The Role of Buildings in Rural Areas: Trends, Challenges, and Innovations for Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article uses a comprehensive state-of-the-art of research on rural buildings and a PRISMA protocol to present a systematic review of the scientific research between 2000 and 2022. The structure of the paper is complete, the framework is clear, and the research trend of rural buildings is well demonstrated, as well as the challenges and innovations facing the future sustainable development. The article as a whole is good, but there are still the following details.
For example, the titles of the three sections 2.1,2.2 and 2.3 are exactly the same, and they are inconsistent with the titles of the six sections described above, and there is a missing section of presentation.
The author's research is only based on the SCOPUS database, which is not comprehensive; second, how the author identified the five topics and sub-categories seems to be very subjective. Finally, the author does not seem to carry out in-depth analysis on how to carry out innovation in the sustainable development of rural buildings.
Author Response
The article uses a comprehensive state-of-the-art of research on rural buildings and a PRISMA protocol to present a systematic review of the scientific research between 2000 and 2022. The structure of the paper is complete, the framework is clear, and the research trend of rural buildings is well demonstrated, as well as the challenges and innovations facing the future sustainable development. The article as a whole is good, but there are still the following details.
For example, the titles of the three sections 2.1,2.2 and 2.3 are exactly the same, and they are inconsistent with the titles of the six sections described above, and there is a missing section of presentation.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your effort to review our paper. We thank you for your valuable comments that we addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript. The typo was corrected.
The author's research is only based on the SCOPUS database, which is not comprehensive;
As we mentioned in the Discussion, Scopus is a broad database (line 138), and several reviews are based on sole Scopus database (e.g., (El Chami et al., 2020; Preite et al., 2023; Spanaki et al., 2022). Using Scopus, we retrieved 1492 papers that are a solid base for a systematic review. According to Sampson et al., 2006, “Searching additional databases with overlapping coverage but fewer precision-enhancing features may reintroduce irrelevant material that has already been eliminated from the retrieval in the database with the fullest feature set.”. Therefore, in accordance with reviewer 2, we believe that, although not comprehensive, our review is representative and significant.
We tried to extract papers from WOS with the same script. The results showed 637 papers, and only 2.3 % were different from those of Scopus.
We did not comment about our choice in the Discussion, as we have assessed that all reviews based on Scopus database don’t provide any justification. However, if the reviewer thinks it is important a comment, we will be glad to add it.
…..
Second, how the author identified the five topics and sub-categories seems to be very subjective.
Our topics are based on the analysis of 41 previously published reviews, as shown in Table 2. We agree that the names given to the five categories is subjective, but this does not change the substance that all reviews carried out so far identified these five macro-groups of research topics. We tried to clarify this point in lines 218-219 as follows “Thus, we attempted to classify the five topics attributing them a name as descriptive as possible”.
Finally, the author does not seem to carry out in-depth analysis on how to carry out innovation in the sustainable development of rural buildings.
Thank you for your suggestion. The topic is very broad, and the reviews identified several issues that are underdeveloped and may be implemented for sustainable development. We have added a further comment in the conclusions, lines 599-605:
“LCA has already been applied to rural buildings, from building materials to energy effi-ciency. However, efficient LCA must be supported by monitoring tools and DSS. In this review, we assessed the need to implement research on technologies. Therefore, sustaina-ble development of rural buildings should be supported by the diffusion of smart tools to all rural areas, even the most remote. Then, we argue that global warming is affecting the rural building sector in terms of welfare conditions. Thus, new research is encouraged on building materials and components to create resilient buildings”
Reviewer 2 Report
The subject of the article is interesting, and the idea of studying the role of buildings in rural areas for sustainable development has its potential. The conducted analysis indicates the directions of undertaken research in this area and is the basis for further analyzes in the future. The information supplied by this study may be used for improving the structural, energy, and cost-efficiency of rural buildings in a modern farming concept based on the participation of the stakeholders in the decision process. A comprehensive knowledge of state-of-the-art research on farm buildings may help decision-makers promote their sustainable development, conservation, and valorization.
The choice of the research problem should be assessed as accurate and justified in both the scientific and practical aspects. The study is a contribution to further theoretical considerations and empirical research.
The layout of the article has been subordinated to the set goal and subject of the work - in my opinion, it is correct. The definitions, terms, and names quoted by the authors are correct. Research methods have been properly selected, they enable the achievement of the set goal. The conclusions contain the most important findings from the conducted research.
The paper represents a systematic review of the research literature from 2000 to 2022 in the rural building sector. The objectives of this work are to I) highlight the research tendencies, II) analyse the evolution over time of the leading research topics, and iii) identify research gaps to address future developments.
The research topic undertaken is not new, but it is an interesting contribution to the achievements to date in the field of examining the role of buildings in rural areas and their importance for sustainable development. This is becoming increasingly important nowadays when more and more rural policies focus on energy innovation and energy efficiency in agriculture.
The reviewed study is a review of previous research in the field of buildings in rural areas and their use. It indicates trends in the field of scientific research undertaken in this area and thus indicates the gaps and the need for further in-depth analyzes on issues that have been analyzed to a lesser extent so far. The authors can be accused of using only the Scopus database, which significantly limits the scope of the undertaken analysis. However, I do not consider this a mistake but rather treat it as a purposeful study based on this very base. This study may be a contribution to further research in the field of the role of buildings in rural areas with the extension of other databases of journals.
The introduction is well-written. In the introduction, the authors justify the undertaken research issues. They clearly define the purpose of the study.
In the material and methods section, the authors clearly described the entire research procedure. To conduct a systematic review, they used Diagram Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Diagram revised to accommodate agro-cultural studies. According to this modified diagram, they defined the steps for carrying out a systematic review of the agricultural literature.
Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do address the main aim.
References are appropriate.
To present the results obtained from the literature review, the authors used graphical and tabular methods of presenting the results. The table and figures are legible and are related to the analysis of the collected material.
Overall, I think the authors put in a lot of effort to achieve their goal. I appreciate their process of developing this research paper.
Author Response
The subject of the article is interesting, and the idea of studying the role of buildings in rural areas for sustainable development has its potential. The conducted analysis indicates the directions of undertaken research in this area and is the basis for further analyzes in the future. The information supplied by this study may be used for improving the structural, energy, and cost-efficiency of rural buildings in a modern farming concept based on the participation of the stakeholders in the decision process. A comprehensive knowledge of state-of-the-art research on farm buildings may help decision-makers promote their sustainable development, conservation, and valorization.
The choice of the research problem should be assessed as accurate and justified in both the scientific and practical aspects. The study is a contribution to further theoretical considerations and empirical research.
The layout of the article has been subordinated to the set goal and subject of the work - in my opinion, it is correct. The definitions, terms, and names quoted by the authors are correct. Research methods have been properly selected, they enable the achievement of the set goal. The conclusions contain the most important findings from the conducted research.
The paper represents a systematic review of the research literature from 2000 to 2022 in the rural building sector. The objectives of this work are to I) highlight the research tendencies, II) analyse the evolution over time of the leading research topics, and iii) identify research gaps to address future developments.
The research topic undertaken is not new, but it is an interesting contribution to the achievements to date in the field of examining the role of buildings in rural areas and their importance for sustainable development. This is becoming increasingly important nowadays when more and more rural policies focus on energy innovation and energy efficiency in agriculture.
The reviewed study is a review of previous research in the field of buildings in rural areas and their use. It indicates trends in the field of scientific research undertaken in this area and thus indicates the gaps and the need for further in-depth analyzes on issues that have been analyzed to a lesser extent so far. The authors can be accused of using only the Scopus database, which significantly limits the scope of the undertaken analysis. However, I do not consider this a mistake but rather treat it as a purposeful study based on this very base. This study may be a contribution to further research in the field of the role of buildings in rural areas with the extension of other databases of journals.
The introduction is well-written. In the introduction, the authors justify the undertaken research issues. They clearly define the purpose of the study.
In the material and methods section, the authors clearly described the entire research procedure. To conduct a systematic review, they used Diagram Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Diagram revised to accommodate agro-cultural studies. According to this modified diagram, they defined the steps for carrying out a systematic review of the agricultural literature.
Conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do address the main aim.
References are appropriate.
To present the results obtained from the literature review, the authors used graphical and tabular methods of presenting the results. The table and figures are legible and are related to the analysis of the collected material.
Overall, I think the authors put in a lot of effort to achieve their goal. I appreciate their process of developing this research paper.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your effort to review our paper. We thank you for your valuable comments that we addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Thank you for your feedback. The objective of this work was to help decision-makers promote their sustainable development with an updated picture of the state-of-the art research. We are glad for your encouraging comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors make a feasibility study for modernizing and upgrading rural areas, identifying trends, challenges, and innovations to make the development of rural areas sustainable.
The work is interesting and up-to-date. This study covers great contributions, but I miss a more technical part to complete the study.
It was based on data collection but focused on the most popular databases and sources. On the other hand, some solutions have not been considered.
For example, satellite communications have now become very interesting for reaching these types of areas. On the other hand, I see shortcomings and have not considered the technologies and challenges that satellite or lower altitude aerospace elements can help rural areas and sustainable development.
Examples of solutions can be found in the following references:
1) Pagano, A.; Croce, D.; Tinnirello, I.; Vitale, G. A Survey on LoRa for Smart Agriculture: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 10, 3664–3679.
2) Monzon Baeza, V.; Alvarez Marban, M. High Altitude Platform Stations Aided Cloud-Computing Solution for Rural-Environment IoT Applications. Comput. Netw. Commun. 2023, 1, 85–98
These are some of the solutions that I have found by reviewing the literature, apart from the websites that the authors say they have used for the study.
In the introduction, several lines are commented on, but it is recommended to structure this as a background section, as well as a typical outline of survey-type papers to understand and have a vision of the content.
The technology gap is very generic. Could the authors elaborate further? They mention sensor technologies, but it is all very general. What other technologies besides satellites are used for sustainable development in rural areas?
Some types identified:
-Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 have the same title
Author Response
The authors make a feasibility study for modernizing and upgrading rural areas, identifying trends, challenges, and innovations to make the development of rural areas sustainable.
The work is interesting and up-to-date. This study covers great contributions, but I miss a more technical part to complete the study.
Dear Reviewer, thank you for your effort to review our paper. We thank you for your valuable comments that we addressed to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Thank you for your positive comments and your revisions.
It was based on data collection but focused on the most popular databases and sources. On the other hand, some solutions have not been considered.
For example, satellite communications have now become very interesting for reaching these types of areas. On the other hand, I see shortcomings and have not considered the technologies and challenges that satellite or lower altitude aerospace elements can help rural areas and sustainable development.
Examples of solutions can be found in the following references:
1) Pagano, A.; Croce, D.; Tinnirello, I.; Vitale, G. A Survey on LoRa for Smart Agriculture: Current Trends and Future Perspectives. IEEE Internet Things J. 2022, 10, 3664–3679.
2) Monzon Baeza, V.; Alvarez Marban, M. High Altitude Platform Stations Aided Cloud-Computing Solution for Rural-Environment IoT Applications. Comput. Netw. Commun. 2023, 1, 85–98
These are some of the solutions that I have found by reviewing the literature, apart from the websites that the authors say they have used for the study.
Thank you for suggesting this valuable references. We have implemented the Discussion to address this comment as follows (lines 558-570):
Several smart tools may be used in the monitoring process of rural buildings, both for in-door and outdoor environments. A recent review presents state-of-the-art sensors for structural health monitoring [36], and satellite imagery is suitable for monitoring rural areas [20]. However, some drawbacks persist for a wider diffusion of new technologies. For example, Pagano et al. [91] highlighted the potential of smart devices and Internet of Things (IoT) applications in several rural sectors. Rural buildings monitoring can benefit from different kinds of sensing technologies, e.g., for animals’ health, emissions, and en-vironmental conditions. However, the limited Internet connectivity in many rural areas may be a severe constraint [91]. Recently some solutions have been proposed to overcome the connectivity issues of remote rural areas based on communicating elements to provide joint functionality [92]. However, one of the reasons for the lower frequency of cluster En-gineering and technologies may be due to the remoteness of several rural areas.
In the introduction, several lines are commented on, but it is recommended to structure this as a background section, as well as a typical outline of survey-type papers to understand and have a vision of the content.
We have deleted several sentences in the introduction avoiding personal comments and focusing on background.
The technology gap is very generic. Could the authors elaborate further? They mention sensor technologies, but it is all very general. What other technologies besides satellites are used for sustainable development in rural areas?
In the previously added paragraph, we have included some additional sensing technologies beside thous already mentioned in the Introduction.
Some types identified:
-Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 have the same title
Corrected
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments and improved the contribution. The only point to note is that the references they have included are not all well-written. I suppose this can be solved by editing, and the paper can be accepted.
