Urban Planning and Residential Segregation in Brazil—The Failure of the “Special Zone of Social Interest” Instrument in Londrina City (PR)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The article entitled “Urban planning and residential segregation in Brazil - the failure of the “Special Zone of Social Interest” instrument in Londrina city (PR)” is interesting, but it requires improvements. In my opinion, the topic of urban planning and residential segregation is of present interest, but the way it is dealt with in this study requires significant changes, including from the point of view of English language and style (for the whole text).

My main recommendations are the following:

1. Abstract – Please clarify the objectives and the results of the study, including by revising the English language.
2. Introduction – I think that this part should be better implemented by:

• clarifying the issue of residential segregation and its relationship with urban planning. Are there previous studies in the field? Mention some.
• supplementing the literature on Latin American and Brazilian contexts. You included some references, but the topic is very generous, so it would be useful to find out more about previous preoccupations in the field. It would be also useful to expand a little the references to some bibliographical sources, which are referred to as a whole (line 42 - [6,7,8,9], line 57 - [14,15,16,17,18,19]).
• clarifying the working hypotheses of the study. You mention two objectives, but they should be better formulated.

3. Theoretical support – You say that “the programme aimed to provide one million homes for the share of the population whose monthly income was less than 10 minimum wages” – lines 145-146. It is not vety clear to me…I think that most people’s monthly income is less than 10 minimum eages…
4. Materials and studied area – I think it is very important to include the word “methods” in the this subtitle! In Introduction (line 78) you mention that “the third part includes a brief description of the methodology”. I only see materials, but I cannot see methods, which are very important because they help testing the working hypotheses / accomplishing the objectives. I suggest redefining the title and contents of this chapter.
5. Housing needs and policy responses in the municipality of Londrina/PR

• What is the source of Figure 2? Is it a personal contribution or is it taken from somewhere else? Please specify.
• Please reconstruct Figure 3 in a more aesthetic manner. I would also give up the horizontal arrows. It seems to me that an arrow shows that something derives from something else, but it is not the case here…
• In introduction you mention that this part “seeks to verify in what extent their objectives incorporate the objectives of the Federal Law - Statute of the City”. How exactly did you verify / test that?

6. Discussion about the inefficiency of the ZEIS to fight social segregation

I understand the problem raised by this study. Do you think you can imagine some possible solutions to it, some specific measures to be taken by authorities / decision factors?

7. Conclusions - The authors should formulate better what the novelty of the paper is, adding clear references to the two objectives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Even though the manuscript contains important information of the Brazilian housing policy and its problems, the presentation and reasoning require considerable improvement. The paper is difficult to follow and requires extensive re-writing. 

Author Response

Please see the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I applaud the authors for tackling and reporting on such an important topic that is a constantly priority discussion agenda in many growing urban areas.  The study embarks on a topic that if done with a bit more finesse, it should lead to many policy recommendations.

The major concern and area that needs significant improvement is the methodology.  There needs be to a more thorough discussion on their method for data collection and analysis has been employed.  As it reads right now, it is unclear what are the clear patterns identified by the authors.  The authors allude to the disconnect of federal government zoning initiatives and what is achieved at the municipal level.  However, how that disconnect manifests repeatedly needs more detailed data.  That is, of all the affordable housing that are built, how many of them lack other local government planning initiatives.  The researchers discussions sound anecdotal which raises the concern for cherry-picking their data in order to advance their argument.  Second, there needs to be a more in-depth discussions on the particular federalist arrangements in Brazil.  It is still unclear to what extent the federal government can exert influence in zoning practices which typically fall under the strict purview of the local government.  As for low quality construction, this is typically fixed by local construction ordinances and with city inspectors checking whether the construction adheres to city building code.  Thus, it is a bit odd that the federal government is seen as a starting point for such initiatives.  The federal government financial subsidy element and its connection to zoning is unclear and needs elaboration.  If it is explicitly tied with zoning and rezoning practices, it needs to be further specified since according to the article, the eligibility of such subsidy is based on income.  Lastly, there is no clear discussion of housing price as it tied critically into the affordability discussion that is mentioned but not supported with relevant data.

Overall, the topic is relevant.  However, the article needs to be improved in its theoretical anchoring.  How does this study advance the scholarship?  Also, which scholarship?  Second, a major revision is needed on the methodological section.  Why did you select this particular method?  How is this method better than other known methods?  What are the specific patterns that arose in the sample?  What is the sample size?  Correlations have been alluded to without any correlation analysis.  Without these improvements, the article reads like the authors are trying to make a point.  However, it is unclear to what extent is that due to preference and to what extent it is due to emerging undeniable patterns.

Author Response

Please see the file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I read the article with interest. The article deals with significant and current problems related to the policy of counteracting social segregation. I believe that the article has great potential. 

Nevertheless, I have a few comments that will improve the text, especially substantive issues. I will list my comments in order, so their importance varies.

1. Line 90: It is disadvantageous to start a sentence and the entire paragraph by quoting in parentheses. It is better to reformulate this wording.
2. The Theoretical support chapter is basically about looking at the matter from Brazil's perspective. Of course, this is important from the point of view of the article. Nevertheless, I miss in this section an in-depth review of research showing cases from other countries where social segregation and policies to counter it are equally important. It should be a separate chapter and the one devoted to Brazil, a separate one.
3. The clarity of Figure 2. It is fuzzy.
4. Figure 3. Instead of the arrows in the first column of the Fields: Level, Legislation and Financing Program, I propose to mark these fields with a different color.
5. Chapter Discussion. There should be no research materials, findings, and figures in a chapter with such a name. The Discussion should be a critical reference to one's findings and the research of others at home and abroad. According to the article's topic, this chapter should be an essential element in the international discourse on social segregation and show the place of the Authors' research. This chapter in the reviewed article does not meet these criteria but is valuable and necessary. Therefore, I propose leaving it, renaming it, and adding a new one chapter Discussion. The comprehensive research review that I have already mentioned will undoubtedly be helpful.
6. In the References section, the font size of source 53 (lines 561 to 563) seems to be mistaken. In the list of References, sources 56 and 67 have given names, not initials.

Author Response

Please see the file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The article has addressed the comments. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

thanks for your comments to our documents. They contributed to improve our manuscript.

 

Best regards

The authors

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has substantially improved after the revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

 

thanks for your comments to our documents. They contributed to improve our manuscript.

 

Best regards

The authors

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I have read the new version of the article and think it has been improved. Unfortunately, not in all respects. There is still no Discussion chapter in the article, which is a crucial element of a good international article. I wrote in the previous review to add a new chapter, Discussion.

The image in some figures is also still blurry. This is especially true for subtitles.

In Figure 2, I see the word: Legenda. This should be changed to the English version.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thanks for the second round comments that we answer in the table, hoping that correspond to your requests. 

Best regards

Eduarda Marques da Costa

Ideni Antonello

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

I think that the article is suitable for publication in Sustainability. I have no more comments.