Socio-Economic Drivers of Community Acceptance of Sustainable Social Housing: Evidence from Mumbai

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper used primary data collection from the sample of 298 households in Mumbai, and explored the different dissensions of their housing satisfaction.

My main comments about the paper include four parts as following.

Firstly, in the part of introduction, the paper revealed some topics, for example, sustainable housing and community acceptance. I suggest the paper should add some context in Mumbai to reveal the ‘research gap’.

Secondly, I think it need a more solid evidence to clarify the model (Line 341-343), in other words, the author want to know the reason why you select the six independent variables.

Thirdly, although the paper introduced related research in Community Acceptance of Sustainable Housing, I suggest it would be better if the paper clarified the essence of Community Acceptance in your paper, not only a concept. Because the paper focused Community Acceptance in the context of a resettlement community, which transformed from a slum, the essence of dependent variable worth to be clarified clearly. Besides, in the model (Line 341-343), community acceptance takes the value ‘1’ if there is an improvement reported in QoL compared to its previous house, I want to know whether the subjective judgement of interviewee is accurate or steady.

Fourthly, as to the empirical analysis, I suggest it would promote the reliability of the model after adding data processing and result test.

Some smaller points:

Some out-of-context expressions, for example, Line 77-79, Line 85-86, Line 107-110, Line 181-276.

Author Response

Thank you very much for providing us with constructive comments and detailed suggestions. Please find our point-to-point responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found the paper to be timely and informative. Obviously, a larger sample would be more compelling, but this is a nice pilot that should warrant further research/funding. I opted to review and mark up an MS Word version with tracked changes that I've attached. Most of my edits are in the form of comments, which I'd like to see your responses/thoughts/feedback to before I approve your paper for publication. I want to ensure you've thought all aspects of the paper through thoroughly before the world reads it. Generally speaking, I believe we have a similar concern in the US as well as Africa, which are two countries in which I've resided, worked, and researched. Neither government seems to grasp the importance of including those who are underrepresented/voiceless in decisions that will directly affect their lives. These housing projects could be much more successful if a few of the potential residents were permitted to serve of governmental housing committees.   

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for providing us with constructive comments, detailed suggestions and edits. Please find our point-to-point responses in the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

(1)In Line 455-456, "The questionnaire was designed with a clear response choicer to avoid the subjective judgement of interviewees". I am confuesed with this statement and the data collection way.  For example, in Table 1, not only the "section of Accessiblity of the building" but also the "Living expenses", I think all of them are "subjective judgemnet of interviewees".

(2) what is the meaning of some numbers, for example 7,78,479, 82 and so on , in Figure 1 (Line 475-486). I am afraid they did not been explaiened in the article.

(3) In model (1) , Line 515-518, I can't find β4 in the equation. And I am afraid the article had no statement in the manuscript.

(4) The article added 4.2 Hosmer and Lemeshow's Test to make the results more reliable. In Table 2, I think it would be better if the paper tell reader the reason that divided into 9 groups. And the paper can be more scientific if the authors had done some basic analysis such as multicollinearity.

Author Response

Thank you very much for once again going through our manuscript and providing insightful input. Please find our point-by-point responses in the attached document. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf