Stakeholder Collaboration Mechanism in Elderly Community Retrofit Projects: Case Study in China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Stakeholder Collaboration Mechanism in Elderly Community-Retrofit Projects: Case Study in China
The paper is conducted with the major aim of to develop a stakeholder collaboration mechanism (SCM) for ECRP in China. I have read the paper with great interest and find it much relevant for the welfare of elderly communities. The context is nicely built while the scope is amply described with the proper justification of the work. Although authors point towards the rarity of such studies but there are some studies alredy done on the topic such as Gough et al (2021): BMC Public Health Vol. 21 etc. Nevertheless, the topic is novel and warrants merit. At the same time, the data collection method needs further details as to how many respondents/documents realted to each category were contacted/analysed. The main part of the paper to develop a stakeholder collaboration mechanism seems missing or needs further work. Authors only present division of stakeholders (Fig. 3), while under the heading 'Development of Stakeholder Collaboration Mechanism Model' no such model is develped. Figure 4 under this heading only presents relationships of various stakeholders in the power-interest matrix but it necessarily does not mean a model while, as it stands now, seems to show the actual status-quo what the authors have observed with no broader linkages of interest/power among stakeholders. It is more clear from the discussion in 4.1 only provides details on the specific category of stakeholders within the existing framework. And then the sections 4.2 through 4.4 present suggestions for various categories of stakeholders rather than contemplating their role in effective collaboration in the context of power-interest matrix.
Minor: There are some minor grammatical issues which also need to be addressed such as, but not limited to, the following:
First sentence of Abstract needs revisti as it is confusing
197-199: Confusing, Revisit.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents very important issue, especially in China context where many elderly people are expected until 2050.
I would suggest to explain ECRP more in introduction, with the emphasis on specific projects.
All subtitles in chapter 2 are numbered with 2.1, instead by ordinal number. In chapter 4 there are 2 subtitles (Stakeholder classification and Development of stakeholder Collaboration) numbered with 4.1. It needs to be corrected.
I suggest to argue the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method, considering other relevant researches.
The figure 2 needs technical finishing and editing. It is not clear what input, process and output represent.
In chapter Stakeholder classification it would be better for understanding to elaborate and explain on what base the authors chose Chen and Jia method.
In table 4 S3 is missing. Also the table is not aligned with table 1 (S6 for example, in table 1 s6 are non governmental org. and in table 4 s5 are government org.) so it reduces clarity of the manuscript.
Figure 3 have to be elaborated more.
Suggestions presented in paragraph 4.2., 4.3 and 4.4. need stronghold. Please add some reference from other research.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has an originality that is based on the theme that has been chosen by the authors. In my opinion, being an article that has a qualitative methodology, it is necessary to increase the number of references, they must also include more current references. Another point that must be improved in the article is the wording of the conclusions, taking into account the results obtained the conclusions have little extension, so I recommend the authors to expand this section.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have adequately addressed my concerns and points and the paper now can be considered for publication.
Author Response
Point 1: Authors have adequately addressed my concerns and points and the paper now can be considered for publication.
Response 1: Thank you for the positive note and your time on providing comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors improved their manuscript. Still, I would recommend to argue the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method as a part of discussion, because it is important for the future researches. Also, Figure 1 should be graphically edited, because it is still fuzzy and unclear.
Author Response
Point 1: Authors improved their manuscript. Still, I would recommend to argue the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method as a part of discussion, because it is important for the future researches.
Response 1: Thank you for your time on providing comments. An explanation on advantages and disadvantages of the proposed method has been added to the section 4.2. Accordingly, the following paragraph has been added. “Stakeholder collaboration model enables to enhance the relationships between stakeholders that are important in effective decision making, cost and information management in order to deliver successful ECRP. However, in downside, stakeholders that operate for their own interest over the interest of ECRP projects might hinder the benefits of stakeholder collaboration mechanism and can crate conflicts between stakeholders. This highlights the need of proper stakeholder conflict management approach that integrate with SCM, thus, provide a direction for future research in this area.”
Point 2: Figure 1 should be graphically edited, because it is still fuzzy and unclear.
Response 2: Thank you for raising this comment. The figure 1 has been graphically edited and improved.
