Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia: A Research Agenda

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The work is very interesting and the research field concerns an area that will require great efforts in the future to solve the current problems highlighted in the paper. However, it would be useful to consider how the integration of BIM can help in the valorisation of the CDW.            

Author Response

Manuscript sustainability-1393085

Response to Reviewers

 

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia” for publication. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to our manuscript. Their feedback and insightful comments were invaluable and improved our paper significantly. We incorporated most suggestions and highlighted them within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Reviewers’ Comments to the Authors:

Reviewer 1

The work falls within the special issue. The research sheds light on the capability of BIM-enabled technologies in diverting C&D waste and increasing resource efficiency in the construction industry. Furthermore, the study provides a research agenda in this space which is highly required to understand other opportunities better. I recommend publication of this review manuscript after implementing major revisions, and I encourage authors to consider the following comments when revising their manuscript.

Author response: Thank you for the review and providing your insights.
1. Comment from Reviewer 1 noting that the abstract is not informative, and yet little information on the findings of the review. Please ensure that the abstract has the following elements: 1-2 sentences on the context and the need for the study; 1-2 sentences on the methodology; the majority of the abstract on the actual findings of the study; 1-2 sentences on key conclusions and recommendations to stakeholders and for future research.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is correct, and we revised the abstract to make it more informative, including highlighting the key findings, conclusion, and recommendations for future research. The changes we made can be tracked on lines 14 through 23.

1. “Construction and demolition waste (C&DW) contribute to approximately 30% of the total waste generation worldwide, by which heterogeneous ecological impacts such as resource depletion, global warming, and land degradation are engendered. Despite ongoing research efforts to minimize construction waste via the Building Information Modeling (BIM)-aided design, there is a paucity of research on integrating BIM in demolition waste management (DWM). This study investigates prominent barriers and future research directions toward the wider adoption of BIM in C&DWM by conducting a systematic literature review. First, this study identifies the barriers that hinder the implementation of C&DWM in Australia; then, it explores the benefits and challenges of leveraging BIM applications for C&DWM. The findings suggest that, for existing buildings without up-to-date design drawings, it is imperative to improve the accuracy of data capturing and object recognition techniques to overcome the bottlenecks of BIM-DWM integration. Moreover, the development of regional-oriented material banks and their harmonization with life cycle assessment databases can extend applying BIM-based sustainability analysis, making it applicable to the DWM domain. This study proposes a research agenda on tackling these challenges to realize BIM’s full potential in facilitating DWM. ”
2. Comment from Reviewer 1 suggests that it is not clear what the research scope is in the introduction of the manuscript; is it Australia? Then it needs to be reflected in the topic and abstract.

Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, we explained that the scope of the study focuses on the Australian context. We also changed the manuscript’s title. The new title is “Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia.”

3. Comment from Reviewer 1 mentioned that some of the statistics provided in the introduction need referencing to the original source e.g. Over the past 13 50 years for which data are available, the C&DW stream grew by 61% in total amount

Author response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Throughout the manuscript, we cited the corresponding source of statistics, the Australian National Waste Report 2020 by Pickin, J.; Randell, P., Australian Government: Department of the Environment and Energy 2020.

4. Comment from Reviewer 1 suggesting authors to consider important Australian publications in C&D waste space in the literature review/introduction, currently, some recent studies are missing in this manuscript. Reviewer recommends that incorporating more recent studies that shed light on current WM practices in Australia will strengthen the paper.

Author response: Thank you for this suggestion. We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, we incorporated several recent Australian publications regarding the current state and existing barriers to implementing C&DWM in Australia (section 3.2: lines 331–337; lines 397–408; lines 413–422; lines 427–519; lines 477–480; lines 536–539; and lines 544–553).

5. Comment from Reviewer 1 requiring clarification on what the authors mean by the lack of BIM implementation in the DWM domain. A reference is needed to support this claim.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have highlighted the research gap as follows: “This paper identifies the gap that hinders the adoption of BIM in the DWM sector.” The change can be found in line 137.

6. Comment from Reviewer 1 suggests that all the figures should be inserted right after they are cited in the text

Author response: We think this is an excellent suggestion. We modified the location of all the figures, making the paper more consistent with its textual and graphical information.

7. Comment from Reviewer 1 encourages to omit original Figure 3 and 4

Author response: We believe this is a great suggestion. We removed Figures 3 and 4, as the information provided in those graphs is already presented in the methodology section (lines 211–222).

8. Reviewer 1 questions the information shown in the Figure 5 summarizing the main sources and factors leading to construction waste generation.

Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. We changed the information and title of the figure; we reckon it is more appropriate to clarify that the primary factors and causes of construction waste generation listed in the figure are preventable during the design phase. Hence, we have changed the title of the figure to “Primary causes and factors of preventable construction waste generation.” The figure is numbered as Figure 3.

9. Reviewer 1 encourages the authors to conduct quality assurance of the content, making sure that the references and statements are relevant to the subheadings.

Author response: We think this is a great suggestion. We conducted quality assurance of the content, ensuring the references and statements align closely with the main themes highlighted in the subheadings. The changes are in sections 3.2.2 and 3.2.3.

 

10. Reviewer 1 suggests that adding a visual model showing the advantages of BIM in DWM would be a great addition to the discussion

Author response: Thank you for your excellent advice. We incorporated a visual model to demonstrate the process of BIM-based DWM and the potential benefits of BIM-DWM integration at each stage of the DWM process.

11. Comment from Reviewer 1 suggests that the conclusion should outline the contribution to the body of knowledge, practice, and policy. Also, research limitations should be presented as well.

Author response: Thank you for your suggestion. We have specified the contribution and the limitations of this study in the conclusion section. The changes can be found in lines 1252–1263.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your contribution.
Even if the manuscript has a clear structure and is well-written, I think that the authors should clarify what is the novelty provided by their contribution. The theme is interesting, but I believe the research shall provide new insights.

Author Response

Manuscript sustainability-1393085

Response to Reviewers

 

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia” for publication. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to our manuscript. Their feedback and insightful comments were invaluable and improved our paper significantly. We incorporated most suggestions and highlighted them within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Reviewers’ Comments to the Authors:

Reviewer 2

The work is very interesting and the research field concerns an area that will require great efforts in the future to solve the current problems highlighted in the paper. However, it would be useful to consider how the integration of BIM can help in the valorization of the CDW.            

Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. With regards to considering “how the integration of BIM can help in the valorization of the CDW.” We think it is another interesting research topic worth investigating. Nevertheless, it is out of scope for this particular article.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The work falls within the special issue. The research sheds light on the capability of BIM-enabled technologies in diverting C&D waste and increasing resource efficiency in the construction industry. Furthermore, the study provides a research agenda in this space which is highly required to understand other opportunities better. I recommend publication of this review manuscript after implementing major revisions, and I encourage authors to consider the following comments when revising their manuscript.

 

• The abstract is not informative, and yet little information on the findings of the review. Please ensure that the abstract has the following elements: 1-2 sentences on the context and the need for the study; 1-2 sentences on the methodology; the majority of the abstract on the actual findings of the study; 1-2 sentences on key conclusions and recommendations to stakeholders and for future research.
• It is not clear what the research scope is in the introduction of the manuscript; is it Australia? Then it needs to be reflected in the topic and abstract.
• Some of the statistics provided in the introduction need referencing to the original source e.g. Over the past 13 50 years for which data are available, the C&DW stream grew by 61% in total amount
• Also, I suggest that authors consider important Australian publications in C&D waste space in the literature review/introduction, currently, some recent studies are missing in this manuscript
• Line 81, page number 2: please clarify what you mean by the lack of BIM implementation in the DWM domain. A reference is needed to support this claim.
• Line 86 page number 2: by answer this question or these questions
• Page 3: why there are different research questions here? Please make sure that they are consistent in the meaning and wording
• Figure 1 should be presented right after it is cited in the text – please make sure that this will happen for all figures and tables in the text
• I don’t see value in showing Figure 3 and Figure 4. the description of the most important research outputs on page 3 seems enough
• In section 3.1. waste hierarchy model can be used to guide the literature review
• Figure 5: it is questionable, I think other main causes also have an important role in waste generation.
• Authors can reference the recent review studies that have been conducted to shed light on current waste management practices, including those published by Australian authors
• I recommend the authors conduct quality assurance of the content, ensuring the references and statements used are relevant to the subheadings. For instance, page 9, line 283, cannot be related to the cultural barrier; this also applies to loose regulations in line 269, line 271 etc
• I encourage authors to break down long sentences into short and more effective sentences
• Furthermore, please check that all paragraphs have a topic sentence showing what is coming next
• A visual model showing how BIM can be helpful in this space would be a great addition to the discussion
• Some of the references at the end of the manuscript seem to be incomplete
• In conclusion please also mention the following: contribution to the body of knowledge, practice and policy, and research limitations.

Author Response

Manuscript sustainability-1393085

Response to Reviewers

 

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia” for publication. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to our manuscript. Their feedback and insightful comments were invaluable and improved our paper significantly. We incorporated most suggestions and highlighted them within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Reviewers’ Comments to the Authors:

Reviewer 3

Thank you for your contribution. Even if the manuscript has a clear structure and is well-written, I think that the authors should clarify what is the novelty provided by their contribution. The theme is interesting, but I believe the research shall provide new insights.

 

Author response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. We have improved the novelty by further highlighting the research agenda and future research directions on Pages 20, lines 798-808. We also note this paper provides directions for C&DWM researchers and practitioners in other countries to gain more insights into the development of the construction material bank and waste database.

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for addressing the comments in the first round of reviews. 

I am satisfied with the changes made except for one item which is about referring to Australian publications. I still feel that some important pieces of literature are missing that would have demonstrated authors ability to navigate their research through previous literature. 

Author Response

Manuscript sustainability-1393085

Response to Reviewers

 

Dear Editor:

Thank you for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of the manuscript “Building Information Modeling (BIM) for Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia” for publication. We appreciate the time and effort that you and the reviewers have dedicated to our manuscript. Their feedback and insightful comments were invaluable and improved our paper significantly. We incorporated most suggestions and highlighted them within the manuscript. Please see below, in blue, for a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Reviewers' Comments to the Authors:

 

Reviewer 3

“I am satisfied with the changes made except for one item which is about referring to Australian publications. I still feel that some important pieces of literature are missing that would have demonstrated authors ability to navigate their research through previous literature. “

 

Authors’ response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s feedback and agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Therefore, 12 additional Australian publications concerning C&DWM barriers, regional policies, and future opportunities were conscientiously reviewed and incorporated into the paper. The bibliography of those Australian publications is listed below. For instance, in section 3.2.1, lines 217–225, the paper illustrates the status of new technology adoption for managing C&DW in Australia. Moreover, in section 3.2.2, lines 279–288, the paper reveals the policy barriers that hinder the development of Australian C&DW markets. Furthermore, in lines 289–300, the prevalent cross-regional waste transportation caused by the inconsistent jurisdictional land levies is identified as the main problem persisting within the Australian C&DWM business. In addition, in lines 353–362, the paper summarizes key stakeholders’ perceptions of the Australian government’s current regulatory and design guidelines.

Finally, at the end of Section 3, in lines 698–706, the paper compares the status of BIM adoption in Australia with that of North America and outlines the prominent barriers to BIM adoption identified by prior studies.  

26. Park, J.; Tucker, R. Overcoming Barriers to the Reuse of Construction Waste Material in Australia: A Review of the Literature. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2017, 17 (3), 228–237. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2016.1192248
27. Yazdani, M.; Kabirifar, K.; Frimpong, B.E.; Shariati, M.; Mirmozaffari, M.; Boskabadi, A. Improving construction and demolition waste collection service in an urban area using a simheuristic approach: A case study in Sydney, Australia. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124138.`
28. Shooshtarian, S.; Maqsood, T.; Wong, P.S.P.; Yang, R.J.; Khalfan, M. Review of waste strategy documents in Australia: Analysis of strategies for construction and demolition waste. Int. J. Environ. Technol. Manag. 2020, 23, 1–21, doi:10.1504/IJETM.2020.110147.

 

33. Shooshtarian, S.; Maqsood, T.; Wong, P.S.P.; Khalfan, M.; Yang, R.J. Market development for construction and demolition waste stream in Australia. J. Constr. Eng. Manag. Innov. 2020, 3, 220–231, doi:10.31462/jcemi.2020.03220231.
34. Shooshtarian, S.; Caldera, S.; Maqsood, T.; Ryley, T.; Khalfan, M. An investigation into challenges and opportunities in the Australian construction and demolition waste management system. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, doi:10.1108/ECAM-05-2021-0439.
35. Zhao, X.; Webber, R.; Kalutara, P.; Browne, W.; Pienaar, J. Construction and Demolition Waste Management in Australia: A Mini-Review. Waste Manag. Res. 2021, 734242X211029446. DOI: 10.1177/0734242X211029446
36. Wu, H.; Zuo, J.; Yuan, H.; Zillante, G.; Wang, J. Cross-Regional Mobility of Construction and Demolition Waste in Australia: An Exploratory Study. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2020, 156, 104710. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2020.104710
37. Udawatta, N.; Zuo, J.; Chiveralls, K.; Zillante, G. From Green Buildings to Living Buildings? Rating Schemes and Waste Management Practices in Australian Educational Buildings. Eng. Constr. Archit. Manag. 2021, 28 (4), 1278–1294. DOI: 10.1108/ECAM-03-2019-0177
38. Udawatta, N.; Zuo, J.; Chiveralls, K.; Yuan, H.; George, Z.; Elmualim, A. Major Factors Impeding the Implementation of Waste Management in Australian Construction Projects. J. Green Build. 2018, 13 (3), 101–121. DOI: 10.3992/1943-4618.13.3.101
39. Newaz, M. T.; Davis, P.; Sher, W.; Simon, L. Factors Affecting Construction Waste Management Streams in Australia. Int. J. Constr. Manag. 2020, 0, 1–9. DOI: 10.1080/15623599.2020.1815122
40. Jung, W.; Lee, G. The Status of BIM Adoption on Six Continents. Int. J. Civil, Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 2015, 9, 406–410.
41. Kim, K.P.; Ma, T.; Sigh, A.; Baryah; Zhang, C.; Hui, K.M. ( 2018-16) Investigation of Readiness for 4D and 5D BIM Adoption in the Australian Construction Industry. Manage. Rev. 2018, 11, 43–64.