Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-and-Engineering-Focused Model to a User-Oriented Model
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper "Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-Focus Model to a User-Orientation Model" is well structured and deals with an interesting topic.
The introduction presents the topic in a very appropriate way; the literature review links the paper to the scientific discourse and the method is clearly exposed.
Nevertheless, the scientific method chosen - adopting a single case study - seems insufficient to support the conclusions presented. Moreover, these conclusions should be formulated in a more specific way and with a more scientific approach.
In general, the paper lacks that mentioned scientific approach that unequivocally supports the thesis presented. Perhaps extending the study to a statistically significant number of cases or reconsider the method could help in this regard.
Please check some erratum in the text (e.g. see line 278).
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The paper "Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-Focus Model to a User-Orientation Model" is well structured and deals with an interesting topic.
The introduction presents the topic in a very appropriate way; the literature review links the paper to the scientific discourse and the method is clearly exposed.
Nevertheless, the scientific method chosen - adopting a single case study - seems insufficient to support the conclusions presented. Moreover, these conclusions should be formulated in a more specific way and with a more scientific approach.
In general, the paper lacks that mentioned scientific approach that unequivocally supports the thesis presented. Perhaps extending the study to a statistically significant number of cases or reconsider the method could help in this regard.
Authors: This is an important comment! The role of case studies in theory development is much debated, but this is not the place to go into that important discussion in general terms. Suffice it to say here that in the social and administrative sciences, where we have our backgrounds, case studies are consistently used to develop both theory and practice. Several path-breaking studies within these fields are based on one single case (e.g. Allison on the Cuban missile crisis, and Putnam on social capital in Italy).
In consequence, we see no need to extend our study to more cases to make it more scientific. Instead in the concluding discussion we suggest this as one possible line of future research in the field (see p. 16, para 1).
On the other hand, we admit that in the previous version of our paper we may sometimes have formulated our conclusions in a stronger and more categorical way than is warranted by our empirical findings. We are grateful to you for making us aware of this. In the new version we have reformulated the conclusions accordingly, e.g. making a distinction between generalizing the ideal types and the empirical variables (p. 15, last para - p. 16, para 1).
Please check some erratum in the text (e.g. see line 278).
Authors: In the new version we have corrected this and other errata, e.g. those pointe out by the other reviewers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Sustaonability_2019_686771
The work is related to the renovation of the existing building, but not treating the building's technology as a subject but putting users first.
I think it's a very interesting and actual topic for all operators in the building energy sector.
I believe, however, that it should be revised a little to strengthen and better organize the concepts introduced.
Title
I suggest to change from “Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-Focus Model to a User- Orientation Model” with “Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-and Engineering Focus Model to a User- Orientation Model”
Abstract
Line 20 : I suggest to Substitute “[..] We suggest a user-oriented model where user…[..]” with “[..] We suggest a User-Oriented model (UO model) where user…[..]”
Chapter 1 Introduction: Including tenants in the renovation process
I suggest dividing chapter 1 into two chapters:
"1 Introduction", with the general discussion of the topic and the state of the art
"2 Methodology" or perhaps better "2 Structure of the work" with the description of the following chapters which is the structure of the work carried out.
Line 29 : I suggest to Substitute “[..] by a technology-and-engineering-focused model…[..]” with “[..] by a Technology-and-Engineering-Focused model…[..]”
Figure 1 : The figure is incomplete, I suppose the boxes and the connection lines between the various elements are missing.
Chapter 3. A theoretical framework for the analysis of strategy formation and change in renovation projects
Figure 2: In my opinion, the figure could be improved in communication. Here are some notes that could help improve the graph:
- what does the continuous line between rectangles and oval mean? is it no longer useful to add some arrows? but does the interaction between these elements is with the other elements (Internal and external disturbance), is correct? or can is direct between rectangular and oval objects?
- Does "Strategy change" not occupy a different level than Internal and external disturbance? for example, I would suggest a rhombus for him
- introduce a legend for the continuous and dashed line: what type of connection the lines represent?
- I would introduce chapter numbers that refer to the description of the various elements, for example External disturbance Chap. 6.1, Internal disturbance Chap 6.2, ....
Chapter 4 Method and Material
If it is possible, I would suggest enriching the chapter with sources on the materials mentioned. For example, repricing the titles and dates of the articles, etc.
Chapter 5 Case description and analysis
If It is possible, I suggest enriching the chapter with figures of the building for and after intervention.
Figure 3: I suggest to enrich the figure with all the dates of the life of the building: construction, first intervention (replacement of windows), etc. I suggest to use different colors or styles to highlight the changes in ownership, decisions and building interventions undergone by the building. This is to highlight the intervention times between decisions and activities. Be careful to make the figure legible.
Chapter 7. Discussion: Four ideal-types of strategy change
Line 385: I suggest to Substitute “[..] of two means; internal means and external …[..]” with “[..] of two means: internal means and external …[..]”
Figure 3,4,5,6 I suggest to enlarge the writing
Figure 4: between “Intended strategy” and “Realised strategy” is correct the line?
Line 437: I suggest to Substitute “[..]of a new strategy.. This[..]” with “[..] of a new strategy. This [..]”
Chapter 9 Conclusion
Figure 7 : I suggest uniforming the figure with Figure 1. That is, having the same justification of the writing, types of lines, box to the writing, etc.
Furthermore, I would highlight the changes of the UO model compared to the TEF model, to highlight the differences.
General observations
If possible, I suggest enriching the bibliography.
No more recent articles? So the theme was treated up to ten years ago and then enough?
If this condition were confirmed I would suggest highlighting it in the introduction also to justify the slightly dated bibliography.
It could be interesting and useful to check if the topic has not been treated from a sociological point of view and therefore in other journals in this specific sector.
Finally, I think it would be very interesting to have a phrase that reports an opinion or feedback from users, is it possible?
Further, the paper requires proofreading to improve the grammar and presentation.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The work is related to the renovation of the existing building, but not treating the building's technology as a subject but putting users first.
I think it's a very interesting and actual topic for all operators in the building energy sector.
I believe, however, that it should be revised a little to strengthen and better organize the concepts introduced.
Title
I suggest to change from “Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-Focus Model to a User- Orientation Model” with “Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-and Engineering Focus Model to a User- Orientation Model”
Authors: Thank you for this suggestion! We have changed the title accordingly to:” Sustainable Strategy in Housing Renovation: Moving from a Technology-and-Engineering-Focused Model to a User-Oriented Model”.
Abstract
Line 20 : I suggest to Substitute “[..] We suggest a user-oriented model where user…[..]” with “[..] We suggest a User-Oriented model (UO model) where user…[..]”
Authors: Now changed.
Chapter 1 Introduction: Including tenants in the renovation process
I suggest dividing chapter 1 into two chapters:
“1 Introduction", with the general discussion of the topic and the state of the art
"2 Methodology" or perhaps better "2 Structure of the work" with the description of the following chapters which is the structure of the work carried out.
Authors: We followed your suggestion and divided the chapter in two with the headings: “1. Background: Including tenants in the renovation process” and “2 . Introduction: method, purpose and research questions”.
Line 29 : I suggest to Substitute “[..] by a technology-and-engineering-focused model…[..]” with “[..] by a Technology-and-Engineering-Focused model…[..]”
Authors: Now changed.
Figure 1 : The figure is incomplete, I suppose the boxes and the connection lines between the various elements are missing.
Authors: Thank you for pointing out this mistake! In the new version we have included the figure as originally intended.
Chapter 3. A theoretical framework for the analysis of strategy formation and change in renovation projects
Figure 2: In my opinion, the figure could be improved in communication. Here are some notes that could help improve the graph:
- what does the continuous line between rectangles and oval mean? is it no longer useful to add some arrows? but does the interaction between these elements is with the other elements (Internal and external disturbance), is correct? or can is direct between rectangular and oval objects?
- Does "Strategy change" not occupy a different level than Internal and external disturbance? for example, I would suggest a rhombus for him
- introduce a legend for the continuous and dashed line: what type of connection the lines represent?
Authors: Thank you for these points! We replaced Figure 2 with a new more elaborate figure in which blocks and lines are explained and labelled. We believe that should fix the problems you point at.
- I would introduce chapter numbers that refer to the description of the various elements, for example External disturbance Chap. 6.1, Internal disturbance Chap 6.2, ....
Authors: This is an interesting idea. However, we feel our present logic is more in line with the line of argument in the paper.
Chapter 4 Method and Material
If it is possible, I would suggest enriching the chapter with sources on the materials mentioned. For example, repricing the titles and dates of the articles, etc.
Authors: This would be a bit cumbersome, and we do not find it absolutely necessary for the understanding of the material. Instead we have added a general description of our more unconventional material on p. 5, last para: “The events before and during the renovation were reported on in the local newspaper and we were provided with a number of newspaper clips that had been collected by the tenants. Other materials such as videos about the history of the building, a website built by one of the tenants with documentations memorising of the renovation, court decision documents, online news reports and discussions, were also used as compliementary materials of our investigation.”
Chapter 5 Case description and analysis
If It is possible, I suggest enriching the chapter with figures of the building for and after intervention.
Authors: This is a good suggestion. Unfortunately, we only have access to pictures with an outside view of the building, which are not showing any major differences before and after.
Figure 3: I suggest to enrich the figure with all the dates of the life of the building: construction, first intervention (replacement of windows), etc. I suggest to use different colors or styles to highlight the changes in ownership, decisions and building interventions undergone by the building. This is to highlight the intervention times between decisions and activities. Be careful to make the figure legible.
Authors: The figure has a focus on the more recent period that we analyse in the paper. We have now added the original year of construction.
Chapter 7. Discussion: Four ideal-types of strategy change
Line 385: I suggest to Substitute “[..] of two means; internal means and external …[..]” with “[..] of two means: internal means and external …[..]”
Authors: Changed to “two means; internal and external ones”.
Figure 3,4,5,6 I suggest to enlarge the writing
Figure 4: between “Intended strategy” and “Realised strategy” is correct the line?
Authors: In the new version we fixed all figures of the four ideal types of strategy change by correcting the figure numbers, enlarging the text size etc.
Line 437: I suggest to Substitute “[..]of a new strategy.. This[..]” with “[..] of a new strategy. This [..]”
Authors: This text has been rewritten in the new version.
Chapter 9 Conclusion
Figure 7 : I suggest uniforming the figure with Figure 1. That is, having the same justification of the writing, types of lines, box to the writing, etc.
Furthermore, I would highlight the changes of the UO model compared to the TEF model, to highlight the differences.
Authors: We have corrected this and uniformed figure 1 with figure 7 (now figure 8) to make them comparable. That was also our original intention. We have also highlighted the contrast between the figures even more in the text (p. 18, para 2).
General observations
If possible, I suggest enriching the bibliography.
No more recent articles? So the theme was treated up to ten years ago and then enough?
If this condition were confirmed I would suggest highlighting it in the introduction also to justify the slightly dated bibliography.
It could be interesting and useful to check if the topic has not been treated from a sociological point of view and therefore in other journals in this specific sector.
Authors: This is a good point! There is still a lack of literature on housing renovation and social sustainability, and this is probably related to the fact that the TEF model has been dominant for long in housing renovation. In the new version we comment on that in the literature review: “Perhaps related to the general absence of users in renovation strategies, there is also a lack of literature discussing user-orientation and its implication to sustainability in renovation” (p. 4, para 1). We also added one quite recent publication (Mjörnell et al. 2019).
Finally, I think it would be very interesting to have a phrase that reports an opinion or feedback from users, is it possible?
Authors: We added the following quotation from a tenant on p. 7, para 5: “There was strong cohesion between the tenants in the house and we controlled there was no destruction, we helped each other, and this was a value that the housing company did not perceive of but broke down, we were worthless, we were only seen as guests paying a rent´. (Tenant A.)”.
Further, the paper requires proofreading to improve the grammar and presentation.
Authors: We admit being somewhat surprised by this comment, since we hired a most qualified English-speaking proof-reader for the previous version of the paper. Regardless of this, in the new version we have amended the errata that you point out in your reports, and also done our best to proof-read the whole text again.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “Sustainable strategy in housing renovation: Moving from a technology-focus model to a user-orientation model” is very interesting. It is well written, with a good English, although it could be improved in some parts.
Title:
I suggest introducing into the title the overall TEF name: Technology and engineering-focus model. It is because in the test you always used the extended name or its acronym.
Introduction:
It is well written, but I think it could be improved with some little cuttings. It is in some parts hard to follow. I suggest you to simplify from line 91 to line 96: it is a repetition with what you’ll write in paragraph 3 (line157-159). Here in the introduction you can be less detailed.
Line 64: there is a repetition “al al”.
Figure 1: I think you can really improve it. It is not good to see, and not clear.
Paragraph 2:
I think this part could be integrated with more literature.
Line 130: What do you mean with “mixed communities”?
Paragraph 4:
Figure 3 can be graphically improved.
Paragraph 5:
Line 245: Can you cite the association Fastighetsägarna?
Line 293: Can you cite the Rent Tribunal Hyresnämnden?
Paragraph 6:
Line 364: there is a repetition “a a”.
Paragraph 7:
Line 437: there is a repetition “..”.
Conclusions:
Line 503: there is a repetition “?.”.
What do you mean with “authorities”? If you are referring for example also to cultural heritage authorities I think their opinion and the discussion with them have to be very strong when there are criticism for example in the preserving the original architecture and in sustainable solution in intervention also in terms of cultural identity preservation. Thus, I suggest adding in this case the contribution also in the step “pre-investigation/Design alternative solution”.
References:
I think references can be integrated with most recent literature: the most recent reported by you is a paper published in the year 2016, already 4 years ago.
In the references 3 and 5 is repeated two times the year of publication.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The manuscript “Sustainable strategy in housing renovation: Moving from a technology-focus model to a user-orientation model” is very interesting. It is well written, with a good English, although it could be improved in some parts.
Title:
I suggest introducing into the title the overall TEF name: Technology and engineering-focus model. It is because in the test you always used the extended name or its acronym.
Authors: We have changed the title in accordance with your suggestion.
Introduction:
It is well written, but I think it could be improved with some little cuttings. It is in some parts hard to follow. I suggest you to simplify from line 91 to line 96: it is a repetition with what you’ll write in paragraph 3 (line157-159). Here in the introduction you can be less detailed.
Authors: We have simplified that part in the new version and generally done our best to clarify the text and figures.
Line 64: there is a repetition “al al”.
Authors: Thanks, corrected now.
Figure 1: I think you can really improve it. It is not good to see, and not clear.
Authors: We have done that in the new version, cf. comment above to Reviewer 2.
Paragraph 2:
I think this part could be integrated with more literature.
Authors: As we say in our response to Reviewer 2, there is still a lack of literature on housing renovation and social sustainability. In the new version we comment on that in the literature review: “Perhaps related to the general absence of users in renovation strategies, there is also a lack of literature discussing user-orientation and its implication to sustainability in renovation” (p. 4, para 1). We also added one quite recent publication (Mjörnell et al. 2019).
Line 130: What do you mean with “mixed communities”?
Authors: We now refer to Lind et al.’s own definition of “mixed communities” defined as having “a low level of segregation between different income and ethnic groups” (p. 4, para 1).
Paragraph 4:
Figure 3 can be graphically improved.
Authors: We realise it could be made more sophistically but believe it is clear and understandable enough as it is. We have now only added the original year of construction as suggested by Reviewer 2.
Paragraph 5:
Line 245: Can you cite the association Fastighetsägarna?
Line 293: Can you cite the Rent Tribunal Hyresnämnden?
Authors: Unfortunately, we have not interviewed representatives of these organizations, seeing them as somewhat secondary to our strategy perspective related to a specific case of housing renovation.
Paragraph 6:
Line 364: there is a repetition “a a”.
Authors: Thanks, corrected now.
Paragraph 7:
Line 437: there is a repetition “..”.
Authors: Thanks, corrected now.
Conclusions:
Line 503: there is a repetition “?.”.
Authors: Thanks, corrected now.
What do you mean with “authorities”? If you are referring for example also to cultural heritage authorities I think their opinion and the discussion with them have to be very strong when there are criticism for example in the preserving the original architecture and in sustainable solution in intervention also in terms of cultural identity preservation. Thus, I suggest adding in this case the contribution also in the step “pre-investigation/Design alternative solution”.
Authors: This is a good and important point. Since we use Thuvander et al. and Nordling Reppen as the starting point for our discussion of the TEF and UO models (see figure 1, the focus in this paper is not on discussions with authorities but on estate owner strategies and the potential involvement of users. We agree that the role of discussions with authorities in the pre-investigations is also important and interesting, but that would be a different perspective – and perhaps another paper?
References:
I think references can be integrated with most recent literature: the most recent reported by you is a paper published in the year 2016, already 4 years ago.
Authors: As mentioned, there is still a lack of literature on housing renovation and social sustainability. In the new version we added one recent relevant publication (cf. also response above).
In the references 3 and 5 is repeated two times the year of publication.
Authors: Thanks, corrected now.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you very much for the updates on the paper and also for the explanations regarding the comments initially made.
Although the conclusions are still based on a single case study, they are now better explained and contextualized. This supposes a clear improvement on the overall merit of the paper, that, together with the other corrections have improved my overall assessment.
