Implementing Circular Economy Strategies in Buildings—From Theory to Practice
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
There is substantial work on the article. However, critical reflections and comparisons between different methods are needed in the article. The conclusion and the case studies are far too general and need real life detailing. All figures should state the authors and, if not the article authors, it should state the permission to publish them.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. We have added some specific details in the conclusion (lines 464 to 466 and lines 499 to 505) and the case studies section (lines 429 to 452) to better provide a more concrete vision of our study. We also have kept only the figures that we designed and deleted the others that have been taken from other sources.
Unfortunately, due to a glitch in our Word Software, some changes were not highlighted in the manuscript.
Reviewer 2 Report
COMMENTS AND SUGGESTIONS FOR AUTHORS
The reviewed paper submitted to the Applied System Innovation journal tries to deal with an analysis of the Circular Economy implementation strategies in the construction industry. This manuscript lacks several science-related issues like hypothesis/research questions, a clarification of the scientific problem, etc. Besides a systemic approach is not explicit. These disadvantages have to be eliminated before having the paper processed, produced and published.
In general, the article is complete, although certain elements are confusing for a reader and make it impossible to recommend it for publication as it is. Its largest advantage is a comprehensive literature study (72 bibliography positions). However, the Authors did not eliminate some evident mistakes. I would recommend the Authors to rebuild the text, make it closer to applied system innovation and resubmit the revised article.
My comments and suggestions are as follows:
- Generally, the Authors should answer a very first question: is the manuscript a review or a research article? If the latter, hypothesis/research questions, a clarification of the scientific problem, methodology section with a vast description of the case study method etc. have to be developed. If the submitted manuscript is rather a review article (which should provide concise and precise updates on the latest progress made in a given area of research), it has to be remembered that systematic reviews should follow the PRISMA guidelines.
- A title is adequate.
- An abstract is quite clear, however, I recommend to put more details on methods used and results achieved as well as some motivations to publish the text in the Applied System Innovation.
- An introduction is consistent, but some sentences seem to be unfinished and a little bit clumsy. For instance:
1) line 28: “Previous” - the adjective refers to happening or existing before something or someone else. Please use some synonyms to eliminate misunderstandings.
2) line 44: “While buildings are not designed for deconstruction, the concept…” – please, prove this sharp statement. I feel like there are some good examples of buildings designed and constructed under CE principles because the Circular Economy is getting more and more popular and some architects design such structures.
- There is no methodology section – please fill this gap.
- Material is relatively OK. I recommend to repair the following errors:
1) line 99: “Chinese literature” – probably the Authors meant none of the texts from the rich tradition of Chinese poetry, nor classical prose (including works of Mo Zi) so, please, rephrase it.
2) lines 142-143: ”Buildings are well-established as major consumers of raw materials, energy, and water” – please, prove it.
3) line 166: “Buildings are regarded as substantial energy consumers” – generally in a text “buildings” are personified. I understand that during their whole-life cycle to perform each life stage we need “energy” (or “water”) which is consumed during e.g.: construction, maintenance but “buildings” themselves do not “consume” so it sounds like a metaphor. Please, refer e.g. to the following article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2019.1690760 (Górecki, Núñez-Cacho, Corpas-Iglesias & Molina | Sanjay Kumar Shukla (Reviewing editor) (2019) How to convince players in construction market? Strategies for effective implementation of circular economy in the construction sector, Cogent Engineering, 6:1) and make this aspect more clear in the text.
4) lines 182-183: “In all buildings life cycle, water is considerably used, from materials extraction to building demolition” – authors should distinguish between the use of water for the construction, maintenance and demolition of a building itself AND a consumption for the living needs of people. The latter type of consumption (energy, water) depends not only on the quality of design or technology selection - objective factors but also, and perhaps above all, on how it is used (how many people live, with what intensity, what are their preferences, etc.) - subjective factors. This means that resource consumption issues should be organized in the manuscript. In the reviewed version of the article, everything has been combined and thrown into one basket.
5) line 218: “materials and components…” – I would replace it with “construction technology”
- The contributions of the study should be highlighted and the research gaps should be discussed more.
- Reference value is adequate but could be improved. The following reference will enhance the paper:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2019.1690760
- In terms of style, the article is correct.
- In terms of English, the article is correct.
Author Response
- The reviewed paper submitted to the Applied System Innovation journal tries to deal with an analysis of the Circular Economy implementation strategies in the construction industry. This manuscript lacks several science-related issues like hypothesis/research questions, a clarification of the scientific problem, etc. Besides a systemic approach is not explicit. These disadvantages have to be eliminated before having the paper processed, produced and published.
Answer: We appreciate your critical review of the manuscript. We have attempted in resolving these mentioned issues in “abstract, introduction, material and methods, and conclusion”.
Unfortunately, due to a glitch in our Word software, several changes in the manuscript were not highlighted.
- Generally, the Authors should answer a very first question: is the manuscript a review or a research article? If the latter, hypothesis/research questions, a clarification of the scientific problem, methodology section with a vast description of the case study method etc. have to be developed. If the submitted manuscript is rather a review article (which should provide concise and precise updates on the latest progress made in a given area of research), it has to be remembered that systematic reviews should follow the PRISMA guidelines.
Answer: Our main goal is to explore how CE can be implemented in buildings and move away from theory to concretize its application. Taking this into account, our article is considered as an exploratory research to the current understanding of CE practices, in an attempt to provide a framework for CE implementation in buildings. We have added section 2 in this regard.
- An abstract is quite clear, however, I recommend to put more details on methods used and results achieved as well as some motivations to publish the text in the Applied System Innovation.
Answer: We have rewritten some parts of the abstract, thank you.
- An introduction is consistent, but some sentences seem to be unfinished and a little bit clumsy. For instance:
1) line 28: “Previous” - the adjective refers to happening or existing before something or someone else. Please use some synonyms to eliminate misunderstandings.
Answer: We have replaced the word “previous” by “former” and corrected some of this section, thank you very much.
2) line 44: “While buildings are not designed for deconstruction, the concept…” – please, prove this sharp statement. I feel like there are some good examples of buildings designed and constructed under CE principles because the Circular Economy is getting more and more popular and some architects design such structures.
Answer: Yes indeed, with CE being the research interest of numerous architects and engineers, and the environmental benefits resulting from the design for deconstruction, the latter has been more recognized lately as a key-strategy to enable CE. However, it is well-known that the building industry is kind of resistant to change which is the reason we generalized our statement. We have backed it with some references that outlined this aspect, thank you very much.
- There is no methodology section – please fill this gap.
Answer: We have a developed a section entitled materials and methods. Thank you.
- Material is relatively OK. I recommend to repair the following errors:
1) line 99: “Chinese literature” – probably the Authors meant none of the texts from the rich tradition of Chinese poetry, nor classical prose (including works of Mo Zi) so, please, rephrase it.
Answer: We admit that the statement is inaccurate given the richness of the Chinese literature. Thank you for pointing it out, it has been clarified in line 171.
2) lines 142-143: ”Buildings are well-established as major consumers of raw materials, energy, and water” – please, prove it.
Answer: We have backed our claims with figures and references in lines 213-214.
3) line 166: “Buildings are regarded as substantial energy consumers” – generally in a text “buildings” are personified. I understand that during their whole-life cycle to perform each life stage we need “energy” (or “water”) which is consumed during e.g.: construction, maintenance but “buildings” themselves do not “consume” so it sounds like a metaphor. Please, refer e.g. to the following article: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2019.1690760 (Górecki, Núñez-Cacho, Corpas-Iglesias & Molina | Sanjay Kumar Shukla (Reviewing editor) (2019) How to convince players in construction market? Strategies for effective implementation of circular economy in the construction sector, Cogent Engineering, 6:1) and make this aspect more clear in the text.
Answer: Thank you very much for your insightful suggestion. This aspect has been corrected in our paper.
4) lines 182-183: “In all buildings life cycle, water is considerably used, from materials extraction to building demolition” – authors should distinguish between the use of water for the construction, maintenance and demolition of a building itself AND a consumption for the living needs of people. The latter type of consumption (energy, water) depends not only on the quality of design or technology selection - objective factors but also, and perhaps above all, on how it is used (how many people live, with what intensity, what are their preferences, etc.) - subjective factors. This means that resource consumption issues should be organized in the manuscript. In the reviewed version of the article, everything has been combined and thrown into one basket.
Answer: Yes indeed, we have overlooked this particular aspect despite understanding the difference between using resources by the industry and their consumption by the building users. Thank you for your valuable contribution, it has been corrected throughout the paper.
5) line 218: “materials and components…” – I would replace it with “construction technology”
Answer: It has been replaced, thank you for your suggestion.
- The contributions of the study should be highlighted and the research gaps should be discussed more.
Answer: We have addressed this aspect in the introduction and conclusion. Thank you very much.
- Reference value is adequate but could be improved. The following reference will enhance the paper:
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311916.2019.1690760
Answer: This study is quite informative, thank you for your suggestion, it has been cited in section 7
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for considering my suggestions. I have no further doubts about the manuscript, therefore I suggest it for publication.
