Language that Supports Sustainable Development: How to Write about People in Universal Design Policy
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The relevance to sustainable development is not clearly pointed out in the study. The main science categories of the research are not precisely defined. In its current form the article is poorly matched by the journal Sustainability. It is recommended to thoroughly revise the content of Abstract and 1-2 sections.
- Universal design (UD) defined by the Authors as “design philosophy…” is improper. Philosophy (philo + sophia means “love of wisdom”) is the science. Maybe “approach” would be better in this context.
- “UD is frequently referred to in relation to social sustainable development”. It is recommended to change into: “social dimension of sustainable development”. It should be clarified that first order condition of sustainable development is the integration of social, economic, environmental and spatial dimensions of development. This means that there is no option to develop in the long term within only one dimension. It is possible in the short run, while sustainable development is the very long run paradigm (intergenerational).
- For the same reason it is doubtful to use term “sustainable language” (e.g. verse 105).
- I agree with the Authors that “adoption of universal design has the potential to bring about sustainable living environments for all…”…”(v.163-164), but it will be possible only along with economic substantiation. Improving the living environment requires social cohesion and macroeconomic benefits. The universal design approach is a perfect example of implementing sustainable development policy in social, economic and environmental dimensions (see e.g.: Malik, K.; Mikołajczak, E. Senior Housing Universal Design as a Development Factor of Sustainable-Oriented Economy. Sustainability2019, 11, 7093).
In my opinion it is necessary to take these remarks into account while developing the language that supports sustainable development documents and the way of understanding the idea by ordinary people.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well-written and well supported by relevant examples. I have not given high ratings for Originality, Significance, Interest and Overall Merit because I find the main point of the paper, that in public documents people with impairments are inappropriately singled out textually as requiring special attention in designing all kinds of utilities, rather than covered in more neutral terms in terms of difference and variation, in itself correct but not of great academic interest. Is it possible to broaden the scope of the article in some way?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
From my point, the Authors have improved the manuscript according to my suggestions. I have no other suggestions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has become much clearer with additional references and explanatory paragraphs
