Elements of Sustainable Development in the Context of the Environmental and Financial Crisis and the COVID-19 Pandemic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

To the author:

The manuscript deals with a topic of maximum interest and urgency. However, it has subtantial methodological flaws.

General comments:

• Introduction. In the first lines of the introduction, it is stated the following sentence: "The world crises have a way of erupting with great force, destroying a whole network of well-functioning social, economic, financial and, especially significant, environmental relations". I think this point is not properly sustained as coronavirus health crisis develops and impacts in a background where relations were already not well functioning, as in fact, the article states. 
• The methodology needs further detail, it is not clear with is the methodological process followed by the author for selecting the literature used as primary data, nor why it is using data for different countries and mixing them without justification (e.g. China  in 3.1 and USA in section 3.2, some selected European countries in 3.3). 
• A deeper discussion on the concept of sustainability, covid-19 and construction is needed since conclusions and  does not derive from the presented evidence.

Specific comments:

• Line 82. The first part of the paragraph is out of place here. I would rather introduce the definition of the concept of sustainable development used by the author in the introduction.
• This paragraph, starting at line 82, needs references.
• Line 95. What is understood by "traditional building". I am unsure about the affirmation that this is 100% non-green in China (e.g. in rural areas).
• Figure 1 needs a complete reference. The year of the publication is missing. Same for figure 3.
• Figure 3. It should be said that data are from USA.

Author Response

Thank you for substantive comments on the article, while maintaining its main content, I tried to include all the comments contained in the review.

Reviewer 2 Report

I enjoyed reading the paper as I find the reflections and the data very interesting. 

Method and language are fair. Also, the author works on a current and hot topic, connected with recent sustainability published articles. Moreover, the authors provides very interesting insight that both provide rooms for further research and stimulate academic debate on the consequences of the ecological, economic, financial and now humanitarian global crisis.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the positive review, I will try, taking into account the comments of the other reviewers, not to fundamentally change the content of the article.

Reviewer 3 Report

I find the premise underlying this study to be potentially interesting. Linking the building industry, specifically its focus (or lack thereof) on sustainable methods, to economic and/or health 'challenges' is an important prospect.

However, the current study does not formally develop nor confirm this link. It simply makes assertions and presents a series of graphs that portray a correlation. These patterns do NOT in any way confirm a causal relation - there are many possible explanations for the patterns, not just the one that the author would have the reader believe.

In its current form, this study does not present a conceptual or even intuitive link between the GFC and the change in building approaches - it simply asserts that such a link explains a changing emphasis on sustainable building. Equally, it does not present an argument, even an informal one, that helps link COVID-19 and potential changes in building practices.

In its present form, my interpretation of the study is that it reads like a series of claims designed to support a personal bias - there is no conceptual frame and hence there is no reason (in a scientific sense) to believe the possibility of a link between the GFC and changes in building practices; equally, there is not reason to believe that there will or could be a link between COVID-19 and changes in building practices. The author needs to do much more to develop and formalize this link before there will be real force behind the arguments and the prescription of the study.

The lack of a conceptual frame aside, I also think that the author needs to refine the presentation within the manuscript to ensure that the central focus in on 'building practice', and then the effect of various events on this central focus. At present, the document seems to wander away from this central focus and then come back to it.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review. I added a significant thread explaining the possible impact of Covid-19 on housing in the near future. I have corrected the doubts that are now more obvious and result from the content of the article. I justified the choice of countries that I analyzed in detail. I have supplemented some minor remarks.

Best regards, Tomasz Kapecki

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author,

I appreciate a considerable review of the previous version of the manuscript. However, I still believe the methodological sections should explain better the use of the data from different countries, and this choice should also be reflected better in the discussion and conclusion sections. The discussion section lacks some references to sustain the conclusions.

Minor editings:

- Line 325. There is a repeated sentence.

Author Response

Good morning

Thank you for suggestions for improvement, in the Objective and Method chapter I explained the data usage and country selection better. I did the same in the Discussion and Conclusions chapters. I deleted duplicate line 325. I will make a language correction after accepting the article.


Kind Regards Tomasz Kapecki

Reviewer 3 Report

At this stage I have no further comments for the authors. My only advice would be that they seek the assistance of a professional English languagae editor, and also assistance with ensuring the clear and transparent presentation of the study's central message, which I assume relates to the link between environmental challenges (whether the GFC or COVID-19), and the positive role that architecture and sustainable development can play; also, the risk that the sustainable agenda may be lost in an attempt to return to normality.

Author Response

Good morning

Thank you for all your valuable comments, at the end of Discussion and Conclusions (Covid-19), I posted a remark regarding the return to normality. I will make a language correction after accepting the article.

Kind Regards Tomasz Kapecki

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your review.