The Process of Delivery A Case Study Evaluation of Residential Handover Procedures in Sustainable Housing

David Bailey, Mark Gillott, Robin Wilson Energy and Sustainability Group, Built Environment, Nottingham University, Nottingham NG7 2RD, UK Abstract. At present research groups are developing a growing body of evidence quantitatively demonstrating through post occupancy evaluation, a significant gap between the actual physical performance characteristics and the design predictions of sustainable dwellings. In examining this documented performance variability this paper argues that a substantial proportion of this gap may be the result of mismanagement and misuse of sustainable systems by the occupants who have received little to no training in the specialised equipment and design techniques regularly employed in modern sustainable housing. Specifically this paper looks into the training and guidance given to new house owners during the critical handover phase. The research adopts a direct observational methodology in conjunction with a suitable housing case study and the associated handover process. By recording and analysing the handover procedures of a representative housing developer the study hopes to gain valuable insight into the current technological training and guidance provided to new tenants of modern ecologically certified housing. The study finds occupants are not receiving adequate training and guidance with regard to the sustainable measures employed in their housing. In addition the survey suggests that residents struggle to absorb the information provided in the current format. Ultimately the study proposes a complete reform of the handover process, based on existing commercial precedence and focusing on both the accessibility and content of the handover procedure.

1. Introduction
This paper has been compiled as part of a larger body of work seeking to address the widely accepted, yet little documented phenomenon of performance variability in domestic applications. There is a growing body of evidence (Herring & Roy, 2007) (Johnston, 2010) (Taylor et al., 2010) (Wingfield, 2011) quantitatively showing a significant gap between actual physical performance characteristics and design predictions. As the housing industry comes under greater pressure to develop more ecological products, a technology oriented approach has dominated the search for sustainability. However the following work examines the importance of the often marginalised variable of socio-technological interaction and occupant behaviour within the role of housing performance. (Marsh, 2010) (Herring & Roy, 2007) Modern sustainable housing requires a significant amount of technology oriented solutions which in turn require some level of occupant interaction, ranging from changing a filter every 5 years to daily operational contact. This paper asks the question: have handover and training procedures targeting new house owners evolved and become more formalised with the advent of more complex sustainable technologies and design concepts in the ecologically oriented housing sector?

2. Background & Context 2.1 Government Policy

In 2007 the UK Government introduced a new housing policy objective aimed at reducing the residential sectors estimated 26% share in green house gas emissions (DECC, 2011). This widely debated legislation charges the housing industry with the goal of producing fully zero carbon homes by the year 2016 (DCLG, 2007). While subject to much controversy the policy is supported by the overarching mandate of the Climate Change act that commits the UK to legally-binding targets for emissions reductions of 80% by 2050 and at least 34% by 2020, against a 1990 baseline (OPSI, 2008). In

response to the Government policies, research organisations and housing developers have focused on developing technologies that both reduce overall energy consumption and produce renewable energy to supplement and replace that drawn from the national grid (Marsh, 2010). This focus and emphasis on technology and good building practice is prevalent throughout the industry but often comes at the expense of social considerations. There is growing recognition that building performance studies should take more account of occupant behaviour and needs. In the past there has been over reliance on, for example, predictions from design models and estimations. (HCA, 2010, p. 3) Understanding how occupants interact with a building and the subsequent variations that may cause in the building performance is vital as occupant behaviours vary widely and can impact energy consumption by as much as 100% for a given dwelling (Dutil et al. 2011) Note that here occupant interaction and participation refers to activities that have a direct or indirect impact upon building energy consumption. With the advent of sustainable construction and the associated user participation, it is important to understand the interaction between occupant and building (DEFRA, 2008). The findings of a report by the NHBC Foundation (2011, p. 6) indicate further research is required to examine both occupant behaviour and the best ways to inform users how to make the most efficient use of their homes and the systems in themUnderstanding what information should be provided in user guides and what level of detail and in what format should this information be provided.

2.2 The significance of handover procedures.

Given the importance and concurrent difficulties associated with Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) as a relatively new practice in domestic applications (Stevenson, 2009), it is important that this study targets the principal instance of occupant education. The construction of a new housing project necessitates 5 key phases. 1. Design 4. Construction 2. Planning 5. Handover 3. Specification (BSRIA, 2009) Within a mainstream sustainable housing development the purchaser of the house would only become part of the development process during the final stages of construction or even post-construction. Thus the first contact that many people have with their houses is during that initial handover stage. Currently housing handovers are a non-regulated, informal procedure. The handover stage generally comprises of an instructional tour around the house and usually some form of literary backup such as instruction manuals for the more complicated equipment (DCLG, 2010). It is during this brief period of contact that the developer or relevant sales person, must convey the entirety of the design concepts and technological installations that make the house sustainable. Alternatively the homeowner is expected to absorb all the information given to them and then apply it throughout their ownership of the house. With the exception of the handover procedure there is little formal contact between occupant and developer, that allows for in-depth guidance and instruction on the systems and technologies employed in the property under current standard practice.

3. Methodology 3.1 Strategy

The study adopts a direct observational protocol in combination with a specialised case study. The direct observational methodology is a branch of qualitative field research that simply aims to gather data from specific sampled situations within the natural setting of a case study. In order to reinforce the data gathered through the direct observation techniques, a suitable case study with relevant parameters is used as the test bench. Relevant parameters in this context refer primarily to the ecological certification of the sample dwellings. The dwellings ecological rating needs to be such that it conforms to the environmental protocols required by the government and in conforming to these protocols, it utilizes representative sustainable technologies and energy saving techniques characteristic throughout industry. The handover of such a property should, in theory, reflect the level of training and guidance required to introduce a layperson to the subtleties and functionality of the sustainable technology that they will be required to use on a daily basis. A critical analysis of these sample handovers then gives an indication of how the industry is adapting to accommodate new technologies and ideas.

3.2 Case Study Outline

The case study development is located in the Meadows, Nottingham. The Green Street development is a newly constructed housing scheme accredited at CSH Level 4. The 6 houses under investigation incorporate numerous technologies and sustainable design techniques making them an ideal testing ground for the handover procedure. The observed handover procedure in the 7 houses of phase 2 took place over a nine day period. Each handover took between 30-60min. During the handover, the homeowners were guided around the property by the a member of the development agency in charge of the Green Street Project, starting outside then moving upwards through the floors of the property. Each handover was recorded electronically with additional handwritten notes from two observers. It is important to note that the sample size of 6 houses means conclusions from this site are by no means definitive, rather they are seen as indicative of what may be widespread practice in the industry.

3.3 Design of Data Analysis

At present there is no formal protocol governing the handover of a building and its documentation (Graves et al., 2002) It is therefore necessary to establish a benchmark of expectations based on the handovers position within the delivery process, introduced in section 2, case study literature (DCLG, 2010) and best practice recommendations from similar studies (Graves et al., 2002) (BSRIA, 2009) (Stevenson & Leaman, 2010). Based on these sources, a best practice handover should provide a thorough and accurate introduction to all occupant driven attributes of the dwelling such that the occupant is confident in their functionality and operation. With regard to sustainable properties, this introduction should include any and all sustainable attributes or systems that may be affected by occupant behaviour. The methodological protocol therefore dictates a critical analysis of the handover procedure that compares these best practice expectations with the case study evidence to determine the proficiency of the procedure. The following pilot study is derived from the stipulations detailed in the previous section, the results being a compilation of the sustainable design concepts from the case study homes which should be covered in a best practice handover. The information is gathered from a variety of sources including marketing information, the architects specification, Standard Assessment Procedure (SAP) analysis and first hand observation. These concepts and technologies are then cate-

gorised with respect to the intentions of the study and the feasible scope of a typical handover procedure to produce a list of elements that should, in best practice, be introduced to the occupants. The intentions of the research dictate a focus on the behavioural determinants which can be defined as the energy saving characteristics which relate directly to occupant management of the building and occupant control of systems and components. (Yao & Steemers, 2005) The behavioural determinants are further subdivided into active and passive components (in table 1) where: Active components Occupants must be actively taught how to use the particular technology or design element. Passive components Occupants intuitively know how to use these elements, but need to be encouraged and taught best practice so as to avoid problems such as the rebound effect (Nassen & Holmberg, 2009) (C. J. M. van den Bergh, 2011).
Status Identifier* A Active B C D E F G Passive H I J K Behavioural Determinant Photovoltaic panels Mechanically ventilated heat recovery system Stack Ventilation Radiators with timed and temperature zone controls 90% Condensing Combination Gas Boiler 100% Low Energy dedicated internal lighting Washing Lines Bike Sheds Low flow toilets and taps and showers A rated Kitchen appliances Recycling Bins

Table 1. Breakdown of behavioural determinants into active and passive components.

* Throughout this paper, this unique identifier will be used to label quotations and excerpts drawn from the handover observations.

Using this matrix the core content required of the handover, from a sustainable perspective, is narrowed to 4 vital elements, supported by 7 sub-factors. The training and support inherently involved with the introduction of these behavioural determinants is seen as part of the fundamental requirements of a handover and deemed feasible within the scope of the handover process. While these particular elements are case study specific, the pilot study protocol can be applied by any developer or relevant handover personnel, to any new environmentally focused development. This facilitates the prioritisation of those technologies and design attributes that require a more in-depth and instructional introduction.

4. Results
This section into divided into 2 subsections focusing, respectively, on an analysis of the results as defined by the pilot study protocol and the substantiation of these results with extracts from the audio transcripts and handwritten notes.

4.1 Analysis
The grade based scale introduced in tables 2&3 is founded on extensive knowledge concerning each of the elements in table 1. An understanding of each of these elements allows the development of a hypothetical model of what constitutes a good explanation by the demonstrator. An ideal description represents a 3 on the scale, the element is then downgraded if the demonstrator is seen to omit vital

bits of information or mislead the occupier. In table 2, functionality is defined as the demonstrators ability to practically explain how an element works. The bike shed or bin storage for example is fairly intuitive, requires little training and will generally score highly, thus indicating no need to change current methods of handover procedure. However mechanically ventilated heat recovery (MVHR) is far more complex and would therefore require much more explanation.
Table 2. Functionality Scale Functionality (F) Grade 0 1 2 3 Definition No mention of item at all or mentioned, but explained falsely. Brief explanation of functionality Adequate explanation of functionality Thorough explanation of functionality Grade 0 1 2 3 Table 3. Sustainability Scale Sustainability (S) Definition No mention of item at all or mentioned, but explained falsely. Brief explanation of sustainability Adequate explanation of sustainability Thorough explanation of sustainability

In table 3 S denotes Sustainability. This is the level to that the demonstrator has addressed the su stainable ethos of the element in question. Examples of this would be the inclusion of a map of cycle routes in the surrounding area when introducing the bike shed, or a breakdown of how much money and CO2 can be saved when using a washing line as compared to a conventional dryer thereby encouraging a occupant to actually use a component that they might otherwise ignore. The purpose of the dual rating system is to show, particularly in the case of the passive items that functionality or how can be covered without actually dealing with the sustainable ethos behind the item or the why. As industry looks into a more holistic solution to sustainability the why becomes just as i mportant as the how. Addressing the motivations behind using a particular technology can encourage an individual to use an element that they would otherwise remain reluctant to interact with (Hargreaves et al., 2010). In best practice the handover should adequately explain both the functionality of an element and the sustainable ethos behind it or else risk the inevitable performance gap between design and reality when occupants fail to use their homes as they were intended to be used.
Table 4. Analysis of individual handover processes. Behavioural Determinant ID Plot ID* F P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 1 2 1 1 N/A 1 A S 1 0 0 0 N/A 0 F 1 0 1 1 0 1 B S 1 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 C S 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 3 3 3 0 2 0 D S 2 1 3 0 0 0 F 2 2 2 2 2 2 E S 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 0 0 0 0 0 0 F F 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 3 0 0 0 0 G S 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 3 3 3 3 3 3 H S 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 2 2 2 1 2 2 I S 0 1 0 1 1 0 F 2 2 2 2 2 2 J S 0 1 0 0 0 0 F 2 2 2 2 3 3 K S 0 0 0 0 0 0 F 2 2 2 2 2 2 L S 0 0 0 0 0 0

* Throughout this paper, this unique identifier will be used to label quotations and excerpts drawn from the handover observations in combination with the statements positio n on the audio recording eg. (P1, 12:45). Plot handovers are listed in chronological order.

Table 4, Analysis of individual handover processes, clearly shows that sustainability is a marginalised variable within the handover process, across both active and passive determinants. This is due to 3 key reasons: 1. Regarding the active behavioural determinants such as MVHR, and PV the failure is primarily the result of inadequate knowledge on the part of the demonstrator supported by statements by the

demonstrator revealing that they were unfamiliar with the equipment, particularly the MVHR, during the initial handovers. (P1, 10:30) 2. Passive determinants are affected by the endemic problem of insufficient previous experience with sustainable housing. There is no knowledge infrastructure or even aspiration to support the handover of sustainable housing, due paradoxically to the fact that housing has never before included this level of sustainable design and technology. The ever growing field of sustainable construction however provokes an integral shift in the responsibilities of the modern handover with a far greater emphasis on a holistic process (BSRIA, 2009). 3. Finally there was the assumption by the demonstrator that it (the handover) isnt much different from a normal house. (D1) Changing this attitude requires collaboration from the designers and architects who initially conceive the various sustainable elements and the developer who is contractually obligated to perform the handover. The figures also support the notion that practical explanation is not necessarily indicative of sustainable instruction. Behavioural determinants H,I,J,K,L are all addressed adequately in terms of functionality but the demonstrator pays little attention to the sustainability as evidenced by only 4 points across all 4 determinants.

4.2 Result Validation & Basic Interpretation

This section goes through the thought process used to downgrade the determinant values (see tables 3&4) in table 5, and substantiates these values using direct quotes and excerpts from the observational stage of the study in line with observational data analysis protocol. The following is a typical example of the level of emphasis placed on the bike sheds and recycling facilities provided: These are your bike sheds and these are your bins. (P3, 2:20) The bike sheds are a vital element in achieving Code for Sustainable Homes (CSH) Level 4 accreditation (BRE, 2010). It would seem prudent therefore to expand on their utility beyond simply one sentence and perhaps include a map of local bike paths in the handover pack and discuss the protection and security offered by the shed. Simple, additions that cost little to nothing to the developer, but may encourage an occupant to use the house as it was intended. Kitchen appliances have all been specially selected to conform to CSH standards and yet throughout the study there is only 1 mention (P2: 12:30) of an A rated appliance in the form of the dishwasher: Bog standard microwave, bog standard oven, and bog standard fridge. (P4, 6:55) "Again, this dishwasher, no different from any other dishwasher" (P6, 12:20) The study records no mention of the low power lighting installed throughout the housing and the integral stack ventilation provided by the stairwell and window design. The washing line, a simple but significant energy saving device during the summer time is only functionally introduced once, with no mention of energy savings. In these instances there may be a reluctance to state the obvious in regards to functionality, however the integral sustainability and motivations behind the inclusion of these elements becomes important when they are viewed as a holistic package which reduces the ecological footprint of a property. The photovoltaic (PV) array on the roof is functionally considered in all handovers, with emphasis on the isolation switches for safety purposes and the meter box. However, basic knowledge such as the number of panels on the roof and the purpose of one of the primary components (the inverter) is significantly lacking: Confusing and uninformed explanation of PV panels (P1, 11:10-13:00) "I don't actually know how many PV panels are on the roof." (P3, 3:40)

This confusion is coupled with a lack of sustainable emphasis (see section 4.1). The MVHR unit, is probably the most technically challenging piece of equipment in the house, but is realistically an indicative example of the technology employed in modern sustainable housing. This case study exhibits a worrying lack of knowledge when faced with one of the key sustainable features of the house: "It is really just to remove odours, smells and condensation" (P3, 19:00) On opening a window the occupant asks "Will this affect the MVHR?" Reply from demonstrator "It doesn't, it doesn't, no." (P2, 7:00) "To be completely honest with you I would be lying if I said I knew how it (MVHR) worked because I don't." (P6, 43:10) It should be noted that the case study evidence on that this report is based is not intended to reflect on the proficiency or professional bearing of the individual or company that was examined. Its purpose it to provide an evidence founded platform on that to address the growing issue of handover procedures in sustainable housing.

5. DISCUSSION
The most striking issue raised by this study is the lack of emphasis and time dedicated to the actual handover of a sustainable property. These dwellings are laboriously designed and constructed with often complex and occupant driven characteristics and yet standard handover practice (as derived from the case study) is roughly an hour long tour supported by a collection of technical manuals referring to individual pieces of equipment. In addition there is no specialised technical training for the demonstrator, as evidenced by quotes in section 4.2. These findings are supported by research that suggests that the physical implementation of sustainable technologies in homes often fails to incorporate social considerations (Herring & Roy, 2007). A literature review by Marsh (2010, p. 5) examines this techno-rational construct concluding that: Whilst many housing developments look to achieve sustainability by incorporating technological indicators, the result has been shown to be inefficient if they lack social awareness or understanding of the potential occupants. What the data and literature analysis from this study suggests, is that by not considering the socio-technical interaction of the occupiers, particularly during the handover stages, there will invariably be shortcomings in the specified efficiency (HCA, 2010) (Dutil et al., 2011). The case study results clearly show the representative handovers lack sufficient technical and sustainable content. Subsequently it is reasonable to assume that numerous other sustainable housing handovers are similarly deficient. The analysis goes on to show not simply a need for greater technical detail, but a far more fundamental obligation to include comprehensive social considerations throughout the handover process, thus breaking with the traditional techno-centric mindset. Throughout the results analysis and review of the audio transcripts a key theme has emerged that does not fall within the remit of the functional/sustainable methodology. However it is seen to significantly impact the fundamental research objective. As the handovers progress it soon becomes evident through both the tone and language of the occupiers, that they are having a hard time absorbing all the information. Input from the second handover observer (D1) talks of the systems in the house being explained extremely briefly and at a rapid pace. This is supported by comments from the homeowners: Tenant post boiler explanation "Ohhh I'm lost now, start again!" P1 (8:50) Overwhelmed occupiers "No no no too much information!" P1 (15:45) (17:50) After seeing the confused look on the occupiers face: Demo "Is everything ok?" Tenant "Yes, we are just trying to take it all in." P5 (16:30)

This inability to absorb complex information quickly and efficiently is by no means an isolated or unusual occurrence (DCLG, 2010), and may become especially acute when dealing with the elderly or individuals for whom English is a second language. This key observation calls into question the format and protocol currently used to deliver the information within the domestic handover process. It implies the answer goes far beyond simply adding more information to the handover itself, suggesting an examination of both the content and propriety of the process as a whole (Stevenson & Leaman, 2010) (DCLG, 2007). The denotive results and key themes raised in sections 5.1 & 5.2 of the study show: 1. Demonstrators are not aware of the significance of sustainability and the impact that occupant behaviour has on the performance of a house. 2. Demonstrators struggle to understand many sustainable technologies and concepts which are taken for granted within the modern sustainable housing industry. 3. Demonstrators struggle to appropriately communicate worthwhile information in the standard 1 hour tour and handover manual format. Given these challenges, how can the industry impart sufficient knowledge required for the correct and efficient use of the dwelling, while ensuring that this knowledge is passed on in an appropriate manner? Throughout this study a process known as the Soft Landings Framework (BSRIA, 2009), has been instrumental in providing precedence for a solution. While based on the construction and commissioning of non-domestic property, the framework and ideology mirrors the problems facing the domestic building sector. Originally conceived by Mark Way in 2004 and formalised by BSRIA in 2009 the Soft Landings Framework has become the de-facto approach in ensuring nondomestic buildings achieve specified performance values. The process is based on 5 steps and involves a graduated handover period, that is predicated by consultation with the design and construction team to ensure that all performance related elements are first understood and then explain and implemented properly to a buildings new occupants. The adaptation and analysis of this existing framework can serve as a foundation as the industry looks to enact the fundamental changes required in domestic handovers for sustainable construction.

6. Conclusions
The direct observational methodology gives an unambiguous picture of representative handover procedures performed in the modern UK housing market. It is clear from the results of the study that these occupants are not receiving appropriate guidance and encouragement with respect to the sustainable measures employed in the housing and therefore it is reasonable to assume that much of industry faces similar challenges. A review of both the content and delivery methods employed suggests that struggle, even under current handover procedures, to absorb the information provided. Thus a tenable solution must focus initially on the accessibility of the information during the handover procedure itself, presenting the information in an appropriate manner. (DCLG 2010) This appropriate manner is a subject for further investigation and involves understanding how people efficiently assimilate information and the most effective methods to get occupiers engaging with the sustainable design of their houses. Ultimately the inherent level of technology and environmental design concepts required to reach Government backed ecological standards necessitates a complete reform of the handover process. The precedence exists in the form of the Soft Landings Framework (BSRIA, 2009). Further study is required in order to understand how to adapt the concepts and practices from this predominantly commercial procedure, to a domestic perspective, particularly when looking at aftercare and the responsibilities of individual project stakeholders.

Subject to this review the developer in question has already set in place measures to modify and improve their practice for phase 3 of the housing project, placing them at the forefront of a new and growing evolutionary process in handover procedure.

Acknowledgments The research was supported by input from Jennifer White, Nottingham University (D1) and funded by the Technology Strategy Board under the Performance Evaluation of Buildings Programme and with the permission and ongoing support of Blueprint (Developer) and Lovell (Contractor). REFERENCES
1. (HCA) Homes & Communities Agency. (2010). Monitoring Guide for Carbon Emissions, Energy and Water Use - The Carbon Challenge: developing an environmental evaluation of housing performance in new communities. Warrington, UK: Homes & Communities Agency. BRE. (2010). Code for Sustainable Homes - Technical Guide. London, UK: Department for Communities and Local Government. BSRIA. (2009). The Soft Landings Framework. Bracknell, UK: Building Services Research and Information Association. C. J. M. van den Bergh, J. (2011). Energy Conservation More Effective With Rebound Policy. Environ Resource Econ (48) , 43-58. DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). (2007). Building a Greener Future: policy statement. London, UK: The Crown. DCLG (Department for Communities and Local Government). (2010). The Code for Sustainable Homes: Case Studies Volume 2. London, UK: The Crown. DECC. (2011, March 31). 2009 Final UK Figures - Climate Change Data. Retrieved January 6, 2012, from http://www.decc.gov.uk: http://www.decc.gov.uk/en/content/cms/statistics/climate_stats/data/data.aspx DEFRA. (2008). A Framework for Pro-Environmental Behaviours. Colgate, UK: Dept. for Environmental Food and Rural Affairs. Dutil, Y., Rousse, D., & Quesada, G. (2011). Sustainable Buildings: An Ever Evolving Target. Sustainability (3) , 443-464. Graves, H., Jaggs, M., & Watson, M. (2002, December 13). HOBO protocol - Handover of Office Building Opperations. BRE Digest 474 , pp. 1-12. Hargreaves, T., Nye, M., & Burgess, J. (2010). Making Energy Visible: A qualitative field study of how householders interact with feedback from smart energy monitors. Energy Policy (38:10) , 6111-6119. Herring, H., & Roy, R. (2007). Technological innovation, energy efficient design and the rebound effect. Technovation, (27:4) , 194203. Johnston, D. (2010). Fabric testing: Technical approaches and processes. Ecobuild - Earls Court. London: Leeds Metropolitan University. Marsh, P. (2010). Sustaining Technical Efficiency and the Socialised Home: Examining the Social Dimension within Sustainable Architecture and the Home. The Int. Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (5:5) , 287-298. Nassen, J., & Holmberg, J. (2009). Quantifying the rebound effects of energy efficiency improvements and energy conserving behaviour in Sweden. Energy Efficiency (2) , 221-231. NHBC Foundation . (2011). How occupants behave and interact with their homes - The impact on energy use, comfort, control and satisfaction. Watford, UK: IHS BRE Press. OPSI (Office of Public Sector Information). (2008). The Climate Change Act 2008. London, UK: The Crown. Stevenson, F., & Leaman, A. (2010). Evaluating housing performance in relation to human behaviour: new challenges. Building Research & Information (38:5) , 437-441. Taylor, T., Littlewood, J., Geens, A., Counsell, J., & Pettifor, G. (2010). Development of a strategy for monitoring the environmental performance of apartment buildings in Swansea: measuring progress towards zero carbon homes in Wales. London, UK: COBRA/RICS. Wingfield, J. (2011, April 14). Fabric Testing: Whole House Heat Loss. London, UK. Yao, R., & Steemers, K. (2005). A method of formulating energy load profile for domestic buildings in the UK. Energy and Buildings (37) , 663-667

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19.

20. 21.

10

PAPER ADAPTATIONS Include as a final page of the paper a commentary describing the changes you have made to the paper, and the way in which these changes satisfy the requirements of the reviewers. Then resubmit the paper to PROSE.
Reviewer 1. 1. Comment: How ''GAP' is defined in this paragraph? I would expect to see a clear 'gap' that would possibly be 'fulfilled' by this research! Like one of the main aims of the research study possibly! I dont see why this strong word (in my view) is used in a title! Response/Action: The word gap has been removed on the recommenda tion of the reviewer as it did not add to the paper in any way and could possibly confuse or mislead a reader. 2. Comment: The paper has so many acronyms. There should be an explanation of those at the first time used in the paper and then use them. We might be familiar with those but not all scientists are obliged to know them. Follow the appropriate steps using acronyms in research papers. Response/Action: A thorough review of the paper identified 5 instances of acronyms without proper definition (POE, SAP, MVHR, CSH, PV). These were subsequently explained/defined in accordance with research paper protocol. 3. Comment: I would like to see a bit more analysis in the tools used at the analysis and results. Response/Action: Not entirely sure what this means I would like further clarification if I am to change and adapt my current analysis section, as based on the comment I may actually make the situation worse simply because I do not understand what the reviewer wants me to do.

Reviewer 2. 1. Comment: The only problem is the format. The paper should follow the Springer Verlag. Response/Action: I have looked at all the information and guidance pertaining to formatting a paper within the Springer Verlag framework and I have adapted my paper to fit their requirements. If there are further elements that need changing then can these be highlighted and I will take the appropriate action.