A System Model and An Innovation Approach toward Sustainable Housing Renovation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present an interesting topic that is being addressed by the scientific and technical community for at least the last two decades.  

Many researchers have publish models and methodological approches to define the triple aspects of sustainability in buildings renovations and those are also included in several internationally agreeded tools. The state of the art is poor which is the most important aspect of a theoretical article as the one proposed.

Author Response

Response to reviewers   We thank our three reviewers for constructive and useful comments that have helped us improve the paper in several aspects. In the new version we have marked all substantial new text in red. Below you find our response to your individual comments.   Reviewer 1

The authors present an interesting topic that is being addressed by the scientific and technical community for at least the last two decades.  

Many researchers have publish models and methodological approches to define the triple aspects of sustainability in buildings renovations and those are also included in several internationally agreeded tools. The state of the art is poor which is the most important aspect of a theoretical article as the one proposed.

Authors: Thank you for this comment! The purpose of this paper and our main contribution is not to develop the TBL model in general terms but to use it as an evaluation framework and practice guideline for sustainable housing renovation. We stress this more explicitly on p. 5, last para in the new version. In consequence, our theoretical model aims specifically at analysing how TBL functions precisely in a context of housing renovation.

In the new version we have also developed our review of the state of the art with deeper analysis and several new references. We hope you will find this satisfactory.

Reviewer 2 Report

Paper gives an interesting approach to the house renovation and looks into the TBL model.

In title 2.2. you are using TBL and later you are using triple bottom line and give abbreviation. Pls use in the title triple bottom line and after your present abbreviation, use abbreviation.

Why is the sentence starting in the line 249 in brackets? 

I would like to read more about the theoretical framework you presented in Figure 4. You are just mentioning it and showing a picture and then in the next sentence, you skip to another topic

I would like to see proposals for the further research - may be to test the model in real-life conditions.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Paper gives an interesting approach to the house renovation and looks into the TBL model.

In title 2.2. you are using TBL and later you are using triple bottom line and give abbreviation. Pls use in the title triple bottom line and after your present abbreviation, use abbreviation.

Why is the sentence starting in the line 249 in brackets?

Authors: Thank you for pointing these things out! In the new version we have corrected this as suggested. The sentence in line 249 has been removed and its content is now added to the introduction. The function of this is to explain that the paper focuses on rental housing renovation.

 

I would like to read more about the theoretical framework you presented in Figure 4. You are just mentioning it and showing a picture and then in the next sentence, you skip to another topic

Authors: This is a good point! In the new version the framework has been further elaborated in several respects. We explain how to evaluate and report sustainability outcomes of the housing renovation system, as well as how to analyze and identify key challenges of the housing renovation system (section 4). Further, the three key relations between innovation and the sustainable housing renovation system are also explicated better in the new version (see section 4). Finally, we created a new section 5, “Addressing the key challenges of sustainable housing renovation–An innovation approach for real estate companies”. This section combines section 5,”Addressing the key challenges of sustainable housing renovation”, and section 6, “An innovation approach toward sustainable housing renovation” in the previous version. The new section presents the innovation approach in relation to sustainable housing renovation and elaborates on the key relations and functions/activities in the framework.

 

I would like to see proposals for the further research - may be to test the model in real-life conditions. 

Authors: In the new version we added a paragraph on future research and practical applications based on our model to the conclusions (p. 16, last para). 

Reviewer 3 Report

Introduction - Support 'urgency of housing renovation' with relevant facts and figures (citation needed).

Section 2 - TBL is a performance reporting tool, and the development of Social benchmarks completes the TBL in performance assessment; QBL (future oriented approach) and IBL (Integrated Bottom Line) should also be considered and discussed. Definition of 'sustainability of housing renovation' is unclear.

Section 3 -  Synergies and trade-offs are implied in all transformations (including building renovation); peculiarities on rental housing restoration should be better explained. The fact that the paper focuses on 'rental housing restoration' should be anticipated in the text. Focus seems on real estate company's perspective, (even if stated differently in text). 

Section 4 - Figures 2 and 3 should be improved, they are not clear at the moment, especially as far as conflicting goals and interests are concerned. Section 4 seems again to focus on real estate company's perspective (although stated differently in text).

Section 5 -  Social innovation and post-occupancy evaluation should also be discussed here.

Section 6 - Social innovation is missing here, too.Section to be possibly expanded leading towards conclusions.

Section 7 - Critique to TBL does not take into account on-going development of performance assessment tools (cfr. Section 2).

Others: Citations are missing (e.g. split incentive); and some are incorrectly reported in text vs. references. References style is also incorrect. Typos and the English language need revision.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Introduction - Support 'urgency of housing renovation' with relevant facts and figures (citation needed).

Authors: In the new version we have added the following text to the introduction (first paragraph): “In many European countries, houses built between 1970 and 1990 account for about one quarter of the total building stock, and they are now facing major renovation needs (Meijer et al., 2010). In Sweden, around one million homes were built between 1965 and 1974, and they have now reached an age at which renovation is necessary (Farsäter et al., 2019).” We hope you find this sufficient as backing.

 

Section 2 - TBL is a performance reporting tool, and the development of Social benchmarks completes the TBL in performance assessment; QBL (future oriented approach) and IBL (Integrated Bottom Line) should also be considered and discussed. Definition of 'sustainability of housing renovation' is unclear.

Authors: We have added a brief discussion of the criticism against TBL and the development of QBL and IBL to section 2 (p. 5, last para)

On p. 6, para 3 we define sustainability of housing renovation: “Based on the existing definition of sustainability and the TBL model, we define sustainability of housing renovation as the expectation of improving the outcomes of housing renovation for the present inhabitants without comprising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Therefore, sustainable housing renovation is defined as housing renovation that simultaneously takes into consideration economic, environmental and social aspect of long-term development”. Your comment above made us scrutinize this argument again¸ but we do not see in what way it is unclear – other than it can be difficult to operationalize, which is true of many theoretical definitions.

 

Section 3 -  Synergies and trade-offs are implied in all transformations (including building renovation); peculiarities on rental housing restoration should be better explained. The fact that the paper focuses on 'rental housing restoration' should be anticipated in the text. Focus seems on real estate company's perspective, (even if stated differently in text). 

Authors: About peculiarities of rental housing restoration, we have now added in the introduction (first paragraph): “The renovation of rental housing meets with some specific challenges, because the housing company needs to deal with a number of different individual tenants in negotiation, persuasion and decision-making.”

As pointed out on p. 16, first para, the paper does not take the stand of a single actor, such as the real estate company, the municipal authorities, the general public, or the local tenants. Instead, it takes a general view of the sustainable housing renovation processes, the actors that the processes involve, and the institutional environment in which the processes are embedded. All stakeholders can find their position in the model.

 

Section 4 - Figures 2 and 3 should be improved, they are not clear at the moment, especially as far as conflicting goals and interests are concerned. Section 4 seems again to focus on real estate company's perspective (although stated differently in text).

Authors: Thank you for pointing out the unclarity of figures 2 and 3! We have now revised both figures considerably and developed the accompanying text (p. 9-11). Hopefully this has made our model clearer.

 

Section 5 -  Social innovation and post-occupancy evaluation should also be discussed here. 

Section 6 - Social innovation is missing here, too.Section to be possibly expanded leading towards conclusions.

Authors: Thank you for this excellent suggestion! In the new version we have added a discussion on social innovation vs. business innovation besides the product vs. process innovation typology used in the previous version of the paper (p. 13-14). The adoption of the business-versus-social innovation typology complies with the distinctive social dimension of housing as a product embedded in specific social-economic context and a product that is closely related to people’s daily life, wellbeing and identity. The social dimension of housing provides tenants with motivation and capability to help solving problems in the housing renovation.

 

Section 7 - Critique to TBL does not take into account on-going development of performance assessment tools (cfr. Section 2)

Authors: As mentioned above, we have added a brief discussion of the criticism against TBL and the development of QBL and IBL to section 2 (p. 5, last para).

 

Others: Citations are missing (e.g. split incentive); and some are incorrectly reported in text vs. references. References style is also incorrect. Typos and the English language need revision.

Authors: We have done our best to take care of these problems in the new version.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been significantly improve.

Only three corrections are needed,

1.The abstract sentence is not true "the paper suggests an innovation approach by which innovation is generate through an open, learning-based, trial-and-error innovation process".  Please remove.  Nothing is presented in paper that acknoledges so.

2. In the Introduction, second paragraph, please define better TBL.

3. Please include in the social aspects citizens health besides safety.

Author Response

Response to reviewers We thank our reviewers for constructive and useful comments that have helped us further improve the paper in the second round of review. In the new version we have tracked all new text by MS Word track-changes. Below you find our response to your individual comments. Reviewer 1

The paper has been significantly improved. Only three corrections are needed,

1.The abstract sentence is not true "the paper suggests an innovation approach by which innovation is generate through an open, learning-based, trial-and-error innovation process".  Please remove.  Nothing is presented in paper that acknowledges so.

Authors: Thank you for this comment! We have deleted the sentence from the abstract and rewrote part of the abstract. The reason of the delete is that the learning-based organic innovation process is just part of our innovation approach. It is not necessary to just emphasis this part in abstract.

We do discuss how innovation is generated through what kind of process in Section 5.3 (in the old version Section 5.2) about the linear and the organic innovation process models in sustainable housing renovation: “The organic model sees the innovation process as an open, learning based, trial-and-error process, such as … In the open and flexible innovation process, no concept is frozen and no design is fixed at an early phase.... Thanks to the ambiguity and uncertainty of the process, the organic model of innovation process cannot be planned but be based on learning...”. We argue that the linear model suits better small-scale maintenance of the buildings while the organic model suits better large-scale housing renovation.

 

2. In the Introduction, second paragraph, please define better TBL.

Authors: Thank you for this comment! We added the name of the three aspects of TBL in introduction. To avoid repetition, the detailed discussion about TBL locates in Section 2. Defining sustainable housing renovation.

 

3. Please include in the social aspect citizens health besides safety.

Authors: Thank you for this comment! We have included both safety and health in different places in the paper, such as Section 2, Line 211; Section3, Line 275; Section 4, Line 342.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Lines 68-69 - better to say system-theoretic perspective.

Line 225 - compromising (not comprising)

Line 462 - The old and the young.

Lines 521-527 - Use present or past tense consistently.

Author Response

Response to reviewers

We thank our reviewers for constructive and useful comments that have helped us further improve the paper in the second round of review. In the new version we have tracked all new text by MS Word track-changes. Below you find our response to your individual comments.

 

Lines 68-69 - better to say system-theoretic perspective.

Authors: Thanks for your suggestions! We think that system perspective is also accepted in academic research as we reviewed and defined in the paper. It is simpler and more direct for practitioners to understand taking consideration that our model is also for the use of the practitioners.

 

Line 225 - compromising (not comprising)

Line 462 - The old and the young.

Lines 521-527 - Use present or past tense consistently.

Authors: Thanks for your suggestions! We have changed accordingly. We also had a final language check.