Stakeholders’ Awareness of the Benefits of Passive Retrofit in Nigeria’s Residential Building Sector

S/N

Comment

Response

1

The title is clear; however, adding the research methods might limit the research paper citation. We recommend other options to enhance the paper’s impact and accessibility, such as “Stakeholder Awareness of Passive Retrofit Benefits in Nigeria’s Residential Building Sector” or “Stakeholder Awareness and the Path to Sustainable and Passive Energy-efficient Residential Retrofitting in Nigeria.”

Thank you for your comment on the title. We agree that including methodology in the title may limit citation potential. Therefore, we have revised the title to be more impactful and accessible. We have adopted “Stakeholders’ awareness of the benefits of passive retrofit in Nigeria’s residential building sector”

2

The term Fuzzy Synthetic Evaluation (FSE) may not be familiar to all readers; it would be beneficial to add a simplification in the abstract and a brief definition within the research methodology.

We acknowledge that the fuzzy synthetic evaluation method may be unfamiliar to some readers. We have added simplified explanations in both the abstract and methodology sections. The details can be found on Page 1 (abstract section) and Page 8 of the revised manuscript.

3

The abstract provides a clear summary of the study; however, it is recommended to highlight the study's practical applications and explicitly state the research aim and method (mixed-methods) in the abstract.

We have enhanced the abstract to explicitly state the research aim, methodology, and practical applications. This can be found on Page 1.

4

Well-written introduction with strong context and references to Nigeria’s energy and climatic challenges. However, it needs a solid thesis statement and research gap this study covers.

We have strengthened the introduction with a clearer thesis statement and more explicit research gap identification in paragraphs 5 and paragraph 4, respectively of the introduction section.

5

In the introduction, it is recommended to add brief definitions or examples of passive retrofitting measures (e.g., shading, insulation) to aid non-expert readers.

We have added clear definitions and examples of passive retrofitting measures early in the introduction. See Paragraph 3 of the introduction.

6

It is recommended to justify selecting Lagos as the case study area.

We have provided stronger justification for selecting Lagos State as the case study location. See Paragraph 5 of the introduction.

7

Tables are clear and enhance readability with well-organized presentation of FSE and thematic results. However, some tables are data-heavy such as Table 5. To keep readers’ focus, it is recommended to consider putting some detailed matrices as appendixes with summarizing trends in the main text.

We acknowledge that some tables are data-heavy. However, Tables 3 and 4 (FSE results) are essential for the transparency of the FSE methodology. We have added more explanatory text to guide readers through the key findings. Details can be found on pages 12-15.

8

Table 5 needs to be regenerated to fit in a portrait page, not landscape.

Thank you for this comment. However, leaving this image as a landscape is to ensure readability, which cannot be achieved if the page is made portrait. This table has not been labelled Table 4 because the previous tables 3 and 5 have been deleted because they contained less information which have already been discussed.

9

In section 4.2, Qualitative Results, where thematic results are presented, try to use more direct quotes carefully and group them to highlight unique perspectives rather than reiterating similar views. The number of quotes is difficult to follow.

We have streamlined the quotes section to reduce redundancy and group similar perspectives, making it easier to follow unique insights.

10

Interesting integration of qualitative and quantitative findings. It is recommended to present a conceptual model or diagram showing how awareness might translate to action across stakeholder groups.

We have developed and included a conceptual model that illustrates how awareness translates to action across different stakeholder groups. On Page 21, this is included as Scheme 5: Conceptual model showing awareness-to-action pathway for different stakeholder groups with specific intervention strategies

11

Conclusions offer practical recommendations for awareness campaigns and policy framing. However, it is recommended to more concise and highlight only the most actionable points

The conclusions section has been made more concise and focused on the most actionable recommendations, as seen on Page 23.

12

Authors could suggest more specific collaboration mechanisms between the three stakeholder groups as well as recommend the development of a national communication strategy targeting retrofitting awareness.

We have added specific collaboration mechanisms and recommendations for a national communication strategy, as seen in Paragraph 4 in the conclusion section.

S/N

Comment

Response

1

The manuscript reads more like an extended summary of known literature and general observations than a rigorous scientific investigation. Many sections (e.g., literature review, results) reiterate points without critical engagement or novel interpretation.

Thank you for your comment. We have restructured the manuscript to enhance critical engagement and novel interpretation. The literature review has been streamlined to focus on identifying research gaps specific to tropical climates like Nigeria. We have added a critical analysis comparing our findings with existing studies, particularly highlighting the unique context of Nigeria's energy challenges and stakeholder awareness patterns. The results section now includes a deeper interpretation of the awareness gaps between stakeholder groups and their implications for policy development.

2

The sampling approach is uneven and non-random. Property managers were sourced from a directory, but homeowners were obtained via convenience sampling through valuation firms, introducing potential biases.

We have added a comprehensive discussion of sampling limitations and explicitly acknowledged the possibility of bias. We have also included a discussion of how the diversity of valuation firms' portfolios helps reduce some bias concerns (see the first paragraph on Page 8), while clearly stating the limitations this approach introduces to the generalisability of the findings.

3

Despite relying heavily on data (fuzzy synthetic evaluation) and thematic analysis, the paper includes no figures or visualizations. This omission seriously impedes clarity and accessibility.

We have added comprehensive visual elements, including: flowcharts illustrating the FSE methodology; word clouds from qualitative analysis, conceptual model showing awareness-to-action pathways. These visualisations significantly enhance the clarity and accessibility of our findings.

4

The rationale for the selection of fuzzy synthetic evaluation over other more accessible or interpretable methods is not justified. It complicates interpretation without evident added value.

We have added a justification for adopting the FSE method and explained why traditional statistical methods are insufficient for capturing the inherent uncertainty and linguistic vagueness in stakeholders' self-reported awareness levels. The methodology section now clearly articulates how FSE addresses the multi-dimensional nature of awareness data and provides a more nuanced interpretation than simple arithmetic means. We have also simplified the presentation of FSE results while maintaining methodological rigour. The details can be found on Page 8 of the revised manuscript.

5

The manuscript is excessively long and repetitive. Several sections, including the literature review and discussion, revisit the same ideas multiple times without advancing the argument. This verbosity weakens the impact and clarity of the findings.

We have significantly reduced manuscript length by consolidating repetitive content in the literature review, streamlining the results presentation, removing redundant discussions, combining related subsections, and focusing on unique contributions and novel findings.

S/N

Comment

Response

1

The study incorporates some existing theoretical frameworks, but some key benchmarks, such as HERB's comprehensive regeneration approach, are not mentioned. (The evaluation framework could be strengthened by discussing the socio-economic modeling tools HERB uses to optimize regeneration).

Thank you so much for your comment. The Healthy and Efficient Retrofitted Buildings (HERB) framework is extensively discussed on Pages 3 and 6. A comprehensive comparison table (Table 5) is provided comparing study findings against the HERB tool's three benefit categories.

2

Research needs to balance the discussion of passive versus active strategies

The manuscript focuses specifically on passive retrofitting strategies as stated in the title and objectives. The authors justify this focus by explaining that passive retrofitting is particularly relevant for Nigeria's context due to unreliable electricity supply. However, a brief discussion of active retrofitting is provided on Page 2.

3

Expanding the literature review to address gaps in geographic and climatic context (e.g., tropical climate studies).

We have provided a new subsection (2.4) on Pages 5 and 6 where we explicitly identify and address the research gap in geographic and climatic context.

4

The reason for selecting stakeholders and the sample size must be specified.

The manuscript has provided clear justification. The sample sizes are also justified with reference to minimum requirements. Details of this can be found on Page 7.

5

It is preferable to include a flowchart that illustrates the fuzzy evaluation process.

The manuscript includes a flowchart (Scheme 2) that illustrates the complete FSE process with all six steps clearly outlined. Please see details of this on Page 11.

6

Conclusions regarding stakeholder awareness lack empirical basis. Therefore, a comparison table with current modernization projects is needed.
HERB (2023) / LACCEI (2024).

The authors have provided an empirical basis in Paragraph 2 of Page 23: Quantitative FSE analysis with specific awareness scores and qualitative thematic analysis.

A comparison of the results with the HERB framework (Table 5) is provided on Page 20.

S/N

Comment

Response

1

How were the specific retrofitting benefits chosen for the survey, and were they validated by existing literature or expert consultation?

We appreciate your suggestions for the improvement of our manuscript. The benefits were systematically derived from an extensive literature review covering environmental, economic, and social dimensions based on Elkington's Triple Bottom Line framework. They were validated through expert review by two researchers and five Estate Surveyors and Valuers (ESV) with at least 10 years of practical experience. These details are provided on Page 8 of the revised manuscript.

2

How do the authors suggest policymakers and building agencies can leverage the findings to improve retrofitting practices in Nigeria?

We have now clarified this in Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Page 22 of the revised manuscript.

3

How were the membership functions in the fuzzy synthetic evaluation method determined, and what is their role in calculating the awareness scores?

Thank you for your comment. We have provided a detailed explanation of how the membership functions in the fuzzy synthetic evaluation method are determined. See Pages 9 and 10 for details.

4

Can the authors explain the implications of the general awareness score (GAS) of 3.89 for property managers and 3.64 for owners in terms of retrofitting practices?

Thank you for your comment. We have provided a comprehensive interpretation of the GAS scores. These details can be found in the last paragraph on Page 22.

5

In the qualitative analysis, how were the themes of environmental, economic, and social benefits identified, and what was the process for coding and analyzing the interview data?

We appreciate this comment. We have explained how we identified the themes of benefits based on Braun and Clarke's six-step systematic approach. Please see details on Page 11.

6

Can the authors elaborate on the sampling method used for selecting property managers and building owners? Was there any bias in the selection process?

Thank you for pointing this out. Details of this have now been provided on Page 8 of the revised manuscript.

7

What were the response rates for the questionnaires, and how were non-responses handled in the analysis?

Thank you for this comment. We have provided specific response rate information in paragraph 2 on Page 7 of the revised manuscript.

8

The Introduction section's problem statement and literature review are skillfully written and presented. One of the most fascinating subjects is resilience, and the study will contribute to raising the standard of the paper's resilience. This can be discussed in the section that opens. The following article ought to be included in the Reference list: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tust.2025.106739

We appreciate this recommendation for further improving the study. While the suggested paper provides some information, its focus on underground structure resilience appears not to relate well to our study. However, we have considered a more related study, “Roche (2022) Passive Cooling Strategies for Low Carbon Architecture” in our discussion as shown on Page 2.

9

How did the authors ensure the reliability and validity of the Likert scale used in the questionnaires?

We have now provided comprehensive reliability and validity testing as detailed on Page 8.

10

Can the authors provide more details on the fuzzy synthetic evaluation (FSE) method, particularly how the weights for criteria and dimensions were determined?

We consider this comment to be very valuable, and we have provided further explanation of weight determination under step 4 on Page 9.

11

How were the government officials selected for the interviews, and what criteria were used to ensure their relevance to the study?

We have provided a detailed explanation of the government official selection as shown in the last paragraph on Page 7.

12

What were the main challenges faced during data collection, and how were they addressed?

Thank you for your comment. We have detailed the issues encountered during data collection and the possibility of bias, and have detailed how the effect of the issues has been reduced. We have also stated this as part of the limitations. See the first paragraph on Page 8.

13

How do the findings from Lagos State compare to those from other regions or countries with similar climatic conditions?

We have now provided a comparative analysis with other regions. Please refer to paragraph 2 on Page 15 of the revised manuscript.

S/N

Comment

Response

1

While the authors claim they have added critical comparison and focused on the Nigerian context, could you specify which studies are being critically contrasted and how their findings diverge from or contribute to those works?

Thank you for pointing this out. We truly appreciate it and have made some changes to improve the manuscript. Details of this can be found on Page 23, Line 782-812.

2

The response mentions using "diversity in valuation firm portfolios" to mitigate bias. Could the authors quantify this diversity or provide supporting data (e.g., property types, regions, income brackets)?

We are pleased with this comment as it will ensure transparency in the methodology adopted. We have analysed additional data collected from the respondents to determine the distribution of residential property type. Details of the analysis can be found on Page 8 Line 280-286.

3

Also, have you considered performing a sensitivity analysis to test how sampling bias might influence key results?

Thank you for raising this important methodological consideration. You are absolutely right that assessing the potential impact of sampling bias is crucial for ensuring robust findings.

While we did not conduct a formal sensitivity analysis specifically addressing sampling bias, we implemented several rigorous validation procedures designed to enhance the reliability and validity of our results. Our approach included comprehensive expert validation through reviews by two researchers and five Estate Surveyors and Valuers, each with at least 10 years of practical experience in property management in Lagos State. These experts evaluated the clarity, relevance, and suitability of our research instruments to ensure they thoroughly captured stakeholders' awareness of retrofitting.

Additionally, we conducted reliability testing using Cronbach's alpha coefficients, which demonstrated excellent internal consistency for both stakeholder groups (property managers: α = .925; property owners: α = .892), well above the recommended .70 threshold. These validation measures, detailed on Page 8, Lines 290-303, provide confidence in the consistency and validity of our data collection instruments.

4

The addition of visual elements is welcome. Could the authors provide specific figure numbers and titles in their response to demonstrate where each visual (e.g., word cloud, flowchart) appears and how it contributes to the narrative?

Thank you for this feedback on the visual elements. We are pleased that you found the addition of visual elements helpful for understanding the research. We provide the specific figure numbers, titles, and their narrative contributions as follows:

Scheme 2: Flowchart of FSE process (Page 10 Line 377-390) - This detailed flowchart demonstrates the six-step FSE methodology, helping readers understand how it was applied to convert Likert scale responses into awareness scores.

Schemes 3 and 4. (see Page 19 Line 650-651 and Page 20 Line 657) - These visual representations highlight the most frequently mentioned retrofit benefits from government officials' interviews, with text size corresponding to frequency of mention, providing immediate visual insight into priority themes. Scheme 4 provides a clue as to how the most recurring word (energy) was used in the respondents’ statements.

Table 5: Results vs. HERB framework's three benefit categories (as shown on Pages 20-21, Line 684-685) - While not a traditional figure, this table provides a systematic visual comparison of awareness levels across the Health, Economic, Reliability, and Built environment benefit categories. This inclusion was suggested by another anonymous peer reviewer.

These visuals work together to support methodological rigour.

5

I suggest the authors adding a comparison table showing results from FSE versus a simpler method to justify its added complexity.

We truly appreciate your concern about demonstrating the added value of the FSE method over simpler alternatives.

In response to your recommendation, we have incorporated a comparison between our FSE results and simple arithmetic means within the results section. As detailed on Page 15 Lines 465-468., our FSE analysis yielded GAS values of 3.89 and 3.64 for property managers and owners, respectively, while simple arithmetic means produced nearly identical results (approximately 3.89 and 3.66).

Rather than creating a separate comparison table, we chose to integrate this comparison directly into the narrative to maintain the flow of our analysis and prevent potential confusion that might arise from multiple presentation formats. This convergence between methods serves two important purposes: it validates the robustness of our findings and demonstrates that our conclusions about stakeholder awareness levels remain consistent regardless of the analytical approach.