Here we summarize the edits to the manuscript in response to the helpful reviewer comments. Detailed responses are provided elsewhere. We edited the methods to better articulate how our conceptual model is an output of extensive co-production exercises and comprehensive narrative reviews. To ease the interpretability of our conceptual model, we separated improvements and exposures were separated and categorized, where improvements describe the physical, economic, and social changes or upgrades to homes and neighborhoods and exposures describe the downstream risk factors for health that can be affected by these changes.
We also edited the diagram to include individual, social, infrastructure, and legal buffers that can impact vulnerability and that may increase or decrease the health benefits of more secure tenure for certain population groups.
We also added a paragraph on the integration of the SDGs into higher education, and how this approach might be useful for addressing this range of broader societal challenges to the Discussion We added text to clarify how our conceptual model provides generalized insights into the mechanisms linking tenure security and health without being overly prescriptive about the specific policy solutions or interventions, since these are likely to vary across and even within cities and regions.
We highlight that we intend for the model to be general enough to apply broadly across contexts while acknowledging that the relative importance of different pathways is likely to differ greatly by place or population. See the authors' detailed response to the review by Rebecca Bentley See the authors' detailed response to the review by Kalpana Balakrishnan.
Urban residents have better average health than their rural counterparts Dye, , but these health advantages are often unevenly distributed where large inequalities in environmental and living conditions exist across small spatial scales Bennett et al.
