Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript attempt to analyze construction projects’ qualification for habitat in order to develop guidelines ‘project of a checklist’ and proposed on use of building materials in Poland (Natura 2000 areas). This study used two stages: first, a comprehensive analysis of literature review 294 articles extract from the web of science database. Next, a survey of 47 experts. Good efforts have been done in this manuscript; however, the introduction part needs to be enhanced to have more details and position its objectives and findings regarding the state of the art. The framework of the checklist for habitat assessment section needs more explanation on the employment of matrix for data analysis. also, the manuscript needs proofreading to ensure the quality of the publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Overall comment

This paper reviews multiple construction projects in Poland from the perspective of environmental assessment. Attention was paid to habitat assessment. A set of relevant assessment items, in the form of a checklist, was generated after review by experts. Minor revision is suggested to enhance the quality of this paper.

 

Abstract

The Abstract is well-written. Yet, some issues have been identified. Minor editions should be made to attract readers.

 

Line 12: The term “habitat” was used in this line. What is habitat? Because habitat assessment is a key focus of this paper. Do the authors mean the immediate surrounding of the construction projects? Or the production and disposal site of the construction materials? A definition which is used for this paper should be provided here.

Line 17: 292 construction projects were included in the analysis of the study. What sort of documents of the construction projects were reviewed? A sentence can be added to clarify this point. Moreover, what are the inclusion or exclusion criteria of construction projects reviewed by this study?

 

Introduction

The Introduction section is comprehensive. There is a literature review and a list of recommended studies. Readers can be referred to the relevant studies.

 

Line 59: It is observed that many studies listed in Table 1 are related to life-cycle assessment. If the authors want to emphasise that LCA is the focus, I suggest adding a sentence to specify this point.

Line 61: The caption of Table 1 can be enhanced. By enriching the caption, readers can better grasp the contents of the table.

Line 61: Are the papers in Table 1 listed alphabetically? How are they organised? It can be specified in the caption.

Table 1: The top row of Table 1 contains Polish. Maybe translation into English is needed. Please check typos and translation errors in the rest of the text.

Line 71: Checklists can be easy to use and consistent. The authors may need to revise this sentence.

Line 79: Please refer to the comment related to Line 71. As the authors have proposed a set of checklist items in the latter parts of this paper, I believe using checklist is not a bad practice after all. Some revision of the sentences may be required to maintain logical consistency.

 

Materials and methods

There is comprehensive information in the Materials and methods section.

 

Line 92: It is stated that there was database search. More information about the search is needed. The authors need to provide the keywords and the year range they used for the search. Also, what are the inclusion or exclusion criteria of construction projects reviewed by this study?

Line 98: It is known that there were 292 constructions projects reviewed in this paper. However, the authors need to state the initial number of projects found and the number of excluded and overlapping projects. Such information is important for readers to understand the number of construction projects in Poland.

Line 115: Is Natura 2000 areas one of the selection criteria of the construction projects reviewed in this study?

 

Background for HA in the Polish system of EIAs

Line 151: As PoPTs is introduced here, it is wondered whether the construction projects selected in this paper are within the PoPTs framework. The authors can add a sentence here to specify such information here.

Line 155: Please change the word “making” to “conducting”.

Line 160: Is “a” a typo in this line? Please delete.

Line 163: In many EIA process, ecological assessment is a step in the process. How does “Habitat assessment” differ from ecological assessment? Please use one or two sentences to clarify.

Line 186: Are there any references about the consequences of overlooking the importance of habitat assessment? The authors can use a sentence to specify it here.

Line 224: It is understood that the Pisz Forest is an ecologically sensitive area if development is planned there. Is habitat assessment required for such area? A sentence can be added to explain this issue.

Line 269: Typo – “from April”

Line 284: After seeing the term “sustainable building materials”, I would like to know whether habitat assessment is related to the impact of construction on habitats in situ, or the impacts on the site of production of those materials.

Line 299: Typo – “Legal obligation”

Line 325: Incomplete sentence

 

Course of the research

Line 336: The authors can provide one or two examples of environmentally friendly materials that are used in Poland

Line 367: I think it is Table 2. Please update the caption

Line 368: The term “impacts” can be specified. Is the term related to short-term, long-term, on-site, or off-site impacts?

Line 369: Please update the caption of the table

Line 369: Questions 2 and 8 are so similar. Maybe one or two sentences can be provided to distinguish between them.

Lines 378-403: The terms in the formulae should be explained.

Lines 415-429: These questions are already listed out in Table 2. Maybe they can be deleted here.

 

Discussion

Lines 438-440: The term “reduction in energy balance” is unclear. “Decreased energy consumption” is perhaps a better term.

Line 440: Talking about energy efficiency of buildings, combining sustainable materials with green building designs can be very helpful. Such argument should be added here. Two citations should be added too:

• Lee, L. S., & Jim, C. Y. (2020). Multidimensional analysis of temporal and layered microclimatic behavior of subtropical climber green walls in summer. Urban Ecosystems, 23(2), 389-402.
• Lee, L. S., & Jim, C. Y. (2021). Quantitative approximation of shading-induced cooling by climber green wall based on multiple-iterative radiation pathways. In Eco-efficient Materials for Reducing Cooling Needs in Buildings and Construction (pp. 79-100). Woodhead Publishing.

 

Conclusion

The Conclusion section is fine as long as the language is polished.

 

References

Line 555: Some reference items are recommended in the comments above. Make sure that the additional citations are in place.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf