Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The work titled "Effectiveness of Social Technical Assistance (STA) Program for Vulnerable Beneficiaries: Evidence from Nepal’s Post-Earthquake Reconstruction" represents a highly relevant research topic. The abstract is well-written and structured. The text should not be in italics but rather in regular text format. In this section, the authors outline the research subject, a quantitative study involving 304 respondents, and provide an overview of the research results.

The introduction is very brief, and I suggest reorganizing the sections within the paper. I would move the "Gap in Literature" immediately after the introduction, in the section related to the Literature Review. "Nepal’s Post-earthquake Owner-Driven Housing Reconstruction" should be relocated to the section concerning the Study Area.

I suggest better formatting for "Table 1. Summary of Critical Analysis of ODR cases" as it is currently unclear. Within this section, "Critical Evaluation of Owner-Driven Reconstruction (ODR)," the tables lack clarity in terms of their formatting.

The section regarding "Research Questions and Objectives" could be positioned within the part related to Methods or Methodology, and the other subheadings concerning this matter should be connected. Instead of "H01," I would use "H1" as the zero is unnecessary.

In the section discussing the "Conceptual Framework of This Study," it is advisable to format the text without bolding to clarify the relationships.

Enhance the appearance of "Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of this study Source: Developed model by the author, Field Survey 2022." Additionally, if the authors created this figure, there's no need to specify "Developed model by the author" as it is implied.

Between "Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of this study Source: Developed model by the author, Field Survey 2022" and "Table 2. Socio-Technical Assistance (Independent Variables)," add text to clarify their relevance. This part should be at the beginning of the methodological section - "Description of the Study Area and Methodology."

Results and Discussion are separate headings; correct the enumerations. Improve the discussion without unnecessary repetition. For example:

• Table 9 indicates that STA activities expedited reconstruction, with an overall average agreed response of 96.30%, and implementation of STA resulted in a high construction compliance rate of 81%, as supported by (Gouli et al., 2019) to validate the effectiveness.

• Table 10 reflects the perceived need for the STA program by 77.6%, consistent with findings from other studies .

• Table 12 emphasizes that post-disaster reconstructed houses provide safe and dignified shelter...

The section "Contribution to the Knowledge" seems unclear, and it's unclear why the authors separated it. I suggest merging it with the discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Referee # 1

Thank you for reading our manuscript carefully. We are very grateful to your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Our response to each of your points are as follows:

1. Despite the sample size of 304, the representativeness of the sample may still

be limited. If the sample is mainly concentrated in one area or a specific group, the

results of the study may not give a full picture of the entire affected region or of all

vulnerable beneficiaries. Therefore, future research needs to ensure that the

sample is broad and diverse.

 

Response 1: We have concentrated our study on the earthquake's epicentre, confident in our sample's scientific representation. However, we respect your expertise and acknowledge your valuable comments. We will indeed broaden and diversify our sample in future studies.

 

 

2. While quantitative methods provide specific data on families' perceptions of the

STA program and post-disaster reconstruction activities, they may not capture

some of the more complex, qualitative information, such as the specific needs of

families, the challenges they face, and their detailed experiences with the

reconstruction process.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments. This paper was based on a quantitative method—questionnaire survey analysis—which was essential to understanding the magnitude of the program. However, we acknowledge that qualitative information should be included, considering the families' specific needs, challenges, and detailed experiences with the reconstruction process; this will be covered in the next papers.

 

 

 

3. The research mainly focuses on the improvement of housing reconstruction and

disaster reduction awareness, but the analysis of other factors related to disaster

risk (such as environmental degradation, climate change, socio-economic

vulnerability, etc.) is insufficient. These factors may also have important

implications for the long-term recovery and sustainability of affected communities.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your feedback and agree with you on this. This study was focused on a particular episode of the disaster; the broader issues, such as environmental degradation, climate change, and socio-economic vulnerability, will be incorporated in the next paper and our long-term research study on the relationship between disaster and economic development.

 

 

 

4. Cultural and social factors often have a significant impact on families' choices

and decision-making in the post-disaster reconstruction process. However, the

study may not adequately take these factors into account, thus compromising its

in-depth understanding of families' needs and experiences.

 

Response 4: Thank you, and we appreciate your feedback. In our earlier study, we had observed the heterogeneity of households due to several factors as mentioned, including gender, age, education, religion, ethnicity, and vulnerability, which have been tested in our previous papers (Refer: Bhusal, N.P. and Bhattarai, K.,2023, Assessing Satisfaction levels of the Earthquake Beneficiaries with the Post-disaster Private Housing Reconstruction Programme: Evidence from Nepal.). The next paper explores an in-depth understanding of the family’s needs and experiences as cultural and social factors through qualitative study.

 

 

5. The study has pointed out its own limitations, such as possible sample bias and

the influence of respondents' subjective feelings. It is recommended that the

impact of these limitations on the findings be further explored in future studies and

that corresponding improvements be proposed.

Response 5: Thank you for the valued feedback and recommendations. We agree with you, and we will explore it in future studies.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The overall merit of the manuscript is very ordinary. No scientific contribution. Very descriptive, with irrelevant discussion. 

 

Author Response

 

Referee # 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The overall merit of the manuscript is very ordinary. No scientific contribution. Very descriptive, with irrelevant discussion.

Response 2.1: We thank you for your feedback. We understand your concerns; the research study was challenging regarding fieldwork, getting all the survey data, and analysing and relating to relevant literature. Not much theoretical and applied work has taken place in this area. We will work towards more scientific contributions in our future works.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Despite the sample size of 304, the representativeness of the sample may still be limited. If the sample is mainly concentrated in one area or a specific group, the results of the study may not give a full picture of the entire affected region or of all vulnerable beneficiaries. Therefore, future research needs to ensure that the sample is broad and diverse.

 

2. While quantitative methods provide specific data on families' perceptions of the STA program and post-disaster reconstruction activities, they may not capture some of the more complex, qualitative information, such as the specific needs of families, the challenges they face, and their detailed experiences with the reconstruction process.

 

3. The research mainly focuses on the improvement of housing reconstruction and disaster reduction awareness, but the analysis of other factors related to disaster risk (such as environmental degradation, climate change, socio-economic vulnerability, etc.) is insufficient. These factors may also have important implications for the long-term recovery and sustainability of affected communities.

 

4. Cultural and social factors often have a significant impact on families' choices and decision-making in the post-disaster reconstruction process. However, the study may not adequately take these factors into account, thus compromising its in-depth understanding of families' needs and experiences.

 

5. The study has pointed out its own limitations, such as possible sample bias and the influence of respondents' subjective feelings. It is recommended that the impact of these limitations on the findings be further explored in future studies and that corresponding improvements be proposed.

Author Response

 

Referee # 3

 

3.1 Comments and Suggestions for Authors The work titled "Effectiveness of Social Technical Assistance (STA) Program for Vulnerable Beneficiaries: Evidence from Nepal’s Post-Earthquake Reconstruction" represents a highly relevant research topic. The abstract is well-written and structured. The text should not be in italics but rather in regular text format. In this section, the authors outline the research subject, a quantitative study involving 304 respondents, and provide an overview of the research results.

Response 3.1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have changed to the regular fonts as advised.

3.2 The introduction is very brief, and I suggest reorganizing the sections within the paper. I would move the "Gap in Literature" immediately after the introduction, in the section related to the Literature Review. "Nepal’s Post-earthquake OwnerDriven Housing Reconstruction" should be relocated to the section concerning the Study Area.

Response 3.2: Thank you for the comment. We have addressed these changes as advised.

3.3 I suggest better formatting for "Table 1. Summary of Critical Analysis of ODR cases" as it is currently unclear. Within this section, "Critical Evaluation of OwnerFirefox https://susy.mdpi.com/user/manuscripts/review/47209770?report=36014106 1 of 2 29/05/2024, 10:22 pm Driven Reconstruction (ODR)," the tables lack clarity in terms of their formatting.

Response 3.3: Thank you for the feedback; we have formatted the table.

 

 

3.4 The section regarding "Research Questions and Objectives" could be positioned within the part related to Methods or Methodology, and the other subheadings concerning this matter should be connected. Instead of "H01," I would use "H1" as the zero is unnecessary.

Response 3.4: Thank you. We have addressed this valued comment.

 

3.5 In the section discussing the "Conceptual Framework of This Study," it is advisable to format the text without bolding to clarify the relationships.

Response 3.5: Thank you for the feedback; corrections have been done as advised.

 

3.6 Enhance the appearance of "Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of this study Source: Developed model by the author, Field Survey 2022." Additionally, if the authors created this figure, there's no need to specify "Developed model by the author" as it is implied.

Response 3.6: Thank you, this has been addressed.

3.7 Between "Figure 2. Conceptual Framework of this study Source: Developed model by the author, Field Survey 2022" and "Table 2. Socio-Technical Assistance (Independent Variables)," add text to clarify their relevance.

Response 3.7: Thank you, this has been addressed.

 

3.8 This part should be at the beginning of the methodological section - "Description of the Study Area and Methodology." Results and Discussion are separate headings; correct the enumerations.

Response 3.8: Thank you, this has been addressed.

3.9 Improve the discussion without unnecessary repetition. For example: Table 9 indicates that STA activities expedited reconstruction, with an overall average agreed response of 96.30%, and implementation of STA resulted in a high construction compliance rate of 81%, as supported by (Gouli et al., 2019) to validate the effectiveness. Table 10 reflects the perceived need for the STA program by 77.6%, consistent with findings from other studies . Table 12 emphasizes that post-disaster reconstructed houses provide safe and dignified shelter...

Response 3.9: Thank you, this has been addressed.

 

3.10 The section "Contribution to the Knowledge" seems unclear, and it's unclear why the authors separated it. I suggest merging it with the discussion.

Response 3.10: To our knowledge, this is the first type of study in this subject in this area. So, we mentioned this in the discussion

 

3.12 Minor editing of English language required

Response 3.12: Thank you for the comment; we have checked it carefully.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for your correction.

Kind regard

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor english editing.

Author Response

Response to Referees

 

Referee # 1

Thank you for reading our manuscript carefully. We are very grateful to your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Our response to each of your points are as follows:

Comment_1. Despite the sample size of 304, the representativeness of the sample may still

be limited. If the sample is mainly concentrated in one area or a specific group, the

results of the study may not give a full picture of the entire affected region or of all

vulnerable beneficiaries. Therefore, future research needs to ensure that the

sample is broad and diverse.

 

Response 1: We have concentrated our study on the earthquake's epicentre, confident in our sample's scientific representation. However, we respect your expertise and acknowledge your valuable comments. We will indeed broaden and diversify our sample in future studies.

 

 

Comment_2. While quantitative methods provide specific data on families' perceptions of the

STA program and post-disaster reconstruction activities, they may not capture

some of the more complex, qualitative information, such as the specific needs of

families, the challenges they face, and their detailed experiences with the

reconstruction process.

 

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments. This paper was based on a quantitative method—questionnaire survey analysis—which was essential to understanding the magnitude of the program. However, we acknowledge that qualitative information should be included, considering the families' specific needs, challenges, and detailed experiences with the reconstruction process; this will be covered in the next papers.

 

 

 

Comment_3. The research mainly focuses on the improvement of housing reconstruction and

disaster reduction awareness, but the analysis of other factors related to disaster

risk (such as environmental degradation, climate change, socio-economic

vulnerability, etc.) is insufficient. These factors may also have important

implications for the long-term recovery and sustainability of affected communities.

 

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. We appreciate your feedback and agree with you on this. This study was focused on a particular episode of the disaster; the broader issues, such as environmental degradation, climate change, and socio-economic vulnerability, will be incorporated in the next paper and our long-term research study on the relationship between disaster and economic development.

 

 

 

Comment_4. Cultural and social factors often have a significant impact on families' choices

and decision-making in the post-disaster reconstruction process. However, the

study may not adequately take these factors into account, thus compromising its

in-depth understanding of families' needs and experiences.

 

Response 4: Thank you, and we appreciate your feedback. In our earlier study, we had observed the heterogeneity of households due to several factors as mentioned, including gender, age, education, religion, ethnicity, and vulnerability, which have been tested in our previous paper (Refer: Bhusal, N.P. and Bhattarai, K.,2023, Assessing Satisfaction levels of the Earthquake Beneficiaries with the Post-disaster Private Housing Reconstruction Programme: Evidence from Nepal.). The next paper explores an in-depth understanding of the family’s needs and experiences as cultural and social factors through qualitative study.

 

 

Comment_5. The study has pointed out its own limitations, such as possible sample bias and

the influence of respondents' subjective feelings. It is recommended that the

impact of these limitations on the findings be further explored in future studies and

that corresponding improvements be proposed.

Response 5: Thank you for the valued feedback and recommendations. We agree with you, and have revised our limitations. We will explore on these limitations  in future studies.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf