Selection Criteria for Building Materials and Components in Line with the Circular Economy Principles in the Built Environment—A Review of Current Trends
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper provides an interesting overview on an emerging topic. The carried literature review is accurate and performed by suitable criteria.
Considering which is the target of readers to whom this Journal is addressed, some more element must be extract from the review in order to provide no just a map of the mentioned strategies, but also additional information regarding at least the presence / absence in the article of evaluation parameters, indices or metrics associated with each of the CE strategies that were identified. This with the aim of allowing the reader to distinguish the sources reviewed based on the level of relevance of the information each paper provides regarding the topic/CE strategy it addresses.
Line by line remarks:
*Line 83
Put a dot between the words “accurately” and “Kirchherr”
*Lines 238 to 240
<The spatial analysis of the selected literature indicates the dominance of the European research output in CE. Over 70% of the publications were from European countries where Spain, Italy, and the UK came in the top three with 22, 17, and 10 publications, respectively.>
Please specify how the publication have been related to the country. Based on the Author affiliation? How did you manage the papers which Authors belong to different countries?
*Line 258 (Fig. 4)
Environmental Research Letters is mentioned twice in the table
*Lines 260 to 285
<After a thorough analysis of the eligible research articles, a total of nine CE strategies has been identified…>
The method/means by which this analysis has been performed must be better specified. Did an automatic retrieving by a text search engine been previously performed? Or all the papers have been fully read anyway?
Since an accurate systematic reading of all the texts was performed, it would have been useful to also record additional information regarding the presence / absence in the article of evaluation parameters, indices or metrics associated with each of the CE strategies that were identified.
Author Response
Reviewer N°1
- Considering which is the target of readers to whom this Journal is addressed, some more element must be extract from the review in order to provide no just a map of the mentioned strategies, but also additional information regarding at least the presence / absence in the article of evaluation parameters, indices or metrics associated with each of the CE strategies that were identified. This with the aim of allowing the reader to distinguish the sources reviewed based on the level of relevance of the information each paper provides regarding the topic/CE strategy it addresses.
Answer:
Thank you for raising such concern. We have included in the appendix A a table were each reviewed article is presented with its aim, research methodology, main outcome, and covered Circular Economy strategies. We believe that this information can help the reader into identifying relevant elements based on his/her background and interest.
- *Line 83
Put a dot between the words “accurately” and “Kirchherr”
Answer: It has been corrected, thank you
- *Lines 238 to 240
<The spatial analysis of the selected literature indicates the dominance of the European research output in CE. Over 70% of the publications were from European countries where Spain, Italy, and the UK came in the top three with 22, 17, and 10 publications, respectively.>
Please specify how the publication have been related to the country. Based on the Author affiliation? How did you manage the papers which Authors belong to different countries?
Answer: Yes indeed, the spatial analysis was performed according to the first author’s affiliation. We have corrected it in lines 242 and 243.
- *Line 258 (Fig. 4)
Environmental Research Letters is mentioned twice in the table
Answer: It has been corrected, thank you.
- *Lines 260 to 285
<After a thorough analysis of the eligible research articles, a total of nine CE strategies has been identified…>
The method/means by which this analysis has been performed must be better specified. Did an automatic retrieving by a text search engine been previously performed? Or all the papers have been fully read anyway?
Answer: As explained in Figure 1, the selected articles were fully read to analyze common traits when it comes to applying Circular Economy in building materials and components. We have clarified this point in line 224.
- Since an accurate systematic reading of all the texts was performed, it would have been useful to also record additional information regarding the presence / absence in the article of evaluation parameters, indices or metrics associated with each of the CE strategies that were identified.
Answer: While taking into account your first comment, we have developed in annex A, a table to sum up important aspects of the research article that was fully examined during our study. Since our main focus is to highlight the Circular Economy strategies that was covered in literature, we wanted to keep our scope limited to the presence of criteria in each journal paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is contributing to the scientific field that it is intended to. It is well organized and the structure is clear and well thought. The outline is clear and the work flow is projected through the chapters. However, there are some remarks that i would like to bring to attention, along with suggestions for revisions.
- the work is referring to built environment in general. A clear definition of what you consider built environment should be added.
- line 14: the selection of appropriate materials for the built environment i believe should be coming after the design process and thus the sentence should be rephrased.
- line 35: CE came into broad practice, line: 41: topic is still emerging. This indicates a contradiction and should be rephrased.
- in table 1 the "R" principles are described and adopted for this article but later on, in Table 2, the criteria are different. I believe that the principles defined in the first table should be also used to categorize and give meaning to the criteria that follow. For examples: R0: refuse = translates to criteria x,y,z.. It is not clear where the criteria are selected from.
- line: 157+: by selecting "suitable" materials we can achieve higher sustainability levels: this is a very generalized statement that it is not accurate. A circular process is not necessarily sustainable. Sustainability is context and case sensitive. Please rephrase. also check: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/594/htm
- line 327: reversibility, please define.
- table 2:durability is selected as one of the criteria. According to the methodology developed by EMF, durability is one of the most influential parameters for the quantification of the MCI and hence, the CE implementation. Thus, I believe that more background knowledge should be acquired.
- line: 360: Sustainability and CE are not concepts that emerged in such different eras. Please, check the evolution of CE within the literature.
- Enrich the discussion and conclusions. Identify a trend or a perspective towards future developments according to your own results and knowledge.
some useful researches:
- Exploratory Study on Circular Economy Approaches A Comparative Analysis of Theory and Practice Authors: Frodermann, Laura
- https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/circular-economy-in-the-built-environment
Author Response
The manuscript is contributing to the scientific field that it is intended to. It is well organized and the structure is clear and well thought. The outline is clear and the work flow is projected through the chapters
Answer: Thank you.
- the work is referring to built environment in general. A clear definition of what you consider built environment should be added.
Answer: A sentence has been added in this regard, please check lines 51-53. Thank you.
- line 14: the selection of appropriate materials for the built environment i believe should be coming after the design process and thus the sentence should be rephrased.
Answer: The line 16 has been modified, please check. Thank you.
- line 35: CE came into broad practice, line: 41: topic is still emerging. This indicates a contradiction and should be rephrased.
Answer: We have rephrased our statement in the lines 35 and 36. Thank you.
- in table 1 the "R" principles are described and adopted for this article but later on, in Table 2, the criteria are different. I believe that the principles defined in the first table should be also used to categorize and give meaning to the criteria that follow. For examples: R0: refuse = translates to criteria x,y,z.. It is not clear where the criteria are selected from.
Answer: We assumed that some of these principles (e.g. refuse, rethink) are hard to be pinpointed in current CE-related research articles as a selection criteria. Additionally, some of these principles are more applicable to products in general than construction materials and components. The adoption of the “selection criteria” was based on CE-related and sustainability-related studies regarding the construction materials. We have clarified our scope in the lines 227-230.
- line: 157+: by selecting "suitable" materials we can achieve higher sustainability levels: this is a very generalized statement that it is not accurate. A circular process is not necessarily sustainable. Sustainability is context and case sensitive. Please rephrase. also check: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/2/594/htm
Answer: Yes indeed, thank you for the recommendation. We have expanded the first paragraph of 2.3 (lines 166-168) to cover this particular aspect.
- line 327: reversibility, please define.
Answer: We meant by reversibility as of reversible building design which refers to deconstruction and/or flexibility and adaptability. We have modified our statement in lines 339 and 340 to make it more accurate. Thank you.
- table 2:durability is selected as one of the criteria. According to the methodology developed by EMF, durability is one of the most influential parameters for the quantification of the MCI and hence, the CE implementation. Thus, I believe that more background knowledge should be acquired.
Answer: Yes indeed, thank you for your valuable input. We have referred to this criterion in the lines 138-146.
- line: 360: Sustainability and CE are not concepts that emerged in such different eras. Please, check the evolution of CE within the literature.
Answer: We meant by this statement that the CE gained more popularity in the last two decades but still the main focus is recycling. We have altered the statement in lines 373, 374, and 375. Thank you
- Enrich the discussion and conclusions. Identify a trend or a perspective towards future developments according to your own results and knowledge.
Answer: We have further developed both of the sections. Discussion in lines 390-422 and conclusion 441-445. Thank you
some useful researches:
- Exploratory Study on Circular Economy Approaches A Comparative Analysis of Theory and Practice Authors: Frodermann, Laura
- https://www.arup.com/perspectives/publications/research/section/circular-economy-in-the-built-environment
Answer: We deeply appreciate your suggestions. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper provides a comprehensive literature review on the current status on implementation of principles of circular economy and criteria used for selection of building materials in the context of circular economy.
Please introduce every acronym before using it in the text (EMF on page 4, UAE on page 5).
Please add titles for x and y-axis to all graphs in the paper.
In addition, please consider these minor corrections:
Please add "is" to the sentence in abstract - line 21 (Although the present study is solely focused...)
The first sentence in the last paragraph on page two needs to be ended by a full stop. In the third sentence in the same paragraph please use "aurhors".
The third sentence on page 5 (lines 180 and 181) is incomplete. Please consider revising.
Page 3, line 123: Please consider using "benefits" instead of "profits"
Page 5, line 190: Please use "significant" instead of "significative"
Page 10, line 269: Please use "60% and 50%"
Page 10, line 282: Should be "optimal performance"
Author Response
Please introduce every acronym before using it in the text (EMF on page 4, UAE on page 5).
Answer: It has been corrected in lines 82 and 198, thank you very much.
Please add titles for x and y-axis to all graphs in the paper.
Answer: The titles for x and y axis has been added to all the graphs, thank you very much.
Please add "is" to the sentence in abstract - line 21 (Although the present study is solely focused...)
Answer: It has been corrected in line 21, thank you very much.
The first sentence in the last paragraph on page two needs to be ended by a full stop. In the third sentence in the same paragraph please use "aurhors".
Answer: It has been corrected, thank you very much.
The third sentence on page 5 (lines 180 and 181) is incomplete. Please consider revising.
Answer: It has been corrected in lines 189-190, thanks you very much.
Page 3, line 123: Please consider using "benefits" instead of "profits"
Answer: It has been modified accordingly, thank you very much.
Page 5, line 190: Please use "significant" instead of "significative"
Answer: It has been modified accordingly, thank you very much.
Page 10, line 269: Please use "60% and 50%"
Answer: It has been corrected, thank you very much.
Page 10, line 282: Should be "optimal performance"
Answer: It has been corrected, thank you very much.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate that you have adequately taken into account the observations I made. The inclusion of Appendix 1 effectively integrates the information retrieved from the literature, making it easier available to the reader
