The Budget as a Basis for Ecological Management of Urbanization Projects. Case Study in Seville, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Highlight changes in yellow in a next revision, please. No track changes.

Consider comments in the entire text.

The correspondence author seems not to match the email

I can see the authors do publish on this subject and I have managed to check some related papers. Please, always try to move as far away as possible from similar structure, graphics, flowcharts, etc.

Reference style will need change then: “(Renukappa, Akintoye, Egbu, & Suresh, 2016).”

Define all abbreviations at first se: abstract and text, despite the “ Glossary of terms:”

Figures: Font should be smaller than the one used in the text

Avoid abbreviations in captions: “Table 1.- Equations for the calculation of the EE, CF, and WF of the basic construction elements”

Add all meanings in notes below tables

[I would also suggest clarifying all abbreviations in Figure captions]

Address italics to parameters

Revise sub/superscript… “(MJ; tCO2eq; m3)”

Use A) b) etc and remove “picture” terms…

Figure 5: Add detailed captions by letter t the main caption. Please added legends to every axis…

Check overlapped content in headings: Table 5

Tables should be similar… They all differ.

The text is well-written, enlightening and clear.

Authors could add references from 2021.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is interesting for Sustainability readers. I suggest to the authors to consider the Sustainability format, for example for the reference of quotations. I also suggest highlighting the originality of the research in the abstract. An Extensive editing of English language is strongly required.

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

Reviewer's comment:

The article is interesting for Sustainability readers.

Response:

Thank you for the comments and corrections that have help us to improve the manuscript.

Reviewer's comment:

I suggest to the authors to consider the Sustainability format, for example for the reference of quotations.

Response:

The style of the references has been changed to the style specified by Sustainability journal.

Reviewer's comment:

I also suggest highlighting the originality of the research in the abstract.

Response:

The originality of the work has been highlighted in the abstract (page 1, lines 9-12).

Reviewer's comment:

An Extensive editing of English language is strongly required.

Response:

The article has been proof-reader by a professional native speaker translator. Because grammatical corrections have been generalized throughout the document, they have not been marked in the text.

Finally, we wanted to thank the reviewer for their valuable comments and suggestions to improve this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I found this study to be very difficult to understand. Is a "model" developed? A simple comparison of published data does not constitute a model. The myriad abbreviations and interconversions between units are not easily understood and not entirely credible.

If a simple examination of published data is used to "decide" which combination of materials should be used for the lowest environmental impact, is the goal of this study, it does not constitute a legitimate study. The basic premise is of importance, however, the narrative is very long in all sections providing not clarity but confusion. 

This paper could be presented as a simple, very short case study of two municipal projects around selection of materials and use of space to reduce "overall" emissions, however, it is difficult to recognize a "unified" approach that could be used by others. 

The concept of carbon footprint is used but is not defined--is this a "net carbon emissions analysis with time and spatial dimensions? No reference to methane and nitrous oxide source/sinks is provided but relevant if water and water treatment are involved. 

Abstract

Line 13. What model?  Do you mean software analysis of inputs?

Line 14. Define typology if used.

Line 15. Cite actual findings with metrics, rather than "due to only a few.."

Line 16. A few are actually 5 impacts.

Line 17. What is the remaining 30% comprised of?

Line 23. Glossary. Please provide definitions rather than just the acronyms.

Introduction

Could shorten considerably.

Line 113. GPP--how is this defined?

Line 117. Cite previous work. What portion of the present work was previously published?

Methods

Shorten section considerably. Figs 1,2 and 3, are confusing; it is not clear how these graphics can be integrated. Fig. 3 is particularly difficult to interpret. A simple short paragraph would appear to offer more clarity.

Section 3, the most important information in this section is What are the dimensions of project 2? Hectares and time intervals?

Line 132. Is this a model or a simple spreadsheet approach? 

Line 152.  Shorten--could delete the first paragraph.

Line 176 and graphic. This section could be shortened and the graphic removed as it does not inform on the data are used. 

Line 257. How are linear metrics converted into cubic meters and then into kilograms?

Line 261. Table 1. The equation for CF is not stated, however, tCO2 is cited--over time and a given spatial extent?

Results

It should not be surprising that cement accounts for the majority of the impact for both projects. How can these emissions be offset by other features of the projects? 

Line 341. Table 2. How is kg CO2 eq/m2 determined? CO2 is a gas with gas exchange parameters. Water is also a source/sink for CO2 and other GHG's. How are values for CF applied to P2 gardening, drainage, and other urban systems? These data are questionable without further explanation. 

Line 353. Figure 5 data are not clear--what time period is represented? How can three significant figures be reliably reported?

Line 364. Table 5. This table could be presented as Figure 1, representing the basic matrix of weights and understandable dimensions and metrics. Which quantities are from databases and from calculated metrics?

Line 392. Table 6. These data are from published sources, correct? A selection of the products with the least impact could be determined by a simple comparison. No model required. 

Line 442. Table 7. Again, this table is not a "result" of the model but of the published data for the products. 

Conclusion

Shorten conclusion to the main points, crystallized for the reader. It reads now like the abstract. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript provides a simple "calculation methodology" to compare and evaluate features of materials employed for two urban areas in Seville, Spain.  To this end, the manuscript is overwritten, and illustrated by graphics that are confusing rather than clarifying. There is no summary of the "calculations" made, for example, showing the percent difference between the selection of one type of material versus others. I find it difficult to understand the unified process that is presented as a method for other cities. Simple excel spreadsheets could easily accommodate all of the primary information presented and calculated showing different outcomes of material selection. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf