Preferences for Infrastructure and Determinants of Decision to Live in a Makeshift House in Informal Settlements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, research and publications around informal settlements are always welcome, as this is the main urbanisation type in cities in the global south. Therefore, the topic and the place where the discussion is located, configurates a welcome contribution to knowledge, and in this sense, adequate to justify publication. I have suggested some points to clarify and elaborate, which I consider can contribute for a more solid and clear paper.

The introduction clearly mentioned that this study examines residents' preferences, willingness to live in upgraded houses, and their perceptions of how the projects should be implemented. However, the author provides more objectives (lines 105 - 115), making the paper seem complicated and unfocused. So I suggest removing the rest of the objectives and focusing only on the three main aims. The socio-economic characteristics can be included in the paper and analysis without being mentioned as an objective. It also applies to the other objective, "to find the strategy...", which can be included in the latter part of this paper as the author's recommendation. 

In abstract, it was mentioned that this study was based on three different methods. It’s better also to mention that this study uses mixed methods before explaining the three different analysis approaches. There is also no further explanation about the number of respondents, which I think it's important to be mentioned in the abstract. 

I don’t see any significant differences between the “conceptualization of informal settlement upgrade” and brief review of literature on status and upgrade of informal settlements”. It can be merged under one section. The latter part can be added as a sub-section with the more relevant title with the context of informal settlements upgrading in the Asia Pacific. The literature section also needs more in-depth literature and focus on the contextual; justifications, especially about the informal settlements’ context in PNG. 

The methodology section is very weak and disorganised. Nothing was mentioned on the development of the survey questionnaires and how the analysis process. For instance, how measure the reliability and validity of both qualitative and quantitative methods? How the content analysis process (transcription, coding, theming, etc). How were the survey and interview respondents selected? Also, I realized later that the author uses the words “interview” and “interviewee” to describe survey respondents. I think the author should replace both terms with “survey” and “survey respondents”. This is to avoid any confusion whether the author refers to a qualitative interview (which is not what the author meant, I believe) or a quantitative survey. What confuses me the most is that why the author used qualitative analysis while the findings section only explained the quantitative findings without mentioning anything from the qualitative results (in this case was QCA).  

This paper also lacks the information of why the author chose three different methods. There is no explanation about mixed methods and why it is important to do so for this study. I also wonder why the author selected ten informal settlements? Why need to choose so many cases for this research? It is important to provide a stronger justification for why the author did that, more than just because those settlements are familiar to the surveyor team. What are the criteria to choose those informal settlements? What are the common characteristics that they have? There is also no description at all about the geographical and spatial characteristics of the ten informal settlements. Some maps and pictures would be nice to provide a clearer description of the settlements. 

Identification and discussion of the results are interesting, but it needs a better explanation and relation with literature. Lastly, please make sure the paper is in a well-formed as now it's very messy so it took more effort to read it. 

Author Response

REVIEWER # 1

Reviewer Comment 1: The introduction mentioned that the study examines residents’ preferences, willingness to live in upgraded houses and their perceptions of how the projects should be implemented. However, the author provides more objectives in lines 105 – 115.

Authors’ response: The objectives have been modified to address the concerns raised as (page 3):

• To examine informal residents’ preferences for infrastructure and services and to identify factors influencing their decision to live in a makeshift house.

• To examine informal settlement residents’ perceptions of how an upgrade project should be implemented.

Reviewer Comment 2: In the abstract, it was mentioned that the study was based on three different methods. Mention that the study uses mixed methods before explaining the three different analysis. I think it is important to mention the number of respondents.

Authors’ response: This has been taken care of and the sentence reworded as (red text in Abstract section lines 6 to 8):

The data originated from interviews with 231 residents of informal settlements in Port Moresby and was analysed using mixed methods approach which includes descriptive statistics, qualitative content analysis and binary logistic regression model.

Reviewer Comment 3: I do not see any significant difference between conceptualisation of informal settlement upgrade and brief review of literature. It can be merged.

Authors’ response: This has been taken care of. The two sections have been merged

Reviewer Comment 4: On the methodology section, nothing was mentioned on the development of the survey questionnaire and the analysis was made; how the content analysis process; how were the survey and interview respondents selected. The author uses the words interview and interviewee to describe survey and respondents. I think that the author should replace both terms with survey and survey respondents.

Authors’ response: It is important to note that study was based on structured interviews not questionnaire (this is reported in Survey design and data collection section). Interviews were used to avoid excluding people who do not have formal education in the study. Questions used for interviews were developed by first reviewing relevant papers in the literature. Second, questions were drafted and passed to an academic who is very familiar with issues associated with informal settlements in Papua New Guinea for comments. His comments were addressed and question draft sent back to him. The academic reviewed the question draft again and passed his comments. His comments were addressed again. The process continued until the academic was satisfied with the question draft. In order to assess whether informal settlement residents can easily comprehend the questions, a pre-test interviews was conducted with 10 residents and six community leaders. Their comments were addressed and the questions was finalised. I have modified the section to make it clearer.

As the study is based on interviews, I would say that the use of interviews and interviewees is more appropriate.

 

 

Reviewer Comment 5: How the content analysis process was achieved.

Authors’ response: I have included a section for the description of how QCA was conducted (section 3.3.1)

Reviewer Comment 6: What confuses me the most is that why the author used qualitative analysis while findings section only explained the quantitative findings without mentioning anything from the qualitative results.

Authors’ response: The QCA results are presented in section 4.5 titled “How informal settlements upgrade program should be implemented as perceived by community leaders”

I have made clearer by making it a section of its own.

 

Reviewer Comment 7: Provide more justification on how the 10 settlements were selected.

Authors’ response: 25 informal settlements in Port Moresby were identified using purposive sampling approach. We listed 25 informal settlements, which include the most commonly known settlements and those not commonly known by the general public and research assistants. The electorates of Port Moresby (North East, North West and South) the 25 informal settlements belonged were also noted. Of the 25 listed informal settlements, 10 were selected using random sampling technique. This has been elaborated in the manuscript.

 

Reviewer Comment 8: The paper lacks information on why the author choose three different methods

 

Authors’ response: The three analytical methods were used to provide a holistic view of the subject studied and provide a clear picture of the findings from the study at the same time give the study participants a voice via the findings. This has been added in section 3.3.

 

Reviewer Comment 9: Why need to choose so many cases for this research

Authors’ response: We choose to conduct the study in many (10) informal settlements to increase promote the representation of all the informal settlements in Port Moresby, i.e. the larger the sample the high the likelihood of the sample to be a representative of the population. This has been explained in section 3.2.1

 

Reviewer Comment 10: Provide some literature from Asia-Pacific in the literature review section.

Authors’ response: There are only a few literatures such as Yap (2016), Watt (2020) and Jones (2017) on the subject from Asia-Pacific. I have included these literatures.

Reviewer 2 Report

1. A simple flow chart of the methodology could be useful;

2. Questions in Box 1 and 2 have to be numbered;

3. Provide a short list of points (titles) the Guidelines could develop;

4. Maybe sometimes the word "lived" have to be "live" throughout the text;

5. Paragraph 6. Discussion is too long: can You break it in two parts?

Author Response

REVIEWER # 2

Reviewer Comment 1: Questions in Box 1 and 2 have to be numbered.

Authors’ response: Questions in Boxes 1 and 2 have been numbered.

Reviewer Comment 2: Provide a short list of points (titles) the guidelines could develop.

Authors’ response: This has been provide in subsection 5.5

Reviewer Comment 3: May be sometimes the word ‘lived’ have to be ‘live’

Authors’ response: Corrected throughout the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment 4: Paragraph 6, Discussion is too long. Break it into two parts.

Authors’ response: Corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author(s),

I very much enjoyed reading your manuscript. I suggest that you focus on the precise dynamics at Port Moresby with greater nuance, especially the relationship between public and customary land with informal settlements. You need to add more references at several points in the first sections of the paper. Sometimes, I few that the authors are a bit overoptimistic about the role of planners and government policy in containing the growth of informal settlements with the recommendations they provide.  

1. Around paragraph 50s lines, the article could have added more citations about upgrading.
2. Although tenure security is an important outcome of settlement upgrading, it is important to add that basic sanitation widened roads are equally relevant.
3. Page 2-3 lines 86-121 need references.  
4. Lines 131-132, I usually avoid the use of term illegal connections or evasions of fees. Perhaps, informal or unauthorized connections? The word notorious also has a negative connotation and with the word illegal, some may think that the manuscript runs the risk of contributing to the criminalization of slum dwellers. In some countries, water, sewage, and electricity are provided by private and/or public-private agencies.
5. The loss of government revenue affirmation needs a citation. This type of statement of facts always require proper reference.
6. Starting line 263, the author(s) may want to balance the focus on the lack of titles to build with the need for serviced land, meaning land that is connected to the urban fabric and available services.
7. Regarding the methods, please explain the relevance about the landowner question and their willingness to upgrade, if most the land belongs to the government.
8. In the methods questions, the authors mention residents paying rent. To whom are they paying rent? It is very important that the authors in the background sections explain what a slum, illegal subdivision, occupation, means in PNG. More information is needed about the arrangements between slum dwellers and ‘landowners’ public sector or customary land. Pease, explain.
9. Lines 945 and 951 the recommendation that people who develop should pay for ground rent is hard to follow because the authors let the reader guess at the end of the Discussion section that most slums in Port Moresby have an unauthorized developer/subdivider who is profiting by selling or renting land.
10. In the methods questions that you provided explain what question detonates willingness and define willingness to live in makeshift housing a bit better.

Author Response

REVIEWER # 3

Reviewer Comment 1: Authors need add references at several points in the first section of the paper.

Authors’ response: More references have been added.

Reviewer Comment 2: Around paragraph 50s lines, the article could have added more citations about upgrading.

Authors’ response: More references have been added.

Reviewer Comment 3: Tenure security is an important outcome, it is important to add the basic, sanitation widened roads are equally important.

Authors’ response: Corrected, page 2, lines 9 and 10.

Reviewer Comment 4: Pages 2-3 lines 86-121 need references.

Authors’ response: The following references have been added: Del Mistro and Hensher, 2009; Nassar and Elsayed, 2018: Fernendes, 2011; Marais et al. 2018.

Reviewer Comment 5: Avoid the use of the term ‘illegal connections or evasion of fees’. The word notorious also have negative connotation.

Authors’ response: Corrected. Illegal changed to unauthorized. Notorious is deleted.

Reviewer Comment 6: The loss of government revenue needs a reference.

Authors’ response: Reference added.

Reviewer Comment 7: Starting line 263, authors may want to balance the focus on the lack of titles to build with the need for serviced land, meaning land connected to the urban fabrics and available for services.

Authors’ response: Corrected

Reviewer Comment 8: Regarding the methods, explain the relevance about landowner question and their willingness to upgrade, if most of the land belongs to the government.

Authors’ response: 60% of the land belongs to the government and 40% communally owned. In our sample, 69% of the respondents lived on houses built on government land and 31% lived on communal land. It is expected that the respondents would behave differently when it comes to living in a makeshift house. Because government also behave differently compared to individuals.

Reviewer Comment 9: Authors mention residents paying rent. To whom are they paying rent? Explain a slum, illegal subdivision, occupation, means in PNG. More information is needed about the arrangements between slum dwellers and ‘landowners’ public sector or customary land.

Authors’ response: NCDC has the responsibility to monitor development in Port Moresby. However, they have not been very effective in monitoring development. This has resulted in some people constructing houses on state-owned land without formal approval. In fact, some of the informal occupant of state land constructs houses for rent and they become landlords. For the case of communally-owned land, some people construct houses on vacant land with the understanding that they would leave when the original landowner is ready to use the land. In some cases, some rooms in the houses are given to interested people for rent.

Reviewer Comment 10: Lines 945 and 951 the recommendation that people who develop should pay ground rent is hard to follow because authors let reader guess at the end of the Discussion section that most slums in Port Moresby have unauthorized developer/subdivider who is profiting by selling or renting land.

Authors’ response: I wanted to write payment of fine. I have reworded it as: The government should consider using economic instruments such as fine and rewards. This involves developing a mechanism that makes people who develop a new informal settlement to pay a huge fine of an agreed amount to government every fortnight.

Reviewer Comment 11: In the methods section, what question denotes willingness and define willingness to live in makeshift housing

Authors’ response: The question is house type interview lived in. The willingness to live in a makeshift house is more or less a wording. I have looked at the word again. I think decision to live in a makeshift house is more appropriate. Willingness to live has been replaced with decision to live. As it is the decision of the resident of informal settlement to choose to either live in a makeshift or permanent house, thus decision to live appears more appropriate.