urban design. The authors contributed a new approach to the research which is based on sustainable design concepts for coastal area.

The study has good potential but the manuscript needs some structural corrections.

I have some comments regarding the redrafting of the manuscript:

1.The introduction lacks information about the global significance of the presented research results. I mean, how the international audience could benefit from the solutions presented by you.

2. The methods adopted in the research are based only on observation. The authors prepared descriptions of the landscape on the basis of a selected example and descriptions of spatial analyzes and interviews. There is definitely no methodological approach based on statistical methods or even mathematical capture of research models. Without these methods, the research is incomplete based only on the SWOT method. Please verify the results and support the research with, for example, simple statistical calculations, which will allow for the actual interpretation of the results.
3. The discussion definitely lacks a comparison to other studies in this topic and indications of references.
4. Please add the citations with important items of world literature

 

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3:

General comment:

The topic is interesting from the point of view of the sustainable development and urban design. The authors contributed a new approach to the research which is based on sustainable design concepts for coastal area. The study has good potential but the manuscript needs some structural corrections.

Response: Thank you for your reflections. We believe that we are in mutual understanding regarding the novelty and the purpose of the article.

[Comment 1] The introduction lacks information about the global significance of the presented research results. I mean, how the international audience could benefit from the solutions presented by you

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The introduction has been carefully developed and expanded to be more informative for international and national (Lebanese) readers addressing key themes supported by data (studies) that further the purpose of the article.

[Comment 2] The methods adopted in the research are based only on observation. The authors prepared descriptions of the landscape on the basis of a selected example and descriptions of spatial analyzes and interviews. There is definitely no methodological approach based on statistical methods or even mathematical capture of research models. Without these methods, the research is incomplete based only on the SWOT method. Please verify the results and support the research with, for example, simple statistical calculations, which will allow for the actual interpretation of the results.

Response: We highly appreciate your feedback. And we agree that the applied methodological approach is not based on statistical methods.  Our methodological study is based on qualitative and not quantitative data and this is addressed in the abstract (please see line 24) and explained in section 2 (methodology) and the reason behind is explained.  “The research involves analysis of qualitative data rather than quantitative data, as there is not much definite information available in terms of statistics.

This was developed carefully in the first submission with three referees’ recommendations and revisions, however, we fully understand and respect your point of view. For this reason, allow us to explain our approach:

Briefly, we employed a combination of theoretical (literature review) and practical (field interviews) approaches that produce noteworthy results. Further, we would like to address important factors that contributed to developing our methodological approach (Qualitative analysis), concerning the nature of the study case (Informal settlement). There are no data available due to the lack of interest of the government and policies in such areas in the context of Lebanon. In addition, researchers and intruders are not welcome in the areas (the practical approach includes challenges and threats and this was addressed in the paper) please see line 420. We mentioned it slightly due to our ethical approach as researchers).

Hopefully this explained our approach.

[Comment 3] The discussion definitely lacks a comparison to other studies in this topic and indications of references?

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to this crucial points. The current version includes the comparison between previous studies approaches and our approach. this emphasize the novelty of our study. The new perspective and fresh concepts to the topic. Please check section 7 paragraph 2, lines 636 -644.

[Comment 4]. Please add the citations with important items of world literature

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. New references are added (world literature, particularly in the introduction) and the existing one has been reorganized based on the new structure of the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper has been improved substantially. I appreciate the author accepting most of my recommendations. However, I still think that the discussion element needs further improvement.  I recommend the author compare the findings with those made by other scholars. Differences and similarities must be demonstrated and discussed in a critical manner. That would underline the novelty of this research. The Discussion section contains no reference to any previous study, no critical discussion is made. Also, I think that the Discussion section should be separated from the Conclusion.

Author Response

Response: We highly appreciate your comments and suggestions and have taken them into account point by point, which we believe contributed to the development of the discussion and conclusions sections and overall article structure.

In the current edition, the discussion addresses a wide range of aspects related to the topic of our article that has been explained by other researchers (both international and domestic) in comparison to the main findings of our paper. This part explains our alternative approach (the novelty of our research) at least from our point of view.

In addition, the discussion section outlines the differences and similarities between our approach and other approaches. Emphasis on emergency and study flourishing (upgrading informal coastal settlements and addressing climate change impacts simultaneously through sustainable development approaches). Furthermore, emphasizing our approach as an alternative (comprehensive and prosper) and its necessity at this point.

References have been added to the discussion section in the current version.

The discussion and conclusion sections in the current version have been developed separately (Discussion - Section 6), (Conclusions - Section 7).

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript after review is well.

Author Response

Response: We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable suggestions and comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version of the article. 

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

My recommendations are now addressed adequately

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article “Shaping Informal Poor Coastal Settlements by Enhancing Architectural and Urban Design Activities. Case Study: Al-Ouzai/Jnah-Beirut Southern Suburbs” addresses the multiple problems related to the theme of informality in urban development, particularly in coastal area. It focuses Al-Ouzai /Jnah, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, trying to propose general lines for its amendment, taking account the potentialities of the place and its unpreparedness for climate changes. Considering the urgency of proposing solutions for this type of contexts, and of improving its inhabitants’ living conditions, both the article’s main theme and the choice of the case study are very pertinent. Nevertheless, the Reviewer identifies several weaknesses in the article, being necessary to change some formal and content aspects. In this process, the following aspects should be considered:

1. The issues related to the research process should be clearly stated, right in the Introduction (and not only in the abstract), pointing: i) the objectives of the research; ii) its hypotheses and questions, related in a clearer way with the final results; iii) the methodological approach.

In the abstract, it is mentioned that “the aim of this paper is to propose sustainable solutions and strategies through architecture, landscape and urban design tools inspired by successful approaches”.  This is clearly a goal for an architecture/urban design project (and which is also too general), not for the article itself. There is not a specification of the objectives set by the article and its underlying research. In fact, the Reviewer considers that the article does not assume its purpose, since it does not seem to result from either a specific project or an in-depth research on the case study.

2. In the abstract, the adopted methodologies should be presented after the objectives. In the abstract and in the chapter dedicated to the methodologies (3.), it is important to be more rigorous in the methodology’s description. It is not clear what kind of grey literature was consulted. Also, it is mentioned that the observation process “took place through conversations with residents and key informants, in addition to taking photographs to present the current situation, quality of life, and typology of the coastal settlement, this part included challenges and risks, with the extremely low level of security in the area” (p. 3). “Conversations with locals”/” residents” is not a methodology. It is important to elucidate whether any type of interviews was conducted, or if oral sources were used, and, if so, how were them determinant for the research’s development. Also, it is not clear how the contact with the territory and the direct observation of the space were systematized. Finally, it is very debatable that “quality of life” (p. 3) can be measured through photography.

3. The Introduction should be more focused and more directly related to the study topic. Being too general, the part dedicated to the topic “urban growth” (1. Introduction) seems unnecessary. Also, the part about the topic “slums” (3.1 Literature Review – Backgrounds and Concepts), is too comprehensive in view of the presented contents and of the case study. An all sub-chapter (moreover poorly developed) dedicated to this theme seems inappropriate. It should be avoided expressions like “the authors are interested in the issues of the informal settlements in general and consider it as creative input” (1.3. Coastal Informal Settlements – Study Focus). This part should be more a description of the article’s objective and less a description of authors’ research interests. In this sense, also a more impartial language is welcomed.

4. Some of the cited literature is far from the theme. Since it is one of the most evident problems in the case study and which the article intends to address, it would be important to include more and more updated literature about climate change adaptation in coastal areas.

5. The six chosen examples (3.3. Examples of Interventions – International and Domestic Level) are very superficially approached, without being clarified its relationship with the Ouzai/Jnah Beirute context and how that examples can help to solve its specific problems. It seems like the authors are collecting references to directly insert in that area. However, those examples are very different from the case study, in its physical, geographical, historical, but mainly in its social issues. Several of those examples seems to be more focused on improving the tourist’s conditions and their own perception on the place – aiming to transform “the coast into an aesthetically pleasing and well-visited place” (p. 5) –, than to improve the people living conditions or to solve the climate change challenges.

6. The discussion (7. Discussion) points out some new data and information that was not immediately assumed in the article, such as the fact that the article intends to “support women’s and promote equity rather than domination of patriarchal society” (p. 18) – only in the end being presented this idea of working with gender equality. Also, it is here pointed out that “some hidden realities have been identified, to prove that in such urban areas where growth happening spontaneity based on human needs, architecture typology considered as the core of complexity” (p. 18) – the authors must specify what they mean by hidden realities and what these realities are.

7. There are several errors: orthographical errors, sentence’s structure errors, errors in the designation of authors (Jan Jacob instead of Jane Jacobs). Also, there are errors in the captions and in the images. Figure 9 intends to show the urban evolution of the case study, but figure 9. b does not indicate any date (as figure 9. a). In Figure 10 is not possible to distinguish which points correspond to "commerce", "workshops" and "hospital". Often, it appears the indication (Error! Reference source not found).

Although the pertinence of the article and of its case study, it approaches the theme in an extremely vague, generic and reducing way. It seems quite evident that spaces like this should be further explored, considering its own specificities. The proposed solutions to the place are too generic and can be applied in any other context. It is not possible to improve such a complex context simply by gluing solutions coming from other experiences. In resume, to improve the article, the Reviewer considers that the study must be more specific, better attending to the specificities of the place, and particularly the challenges resulting from the climate changes.

Author Response

General comment: The article “Shaping Informal Poor Coastal Settlements by Enhancing Architectural and Urban Design Activities. Case Study: Al-Ouzai/Jnah-Beirut Southern Suburbs” addresses the multiple problems related to the theme of informality in urban development, particularly in the coastal areas. It focuses Al-Ouzai /Jnah, in the southern suburbs of Beirut, trying to propose general lines for its amendment, taking into account the potentialities of the place and its unpreparedness for climate changes. Considering the urgency of proposing solutions for this type of context, and of improving its inhabitants’ living conditions, both the article’s main theme and the choice of the case study are very pertinent. Nevertheless, the Reviewer identifies several weaknesses in the article, being necessary to change some formal and content aspects. In this process, the following aspects should be considered:

Comment 1 The issues related to the research process should be clearly stated, right in the Introduction (and not only in the abstract), pointing: i) the objectives of the research; ii) its hypotheses and questions, related in a clearer way with the final results; iii) the methodological approach.

Response 1: Thank you for drawing our attention to these points. We added it to the introduction a new section (1.4. Research focuses). Page 3, line 76. We revised your suggestion (the objectives of the research; ii) its hypotheses and questions, related in a clearer way with the final results; iii) the methodological approach. A link has been developed. Addressed mainly in section (1.4) and chapter 2 –Methodology)

Comment 2 In the abstract, it is mentioned that “the aim of this paper is to propose sustainable solutions and strategies through architecture, landscape, and urban design tools inspired by successful approaches”. This is clearly a goal for an architecture/urban design project (and which is also too general), not for the article itself. There is not a specification of the objectives set by the article and its underlying research. In fact, the Reviewer considers that the article does not assume its purpose, since it does not seem to result from either a specific project or in-depth research on the case study.

Response 2:  Thank you for your comment. Regarding the purpose of the article has been revised. We Believe that in the current version, this point is clear. And as we commented before that some new chapters are added to the article (1.4. research focusses – discuss the purpose and 2. Methodology – discuss the methods used clearly), which we believe that was very necessary to develop the context of the article.

Comment 3 In the abstract, the adopted methodologies should be presented after the objectives. In the abstract and in the chapter dedicated to the methodologies (3.), it is important to be more rigorous in the methodology’s description. It is not clear what kind of grey literature was consulted. Also, it is mentioned that the observation process “took place through conversations with residents and key informants, in addition to taking photographs to present the current situation, quality of life, and typology of the coastal settlement, this part included challenges and risks, with the extremely low level of security in the area” (p. 3). “Conversations with locals”/” residents” is not a methodology. It is important to elucidate whether any type of interviews was conducted, or if oral sources were used, and, if so, how were them determinant for the research’s development. Also, it is not clear how the contact with the territory and the direct observation of the space were systematized.

Response 3: Thank you for your reminder. In the current abstract, the methodology is presented after the aim. In line 24. kinds of grey literature are addressed. Regarding your reflections on these points, the observation process and conversations with local’s residents are not a methodology. We totally agree with you and thank you for drawing our attention to that. Therefore, the methodology has been revised. (The observation and conservation process), currently under the site visit, were taking photos took place and conducting interviews. On page 13. Subsection 4.2 The residents' opinions are addressed, In addition to the images).

 

Comment 4 The Introduction should be more focused and more directly related to the study topic. Being too general, the part dedicated to the topic “urban growth” (1. Introduction) seems unnecessary. Also, the part about the topic “slums” (3.1 Literature Review – Backgrounds and Concepts), is too comprehensive in view of the presented contents and of the case study. An all sub-chapter (moreover poorly developed) dedicated to this theme seems inappropriate. It should be avoided expressions like “the authors are interested in the issues of the informal settlements in general and consider it as creative input” (1.3. Coastal Informal Settlements – Study Focus). This part should be more a description of the article’s objective and less a description of the authors’ research interests. In this sense, also a more impartial language is welcomed. Finally, it is very debatable that “quality of life” (p. 3) can be measured through photography.

Response 4: Thank you for your comment. We revised the introduction. Dividing it into 5 subsections, the urban growth discussed shortly as a phenomenon, describe generally, reasons behind the appearance of informal settlements and issues associated with it. Considered as an instance to the topic. Regarding your feedback to the literature review that is too comprehensive and descriptive, we agreed with that. Therefore, we revised this part and develop it in an analytical way, not descriptive one. Addressing concepts relevant to our topic. We also removed the expression that is connected to our interest.

Regarding section 1.3 (Coastal informal settlements – study focus), we found your feedback very strong and convincible(deleted). We also avoid mentioning that quality of life can be measured through photography.  

Comment 5 Some of the cited literature is far from the theme. Since it is one of the most evident problems in the case study and which the article intends to address, it would be important to include more and more updated literature about climate change adaptation in coastal areas.

Response 5: Thank you for reminding us. Some works of literature were added to the texts based on the topic of climate change adaptation in coastal areas. In page 5 .Line 198 (climate change) 

Comment 6 The six chosen examples (3.3. Examples of Interventions – International and Domestic Level) are very superficially approached, without being clarified its relationship with the Ouzai/Jnah Beirut context and how that examples can help to solve its specific problems. It seems like the authors are collecting references to directly insert in that area. However, those examples are very different from the case study, in its physical, geographical, historical, but mainly in its social issues. Several of those examples seem to be more focused on improving the tourist’s conditions and their own perception of the place – aiming to transform “the coast into an aesthetically pleasing and well-visited place” (p. 5) –, than to improve the people living conditions or to solve the climate change challenges.

Response 6: Thank you for your comment. In the literature review. Subsection 3.3. (examples of interventions –International and domestic level). in the introduction of this subsection. It addressed how we picked these propjets based on what criteria. “from line 247 – line261”. The outcomes of these interventions are differ based on the two groups. These 2 groups are explained in the same section.

 

Comment 7 The discussion (7. Discussion) points out some new data and information that was not immediately assumed in the article, such as the fact that the article intends to “support women’s and promote equity rather than domination of patriarchal society” (p. 18) – only in the end being presented this idea of working with gender equality. Also, it is here pointed out that “some hidden realities have been identified, to prove that in such urban areas where growth happening spontaneity based on human needs, architecture typology considered as the core of complexity” (p. 18) – the authors must specify what they mean by hidden realities and what these realities are.

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. We see your point of view. This date regarding “support women’s and promote equity rather than domination of particular society” is (deleted). Regarding the hidden realities also removed. This point is quite confusing. What we meant by hidden realities was for us (the situation of the site was not clear) and after visiting the site our perspective was different. However, this information is addressed in interviews done with the residents.

Comment 8 There are several errors: orthographical errors, sentence’s structure errors, errors in the designation of authors (Jan Jacob instead of Jane Jacobs). Also, there are errors in the captions and in the images. Figure 9 intends to show the urban evolution of the case study, but figure 9. b does not indicate any date (as figure 9. a). In Figure 10 is not possible to distinguish which points correspond to "commerce", "workshops" and "hospital". Often, it appears the indication (Error! Reference source not found).

Response 8: Thank you for reminding us. We revised the text and orthographical errors we corrected. In line 178 Jane Jacobs. Error fixed. The caption of the figures is correct. Data added to figure 9. In figure 10. we changed the colors and we beloved that the function of the building can be distinguished now.

Comment 9 Although the pertinence of the article and of its case study, it approaches the theme in an extremely vague, generic, and reducing way. It seems quite evident that spaces like this should be further explored, considering their own specificities. The proposed solutions to the place are too generic and can be applied in any other context. It is not possible to improve such a complex context simply by gluing solutions coming from other experiences. In the resume, to improve the article, the Reviewer considers that the study must be more specific, better attending to the specificities of the place, and particularly the challenges resulting from the climate changes.

Response 9: Thank you for your feedback. We draw attention to this comment very much. Therefore some chapters and subsections, we added and the structure of the article we partially modified. A chapter added to the paper summarizes its structure. In the context of the paper, we developed some notions related to specifying the case study (different aspects – addressing climate change adaptation and mitigation) specifying the chosen project, explaining the reason behind picking them. SWOT analysis was added to the text. Speculation based on the outcomes of these picked interventions.

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall this is an ok initial effort to discuss the topic of "re-designing" coastal informal settlements in Lebanon. However, it needs a lot of work before it can be considered for publication. 

The paper is very descriptive and is missing a critical analytical approach to the topic, as well as supporting evidence for the claims and proposals made.

There needs to be a stronger and more critical literature review that supports the statements written, especially when discussing informal settlements.

The methodology section is quite poor and does not demonstrate any academic rigour when developing the study. This section seems to be also evidence of the authors' lack of understanding of methods in research.

The relevance and use of the case studies presented as references are unclear.

There are some local terms and agencies that need to be further explained.    Finally, the paper should be revised by an English editor as there are several severe grammatical and syntax errors.  

Author Response

Comment 1 Overall this is an ok initial effort to discuss the topic of "re-designing" coastal informal settlements in Lebanon. However, it needs a lot of work before it can be considered for publication. The paper is very descriptive and is missing a critical analytical approach to the topic, as well as supporting evidence for the claims and proposals made. There needs to be a stronger and more critical literature review that supports the statements written, especially when discussing informal settlements

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. We hope that the article has been improved towards MDPI standards after this revision

Comment 2: The methodology section is quite poor and does not demonstrate any academic rigor when developing the study. This section seems to be also evidence of the authors' lack of understanding of methods in research.

Response 2:  Thank you for your comment. Based on your valuable reflection. We decided to re-structure this article. Some parts have been developed and explored further. Regarding the methodology used in this study. We developed chapter 2. Methodology. Connecting the methods with the results presented later.

Comment 3: The relevance and use of the case studies presented as references are unclear. (unclear how and why we chose them and how they can influence based on the particular challenges and circumstances)

Response 3: Thank you for shedding light in this point. We developed this part carefully. Addressed in chapter 3. Subsection 3.1. In the introduction of this part. 

Comment 4: There are some local terms and agencies that need to be further explained.  Finally, the paper should be revised by an English editor as there are several severe grammatical and syntax errors

Respond 4: Thank you for your comment. We went through the entire article to eliminate grammatical and syntax errors.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have put a lot of effort into responding to the reviewers comments and have significantly improved the manuscript in most areas.

However, the paper is still very 'disjointed' - it has a lot of different elements and it isn't always clear how they fit together. I think it would benefit form a clear theoretical/conceptual framework - which I think is outlined in section 3.2.2 but is not explained in much detail and is not used consistently.

In addition, the paper lacks much engagement with the literature. This was noted by the reviewers previously, and nothing new has been added. I don't think that the authors can claim to have done a 'literature review' in the traditional sense. The 'literature review' highlights some key general themes but does not engage critically with the large body of literature out there. The authors have not really explained or justified this decision. This needs to be addressed.

As I noted before, I think there is value to the paper. It does discuss and address some really interesting issues in a less-studied part of the world. However, despite the extra efforts of the authors it is still difficult to follow the thread of the discussion through the sections.

I have again tried to provide some constructive feedback, based on my understanding of the paper as a way to help the authors improve the structure of the paper and the ideas within it. Note, however, that the limited literature and lack of consistent framework are the key elements - if these can't be addressed, then I think the authors might want to re-consider how they present their work. I wonder if this work might be better as a book chapter?      

Introduction

The changes to the introduction provide a better explanation of the research and its focus.

Methodology

This section is clearer, but still lacks some detail and clarity. Because the paper is relying on a non-typical method I think it needs very clear explanation and justification.

The literature review seems to consistent of two parts:

(1) the theoretical part (section 3.1 and 3.2) which outlines the framework for analysing and understanding coastal informal settlements and development - outlined at the end of section 3.2 (the 4 concepts). This is a traditional literature review of the academic literature.

(2) A document analysis of the existing projects (section 3.3). This is more empirical research that, I think, draws on the framework from the theoretical literature review. There are some details missing here: How and why are the examples chosen?

The second part of the method is focused on the case study and appears to consist of a sort of SWOT analysis, based on interviews (as noted before, some indications of the type and number of interviewees should be included) and observation. The SWOT analysis isn't mentioned in the method, but should be explained and justified. I wonder if this is element is best described as a phenomenological study?

Finally, the method doesn't explain or justify the use of a speculative vision. Why is a speculative vision a good approach here? I think it is a good approach here. It combines the analysis of the examples to the SWOT analysis but this needs explaining. And clearly, actually applying these ideas is going to be a challenge so visioning is a valuable way to test these ideas in a place where action would be hard?

Results

Section 3.1: this sort of literature review might normally be part of a introduction/background section but it is OK here. It provides a good overview of the broad issue of 'slums' in general.

I still think it is a little over-reliant on too few sources. For example, at the end (line 193) the authors write: "Moreover, recent research indicates that the global south where most informal settlements are located is currently experiencing faster and higher temperature increases due to global warming, threatening the ecosystems on which social and economic activities depend. Where experts stress on the accepted best practice to intervene in informal settlements is slum upgrading in-situ which aims to improve the built environment and socioeconomic conditions." I would argue both of these statements need citations.

Overall, I'm not sure a summary of 7 sources could be considered a full literature review. In addition, these seven sources cover a wide range of topics and are not all from the primary literature. I'm not sure they are the most up to date choices either - ref. 15 is about cliamte change and is from 1997; there must be more recent literature on cliamte change impacts on informal settlements? A quick Google Scholar search throws up a lot of recent work (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.002)

Perhaps this section needs to be presented as a the development of a theoretical framework (presented in section 3.2), rather than a literature review. However, I think it still needs a clearer grounding in a broader literature.

Section 3.2: The role of this section needs to be made more clear. I think it is outlining the basis for analysis of the examples, based on the discussion in the previous section. The three aspects are the common three elements of sustainability. Notably, only one of the discussions of the aspects has any citations in it. More importantly are the four focal areas that the authors highlight at the end. This seems to me to be the theoretical framework and basis for the further analysis. This section should focus on showing how this is built - what is is based on and why. 

This section also refers to how "These concepts are discussed in technical installations in chapter 5" (line 227). This link is not clear to me: section 5 focuses on landscape, architecture and urban design.  If the authors wish to use the 4 concepts outlined here, then the links need to be made clearer.

Section 3.3: This section is significantly improved. I think, however, that the authors could improve the analysis by linking each analysis back to the 4 focal areas they highlight in section 3.2. For example, you could structure it as each example teaching us something about each of the 4 concepts mentioned above. Or that they teach us something about 1 or 2 concepts. The group 1 seem to be focused on alterations of landscape and biophysical factors? Are group 2 focused on the other concepts? Some sort of structuring and discussion relating to the previous discussion is needed. 

Section 4

Section 4.1 and 4.2: the quotes have added some empirical evidence to the work, which is good. Overall I think this section works quite well.

Section 4.3: The SWOT analysis. This analyses 4 factors, 3 of them are the three aspects of sustainability, with structural added as the fourth. There is no explanation for this. It might make more sense to use the 4 focal areas from section 3.2?

Section 5: This is also clearer, but as noted above the presentation does not clearly link with what has gone before. Instead the authors introduce landscape, architecture and urban design as their analytical focal points. This is valid, but the links to previous concepts and ideas are lost. Grounding everything in the same theoretical/conceptual framework will help make the links clearer.

Section 6: This section is I think about the concrete actions that are needed. Are they recommendations? However, again the authors use yet another set of concepts for the analysis - now scale is introduced and four strategies. The links to previous elements are not clear to me. This section could be removed? Or perhaps just consist of a short discussion highlighting the key actions? Introducing the different scales is maybe OK, but the strategies need to have obvious links to concepts that have gone before.

Section 7: This begins with the statement: "A numerous amount of literature on informal settlements has been found during this study." The whole paper, which is quite long, has 31 references. To me, this is not a numerous amount, especially given many of the references refer to particular case studies.

I think sections 7 and 8 can be combined, into one conclusion. The paper is already quite long and to me these sections say very similar things.

The language in the paper has been improved, but still needs improving further.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 3:

 

[Comment 1] The paper is still very 'disjointed' - it has a lot of different elements and it isn't always clear how they fit together. I think it would benefit form a clear theoretical/conceptual framework - which I think is outlined in section 3.2.2 but is not explained in much detail and is not used consistently.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these crucial aspects. The paper has been restructured. We believe that the updated version consists of well linked chapters and sequence. The outline that section 3.2.2 present previously, currently exist as Main aspect of sustainability (chapter 4) (social economic and environmental) where theses aspects is explained and used consistently, laying foundation in developing the context of the article.

 

[Comment 2] In addition, the paper lacks much engagement with the literature. This was noted by the reviewers previously, and nothing new has been added. I don't think that the authors can claim to have done a 'literature review' in the traditional sense. The 'literature review' highlights some key general themes but does not engage critically with the large body of literature out there. The authors have not really explained or justified this decision. This needs to be addressed.

Response:  Thank you for your comment. We believe that this misunderstand regarding the literature review is fixed. The name of the chapter changed based on your suggestion (theoretical framework), which make more sense. New sources added to this paper particularly in the theme that address the environmental aspect and (climate change). Section 3 and 4  

[Comment 3] As I noted before, I think there is value to the paper. It does discuss and address some really interesting issues in a less-studied part of the world. However, despite the extra efforts of the authors it is still difficult to follow the thread of the discussion through the sections.

Response: Thank you for your observation. The current version, present more cohesive structure, which we believe that the chapters are well linked.  

[Comment 4] I have again tried to provide some constructive feedback, based on my understanding of the paper as a way to help the authors improve the structure of the paper and the ideas within it. Note, however, that the limited literature and lack of consistent framework are the key elements - if these can't be addressed, then I think the authors might want to re-consider how they present their work. I wonder if this work might be better as a book chapter?

Response: Developed in the updated version

[Comment 5] Introduction The changes to the introduction provide a better explanation of the research and its focus.

Response: Ok

[Comment 6] Methodology: This section is clearer, but still lacks some detail and clarity. Because the paper is relying on a non-typical method I think it needs very clear explanation and justification.

Response: Thank you for your observation. This part is Developed.

[Comment 7] The literature review seems to consistent of two parts:

(1) the theoretical part (section 3.1 and 3.2) which outlines the framework for analyzing and understanding coastal informal settlements and development - outlined at the end of section 3.2 (the 4 concepts). This is a traditional literature review of the academic literature.

(2) A document analysis of the existing projects (section 3.3). This is more empirical research that, I think, draws on the framework from the theoretical literature review. There are some details missing here: How and why are the examples chosen?

 

 

Response: In the updated version this analysis addressed in the theoretical framework (bring a better understanding for general themes related to the purpose of this paper (pointed)

New interpretation address why these project is selected, based on what and why. Addressed in methodology briefly (line 125) – (chapter 5 line 251) - (chapter 5 line 257)

[Comment 8] The second part of the method is focused on the case study and appears to consist of a sort of SWOT analysis, based on interviews (as noted before, some indications of the type and number of interviewees should be included) and observation. The SWOT analysis isn't mentioned in the method, but should be explained and justified. I wonder if this is element is best described as a phenomenological study?

Response: Done. The SWOT analysis is mentioned in the study method (line 133). Thank you for the reminder regarding the phenomenological study (pointed).

[Comment 9]. Finally, the method doesn't explain or justify the use of a speculative vision. Why is a speculative vision a good approach here? I think it is a good approach here. It combines the analysis of the examples to the SWOT analysis but this needs explaining. And clearly, actually applying these ideas is going to be a challenge so visioning is a valuable way to test these ideas in a place where action would be hard?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. Its addressed in the methodology and developed wider in chapter

 7.
[Comment 10] Results Section 3.1: this sort of literature review might normally be part of an introduction/background section but it is OK here. It provides a good overview of the broad issue of 'slums' in general.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Ok (literature section changed theoretical framework) (laying foundation from the theoretical point of view for the purpose of the paper.

[Comment 11] I still think it is a little over-reliant on too few sources. For example, at the end (line 193) the authors write: "Moreover, recent research indicates that the global south where most informal settlements are located is currently experiencing faster and higher temperature increases due to global warming, threatening the ecosystems on which social and economic activities depend. Where experts stress on the accepted best practice to intervene in informal settlements is slum upgrading in-situ which aims to improve the built environment and socioeconomic conditions." I would argue both of these statements need citations.

Response:  Thank you for your suggestion. This part has been rephrased and 6 sources are added to it.

[Comment 12]. Perhaps this section needs to be presented as the development of a theoretical framework (presented in section 3.2), rather than a literature review. However, I think it still needs a clearer grounding in a broader literature.

Response: Done. Renamed and developed.

[Comment 13] Section 3.2: The role of this section needs to be made more clear. I think it is outlining the basis for analysis of the examples, based on the discussion in the previous section. The three aspects are the common three elements of sustainability. Notably, only one of the discussions of the aspects has any citations in it. More importantly are the four focal areas that the authors highlight at the end. This seems to me to be the theoretical framework and basis for the further analysis. This section should focus on showing how this is built - what is based on and why.

Respond: Thank you for your comment. We developed this section, pointing that this is outlying the analysis of the selected project (conclusion to section 4 as the interventions presented right after) and coming from the discussions that took place in the theoretical section (introduction for section 4).

Sources are added to every aspect.

The four focal point deleted. We believe it cause complexity in this stage (not needed)

 [Comment 14] Overall, I'm not sure a summary of 7 sources could be considered a full literature review. In addition, these seven sources cover a wide range of topics and are not all from the primary literature. I'm not sure they are the most up to date choices either - ref. 15 is about climate change and is from 1997; there must be more recent literature on climate change impacts on informal settlements? A quick Google Scholar search throws up a lot of recent work (see e.g. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oneear.2020.02.002).

Response: Thank you for your comment. More sources added to the theoretical framework. Particularly in the climate change theme. Ref 15 replaced by updated one.

[Comment 15] This section also refers to how "These concepts are discussed in technical installations in chapter 5" (line 227). This link is not clear to me: section 5 focuses on landscape, architecture and urban design. If the authors wish to use the 4 concepts outlined here, then the links need to be made clearer.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Yes, the link is established. We believe that in the updated version is addressed the usage of tools and how its connected to the factors.

[Comment 16] Section 3.3: This section is significantly improved. I think, however, that the authors could improve the analysis by linking each analysis back to the 4 focal areas they highlight in section 3.2. For example, you could structure it as each example teaching us something about each of the 4 concepts mentioned above. Or that they teach us something about 1 or 2 concepts. The group 1 seem to be focused on alterations of landscape and biophysical factors? Are group 2 focused on the other concepts? Some sort of structuring and discussion relating to the previous discussion is needed.

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The analysis is improved in table form. Divided into two groups each responds for different action and linked to the main aspect of sustainably.

We believe that the structuring and discussion gap is fixed in the updated version.

[Comment 17] Section 4.1 and 4.2: the quotes have added some empirical evidence to the work, which is good. Overall I think this section works quite well.

Response: Ok. (developed)

[Comment 18] Section 4.3: The SWOT analysis. This analyses 4 factors, 3 of them are the three aspects of sustainability, with structural added as the fourth. There is no explanation for this. It might make more sense to use the 4 focal areas from section 3.2?

Response: Thank you for your comment. Yes, the SWOT analysis presented 4 factors. These chosen factors are in purpose (linking chapter 4). The reason for adding the fourth aspect (structural) is addressed line: 438 ‘The structural factor analysis helped to understand the challenges and issues that related to the infrastructure and physical structure of this settlements, laying the foundation to the speculative transformation (more visible in the opportunity section) vison in the subsequent section presenting the physical transformation tools (landscape, architecture, and urban design).”  

[Comment 19] Section 5: This is also clearer, but as noted above the presentation does not clearly link with what has gone before. Instead the authors introduce landscape, architecture and urban design as their analytical focal points. This is valid, but the links to previous concepts and ideas are lost. Grounding everything in the same theoretical/conceptual framework will help make the links clearer

Response: Thank you for feedback.  We believe this link is visible in the updated version.   

[Comment 20] Section 6: This section is I think about the concrete actions that are needed. Are they recommendations? However, again the authors use yet another set of concepts for the analysis - now scale is introduced and four strategies. The links to previous elements are not clear to me. This section could be removed? Or perhaps just consist of a short discussion highlighting the key actions? Introducing the different scales is maybe OK, but the strategies need to have obvious links to concepts that have gone before.  

Response:  Thank you for your recommendation and feedback. This section is deleted. However, we posed some question at the end of the conclusion coming from this section, opening new future research interest.

 [Comment 21] Section 7: This begins with the statement: "A numerous amount of literature on informal settlements has been found during this study." The whole paper, which is quite long, has 31 references. To me, this is not a numerous amount, especially given many of the references refer to particular case studies.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Rephrased and mixed with section 8.

[Comment 22] think sections 7 and 8 can be combined, into one conclusion. The paper is already quite long and to me these sections say very similar things.

Response: Thank you for your comment. Yes, it is combined in the updated version.

[Comment 23] The language in the paper has been improved, but still needs improving further.

Response: Revised.

 (Track Changes are on – All Markup)

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

There is a clear effort to improve the article. Still, both the assumptions of the study and the final results/synthesis can be more clearly assumed. Some writing errors have also been noticed - it is recommended that the entire manuscript has a final review.

Author Response

Response to reviewer 1:

General comment:

Still, both the assumptions of the study and the final results/synthesis can be more clearly assumed. Some writing errors have also been noticed - it is recommended that the entire manuscript has a final review.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these points. The article has been updated which we focused on empowering the links between chapters to create a cohesive scientific structure. Can be followed and understood by readers (experts/not expert). Therefore, we believed that the final results and synthesis is more clearly assumed. The paper has been reviews, that is true that there were some writing errors (Corrected).

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper investigates informal settlements in an area of Beirut Lebanon with the aim of proposing visions for how these areas might be transformed through urban design and architecture. The paper describes examples of other coastal intervention projects from the region and around the world, identifies the key challenges (and some opportunities) for the case study in Beirut and then proposes visions based on the example projects.

The paper addresses an interesting and challenging issue: informal urban settlements are vital but neglected areas of cities. The challenges in somewhere like Beirut will only have been exacerbated by war, invasion and the displacement of people. Identifying visions, grounded in empirical evidence, is a small but important step in planning for these areas.

At this stage, however, I can't recommend publication and in my view the paper needs significant revision if it is to be suitable for publication in Sustainability. Some, hopefully constructive, comments on the paper outline the issues and how I think they could be addressed.

1. It is currently difficult to follow the research methodology. I think I understand the basic process: look at existing, relevant case studies in some detail then propose lessons from them to the main case study, based on observations and conversations with community. However, it isn't clear how  the example projects were chosen? What was the analytical framework for analysing the literature around them? How did the conversations (how many roughly 10s, 100s, with what types of people?) and observations (some more details, it becomes apparent later I think but some description in the methods would help)  support the application of lessons to the Beirut case? I think the methodology is legitimate, perhaps it might be considered a form of Phenomenology. However, it needs to be explained more clearly and justified. 
2. The literature review relies on 5 or 6 books - clearly key texts in the field, and the review of them is good. However, I feel there are more works and ideas that might be useful in structuring and presenting the study. For example, the importance of visions in planning is a key area of the literature that might support the approach here to use visions. Urban assessment or coastal zone assessment tools exist, which could be part of the literature review. Importantly, some discussion of sustainability and what this means for coastal informal developments (especially under climate change) is I think important. If urban design, landscape planning(?) and architecture are key to the transformation imagined, some discussion of these might be relevant. I appreciate there is a word limit and these are big topics. I think really focusing on a key research question or overall goal would help identify the scope of the literature review. The review of the existing projects is also a big part of the 'literature review' so maybe not a lot more is needed here - just a clearer link between the discussion here and the next part of the review?  
3. Section 3.2: this section identifies 4 key coastal values. I'm not sure why tourism doesn't come under the economic - the three values would then the be the common sustainability dimensions (social, economic, environmental). The section then lists 5 aspects of "an effort to develop, manage and control the informal coastal settlement". However, to my mind none of these address the environmental values ("effective and efficient land use might, but it depends a lot on what how effective and efficient are defined). It seems to me that these values and then related aspects, could provide the basis of an analysis of the existing projects - and perhaps that is the aim? However, making the links clearer would help.
4. Section 3.3: the two groups of existing case studies provides some hint as to why they were chosen - beach reclamation and informal settlement develop are perhaps the two key issues for Al-Ouzai? Still, there must be thousands of these types of projects, so why these particular ones. It might just be because they have been well-studied?
5. Once a clear framework for analysing the existing projects is in place, the review of them can be structured around this: for example (and it is only a suggestion), analysis of their environmental, socio-cultural and economic (including tourism) outcomes (and perhaps the trade-offs between them?) might be a way to structure the analysis. Some sort of summary table of the lessons learned, based on these or other values/aspects at the end of this section might help with the analysis and discussion that follows.
6. The description of the case study area hints at some key issues that need to be addressed (health and pollution for example) but it requires a more consistent structure. The history is clearly relevant, as is the physical structure, but it is currently very descriptive and not very analytical. Socio-economic risks and opportunities are highlighted. This leads me to suggest that the observation and conversation data into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis? I know SWOT is a bit unfashionable and has its critics, but from a planning sense can be valuable. It feels like this is almost what has been done already. There are similar more modern versions to SWOT which might be relevant.
7. The speculative visions are clearly the 'discussion' element of the paper and the most interesting part. However, I found it hard to follow the links to what had gone before. Clearly, many of the proposals put forward in the vision are inspired by the projects discussed earlier, and are designed to address the challenges and harness the opportunities that exist. Therefore, I think a clearer structure before could help here - for example showing how each proposed intervention might harness an opportunity or address a weakness from the SWOT analysis, based on how successful the intervention in a previous project has been (from the earlier analysis). So, simplistically and only as an example, there is an opportunity for tourism if the beach is made more attractive, beach nourishment was shown to be an effective economic option in other projects. I note that the analysis here is based on landscape, architecture and urban design - so these might actually be aspects to structure the analysis of the international projects. This would create a consistency and help the reader see where the ideas for the visions are coming from.
8. Section 6: Strategies Influence on Bigger Scales. I wasn't sure what this section was based on. The strategies listed in Table 2 seem to be the first time these are mentioned. Planning informality doesn't appear eleswhere; some of the others are similar to things already discussed but the connection is not clear to me.  As a result, I'm not sure what this section adds. The table also adds an element of scale (Neighbourhood, District, City) which isn't really apparent elsewhere. I think this section is trying to demonstrate the strategies that are needed at different scales to implement the visions? However, it is not clear.
9. Section 7 seems to provide a broad summary and I'm not sure it adds a lot.
10. Section 8: The key part of this to me is the sentence: "Diagnosing challenges and threats was led by innovative and efficient tools that empowered this work, conducted through several site visits which, interacting with dwellers from different ages and nationalities took place to understand this community's needs and future expectations". This is where I think the idea of the SWOT analysis came from. It the paper reflected this sentence in structure, it would be a lot clearer I think. A section clearly diagnosing challenges and threats (and why not opportunities?). If the researchers have insights into "community's needs and future expectations" that could feed into the visions - the aim of planning could be argued as exactly to address "community's needs and future expectations". 
11. The reference list feels a little light - reflecting the limited background material. A 'literature review', as the method describes, would be expected to consist of a lot mare that 29 references (thinking of most review articles). Perhaps this is an issue with how the paper is described - maybe it is more an analysis than review of existing relevant projects. Then the literature review/background can focus on the theoretical basis of the analysis?

This probably comes across as very critical, for which I apologise. Overall, I genuinely think there is an interesting study in this paper. However, in its current structure, the logic and argument laid out are not clear, and the different sections and parts of the study do not clearly interlink. A clear research question/goal, clear theoretical basis and clear methodology would help to structure this paper. I have tried to suggest constructive ways forward, as I think with some work this article could be published in Sustainability.

Other issues

The attached PDF includes a few additional, more specific, comments in some places. Some of these overlap with the more general comments above. 

There are a number of sentences that are unclear, or don't seem to tie into the preceding and following sentences. Sometimes sentences stop when it seems like they are meant to flow on. I've tried to highlight the most problematic sentences in the attached copy (if there is no comment, then the highlight is juat to draw your attention to sentences or words that I think need addressing). The language generally is OK and again I think the 'language' difficulties actually lie in the struggle to structure the article (and maybe the thinking behind it, if that isn't too rude) rather than the language itself.

A minor thing: I think your referencing of figures has gone wrong in word the phrase "Error! Reference source not found" appears each time you reference a figure or table.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper investigates informal settlements in an area of Beirut Lebanon with the aim of proposing visions for how these areas might be transformed through urban design and architecture. The paper describes examples of other coastal intervention projects from the region and around the world, identifies the key challenges (and some opportunities) for the case study in Beirut, and then proposes visions based on the example projects.

Response 1: Thank you for your comment. Your observations of the goal of our paper are completely true. In the current article, we addressed that carefully in the aim and main focuses

Comment 2: The paper addresses an interesting and challenging issue: informal urban settlements are vital but neglected areas of cities. The challenges somewhere like Beirut will only have been exacerbated by war, invasion, and the displacement of people. Identifying visions, grounded in empirical evidence, is a small but important step in planning for these areas.

Response 2: we are in a mutual understanding. These points have been addressed carefully in the current article

Comment 3: It is currently difficult to follow the research methodology. I think I understand the basic process: look at existing, relevant case studies in some detail then propose lessons from them to the main case study, based on observations and conversations with the community. However, it isn't clear how the example projects were chosen? What was the analytical framework for analyzing the literature around them? How did the conversations (how many roughly 10s, 100s, with what types of people?) and observations (some more details, it becomes apparent later I think but some description in the methods would help) support the application of lessons to the Beirut case? I think the methodology is legitimate, perhaps it might be considered a form of Phenomenology. However, it needs to be explained more clearly and justified.

Response 3: Thank you for your feedback. In the updated version. The methodology of this study addressed in the new chapter (2. Methodology) looking to existing projects is where the speculative vision came from. It is addressed in the introduction of subsection 3.3 based on what these projects were picked. Regarding conversation (interviews with residents- the of people and the number) the results are addressed in subsection 4.2.

Comment 4: The literature review relies on 5 or 6 books - clearly key texts in the field, and the review of them is good. However, I feel there are more works and ideas that might be useful in structuring and presenting the study. For example, the importance of visions in planning is a key area of the literature that might support the approach here to use visions. Urban assessment or coastal zone assessment tools exist, which could be part of the literature review. Importantly, some discussion of sustainability and what this means for coastal informal developments (especially under climate change) is I think important. If urban design, landscape planning(?) and architecture are key to the transformation imagined, some discussion of these might be relevant. I appreciate there is a word limit and these are big topics. I think really focusing on a key research question or overall goal would help identify the scope of the literature review. The review of the existing projects is also a big part of the 'literature review' so maybe not a lot more is needed here - just a clearer link between the discussion here and the next part of the review? 

Response 4: This part is revised. we worked on rephrasing it (more analytical the descriptive) and add some references related to climate change adaptation and mitigation. We focus on building links between the literature review and the scope of the paper. (based on understanding the concept of slums to empowering upgrading action through using the tools that presented in the results as speculative vision)

Comment 5: Section 3.2: this section identifies 4 key coastal values. I'm not sure why tourism doesn't come under the economic - the three values would then be the common sustainability dimensions (social, economic, environmental). The section then lists 5 aspects of "an effort to develop, manage and control the informal coastal settlement". However, to my mind, none of these address the environmental values ("effective and efficient land use might, but it depends a lot on how effective and efficient are defined). It seems to me that these values and then related aspects, could provide the basis of an analysis of the existing projects - and perhaps that is the aim? However, making the links clearer would help.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment. In the current article (tourism in merged with economic aspects). The three values address the ethic of sustainability (Social, Economic, environmental). Regaining the environmental values has been replaced and these values are discussed in chapter 5). The SWOT analysis address the environmental factors, challenges, and opportunities are presented in Table 1

Comment 6: Section 3.3: the two groups of existing case studies provide some hint as to why they were chosen - beach reclamation and informal settlement development are perhaps the two key issues for Al-Ouzai? Still, there must be thousands of these types of projects, so why these particular ones. It might just be because they have been well-studied?

Response 6: Thank you for your feedback. We discuss this point widely at the beginning of subsection 3.3. however, some hints were given before.:” such as that there were picked based on the possible similarities with the study case or because of the realizable outcomes that presented in reports.  

Comment 7: Once a clear framework for analyzing the existing projects is in place, the review of them can be structured around this: for example, (and it is only a suggestion), analysis of their environmental, socio-cultural and economic (including tourism) outcomes (and perhaps the trade-offs between them?) might be a way to structure the analysis. Some sort of summary table of the lessons learned, based on these or other values/aspects at the end of this section might help with the analysis and discussion that follows.

Response 7:  In chapters 5 and 6. this idea is addressed that the speculative visions are based on the outcomes of the intervention. And these visions discuss the aspects (social, economic, and environmental)

 Comment 8: The description of the case study area hints at some key issues that need to be addressed (health and pollution for example) but it requires a more consistent structure. The history is clearly relevant, as is the physical structure, but it is currently very descriptive and not very analytical. Socio-economic risks and opportunities are highlighted. This leads me to suggest that the observation and conversation data into a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis? I know SWOT is a bit unfashionable and has its critics, but from planning, sense can be valuable. It feels like this is almost what has been done already. There are similar more modern versions to SWOT which might be relevant

Response 8: Thank you for your comment. This chapter regarding the history and physical structure has been revised. We rephrased using the analytical way rather than a descriptive one. A new subsection was added (4.2. Observations in the area –Results of the study method). Regarding your suggestion for SWOT analysis, we took it into consideration and we added the table to the article.

Comment 9: The speculative visions are clearly the 'discussion' element of the paper and the most interesting part. However, I found it hard to follow the links to what had gone before. Clearly, many of the proposals put forward in the vision are inspired by the projects discussed earlier, and are designed to address the challenges and harness the opportunities that exist. Therefore, I think a clearer structure before could help here - for example showing how each proposed intervention might harness an opportunity or address a weakness from the SWOT analysis, based on how successful the intervention in a previous project has been (from the earlier analysis). So, simplistically and only as an example, there is an opportunity for tourism if the beach is made more attractive, beach nourishment was shown to be an effective economic option in other projects. I note that the analysis here is based on landscape, architecture, and urban design - so these might actually be aspects to structure the analysis of the international projects. This would create consistency and help the reader see where the ideas for the visions are coming from.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment.  Addressed that the Speculative visons, derived from this projects. It is noted in the text that this intervention is divided into two groups, where this part is developed further. The Landscape, Architecture, and Urban design tools described in this paper is an analysis for the outcomes of these picked interventions

Comment 10: Section 6: Strategies Influence on Bigger Scales. I wasn't sure what this section was based on. The strategies listed in Table 2 seem to be the first time these are mentioned. Planning informality doesn't appear elsewhere; some of the others are similar to things already discussed but the connection is not clear to me.  As a result, I'm not sure what this section adds. The table also adds an element of scale (Neighborhood, District, City) which isn't really apparent elsewhere. I think this section is trying to demonstrate the strategies that are needed at different scales to implement the visions? However, it is not clear.

Response 10: Thank you for your comment. This chapter is revised and the introduction is rephrased. We believe that in the current article our objective of presenting these speculative visions is clear. We added this chapter, because we need to stress that our study builds a future interest for another piece of work that focuses on the relation of the city structure.  

Comment 11: Section 7 seems to provide a broad summary and I'm not sure it adds a lot.

Response 11: Thank you for your comment. In the current article, this section is a summary addressing the main finding from this study.

Comment 12: Section 8: The key part of this to me is the sentence: "Diagnosing challenges and threats was led by innovative and efficient tools that empowered this work, conducted through several site visits which, interacting with dwellers from different ages and nationalities took place to understand this community's needs and future expectations". This is where I think the idea of the SWOT analysis came from. If the paper reflected this sentence in structure, it would be a lot clearer I think. A section clearly diagnosing challenges and threats (and why not opportunities?). If the researchers have insights into "community's needs and future expectations" that could feed into the visions - the aim of planning could be argued as exactly to address "community's needs and future expectations".

Response 12: Thank you for your suggestion and observation. We build based on this comment. The SWOT analysis is added to the scope of this work and the aspects are addressed and discussed further

Comment 13: The reference list feels a little light - reflecting the limited background material. A 'literature review', as the method describes, would be expected to consist of a lot more than 29 references (thinking of most review articles). Perhaps this is an issue with how the paper is described - maybe it is more an analysis than a review of existing relevant projects. Then the literature review/background can focus on the theoretical basis of the analysis?

Response 13: Thank you for your comment. Some references are added to the text. (particularly in the field of climate change). regarding the literature review. We believe the that current article is analytical and not descriptive related to the theoretical basis

Comment 14: A minor thing: I think your referencing of figures has gone wrong in word the phrase "Error! Reference source not found" appears each time you reference a figure or table. 

 Response14: Thank you for your comment. The errors are fixed. 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have built on the previous changes and addressed virtually all of the reviewers comments in this revision.

My main concerns were the logical flow and connection of all the sections. The latest revisions have done a good job on making the connections clearer. The addition of Tables 1 and 2 have really helped to connect the parts of the article together. In addition, the methodology is much clearer and justified - noting the challenges of data collection helps emphasise that the approach here is a pragmatic one that can still provide valuable insights. The authors have added some more references and have improved the engagement with the literature. I think there is scope for further critical engagement - however, I recognise that the authors have put in substantial work to the study generally and the paper specifically. Given the importance of and need for research in such understudied areas, I think the paper is valuable as it now stands. 

There are a couple of relatively small things that I think should be addressed, which I note below.

1. It would be good to mention that the authors had ethical approval from the University for this study. The authors themselves note "It is worth mentioning that this method includes challenges and danger, due to the lack of security and fear from strangers" (line 134). Hence, it is vital to note that this research has full ethical approval and has been carried out according to those ethical requirements. I should have noted this before, apologies.
2. There are a number of typos and some slightly unclear sentences or use of words. I have highlighted the ones I noticed when reading through in the attached file. I haven't corrected them, but just drawn the authors' attention to parts that need some correction. Another round of careful proof-reading should address these concerns.

The authors have been very patient in addressing my concerns through several rounds of review. I'm pleased this article is to be published because of the area it looks at. We need more research into these types of areas. I hope the authors feel that the manuscript has been significantly improved in this process.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

COVER LETTER

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1397531

Type of manuscript: Article

Title: Shaping Informal Coastal Settlements by Enhancing Architectural

and Urban Design Activities. Case Study: Al-Ouzai / Jnah-Beirut Southern

Suburbs

Authors: Dorota Wojtowicz-Jankowska *, Bahaa Bou Kalfouni

Dear Reviewers,

We appreciate your precious time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable suggestions and comments. It was your valuable and insightful comments that led to possible improvements in the current version of the manuscript. We have carefully considered your feedbacks and tried our best to address every one of them. We hope the manuscript after careful revisions meet your high standards. We welcome further constructive comments if any. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the reviewer’s comments.

 

Response to reviewer 3:

General comment: The authors have built on the previous changes and addressed virtually all of the reviewer's comments in this revision.

My main concerns were the logical flow and connection of all the sections. The latest revisions have done a good job of making the connections clearer. The addition of Tables 1 and 2 have really helped to connect the parts of the article together. In addition, the methodology is much clearer and justified - noting the challenges of data collection helps emphasize that the approach here is a pragmatic one that can still provide valuable insights. The authors have added some more references and have improved the engagement with the literature. I think there is scope for further critical engagement - however, I recognize that the authors have put in substantial work to the study generally and the paper specifically. Given the importance of and need for research in such understudied areas, I think the paper is valuable as it now stands. 

[Comment 1] It would be good to mention that the authors had ethical approval from the University for this study. The authors themselves note "It is worth mentioning that this method includes challenges and danger, due to the lack of security and fear from strangers" (line 134). Hence, it is vital to note that this research has full ethical approval and has been carried out according to those ethical requirements.

Response: Thank you for drawing our attention to these points. We added the sentence “This research has full ethical approval from the university and has been carried out according to those ethical requirements” in the final notes [Informed Consent Statement] line: 581.

 

[Comment 2] There are a number of typos and some slightly unclear sentences or use of words. I have highlighted the ones I noticed when reading through in the attached file. I haven't corrected them, but just drawn the authors' attention to parts that need some correction. Another round of careful proof-reading should address these concerns

Response:  Thank you for drawing our attention to the typos and unclear sentences. We believe that in the current version all errors are corrected. The paper was sent for proofreading. The English language has been checked and confirmed.

 

Note: changes are tracked.