Status of Livability in Indonesian Affordable Housing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper touches on a very important topic that is believed to be common to countries with strong demographic rates. This is a reflection on the best approaches to access housing for needy populations. The objectives are well exposed and the context characterized with relevant and well-structured quantitative and qualitative data.

However, to clarify the study, we advise authors to take the following into account:

1. Considered necessary to create a new chapter dedicated to methodology to understand the analysis carried out and the synthesis presented in the table in figure 9 and 10  (line 418, 482);

2. The conclusion should be further developed, advising to demonstrate that "new design is needed to achieve livable housing in Indonesian context". To achieve this, one possibility will be to resort to cases that could constitute good examples already built in Indonesia or in other countries with similar realities. These "case studies" could appear in the text in their own chapter or in the conclusion.

3. Other aspects. More importance should be given to the issue of "energy poverty" and the topic of materials with a low carbon footprint.

4. Draw attention to some grammatical problems in English. Expressions in the Indonesian language must be highlighted in italics or in quotation marks as in line 173.  Figure/table 5 presents data of 27% in the column referring to 2022 which is not correct. There are English crows in the lines 255 (50,000 m2 or 50.000,00 m2), 457, 460, 462, 465.

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive comments. We carefully studied all of them and addressed them individually as articulated before.

1. Considered necessary to create a new chapter dedicated to methodology to understand the analysis carried out and the synthesis presented in the table in figure 9 and 10 (line 418, 482);

Response: Section 5 Analysis of Current Situation has been modified to provide more explanation of Figure 9.

Section 6 Improving Housing Livability has been added to clarify the logical connection between the analysis (Figure 9) and proposed solution (Figure 10)

2. The conclusion should be further developed, advising to demonstrate that "new design is needed to achieve livable housing in Indonesian context". To achieve this, one possibility will be to resort to cases that could constitute good examples already built in Indonesia or in other countries with similar realities. These "case studies" could appear in the text in their own chapter or in the conclusion.

Response: In neighboring countries such as Malaysia and Thailand which have similar climate and economy level, affordable housing research are plenty, but the paradigm is generally similar to Indonesia, which is only focused on one factor. Several research have identified factors in affordable housing, however proposed integrated design similar to this research is yet to be found. Singapore, on the other hand, is known to have a successful public housing, however the economy level is not comparable to Indonesia.

3. Other aspects. More importance should be given to the issue of "energy poverty" and the topic of materials with a low carbon footprint.

Response: More is added in Section 5 (highlighted in yellow).

4. Draw attention to some grammatical problems in English. Expressions in the Indonesian language must be highlighted in italics or in quotation marks as in line 173. Figure/table 5 presents data of 27% in the column referring to 2022 which is not correct. There are English crows in the lines 255 (50,000 m2 or 50.000,00 m2), 457, 460, 462, 465.
   
   

Response: Correction has been made

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Based on the problems of increasing housing demand and insufficient housing supply caused by Indonesia's rapidly growing population and urbanization rate, the author puts forward a solution based on standard comprehensive performance modeling based on the affordability, livability and sustainability standards of government supervision, aiming at the fact that housing performance can not meet the requirements of livability. The research is innovative, clear in structure and substantial in content. However, the author needs to improve the following questions:

1.       The Abstract needs to further highlight the innovation of the research and emphasize the significance of this research.

2.       It is suggested to add a paragraph at the end of the Introduction to briefly explain the main structure of the manuscript;

3.       In section 3.3, the title and number of the table are missing. In addition, it is suggested to check the order and number of full-text tables;

4.       The current manuscript lacks a dialog between the results of this study and existing studies, which is recommended to be added; it also lacks a discussion of the shortcomings.

Author Response

Thanks for the constructive comments. We carefully studied all of them and addressed them individually as articulated before.

1. The Abstract needs to further highlight the innovation of the research and emphasize the significance of this research.

Response: Abstract has been improved as advised.

2. It is suggested to add a paragraph at the end of the Introduction to briefly explain the main structure of the manuscript;

Response: Suggestion has been implemented.

3. In section 3.3, the title and number of the table are missing. In addition, it is suggested to check the order and number of full-text tables;

Response: Correction has been made.

4. The current manuscript lacks a dialog between the results of this study and existing studies, which is recommended to be added; it also lacks a discussion of the shortcomings.

Response: Section 6 Improving Housing Livability has been added to clarify the logical connection between the analysis (Figure 9) and proposed solution (Figure 10). The shortcomings are discussed in Section 8 as suggested.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx