Evaluating the Stakeholders’ Satisfaction with Design and Construction of Resilient Houses in Vietnam

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript with reference number sustainability-2120121 and title ‘Evaluating the level of people’s satisfaction with the resilient design and construction of safe houses in Vietnam’ by the Author D.T. Hai is a study aimed at reviewing the effectiveness of storm and flood-resistant designs for new residences in coastal regions of Vietnam. The study is developed within a national project providing low-cost and safe housing in regions prone to natural disasters. The effectiveness of the climate-resilient houses in question has been assessed using data collected during extreme events in 2020. The Author identifies the novelty of his work in the general scarcity in the existing literature of similar studies on people’s satisfaction from projects of this type.

The paper presents the characteristics of typhoon and flood-resistant houses in a region prone to natural disasters. This is a positive point for the study in that it presents some evidence of the advantages and weaknesses of new house designs that have not been studied systematically, and little research has been conducted to improve their functionality and performance. Moreover, one can accept that the data and information could be of some interest and relevance beyond the specific geographical area since similar projects can also be found elsewhere in the broader region of South-Eastern Asia. However, such projects are not cited in this manuscript.

The study seems problematic in that its originality is very limited from the methodological point of view, as the paper adds very little to the existing state-of-the-art literature on the public’s satisfaction with community services of this type. The article contains much information but is not a full scientific study. It collates and presents information as if it is census data, which is not always interesting for the international scientific community but only for national and local authorities. It reaches trivial conclusions about necessary modifications in the design of resilient houses but fails to provide a synthetic analysis of the data and discuss findings that advance the field. Notwithstanding the originality and novelty issues, a weak element of the paper is the discussion of the engineering aspects of the houses.

 

The manuscript has been written generally well: most parts are straightforward to read and understand. Nonetheless, it contains some English language issues along several lines that confuse the reader. Moreover, some parts were excessively superfluous and challenging to read. For instance, Sections 4.6 and 4.7 provide only little interesting information. Therefore, a general revision from a native English speaker is strongly recommended. 

 

The following table lists some comments on less critical aspects of the manuscript that may merit attention.

1.	The manuscript is not complete; it lacks key elements such as the authors list and affiliations. Also, the Review can identify at least two different main text fonts in the manuscript.
2.	There are two tables with the same numbering (i.e., Table 2).
3.	Page 7, Table 2: the data source has not been cited appropriately.
4.	Page 12, Table 6: the caption does not describe well the information provided in the table.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

I am the author of the paper. Thanks for your reviewing and commenting on my paper. I had considered all of your comments and improved my paper accordingly. Thus, I would resubmit my revised paper as well as the author's response to the author. Please refer to the on attached files. I hope you can accept my improvement and my paper

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to answer several prac-tical questions such as what are the strengths and weaknesses of the GCF Project-developed house designs, focusing on the basic needs of beneficiaries or are the beneficiaries satisfied with the house constructed with support from the GCF Project. The results show most local beneficiaries are satisfied with the resilient houses provided by the projects, still there are some issues related to their serviceability.

 

The article is well research and contains novel idea that adds some information to the body of knowledge. Likewise, the paper complies with the writing standard of the Journal and all tests were done according to the normal standard of tests. Based on these aforementioned, I recommend that the research paper can be accepted for publication after the minor revisions is corrected according to suggestions.

 

1. Please add line numbers and page numbers to the full text for review.

2. Please use Arabic font for the full text. The font size of many parts of the article is different. Please keep the font size of the full text consistent.

3. The punctuation mark between Project and s in Figure 1 is incorrect. Please correct it.

4. Add commas before the second line in Section 4.8 and the first line and in Section 5.8.

5. The conclusion is too complex. Please further simplify the conclusion.

6. This paper has carried out a lot of evaluation. What is the evaluation method adopted by the author? Evaluation criteria?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

I am the author of the paper. Thanks for your reviewing and commenting on my paper. I had considered all of your comments and improved my paper accordingly. Thus, I would resubmit my revised paper as well as the author's response to the author. Please refer to the on attached files. I hope you can accept my improvement and my paper

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I think there are some novelty on the paper... so I will comment to improve the current one 

more graphical illustrations.. like research flowchart.. databases used.. etc

results in graph.. with enough explanations.

description of the data used... like 4000 items you said as designed.. etc 

introduction can be improved using some references such as [https://doi.org/10.3390/en15239187] and [https://doi.org/10.3390/en15197323]

abstract and conclusion can be more informative

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

I am the author of the paper. Thanks for your reviewing and commenting on my paper. I had considered all of your comments and improved my paper accordingly. Thus, I would resubmit my revised paper as well as the author's response to the author. Please refer to the on attached files. I hope you can accept my improvement and my paper

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Paper title: Evaluating the level of people’s satisfaction with the resilient design and construction of safe houses in Vietnam

by Dinh Tuan Hai

 

Comment of the Reviewer:

This paper deals with evaluating the level of people’s satisfaction after design and construction of naturalhazard resistant construction. The topic is surely of interest for the scientific community, but in my opinion the paper is not well organized and descripted. Indeed, it seems a copy of a scientific report rather than a scientific paper, thus the scientific relevance not merged from the work.

In my opinion the paper is organized with a series of Table (confusing) and a series lists which do not fill with scientific purposes (but is a simple list of actions/results), resulting also difficult to read. For instance, the introduction is confusing, it starts directly with the aim of the paper, while the state-of-art is reported in another section.

 

In consideration of this, I suggest to reject the paper to date. If the authors reorganize the work with a scientific profile it can be surely re-considered for publication.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4

I am the author of the paper. Thanks for your reviewing and commenting on my paper. I had considered all of your comments and improved my paper accordingly. Thus, I would resubmit my revised paper as well as the author's response to the author. Please refer to the on attached files. I hope you can accept my improvement and my paper

The author

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the benefits to the broader readership of Sustainability from this paper are minimal. The revised manuscript is still not a scientific study: it exhibits little originality from the methodological point of view, and it adds little to the existing state-of-the-art literature on the public’s satisfaction. The conclusions reached by the paper are of limited scientific interest, and the discussion of the analysis results is poor.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1. Thank you very much for your valuable comments on our submitted paper. The authors referred to all your comments for improving and enhancing the quality of our paper. The authors tried their best for the revised paper with the hope to have your final acceptance. Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have improved the quality of the paper according to my suggestions, thus resulting clear and comprehensible.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 4. Thank you very much for your final acceptance of our paper. Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.docx