The Presence of a Family Communal Space as a Form of Local Wisdom towards Community Cohesion and Resilience in Coastal Settlements
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a paper exploring the use of 'communal' spaces in a small coastal fishing community in Indonesia. The paper reports a link between the way that these spaces are used, and the development of 'cohesion' and 'resilience'. The topic of the research is an interesting one, and has the potential to add to existing scholarship on the use of rural open space as a mediator of community cohesiveness, but unfortunately, as it currently stands, the research reported is not convincing in terms of its theoretical contribution or methodological rigour.
The introduction lacks a thorough literature review of relevant aspects of community resilience and cohesion. The role of 'wisdom' is also not discussed in the introduction. There are some aspects of the missing literature review in the discussion section, so I would suggest moving these up into the introduction, and referencing the relevant literature much more widely and thoroughly as well.
The methods section needs to set out very clearly each of the research steps, and discuss why those specific methods were used. I would also suggest including the survey instruments, as well as details on where and how data was collected. Reflection on why only one community was included in the research, as well as reflections on the impacts of that limited data set are also needed. Ethical considerations must also be discussed here.
The results section needs to clearly articulate the findings from the research, separating out the results from the various methods, and including examples of the data (quotes from interviews and sets of questionnaire data). The results need to set up the points discussed later in the introduction, creating a clear link between the two. This is currently missing completely.
The discussion section then needs to draw directly on the results section, to cast the findings in the light of the wider literature, and highlight how this research moves understanding and theoretical understandings of community cohesion and resilience forward. There needs to be a direct link between your findings, and the points and arguments that you make in the discussion section. This is currently missing.
If all of the above is set up, then the conclusion section simply reiterates the key 'take home' message of the paper (the key academic contribution) and highlights potential further research questions/areas for new research based on the findings from this paper.
The quality of English in the paper is mostly ok, but it needs further editing by an experienced English speaker to communicate the ideas more clearly - there are quite a few missing words and opaque sentences at the moment.
See the PDF for my specific comments. The supplementary information file is also lacking in any headings or titles for the Figures and Tables. One Figure also appears to be incomplete.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
To: Reviewer 1
We, the authors have made improvements according to your suggestions, and the improvements we have made are blocked in yellow.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting study with a refreshing concept of communal family space in the Indonesian context. I applaud the authors for suggesting this new concept (at least to the Western world) which can help to improve sustainability and also elevate family/communal cohesion, in a way which is simple to implement.
Couple of comments/suggestions:
-Authors need to proofread the whole manuscript again. There are multiple areas where either the similar wordings/ideas have been re-written multiple times, or some minor language / grammar corrections need to be made.
-Authors can use the data gathered under Figure 4 and link the attributes to Figure 6. For example, because of Control over Strangers, that's how the community was able to improve Safety. Perhaps you can use Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) in establishing the inter-attribute relationships, i.e. eg. the relationships between Control arrival/departure of family to sea --->, or Control over Strangers ----> to Safety Attribute. Or, say Beautiful views, Roomy ----> Environmental ---->Recreational ----> Convenience
-If you have the data, perhaps can put up a Table with Descriptive Stats, with data on respondents' social- and economic demographics, which family he/she is from , etc. Or, the demographics of Families A to F. And perhaps elaborate a bit on how the uniqueness of each Family's demographics may have led to optimal effects on which attributes in Figure 4.
-Perhaps in the Conclusion section, for future research ideas, how this paper can be extended to another community with potentially different demographics, or different region or country. Also, how this communal space can be improvised into something better with better features. ...
Overall, a great effort on an important topic to enhance communal sustainability in the face of climate change.
Author Response
To: Reviewer 2
We, the authors have made improvements according to your suggestion, and the improvements (revisions) we have made are blocked in blue.
the article revision have proofread by MDPI English Editing
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
The subject is very interesting, but the manuscript needs some corrections.
I would recommend supplementing point 2 with a methodological diagram synthetically showing the individual stages of analyzes and the methods used.
Detailed comments:
Line 127: You wrote: Residents of Aeng Batu-Batu Village work as fishermen because their village is located on the beach. Please correct on: near the beach.
You should correct the number of the figures – now Figure 1 is after the Figure 2.
You should refer to all figures in the text.
In Figure 2 after No. 2, use a dot, not a comma, and correct the drawing on the left above, i.e. move the ellipse so as to accurately show the study area - the village of Aeng Batu-Batu, which is closer to the ocean.
Describing the results should start with an introductory sentence. For ex. we have shown that / it has been shown that…, Our studies allowed us to … As a result of socio-geographical analysis we showed that … You should not start with the figures.
Line 206 Correct the number of Figure 2 - it should be Figure 3.
Line 213 Correct the number of Figure 2 - it should be Figure 4.
Line 211-213 The phrase: The box is the position of the houses in the village that use the FCS, and the color of the box shows 211 the level of kinship of family members should be placed in the caption of the Figure in the line 213.
The dark blue color in Figure 2 (in my suggestion Figure 4) is partially obscured by the compass rose – please correct this.
Line 221-222 Figure 3. Physical forms and forms of activities and users of Family Communal Spaces (FCS) (Aeng 221 Batu Setttlement Communal space and family, 2022). You should write what is A, B, C, please use small letters (a, b, c…) like is in the guidelines for authors.
Please correct the caption: Physical forms and forms of activities and users of Family Communal Spaces (FCS). I suggest change “physical forms” on “sites”. Don’t repeat a world: ‘forms”.
Line 253 Figure 4. Communal Space-User Data. The Figure should be should be divided into 3 graphs and these can be placed in one figure. You should not combine different content (different data) in one chart. for better readability, you can use different colors in individual analyzed categories.
Line 311 Figure 6. Thermal Condition of Activities Place ( Data took, 2022). Please precise what mean activity places? This are FCS?
I propose to write .. green open spaces where FCS are located.
Please explain if you measured the temperature in all FCSs or in open green spaces? (lines 312-323 and Figure 4).
Lines 464-465 Figure 7. The scheme of the role of the Communal Family as a forum in creating security, common, 465 and family by referring to local wisdom. The correlations on the scheme are not clear enough. In my opinion this figure is not necessary in the manuscript. It will be better to see a diagram showing what influences the use of FCSs.
Author Response
The authors have made efforts to improve as requested by the reviewers, and hopefully what we do is in accordance with that
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for undertaking some revisions to the text to respond to the comments made. Unfortunately, there is still a lack of logical coherence between the results and the discussion and conclusion sections. The separate sections have been strengthened to some extent, but the different survey instruments and methods, their associated results, and their method of analysis (in particular the qualitative data analysis) remains largely unclear to me. I have made some suggestions, but my suggestion would be that this paper needs major work before it is in a publishable form.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
The author has made efforts to improve as requested by the reviewers, and hopefully what we do is in accordance with that.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
authors need to proofread (or the journal can do that) the manuscript again to make sure all of the spellings used are correct. There are numerous areas with spelling errors.
Author Response
To the reviewer, we would like to say many thanks for your suggestion, and we have tried to improve what has been done by the MDPI English Editing Department, and we also sent our corrections that have been requested by other reviewers. Hopefully, what we do is in accordance with the request of the reviewers. Thanks.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for addressing the comments from the previous review. These changes have strengthened the paper considerably and created much better links between the results and the conclusions drawn. I have made some minor suggestions for small edits to further polish the paper before publication.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
To: Reviewer 1
Good Morning, we sent you the latest fix from our article. We give a yellow mark for the repair requested by the publisher, while the red text is for the repair requested by reviewer 1. We hope that what we have made is in accordance with the request. thank you for your cooperation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
