Balancing Sustainability: An Analysis of Habitat for Humanity Affiliates in Mississippi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

Line 8: what are the severe operating constraints, please provide 2-3 examples in the abstract in a very precise and high-level terms.

 

Overall, what kind of research gap do this survey-based research fill in? Please provide a high-level description in the abstract, as well as in the introduction. I understand that in line 105-113 you mention why there is a need to study Mississippi region, given the persistent poor conditions, however, what, and how is the present study different?

 

Methodology

Line 116-120: The description is very vague. What is first and second phase, and why it is appropriate? Why do you think very limited research has conducted? Very small numbers of studies have used this method, or certain findings regarding certain aspects are limited.

 

Can you provide the manuscript of the interview?

 

Overall

Moreover, to understand why green certificate is just not part of the affiliate's agenda will be important as well, besides your many questions. For me, the current interview is a little bit superficial. Understanding why affiliates do not apply for green certification is one thing, while knowing whether or not do they incorporate any kind of lifecycle green/sustainable considerations is another thing. There could be circumstance that some affiliations do consider and implement lifecycle green/sustainable considerations in projects, but due to the comlexity/ extra cost/ other issue, they therefore do not apply for any green certificate.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback and review.

The abstract has been updated to reflect the recommendations.

We have also identified the need and research gap as recommended

We have improved the methodology and clarified what is meant by “very limited research has been conducted.”

Please let us know if there are anything else that you would like to see improved. We appreciate your suggestions for improvements

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The contribution places the value of the "home" capable of satisfying primary needs and the importance of green certification at the center of the research. Since poor housing quality impacts the physical, psychological and emotional health of occupants, it is necessary to identify sustainable strategies in the built environment. Importante è il ruolo delle The role of Non-Profit Organizations (ONLUS) which offer voluntary support to help populations who find themselves in inadequate housing conditions is therefore important.

The research focuses on poor areas of Mississippi and how nonprofit organizations like Habitat for Humanity (HFH) support housing not only economically, but also from the perspective of creating sustainable homes for people occupants throughout its life cycle. .

Thanks  to the authors for the work. The article is very interesting and reasonably well written, even if it presents some parts that need improvement

1) better explain the second phase of the methodology and the relationships with the first phase

2) indicate the period within which the analyses/interviews were carried out

3) provide a more detailed explanation on the adoption of green certification in new construction projects (LEED, NAHB and Energy Star)

4) in the conclusions identify the limits of the work and whether you intend to continue to delve deeper into the research topic

5) The English composition requires some small improvements. The English composition requires some small improvements: a rereading of the text to eliminate repetitions

I strongly encourage the author to improve the paper based on the review feedback for resubmission. I hope these comments might help in improving the paper and encourage the authors to move forward.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English composition requires some small improvements. The English composition requires some small improvements: a rereading of the text to eliminate repetitions

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback, encouraging comments and review.

We have rewritten significant parts of the paper to improve the readability and grammar

We have improved the methodology and clarified how first and second phase are tied together

We have added more explanation on green certification

In the conclusions we identify the limitations of the research and how future research can help establish generalizability.

Please let us know if there is anything else that you would like to see improved. We appreciate your suggestions for improvements.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing the issues. Some minor advises:

1) Abstract, line 16: no need to say "with the second phase building on the first phase". Please describe at a high level what you did in 1st phase (e.g., interviews?) and 2nd phase (e.g., synthesize interviews?). Still quite vague right now.

2) Abstract, please add a sentence about so what (i.e., implications) after the key findings and contribution (i.e., the study identified ......, the study identified ......

Author Response

We have made additions to the abstract (highlighted in yellow). 

We also added similarly to the conclusion.

 

Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf