Rebuilding after Displacement: A Skills Competency Audit of Built Environment Professional Documentation
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting study to facilitate the understanding on the skills competency audit of built environment professional documentation. Specifically, this paper presents an audit of the competencies identified in built environment professional documentation and its mapping against the competencies determined as being relevant to rebuilding after displacement. The method is solid, and the results are convincing. The paper is well-organized. It addresses an important topic that will likely be of interest to readers. I recommend the manuscript published after minor revisions. 1. The authors are suggested to improve the resolution of Fig. 1, 3 & 8 as the current figures are not clear enough and the readability is relatively low. 2. The authors are suggested to improve the formatting of Table 2 and Appendix. The slash “/” in table 2 has gone beyond the page. The authors are suggested to adjust it. The width of the appendix table can be widened, as it was place in horizontal pages. 3. The authors are suggested to examine the X-axis labels in Fig. 4 to 7 as some information is missing due to figure formatting. For example, the words after “Societal impacts of mass…” is missing. 4. The authors are suggested to discuss the potential application of the research in other parts of the world, e.g., Asia and Africa, if possible.Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This is an interesting study to facilitate the understanding on the skills competency audit of built environment professional documentation. Specifically, this paper presents an audit of the competencies identified in built environment professional documentation and its mapping against the competencies determined as being relevant to rebuilding after displacement. The method is solid, and the results are convincing. The paper is well-organized. It addresses an important topic that will likely be of interest to readers. I recommend the manuscript published after minor revisions.
We thank the reviewer for the time spent considering our submission and their kind and positive comments.
- The authors are suggested to improve the resolution of Fig. 1, 3 & 8 as the current figures are not clear enough and the readability is relatively low.
We have updated all these figures, additionally increasing their size, removed the shading from Fig 3 and expanded the text in Fig 8 which will hopefully help the reader.
- The authors are suggested to improve the formatting of Table 2 and Appendix. The slash “/” in table 2 has gone beyond the page. The authors are suggested to adjust it. The width of the appendix table can be widened, as it was place in horizontal pages.
Table has been revised as suggested by the reviewer and Appendix B has been widened.
- The authors are suggested to examine the X-axis labels in Fig. 4 to 7 as some information is missing due to figure formatting. For example, the words after “Societal impacts of mass…” is missing.
Yes, the reviewer is again correct. Some of the competency titles were very long and we were uncertain if the full extent was needed on the axis. We are grateful for this advice and have now updated them to shortened but complete descriptions.
- The authors are suggested to discuss the potential application of the research in other parts of the world, e.g., Asia and Africa, if possible.
Following the reviewer's suggestion we highlight how the research could act as a template for individual country or high-risk area study of competency and preparedness for displacement. We do not want to specifically discuss e.g Africa as it is not a location we have data for or are expert on – but hopefully the implication is clear that others who are inspired by this work may seek to do their own analysis on the countries/continents/situations of their choice.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written and organized. I think it represents a contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their time spent reading the manuscript and their kind comments. No additional action is required.
Reviewer 3 Report
Rebuilding after displacement particularly for the disaster-stricken communities is an important topic. Authors have conducted very significant research and the results can be generalised to everywhere impacted by disasters. Developing competencies in rebuilding communities following a disaster and conflict-induced mass displacements, from the perspective of the built environment is a very interesting research project. Please considers the following comments to improve the paper:
1- Disasters cannot be natural and the "natural disaster" term is inappropriate, please change them to "natural hazard" or disaster in general.
2-What is the expected displaced people worldwide in future (let's say by 2030 or 2050), please add these figure at the beginning of the Introduction to highlight the significance of the topic.
3- Please provide a definition of a built environment in the Introduction and justify why you have selected BE. What types of BE or general BE?
4- Have you changed or adjusted the figure from Reference [13]. I think the figure is not adapted but it is adopted.
5- Project management competencies such as Project Management Institute (PMI) or International Project Management Association (IPMA) have developed comprehensive competency frameworks suitable for the built environment, they also need to be mapped in this study (Table 2), please provide justifications why they have not been used/compared?
6- Please provide some justification for the data analysis technique (mapping results) you have used in this research. Has anyone else used the same method? Please provide references.
7- Contribution to theory or body of knowledge is not included in this research. Authors need to discuss the area of the knowledge they are contributing to either built environment, disaster management or displaced population management or etc.
8-The link between the results and displaced populations and how the practitioners, NGOs or government can benefit from this study needs to be elaborated meticulously in the conclusion.
Author Response
Rebuilding after displacement particularly for the disaster-stricken communities is an important topic. Authors have conducted very significant research and the results can be generalised to everywhere impacted by disasters. Developing competencies in rebuilding communities following a disaster and conflict-induced mass displacements, from the perspective of the built environment is a very interesting research project. Please considers the following comments to improve the paper:
We thank the reviewer for the time spent considering our submission and their positive and manuscript improving comments.
1- Disasters cannot be natural and the "natural disaster" term is inappropriate, please change them to "natural hazard" or disaster in general.
The reviewer is quite correct and we are grateful for highlighting our poor oversight. This has been altered in both the abstract and main text where we originally included the phrase. Apologies.
2-What is the expected displaced people worldwide in future (let's say by 2030 or 2050), please add these figure at the beginning of the Introduction to highlight the significance of the topic.
The reviewer is right to highlight the significance of the topic. We quote how many people are displaced currently (line 28) which we feel is a significant number. Additionally, we say that the numbers of displaced person are predicted to rise (line 33) – the reason we do not specifically quote figures is due to the very wide variations; for 2030 and 50 we have seen data suggesting anything from 200m to 1bn and are reluctant to speculate with such a broad range.
3- Please provide a definition of a built environment in the Introduction and justify why you have selected BE. What types of BE or general BE?
Again the reviewer is helpful in highlighting this. We now include a definition of the BE in the introduction. We think we justify choosing general BE as a subject in the second paragraph of the manuscript as it documents the large urban challenge of displacement, the needs that displaced persons have and the importance of general BE responses to this.
4- Have you changed or adjusted the figure from Reference [13]. I think the figure is not adapted but it is adopted.
The figure does look very similar but is actually adapted. The original REGARD figure is the same design but clustered the competencies into headings – so there were 8, 6 and 8 identified competency areas/headings in the original figure. For this paper’s research we separated every competency and considered them individually so they now show as 26, 17, 16, and 13.
5- Project management competencies such as Project Management Institute (PMI) or International Project Management Association (IPMA) have developed comprehensive competency frameworks suitable for the built environment, they also need to be mapped in this study (Table 2), please provide justifications why they have not been used/compared?
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, but the research required making choices of what to include. In lines 121+ we explain we examined accrediting bodies of the BE professions, rather than using individuals and similarly we chose not to include 3rd party oversight (e.g PMI which can apply to non-BE work) for the same reason – we went directly to the industry standard for BE roles. Including other metrics such as PMI and IPMA is a possible option for future work though and we gratefully accept the suggestion which we now include in the conclusion.
6- Please provide some justification for the data analysis technique (mapping results) you have used in this research. Has anyone else used the same method? Please provide references.
As described in lines 176+ the mapping exercise was creating a cross tabulation in Excel so that an audit was possible. While crosstabs are common in many fields of activity we did not identify anyone using the same technique in this research field. We did note that others have used professional body documentation for similar studies (Line 138 - citations).
7- Contribution to theory or body of knowledge is not included in this research. Authors need to discuss the area of the knowledge they are contributing to either built environment, disaster management or displaced population management or etc.
Lines 60-78 explain the aim and value of the research and we feel we highlight the contribution to the understanding of BE responses to displacement throughout the article (rather than us restricting discussion to a brief summary).
8-The link between the results and displaced populations and how the practitioners, NGOs or government can benefit from this study needs to be elaborated meticulously in the conclusion.
We think the reviewer is correct to identify the importance of this, however we feel it is something best identified by the REGARD project report, where the space to discuss the subject in the meticulous detail requested is available. Our study seeks only to analyse competencies and identify where there may be gaps between existing provision and the current state of the BE sector and is word count limited. The subject of how practitioners, NGOs or government may benefit from the REGARD project and associated studies may already be the subject of other paper submissions, consequently we focus on the audit in ours.
Reviewer 4 Report
(1)
This last statement of the abstract "This will help direct the efforts of policymakers, education providers, and the sector themselves towards the most effective responses to displacement challenges." is fascinating, however, discussion on this statement does not exist in the manuscript at all. Re-framework of the whole manuscript content based on the purpose of the study may be needed.
(2)
The authors explain clearly on REGARD (REbuildinG AfteR Displacement), However, what is “Competency of Built Environment Professional Skills”? The are no understandable definitions and elaboration on the Competency of Built Environment Professional skills. Why and how this Competency of Built Environment Professional skill is related to REGARD? A diagram or framework to explain this relation would be helpful for the audience of this journal.
(3)
Skills Competency Audit or skill competency review is a problematic exercise. The lists on the website (such as in the appendix table “Appendix A - Accrediting Professional Bodies in REGARD Partner Nations” may only reflect part of the whole process compared to the reality conducted within the certain institution. The role of each institution may differ from one country to another.
(4)
The nations discussed as part of the article and later compared are the UK, Estonia, Sweden & Sri Lanka. Do they comparable? How so? why? what are the standard competencies categories in REGARD?
(5)
Are there identifiable connections, between architecture and Rebuilding After Displacement in the UK? Estonia? Sweden? Sri Lanka? most competencies are for building something new NOT rebuilding after displacement but to build new infrastructure as well as supra-structure.
(6)
(line 161)
Table 1. Summary of Accrediting Professional Bodies in REGARD Partner Nations.
This is not the correct table content. Require major revisions.
(7)
Appendix A - Accrediting Professional Bodies in REGARD Partner Nations
It is questionable, how the authors decide the “x” “y” “Y” ? these competencies lists are for building new objects. How do the authors justify these utilisations for rebuilding?
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for their time spent considering the submission and for their positive comments.
(1) This last statement of the abstract "This will help direct the efforts of policymakers, education providers, and the sector themselves towards the most effective responses to displacement challenges." is fascinating, however, discussion on this statement does not exist in the manuscript at all. Re-framework of the whole manuscript content based on the purpose of the study may be needed.
We are pleased the reviewer finds the suggestion fascinating, however we are perhaps not clear enough that this is not the purpose of the study - it is simply a suggestion that our research will aid responses to displacement. Lines 68+ identify the purpose of the study, namely to undertake the audit of competencies.
(2) The authors explain clearly on REGARD (REbuildinG AfteR Displacement), However, what is “Competency of Built Environment Professional Skills”? The are no understandable definitions and elaboration on the Competency of Built Environment Professional skills. Why and how this Competency of Built Environment Professional skill is related to REGARD? A diagram or framework to explain this relation would be helpful for the audience of this journal.
We now include a definition of the built environment in the introduction and hopefully clear up any confusion. Lines 68+ and the methods section identify the relationship between the work in REGARD and this study: REGARD developed a desirable set of competencies for the BE professions to maximise their efforts towards displacement (Figure 1). This study then sought to analyse existing BE profession documentation to establish the current state of professional competency in relation to those desirable competencies. REGARD created an ideal, this study determined the extent to which that ideal was being satisfied.
(3) Skills Competency Audit or skill competency review is a problematic exercise. The lists on the website (such as in the appendix table “Appendix A - Accrediting Professional Bodies in REGARD Partner Nations” may only reflect part of the whole process compared to the reality conducted within the certain institution. The role of each institution may differ from one country to another.
The reviewer is correct, a skills competency audit is a problematic exercise, which is why we establish our parameters very clearly. We specifically examined professional bodies documentation, not other more subjective measurements, and we documented these. We highlight national differences and challenges in Line 143+ and cite in support of our exercise (line 138).
(4) The nations discussed as part of the article and later compared are the UK, Estonia, Sweden & Sri Lanka. Do they comparable? How so? why? what are the standard competencies categories in REGARD?
We identify in our conclusion that ours was a general sector audit and we do not compare by country, suggesting someone may do this in future research. The competency categories of REGARD are listed in Figure 1 which is adapted from the project (the competency lists are divided into more specific numbers).
(5) Are there identifiable connections, between architecture and Rebuilding After Displacement in the UK? Estonia? Sweden? Sri Lanka? most competencies are for building something new NOT rebuilding after displacement but to build new infrastructure as well as supra-structure.
Our project examined architecture as one of the professions of built environment work with relevance to displacement. Examination of the competencies of any of these professions was not restricted to a form of building (either new or renovation), it was about the competencies listed in the documentation of architects (and others). ‘Rebuilding’ is to be taken in its general sense and might involve building something new, not literally as restoring an old structure.
(6) (line 161)
Table 1. Summary of Accrediting Professional Bodies in REGARD Partner Nations.
This is not the correct table content. Require major revisions.
The reviewer is correct, the table did not add value to the manuscript and has been removed. Instead we summarise the process and highlight the information in the Appendices.
(7) Appendix A - Accrediting Professional Bodies in REGARD Partner Nations
It is questionable, how the authors decide the “x” “y” “Y” ? these competencies lists are for building new objects. How do the authors justify these utilisations for rebuilding?
The reviewer is correct to highlight this appendix as we had not noticed that the symbols had been mistakenly altered during formatting. They should show a simple yes, or no as to whether the information was found. We have now updated these to show either a tick (yes) or x (no).
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Figures 1, 2, and 3 can be improved to make them more coherent within one manuscript
Author Response
Figures 1, 2, and 3 can be improved to make them more coherent within one manuscript
We thank the reviewer for offering yet more of their time and valuable insights. We have slightly revised the figures to hopefully make them more clear, although we cannot revise Figure 1 to any great extent as this is adapted from an existing figure. Consequently we have included some new text to explain how our version was adapted. The three figures simply represent stages of the methodology and as such are to enhance the text rather than be relied upon to explain the process entirely.
