Exploring Social Sustainability Handprint—Part 2: Sustainable Development and Sustainability

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author, your manuscript presents interesting information.  Social sustainability handprint is an important theme and the academic community needs to better debate it. However, the organization of the information in the text is boring to the readers, soo many long tables and, sometimes, repetitive statements. Please, try to reorganize all the manuscript in order to become the text more fluid. 

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

Dear author, your manuscript presents interesting information.  Social sustainability handprint is an important theme and the academic community needs to better debate it. However, the organization of the information in the text is boring to the readers, soo many long tables and, sometimes, repetitive statements. Please, try to reorganize all the manuscript in order to become the text more fluid.

Response: Thank you for your positive comment and I have carried out a major revision (similarly to the Part 1 ). The manuscript has been completely reorganized and its focus is now more clear with two key topics (creation and assessment). It is now very readable and provides its information much better. There are only 11 Tables now and much less repetition (some is needed due to the chosen approach).

Reviewer 2 Report

The article makes important contributions to the study in the field

Strengths:

• The paper leads to some very useful results;

Weakness:

• It is not mentioned in the how the study is structured and what each part briefly contains;
• The paper has no conclusions

Observations:

-  In Introduction to Line 29 I think it is a typo “ The This study…”

- The research is properly designed;

- The methods are well described;

- The results of the paper are interesting;

Recommendation:

- In my opinion, I think it should be clearly stated how the study is structured.

At the same time, I consider that it would be necessary, after ample results and discussions, to formulate some conclusions.

- The paper is interesting and deserves to be published after a major correction.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The article makes important contributions to the study in the field

Response: Thank for this positive comment.

Strengths:

The paper leads to some very useful results;

Response: I agree and the idea was to contribute in a way that provides useful results.

Weakness:

It is not mentioned in the how the study is structured and what each part briefly contains;

The paper has no conclusions

Response: A major revision also included some changes to the materials and methods section including description of aims (implications of each section to creation and/or assessment) and structure. “The study including the specific result sections is structured based on these specific aims related to both creation and assessment of social sustainability handprints”, this sentence was added also.

Conclusions section has also been added.

Observations:

-  In Introduction to Line 29 I think it is a typo “ The This study…”

Response: Thank you, fixed.

- The research is properly designed;

Response: Thank you and it is now even better focused and presented.

- The methods are well described;

Response: Thank you, the qualitative approach is described.

- The results of the paper are interesting;

Response: Thank you, I hope they are useful and promote further research and development.

Recommendation:

- In my opinion, I think it should be clearly stated how the study is structured.

Response: A major revision also included some changes to the materials and methods section including description of aims (implications of each section to creation and/or assessment) and structure. “The study including the specific result sections is structured based on these specific aims related to both creation and assessment of social sustainability handprints”, this sentence was added also.

At the same time, I consider that it would be necessary, after ample results and discussions, to formulate some conclusions.

Response: Conclusions section is now added.

- The paper is interesting and deserves to be published after a major correction.

Response:

Thank you for your positive comment and a major revision has been done.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Considering adjustments done, the manuscript was improved. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.