Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has targeted to concentrate on the relationship between climate change and the Covid pandemic. Nevertheless, readers never find any logics or coherent statements to justify this claim. Rather, it mixes national laws and plans to justify their wrong theory!

The paper is not based on any accepted theoretical foundation or methodology. Authors have focused on unsubstantiated claims regarding such a relationship. We are aware of the impacts of Covid on every aspect of life, including climate change adaptation plans, so the paper does not provide any new lines of argument.

 

Specialised comments:

l  It is unclear why the paper has insisted on using covid-19, given that several other types of virus strains have emerged so far. The text uses two different writing styles: Covid-19 and COVID-19.

 

General comments:

l  The text needs a thorough English edit, as it lacks proper grammar style.

l  Not following numbering style for referencing in the text: e.g., Leal et al., (2021); Gabriel-campos in 2021; covid-19.go.id; Parvin et al., in 2023; Sacks et al., in 2021; Zukowska in 2023; Zavratnik et al., in 2018 and others

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable comments on our manuscript, which we believe have improved our manuscript. All changes can be seen through “Track Change Tools”. In addition, the related improvements made to the previous manuscript are provided in attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I congratulate you on your article and on the ability to transfer these results to society. The contents are appropriate and the methodology is valid and can be extrapolated to other similar cases. In addition, the state of the art is well updated with high impact publications and correctly referenced.

Best regards

Author Response

Comments from Reviewer 2:

Dear authors,

I congratulate you on your article and on the ability to transfer these results to society. The contents are appropriate and the methodology is valid and can be extrapolated to other similar cases. In addition, the state of the art is well updated with high impact publications and correctly referenced.

Best regards

The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their insightful comments on our work, which we believe have improved our paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

I am very positive about the paper presented for review. The research has a thoughtful character, was carried out in a comprehensive manner, provides a lot of valuable information, but an important element is missing, which should be the indication of transnational conclusions of the analysis, the possibility of their use at the global level. In addition, I point out additional comments to the study:

Abstract - It should indicate precisely the purpose of the research undertaken.

Introduction - It should establish the scope, significance of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

Materials and methods

Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 should be excluded from Section 2. They should be in the theoretical part, after the introduction.

Line 477 - should be implementation

Results - I have no comments on this section.

Discussion - The discussion section should justify how the research conducted and its results can be adopted globally, not just in Indonesia. This would be an important added value. For the time being, this is only a case study, while universal solutions in this area that could be used worldwide should be identified. This should be point D.

The Conclusions section: The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper.

Final conclusion - The paper requires some revisions before being published

 

Author Response

Comments From Reviewer 3 :

I am very positive about the paper presented for review. The research has a thoughtful character, was carried out in a comprehensive manner, provides a lot of valuable information, but an important element is missing, which should be the indication of transnational conclusions of the analysis, the possibility of their use at the global level. In addition, I point out additional comments to the study:

1. Abstract - It should indicate precisely the purpose of the research undertaken.

The objective of this research has been added in the abstract, line 15 (To bring this gap, the objective of this research is to understand and measure the local adaptation and mitigation activities in Proklim through the smart village concept.

2. Introduction- It should establish the scope, significance of the research being conducted by summarizing current understanding and background information about the topic, stating the purpose of the work in the form of the research problem supported by a hypothesis or a set of questions, explaining briefly the methodological approach used to examine the research problem, highlighting the potential outcomes your study can reveal.

As suggested, the background has adjusted and added based on reviewer comments. The change can be seen via “Track Change Tools”.

3. Materials and methods

Paragraphs 2.1 and 2.2 should be excluded from Section 2. They should be in the theoretical part, after the introduction.

As requested, Section 2 has been separated. Sub-section 2.1 and 2.2 has been changed to “Section 2. Literature Review”. Furthermore, section 3 was changed to “Methods and Case Study, followed with the analysis part in the next section.

Line 477 - should be implementation

As suggested, the word has been changed

4. Results- I have no comments on this section.
5. Discussion- The discussion section should justify how the research conducted and its results can be adopted globally, not just in Indonesia. This would be an important added value. For the time being, this is only a case study, while universal solutions in this area that could be used worldwide should be identified. This should be point D.

As suggested, the authors have added point D which means the implication of the study (line 571)

The application of the strategies mentioned above is an important matter to community resilience in the local level. The implementation of smart villages or community-based approach which is integrated with the local level needs to be taken forward for the policy. The research findings and proposed strategies in this research generate prospects for the government or decision makers or other stakeholders to deliberately aspire for policy planning. Moreover, the method and approach which is adopted for the research can overcome the issue at the local level and identify the current potency or characteristic for smart village implementation. The indicators for identifying the current situation reflect the adaptation choices of communities which bring new insight to move towards resilience. In addition, for preparing disaster risk policy or community-based approach for compound hazards, the stakeholders can conduct more detailed studies to achieve community resilience. Generally, the study reflects that a community-based approach based on compound hazards for implementation of the smart village can be used, as an approach to prioritize interests and also identify the community in doing adaptation or mitigation for climate action at the lowest level.

6. The Conclusions section:The conclusion is intended to help the reader understand why your research should matter to them after they have finished reading the paper.

Authors have highlighted the urgency and benefit for the research (line : 587)

This research contributes to a better understanding of implementing the community-based strategy in implementing climate villages. This research makes major contributions on feasible strategies to implement smart communities in climate village program.

7. Final conclusion- The paper requires some revisions before being published

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors responded to all comments in a satisfactory manner.