Do It Yourself! Collaborative Processes for Inclusive Design and Capacity Building in Louisiana (USA)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a very pertinent case study, pulling together relevant threads that are important for a sustainable and inclusive future. The context for the research is provided in substantial detail with appropriate supporting references. It is clearly written and includes a good range of appropriate supporting illustrations.

My main recommendation is to to tighten the context and provide more detail about the pedagogic and research methods used within the project. For example, it could be helpful to:

tease out the interplay between research and practice in the iterative approach adopted,

clarify the extent to which the process involves primarily consultation, co-design or other forms of participatory design,

what sort of co-design activities are undertaken and the strengths and weaknesses of these,

what kinds of prototyping activities are undertaken and whether these are collaborative

what kinds of evaluation are built in throughout the process and, particularly, at the evaluation stage,

how student learning is also evaluated (and what the evaluations show).

More methodological detail and reflection would be of benefit to journal readers. 

The conclusions are appropriate to the case study and the broader context of the research. Overall, the paper did feel a little bit descriptive so there is scope to improve the overall criticality of the submissions.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and efforts of the editor and reviewers in giving advise for improving the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to address all the suggestions and reviewed the paper accordingly, in order to meet the publication requirements. The paper has been revised in track change.

1. Reviewer's comment: My main recommendation is to tighten the context and provide more detail about the pedagogic and research methods used within the project. For example, it could be helpful to:

a. tease out the interplay between research and practice in the iterative approach adopted. Author's response: We provided more detail about the pedagogic methods developed by the Louisiana Tech team within the Alabama Camp practice. We also clarified the research methodology developed throughout the case study. The reviews have been highlighted in track change in the text.

b. clarify the extent to which the process involves primarily consultation, co-design or ther forms of participatory design, what sort of co-design activities are undertaken and the strengths and weaknesses of these. Author's response: We highlighted the co-design procedures and discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the results.

c. what kinds of prototyping activities are undertaken and whether these are collaborative what kinds of evaluation are built in throughout the process and, particularly, at the evaluation stage? Author's response: We presented the evaluation process in the discussion.

d.  how student learning is also evaluated (and what the evaluations show)? Author's response:This section will be developed in a specific paper

2. Reviewer's comment: More methodological detail and reflection would be of benefit to journal readers. Author's response: We added more methodological detail and reflection

3. Reviewer's comment: The conclusions are appropriate to the case study and the broader context of the research. Overall, the paper did feel a little bit descriptive so there is scope to improve the overall criticality of the submissions. Author's response: We improved the critical perspective

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The contribution of architects to enhancing sustainability is welcome. However, this ms does not convince the reader that there is a clear understanding and definition of what sustainability means here ( seems like relative rather than absolute targets). A clear statement of objectives would be helpful. The Introduction is set in the context of the need to mitigate climate change and other environmental challenges but the focus of the ms does not reflect this. Apart from some re-use of building materials, there is little which is relevant to such challenges.  Reference to an SDG is included without obvious justification. Details in lines 309-310 not clearly of interest to an international readership. The Discussion rather oddly mostly concerns aspects which were excluded from the study, which might be expected in a Limitations section.

399-401 Assertion re 'unlocking sustainable solutions' to address environmental challenges, including climate change' is not justified in text.

439-441 again assertions are not justified in text. It is not clear how this project might be applied elsewhere, especially in larger settlements which do not have easily accessible green areas, and in which (in Europe) 75% of the population live.  453-454: note that European states have many projects based in local community and stakeholder involvement and sustainability capacity building, often with support from university based researchers. The literature contains many papers and reports which provide detailed accounts of successes and failures. See for example thevillage.ie. This may be especially significant in work funded by the EU, as private funding for such projects in EU is generally much less generous than as described in this ms. Other minor issues tend to cast doubt on the authors' technical understanding of sustainability. For example, is the lake ecosystem monitored to ensure that fishing does not result in loss of species, or invasion of non-native species?

Author Response

We appreciate the time and efforts of the editor and reviewers in giving advise for improving the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to address all the suggestions and reviewed the paper accordingly, in order to meet the publication requirements. The paper has been revised in track change.

1. Reviewer's comment: A clear statement of objectives would be helpful. The Introduction is set in the context of the need to mitigate climate change and other environmental challenges but the focus of the ms does not reflect this. Apart from some re-use of building materials, there is little which is relevant to such

challenges. Reference to an SDG is included without obvious justification.

Details in lines 309-310 not clearly of interest to an international readership.

Author’s response: We provided more detail about the objectives. We clarified that references to climate change and other environmental challenges are the background for discussing about raising awareness, self-construction resilient practices and learning by doing capacity building experiences.

We clarified the references to SDGs

In lines 309-310 there is the table regarding the co-design experiences developed within the Alabama Camp practice. We updated the text in order to clarify it.

2. Reviewer’s comments: The Discussion rather oddly mostly concerns aspects which were excluded from the study, which might be expected in a Limitations section. Author’s response: We added the limitations in the discussion and explained more clearly the case study rationalen

3. Reviewer’s comments: 

399-401 Assertion re 'unlocking sustainable solutions' to address environmental challenges, including climate change' is not justified in text.

439-441 again assertions are not justified in text. It is not clear how this project might be applied elsewhere, especially in larger settlements which do not have easily accessible green areas, and in which (in Europe) 75% of the population live

Author’s response: We improved the critical perspective.

Literature and clarifications have been added in order to explain the transferability possibilities, according to the peri-urban and inner-marginalized areas in Europe and elsewhere

4. Reviewer’s comments:  European states have many projects based in local community and stakeholder involvement and sustainability capacity building, often with support from university based researchers. The literature contains many papers and reports which provide detailed accounts of successes and failures. See for

example thevillage.ie.

This may be especially significant in work funded by the EU, as private funding for such projects in EU is generally much less generous than as described in this ms.

Author’s response: Thank you for the valuable advice. We are well aware of the mentioned practices. However, these cases are off topic respect the paper aims. We better explained the framework and aims of the study.

We explained the nature of the MCSE RISE EU funded project, mainly dedicated to scholars exchange and mutual learning experiences, through fieldwork abroad.

5. Reviewer’s comments: Other minor issues tend to cast doubt on the authors' technical understanding of sustainability. For example, is the lake ecosystem monitored to ensure that fishing does not result in loss of species, or invasion of non-native species?

Author’s response:

We clarified our perspective in discussing sustainability.

This suggestion does not apply to the nature of our study

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The introduction is complete and clear. It presents different policies related to the subject under investigation, which provides context and allows a good understanding of the current situation in which we find ourselves. This section also shows the complexity of the problem and the multidisciplinary perspective of analysis. On the other hand, the objectives and structure of the article are clearly explained.

The methodological section is interesting not only for explaining the research carried out but also for going deeper into the existing theories linked to the tools used. However, I believe that the authors need to clarify some aspects:

a) Explain in detail how the observation has been carried out: how long? how many people have done it? how the data have been taken?

b) Explain in detail how the interviews were conducted: When were they conducted? How many people participated? What tool was used to collect the information? How were the interviews processed?

In the results, it would be interesting if the authors made an effort to categorize the co-designed projects. This would provide a better overview.

The discussion is extremely scarce and there is no reference to other works. An effort should be made to contrast the results obtained with other research carried out elsewhere.

The conclusion is correct, although not, in my opinion, there should be no new citations in it. I recommend the elimination of reference number 27.

Author Response

We appreciate the time and efforts of the editor and reviewers in giving advise for improving the quality of our manuscript. We have tried our best to address all the suggestions and reviewed the paper accordingly, in order to meet the publication requirements. The paper has been revised in track change.

1. Reviewer's comments:

a) Explain in detail how the observation has been carried out: how long? how many people have done it? how the data have been taken? b) Explain in detail how the interviews were conducted: When were they conducted? How many people participated? What tool was used to collect the information? How were the interviews processed? 

Author's response: We provided more detail about the methodology and the case-study development

2. Reviewer's comments: In the results, it would be interesting if the authors made an effort to categorize the co- designed projects. This would provide a better overview. Author's response: We added a scheme and the description of the project categories

3. Reviewer's comments: The discussion is extremely scarce and there is no reference to other works. An effort should be made to contrast the results obtained with other research carried out elsewhere. Author's response: We updated the results and discussion section in order to better present the study development.

4. Reviewer's comments: The conclusion is correct, although not, in my opinion, there should be no new citations in it. I recommend the elimination of reference number 27. Author's response: We removed the citations in the conclusion section

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The modifications and additions to the article presented have made the work much more understandable and clearer. The authors have incorporated the requested modifications. Right now we have a really interesting paper.