Generalised Linear Modelling for Construction Waste Estimation in Residential Projects: Case Study in New Zealand

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In my opinion, the article is very interesting. The manuscript raises an important issue. Construction waste is a huge challenge. Green construction is the future. Our task is to keep waste as long as possible in circulation. The authors present a difficult issue in a clear and lucid manner. It is worthwhile to increase interest in waste in construction at every stage of the life cycle.

Author Response

Please refer the attached file for more details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Due to construction waste, as a global problem in New Zealand, has become an important object of concern. Thus, it is important to discuss how to develop a model specific to New Zealand to predict waste generation in residential buildings. On the one hand, I found the paper to be overall well written and much of it to be well described. Based on Anylogic, A generalized linear model is constructed to correlate these design features with waste generation. On the other hand, I found some descriptions of very important points were inadequate or completely missing and the paper fails of logical connection. Therefore, I recommend that a major revision is warranted. I explain my concerns in more detail below.

1.       Residential projects are highlighted in the title of the article, but the current situation of construction waste in residential projects is not highlighted in the background and introduction, and the particularity of the research is not well demonstrated. Introduction identifies the hazards of construction waste, the lack of attention to its management, and the need for waste reduction, but there is no reference to estimating the measurement of construction waste, which is more disconnected from section 2.

2.       The logic is not rigorous enough. There are many statements and the readers cannot clearly understand the purpose. For example, the last sentence of the introduction explains the benefits of increasing waste recovery and reuse.

3.       Chapter 2 mentioned 28 studies. How representative and authoritative are the 28 studies?

4.       What are the building construction methods in New Zealand like? Hopefully some relevant examples can be given.

5.       The sample size for "Working days" in "Table 1" is not 213, as explained in the previous section.

6.       What is the purpose of comparing the five major early approaches? Does it need a whole page to emphasize in Construction waste prediction and quantification?

7.       The generalised linear model in 5.4 is based on "Builder type - small builders". Has any consideration been given to validating the residential waste built by National Builder?

8.       The innovation of the models is not well represented and comparisons with previous studies are not clear.

 

9.       The discussion section can provide a more in-depth discussion of the model.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language should be required.

Author Response

Please refer attached file for more details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors constructed a linear model to estimate construction waste in the manuscript. The results of the study have some practical applications. However, there are still several issues that must be improved.

1. In terms of the necessity of the study, the authors did not express the necessity of the study and the value of the study enough in the literature review section. It is recommended that the content be further adjusted to highlight the value of the study.

2. The authors constructed a model to predict the construction waste, and the prediction results are good. However, they did not express why the method was used, nor did they analyse the prediction accuracy of the constructed method in comparison with that of the existing methods to demonstrate whether the newly constructed prediction method is effective and whether the prediction accuracy has been improved. It is suggested that the authors add the content of this part in the process of revision to fully demonstrate the necessity of constructing a new model to analyse the problem.

3. It is suggested that the presentation of charts and graphs in the manuscript should be further amended and improved. Maintain the unity of the presentation. For example, why is there no box line in Figure 9? Some of the fonts in Fig. 1 are not fully displayed. More examples will not be pointed out one by one.

4、The references of the manuscript are too few in the last five years. It is suggested that the authors add more new literature.

Author Response

Please refer attached file for more details. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would thank the effort the authors spend on resolving the comments in the last review round. All of my comments have been successfully resolved and properly responded.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept