Sustainable Values in the Structure of Traditional Osing Houses in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study aims to examine Osing house construction using Iwamura's theory of sustainable architecture, but the integration of additional criteria from Sassi and Lányi remains underdeveloped. To strengthen the theoretical foundation, I recommend establishing a clearer justification for the selection of sustainability criteria, ideally connecting these different frameworks. This approach would create a coherent basis for analysis and enhance the theoretical alignment.

The article’s engagement with the broader field of sustainable architecture would benefit significantly from a systematic review, as suggested. A PRISMA-based review (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) could offer a robust method for identifying and synthesising relevant criteria and indicators within the field. This would not only update the definitions and concepts of sustainable architecture but also allow you to rigorously justify the sustainability parameters chosen for the Osing typology. This could result in a stronger and more universally applicable sustainability analysis.

Given the article’s focus on construction typology, materials, and techniques, a detailed project/construction analysis method should be employed to systematically document these elements. By identifying the building typology and specific materials and construction methods, readers can better understand the distinctive sustainability attributes of Osing houses. This method would lend itself to a more nuanced comparison with other sustainable construction models and highlight the unique qualities of the Osing approach.

Improvements in figures:

Figure 1: Ensure georeferencing and avoid using a generic Google image. Providing a clearer, georeferenced image would help readers locate and contextualise the Osing houses within their specific environmental and cultural settings.

Figure 2: The image should indicate the orientation of the Osing House more explicitly, as this is a critical aspect of sustainable design in terms of passive solar benefits and wind direction.

Figures 3 and 4: These figures currently suffer from poor image quality. I suggest using high-resolution images with legible text, as these figures are essential for conveying construction details.

Table 1: Prioritise the images over the explanatory text to create a more visually accessible presentation. An infographic could be an effective solution, presenting complex information in a clear, engaging format. Consider using simplified illustrations and captions that highlight the main insights of each construction technique.

About Georeferencing Wood Extraction Site in table 1: Since this image pertains to an important sustainability criterion, i.e., local material sourcing, ensure it is clear, detailed, and georeferenced to validate its relevance to the Osing construction typology.

Section 6, Patents: The last image in this section should be cited in the main text and given a caption to clarify its relevance. Additionally, improve the image quality so the text becomes readable.

By addressing these points, the article can achieve a higher academic standard and offer greater clarity and rigour in presenting the Osing housing model's sustainable design features. Overall, with these adjustments, the paper would make a valuable contribution to the field of sustainable architecture.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a relevant case study of traditional architecture and sustainable principles. The subject reinforces the oxymoron of sustainable architecture, after all ARCHITECTURE IS SUSTAINABLE in its original and primary premisses.

We suggest that the paper must be improved in terms of its organization:

1. Abstract – please provide more information about the location, objectives, method, results, limitations and contributions.
2. Introduction - The basic structure of an introduction usually contains three to five paragraphs. Paragraph 1: Contextualization and Importance of the Theme; Paragraph 2: Overview of Existing Literature; Paragraph 3: Identifying Gaps in Knowledge; Paragraph 4: Objectives and Structure of the Article. I suggest reaching this structure and content. Some pictures could be provided in this section.
3. Material and method – there are a mixed approach, the 2.1 section is related to literature review; section 2.2 characterizes the case study object.

The case study analysis must be considered and clearly explained, for example using references as Architectural Research Methods by Linda N. Groat and David Wang.

4. Discussion - based on the definition of the case study procedures (must be showed) the results are very interesting and useful for understanding the traditional technologies and knowledge. The figures are the most relevant contribution of the paper, congratulations. Please reorganize the sections number.
5. Conclusions – please reorganized this section, some findings could be better presented in the Discussion section. As the same contained of Abstract, provide the main findings, limitations and contributions.

Thanks for the submission, the study is a relevant proposal and contribution. Nevertheless, I consider that a pointed revision could improve it.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on the Osing typology of houses in Indonesia, focusing on the sustainable values embedded in their architectural features. The subject matter is of scholarly interest, offering insights into indigenous building techniques and their relevance to contemporary sustainability discourses. The presentation of traditional construction methods across cultures can significantly contribute to the research on environmentally conscious design.

I would encourage the authors to clarify the conceptual distinction between traditional and vernacular architecture, as I feel there is a confusion of terms. This can lead to theoretical ambiguities and should be addressed in order to enhance the academic rigor of the study. 

Here are a few specific comments and recommendations:

• The abstract is currently too brief. It would benefit from the inclusion of key findngs or results to give readers a clearer understanding of the study's contributions. 
• Several vague and generalized expressions are used, such as "various natural conditions," "ancestral traditions," and "deep meaning". Please use clarity and precision. 
• line 62. While Egypt is indeed recognized for its application of sustainable design principles (and many other countries), the relevance of this example to the core subject matter is unclear. Consider elaborating on its inclusion or omitting it altogether.
• lines 71-114. This section includes extensive descriptions that may be condensed. A concise list of would be more useful. 
• lines 117-118. The  sentence requires clarification. It appears to refer to materials, energy, and water as "materials," which seems inconsistent.
• lines 128-136. this section appears tangential to the main argument and may be omitted unless its relevance can be better established.
• line 238. It is unclear whether the orientation applies to the entire village or solely to the individual houses. Please specify.
• line 257. Consider  clarifying whether the statement refers to the entire tribe or an individual member.
• Terminology - throughout the manuscript, a number of italicized terms are introduced without adequate explanation. This may slow the comprehension of the text, especially for readers unfamiliar with the Osing cultural context. For instance, terms referenced in Figure 5 should be clearly defined.
• Discussion section. The discussion appears incomplete. Not all parameters listed have corresponding interpretations concerning their sustainable value. A more thorough analysis is required.
• The line concerning foundation construction in the table should be repositioned at the beginning, for logical sequencing.
• lines 367-368. The assertion made here appears unfounded, given the current limitations of the analysis. Please revise or substantiate with evidence.
• Figure 6 is not cited in the text.
• Last figure lacks both title and a reference in the text. 
• lines 401-403 this section contains redundant information. Consider revising to avoid repretition. 

I recomend a careful reorganization of the tect, along with a clearer articulation of the terminology and results. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper needs a thorough revision in terms of language quality and clarity of expression. At several points, the ideas are presented in a manner that makes it difficult to follow and the text contains frequent redundancies. The title itself includes both a typo and a repetition of terms, which suggests the need for a careful proofreading and linguistic refinement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript “Sustainable Values in the Structure of Traditional Osing Houses in Indonesia” demonstrates notable improvements in response to the initial review. The authors have addressed several points raised previously, with clearer theoretical articulation, enhanced visual materials, and more detailed descriptions of construction techniques.

Nonetheless, a significant methodological issue remains unresolved: the absence of a systematic approach to the selection and justification of the sustainability criteria employed. While the choice of theoretical frameworks—namely those proposed by Iwamura and Sassi—is relevant to the study, the basis for their selection rests on a limited narrative review, without the application of transparent or replicable criteria for source identification and inclusion.

To meet the standards expected in high-impact academic publications, it is recommended that the authors incorporate a form of systematic literature review, even if concise in scope. The adoption of a recognised method—such as PRISMA, a scoping review, or an integrative literature review—would strengthen the conceptual foundation of the study and justify the theoretical direction taken. This step would also enhance the academic rigour of the manuscript and increase its relevance to broader discussions on sustainability in vernacular architecture.

Importantly, the inclusion of a systematised review process need not alter the qualitative nature or the case-study focus of the research, but rather would reinforce the credibility of the methodological framework.

In light of this, further revision is required, with particular attention to the development of a more robust and transparent basis for the selection of sustainability parameters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Rebuttal Letter provided by the authors reveals the improvement of the text, regarding the reviewer’s comments and suggestions. The recent version has been reorganized to clarify the subject, methodology and, as consequence, the research findings. 

The vernacular approach of the Osing House is a relevant way to reinforce the sustainability of buildings and indicates some changes of paradigms for the future of the society.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging feedback regarding the revised version of our manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript demonstrates a substantial improvement over the initial submission. The authors have effectively addressed previous concerns.

I particularly want to commend the detailed explanation of the Traditional Osing Houses. This paper is introducing a unique cultural and architectural subject to the international academic community. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your kind and encouraging feedback regarding the revised version of our manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After the revisions requested in the last review, the manuscript is ready to be published as it is.