Study on an Integrated LCA-LCC Model for Assessment of Highway Engineering Technical Schemes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Good topic for research and application for road construction. However need to revise and additional input before it is accepted for publication.

1. Need to proofread due to error in spelling and sentence structure.

2. I research, comparison should be made to verified/approved the findings are reliable. In this paper, authors should compare among LCA-LCC, LCA only and LCC only to recommend that LCA-LCC is the most suitable assessment method.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your valuable comments. We have proofread accordingly in terms of some errors in spelling and sentence structure. Moreover, we have added single-dimensional assessment of LCA and LCC respectively to verify the reliability of LCA-LCC model, and pointed out the problems of the two single-dimensional assessments. Therefore, we have also used LCA-LCC integration assessment to replace the single-dimensional assessment , see Sections 4.1 and 4.2 in Part 4 for details. The flaws and problems of single-dimensional assessment have also been highlighted in the Abstract and Introduction.                                    

 

Yours sincerely

Xiaojing Qian         

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted with major modification.

 

The topic of the paper is interesting and needs to be revised. However, some comments need to be addressed:

 

1)         The title of this paper is not suitable and very long (Integrated project life cycle  Environment and Economy Assessment for Highway Engineering Technical Scheme). I suggest changing it

2)         There is a need to be adequately revised for an abstract section? The abstract is very long, and I suggest rearranging it based on journal requirements. Furthermore, the abstract includes a brief introduction, aim of study , problem statement, methodology, and results, making it easy to read for the reader.

3)         In the introduction section, my suggestion is to divide it into two sections: The background and literature review and the objective address at the end?

4)         The literature review is too short, and I would expect much more on the technical issues that reflect the life cycle. For example, two valuable references. 

·         https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073819

·         https://doi.org/10.3390/su14052905

5)         figure 1 need to be appropriately rearranged, reconstruction?

6)         The authors pointed out that the current study implemented project life cycle  Environment and Economy Assessment for Highway Engineering or future perspectives but did not give possible directions for future studies?

7)         In my opinion, the research articles contribute to the scientific credibility of the mentioned project life cycle environment and economy in the field of pavement engineering. However, the assessed article "Integrated Project Life Cycle Environment and Economy Assessment for Highway Engineering Technical Scheme" can be assessed as good, containing certain shortcomings that need to be eliminated. From the aspect of the quality of the reviewed article, in the case of incorporation of comments, or relevant justification of their non-incorporation, I am able to process a repeated review within 3 days.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thanks for your valuable comments. We have changed the title to “Study on Integrated LCA-LCC Model for Highway Engineering Technical Scheme” according to your suggestions. In addition, we have shorten the abstract part and presented it in the order of status introduction, research purpose, methods, and results. The introduction part has been organized and presented according to the research background, literature review and research results. We have also added four references, including the two you suggested, and deleted an inappropriate reference. Moreover, the technical issues of the lifecycle you raised in the introduction have been detailed. Fig. 1 has been redesigned and drawn. The future prospects of this study and the direction for continued research have been added (see Conclusion in details).

                

Yours sincerely

Xiaojing Qian 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted in the current form.