A Model of Build Back Better Utilization: Long-Term Recovery Groups and Post-Disaster Housing Recovery
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsItems that need to be corrected are highlighted and commented in the text
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe quality of abstract with reference to the methods section needs improvement, add the methods in abstract.
Line 26 the author is discussing the watershed characteristics, here author should describe the watershed characteristics and how they are related to land use land cover change.
Line 47 and 48 are not clear, (on corning BBB and disaster recovery with 32 members of Long-Term Recovery 47 Groups (LTRG) in 13 US (United States) states and 1 US territory.)
Line 53/54 mention about the stakeholders of BBB.
Line 56 at the start author wrote Agent-Based Modelling (ABM) [13], put this reference at the end
Line 89,,, the authors mention the obstacles,,,,, please describe which obstacles.
I suggest to add more chapter as review of literature to strengthen your study. I suggest move some portion of methods in chapter-2 , the material and methods section is too much lengthy.
Chapter 3 can be started from section 2.1 models.
The authors needs to rearrange the study in chapter 3. Add results chapter 4 and move your results/ analysis outcomes from chapter 3 to chapter 4 i.e results.
Makes these improvements, hope It will improve the quality of the paper.
Good Luck,
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenot applicable
Author Response
Please see the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· The authors have chosen the Sustainability journal and appear to be overusing the term "sustainability" throughout their submission. Please refrain from excessive use of this term.
· The title does not include a single word specific to the study's scope. Revise the title to make it concise and comprehensive, accurately reflecting the study.
· Ensure that the abstract adheres to the journal's author instructions to meet the required standards.
· The introductory sentence in the introduction section is overly general and does not require a reference. It would be more appropriate to begin by referencing recent studies on mega disaster events before including the reference.
· While raising awareness is valuable, research should aim to provide a solid preventive strategy to mitigate the impact of disasters.
· The introduction should focus specifically on the study and avoid unnecessary discussions and excessive referencing. Additionally, reduce the use of abbreviations to improve reader comprehension.
· Section 2 has been poorly written and organized. Condense it, omit unnecessary definitions, and avoid unnecessary elaboration.
· Place more emphasis on data and data processing.
· Ensure that the results and discussion sections are comprehensive, which is currently lacking in this article.
· Improve the quality of figures and the style of plotting.
· Include informative plot titles that provide clarity for readers, which are regrettably missing in the article.
· Make the conclusion concise and base it on the results of this study.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAttached , you can find my comments !
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Benefits and Challenges of a Build Back Better Strategy in Post Disaster Housing Recovery: A Model of LTRG Experiences
The authors have done a good job with comments of the reviewers, but still there are number of corrections are found in the paper, which need to be address before publication
1- In the tile the last section (A Model of LTRG Experiences) seems to be incomplete and confusing. It should be changed to make the title more catchy.
2- The start of the abstract is totally, incorrect. For example (After a flood comes the need for housing recovery (HR)) this sentence is totally out of order.
3- The first section within the abstract need to revised.
4- Line 28 reference [55] it is appeared after reference number 1, check this.
5- Line 57 and 58, author collect the interviews from members of 58 Long-Term Recovery Groups (LTRG) in the United States, my question is there any formulation/methods how author select these groups is there any specific criteria to be select?
6- References in section 2 review of literature are totally out of order.
7- Section 3 methodology. Better to move flowchart of methods section at the start of section 3
8- Discussion section is still missing, please add/discuss your results, how you achieve your proposed objectives. Housing recovery/ post disaster activity.
9- English editing is required throughout the paper to make clear idea what the author need to describe/elaborate.
10 -Some of the references are too old, e.g. 51 and 52. Information is missing is most of the references. Add complete data as much as available.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageEditing required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors· Extensive enhancements are required for the quality of English.
· While the authors have extensively gathered literature, they have not effectively managed it, resulting in some irrelevant content.
· The previous remarks have been partially addressed.
· Specialized software is necessary for creating the plots.
· Rather than accumulating an extensive amount of literature, engage in a comprehensive discussion of your results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageExtensive editing required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAuthors have done the all the comments made by reviewers.
But i am still not clear with the title of the paper, it is still poorly presented the entire study. This could make my decision revisions.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenot applicable.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers 2 and 3,
Thank you for your comments and your continued engagement with our paper. At your suggestion, we have done another round of English language edits and found several typos, missing words, and other minor issues which have now all been fixed.
At the request of Reviewer 2. we also changed the title again. We're pretty happy with this version and hope that you are too. It includes modeling in the title, which had been left out in the last version.
Thank you once again for all of your advice. We feel that through your critiques and advice the paper has become significantly better, and we appreciate that!
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors.
Comments on the Quality of English Language.
Author Response
Dear Reviewers 2 and 3,
Thank you for your comments and your continued engagement with our paper. At your suggestion, we have done another round of English language edits and found several typos, missing words, and other minor issues which have now all been fixed.
At the request of Reviewer 2. we also changed the title again. We're pretty happy with this version and hope that you are too. It includes modeling in the title, which had been left out in the last version.
Thank you once again for all of your advice. We feel that through your critiques and advice the paper has become significantly better, and we appreciate that!
