Sustainable Development of Water Housing Using the Example of Poland: An Analysis of Scenarios
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In this manuscript, the authors propose future strategies for Floating Homes (FH) in Poland from the perspective of sustainable development, which are strongly supported by the States of Surroundings Scenarios analysis method. The manuscript begins by clearly defining sustainability, consisting of environmental, social, and economic aspects. The consideration of factors that influence the development of FH is important and decisive to the work. The construction of four possible future scenarios - optimistic, pessimistic, most probable, and surprise scenario - provides a scientific and credible description of the development of FH. Notably, accounting calculations on a scale of -5 to +5 provide a distinct impact strength of each factor for scientists and other readers interested in this topic. Additionally, the references are comprehensive and accurate. The manuscript presents the future strategy formulation for the sustainable development of construction on water through graphical representation of the results and five methods of inference.
Author Response
As the authors of the publication Sustainable development of water housing on the example of Poland - the analysis of scenarios, we would like to thank you very much for the time devoted to the review of our publication. The English language has been corrected by a native speaker. The remaining elements of the review have been included by us in the revised text of the publication.
Reviewer 2 Report
The concept is interesting and worth investigating. However, several observations are made:
- The abstract is poorly written, the (for short) after acronyms SSS, and FH should be removed.
- No need to repeat the same in the keywords.
-The major findings and future works are missing in the abstract.
-The article has many typos and grammatical errors and must be revised thoroughly.
The authors discussed United Nations Agenda 2030 highlights on Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) 11- SUSTAINABLE WATER HOUSING; however, most of the references regarding SDGs were either obsolete or not cited in the paper.
-The introduction section is scanty and can be further improved. The literature review is not updated. It seems that the authors only made a brief retrospection. Through the review, what issues should be addressed? What is the current specific knowledge gap? What implications can be referred to? The above questions should be answered. Some latest literature focusing on the subject matter may be added and discussed. see
https://doi.org/10.1002/sd.2238, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-01022-3, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-020-00745-7,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jksus.2021.101477, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01928-6, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2022.103644, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106443, and many more from sustainability journal.
-The authors should follow the MDPI format in references. avoid mentioning too many authors' names. Used numbers instead.
- Finally, the conclusions summarize to list the work developed without presenting conclusions about it. This Section must be improved substantially.
- The article lacks limitations and further study scope at the conclusion. These sections must be substantially improved.
Author Response
As the authors of the publication Sustainable development of water housing on the example of Poland - the analysis of scenarios, we would like to thank you very much for the time devoted to the review of our publication. The English language has been corrected by a native speaker. The remaining elements of the review have been included by us in the revised text of the publication.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript presents the investigation and analysis of scenarios relating to the sustainable development of water housing in the example of Poland. The topic is interesting, however, due to poor presentation, the significance of the work is not clear, and the research design, questions, hypotheses, and methods need to be stated in a more straightforward sense. The other comments are
line 15: If you previously stated the abbreviation of a term, then that term should not be stated in full form in the same paragraph (here, I am referring to the process of States of Surroundings Scenarios).
section 3 Materials and Methods: it is highly recommended to include a figure that explains the four stages of research methodology to provide a quick and relatively easy understanding of the research methods followed.
line 76: how did you identify the environmental factors? This is based on literature or you took an expert opinion?
line 81: what is "Regressionsion"?
line 108: you mentioned "environmental. Groups of factors have been identified on the basis of literature review, expert interviews, and own studies." How many studies did you read in the literature?. How many expert interviews did you conduct?, what is meant by own studies ?
Provide detailed stats on the literature studies reviewed and interviews you conducted ..!
Line 114: what is meant by "commercial spreadsheet", is it based on some standards or institution or something else?
line 179: which graphical presentation you are referring to here, is it figure 2?
line 210: do you mean sections 3.1 to 3.5 ?
Revised figure 2: avoid overlapping text with graph and clearly differentiates environmental socio-cultural and economic parts.
It is very important that you state the conclusions of the research in a separate heading, rather than mixing in the discussion part, it creates confusion for the reader.
Author Response
As the authors of the publication Sustainable development of water housing on the example of Poland - the analysis of scenarios, we would like to thank you very much for the time devoted to the review of our publication. The English language has been corrected by a native speaker. The remaining elements of the review have been included by us in the revised text of the publication.
Detailed responses to the Reviewer's comments are included in the appendix.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version has been updated and queries are addressed by the authors, improving the quality of the paper. However, there are minor observations:
- Remove the for short in the brackets-see abstract.
-Remove the abbreviations in the brackets under keywords.
-In section 2, remove the 's' in the aims since it is only one aim.
-In Fig. 2, all the lines are defined except the red intersecting line. What does it stand for and implies?
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for detailed comments on our publication. All these comments have been taken into account and corrected.
Reviewer 3 Report
No further comment
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for reviewing our publication.
