A Traceability Framework to Enable Circularity in the Built Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

this paper aims to present a traceability framework enabling circularity across material, product, and system lifecycles. Drawing on existing CE principles, strategies, standards, and guidelines, the proposed framework offers a practical solution to the challenges of implementing traceability in the built asset industry. the innovation of this paper is low, more importantly, this study lacks actual cases to verify the proposed framework.

generally acceptable

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your contributions to the advancement of our field. Your constructive comments, and thoughtful feedback have been invaluable in shaping the final version of the manuscript.

We have carefully reviewed your comments on our manuscript and have prepared a detailed response to each of them. We have incorporated your feedback into our manuscript and hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

1. “The innovation of this paper is low”:

   The proposed traceability framework addresses the lack of an integrated approach that connects the various ideas, tools, guidelines, and concepts found in the traceability literature within the built asset industry, leading to difficulties in adopting circular practices. To the best of our knowledge, there is currently no study that have managed to combine different aspects of traceability and highlight their importance for the built asset industry's long-term circularity. Indeed, while traceability as a concept has been developed elsewhere, it hasn’t been explored in depth in the built asset industry.

2. “This study lacks actual cases to verify the proposed framework”:

   As stated in the conclusion of the paper, the testing and validation of the proposed framework and its implications will be communicated in a follow-up paper. Two actual case studies are currently underway to assess the circularity of materials and products by applying the concepts and theories discussed in this paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1) The number and justification of the selection of industry experts are not explained perfectly; as well as the procedure to conduct a series of workshops 

2) The criteria for selection of the industry experts are not well discussed

3) The previous frameworks are not fully discussed in the literature review

4) The connection between the previous frameworks which have been developed and a new traceable framework is not well discussed 

5) No connection between the traceable framework developed in Figure 7 with the sustainable development agenda

6) The result of these research activities needs to be communicated/exposed in this paper 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your contributions to the advancement of our field. Your constructive comments, and thoughtful feedback have been invaluable in shaping the final version of the manuscript.

We have carefully reviewed your comments on our manuscript and have prepared a detailed response to each of them. We have incorporated your feedback into our manuscript and hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

1. “The number and justification of the selection of industry experts are not explained perfectly; as well as the procedure to conduct a series of workshops”:

We have added additional details on the number and selection of industry experts.

2. “The criteria for selection of the industry experts are not well discussed”:

We have added additional details on the number and selection of industry experts

3. “The previous frameworks are not fully discussed in the literature review”:

While there are a limited number of traceability framework have been proposed in the context of the built asset industry, some of the most recent frameworks are introduced and discussed in section 2. This includes: (1) a Theoretical Framework of Traceability for Sustainability in the Construction Sector by Katenbayeva et.al; (2) A Blockchain and Smart Contract-Based Framework to Increase Traceability of Built Assets by Li et.al; (3) Traceability for Built Assets: Proposed Framework for a Digital Record by Watson et.al.; (4) Designing a Traceability Framework for Sustainable Agri-Food Supply Chains by Anastasiadis; (5) Traceability and Management of Dispersed Product Knowledge framework by Ouertani et.al.; (6) A Reference Models for Requirements Traceability by Ramesh & Jarke. These frameworks have been introduced and developed in the paper. Our paper looks at the concept of traceability from a holistic perspective.

4. “The connection between the previous frameworks which have been developed and a new traceable framework is not well discussed”:

We have addressed this comment in the paper. To summarize, based on the reviewed frameworks, here are some examples of connections between the previous frameworks and the new framework: the key dimensions of the traceability requirements are drawn from the works by Ramesh & Jarke and Ouertani et.al (section 3.1). The lifecycle chains of the framework by Watson et al. were interpreted and discussed as a useful reference for studying “when” traceability should be applied across lifecycle stages of an asset (section 4.3). The core themes of the research done by Katenbayeva et.al were linked to the main purpose of traceability (section 4.1) and enhancing the information transparency and responsible sourcing among industry stakeholders (section 4.4 and section 4.5). The key characteristics of data enabling traceability (section 4.2) are adopted and extended based on the MP data classification model by BAMP (discussed in section 2.1). There are other specific terms, themes and concepts can be found in the proposed traceability framework which are based on the reviewed frameworks in the literature section of the paper.

5. “No connection between the traceable framework developed in Figure 7 with the sustainable development agenda”:

We have addressed this comment in the paper. Figure 7 represents the key components of the proposed traceability framework. The main connection between sustainability principles and the proposed framework is component “why” addressing the main purpose of traceability to meet CE principles and sustainability goals in terms of environment, social, and economy. This includes applying R-strategies by effective use of natural, financial, and human resources across lifecycle stages of assets.

6. “The result of these research activities needs to be communicated/exposed in this paper”:

We have addressed this comment in the paper. Figure 6 summarizes the research activities, workshop procedures, and their related results at each step. The result of step 1 was communicated in the background section of the paper. In accordance with the established traceability reference model, the important themes and commonalities found in the literature (step 2) were reported in section 3.1. The outcome of step 3 and 4 is the traceability framework which was discussed along with its component in section 4.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

 

1. Abstract: In my opinion, the abstract should be more insightful regarding the article's topic. E.x. at this stage, it is too early to talk about the articles' structure (Row 20-24). Besides, the overall impression is more like its introduction rather than abstract.  2. Row 43-45: In addition, 43 there are currently no formal frameworks... This statement should be restructured in the following way: To the best of our knowledge, there are currently no formal frameworks... (There is a high probability that they've missed something in the process of research). 3. Row 49-57: This information was more less told in abstract. For that reason the abstract should be reconsidered. 4. Row 60-62: According to Environment Canada... In my opinion, it should be reconstructed. E.X. During 2021. waste generated from  construction, renovation, and demolition in Canada generated more than 4 million tons. (Author should reconsider sentence restructuring) 5. Row 65: While the body of knowledge... It should be reconstructed. E.X.While the body of literature... 6. Row 66:  industrial practitioners... Author should use industry experts. 7. Row 65-67: While the body of knowledge pertaining 65 to a circular future is rapidly growing, many scholars and industrial practitioners have 66 highlighted the significant challenges in transitioning to this new economic model... Author should consider referencing a few sources to back up this statement.  8. Row 67-68: Outside of the many strategic and political challenges... (Author should include at least a few to give a better understanding what strategic/political challenges might be). 9. Row 71-73: Achieving circularity relies heavily on relevant reliable, readily available and accessible data describing the properties of materials, products and systems that underlie CE principles and use cases [9]. Author should consider restructuring this statement as it is hard to read/understand. 10. Row 75: containing data about. Author should say: containing data regarding  11. Row 77-80: A growing number of passport-types have been proposed by scholars and practitioners which on one hand is good as it shows the demand in the domain, however, it may cause difficulties in collecting and matching incoherent data from multiple MPs [13]. Author should consider splitting the statement in two, since it is too long. Besides, the author clearly talks in plural, but referencing only one source.  12. Row 91-96: Previous elements had their sources, whereas this one doesn't. 13. Row 98-100: The main barriers hindering this potential lie with what can be termed as an “information gap” between producer and consumer (designer, owner, end-user) [16]. Author should consider rephrasing this statement. It is a little bit unclear.  14. Row 102:  involved actors. Author should say: Involved parties  15. Row 102: It is becoming important. Author should consider insertig: it is becoming increasingly important.  16. Row 104-106: Moreover, as digitalized information systems become more prevalent in practice, there are still several prevailing issues that hinder full interoperability. Author should consider rephrasing the statement. E.X. Nevertheless, disregarding digitisation's upheaval influence, there are still certain issues which need to be addressed. These might include... 17. Row 108: Figure 2. I can't see the source.  18. Row 112: Traceability of materials and products is recognized as a concern... Author should consider rephrasing: E.X. Traceability of materials and products is recognized as one of the major concerns.  19. Row 113-115: While the notion of “traceability” has been defined, there is no common definition that encompasses all aspects of traceability [4]. Author should restructure the statement, especially the parth definition of notion. Author should consider the phrase "definitional ambiguity" 20. Row 115-116: Table 1 lists some of the existing definitions of traceability that have been developed in the literature. When the previous statement is restructured, this sentence is redundant. Author should only reference the previous statement to the table.  21. Row 120-121: Most academic publications stress the importance of traceability models around which the tracing processes, tools, and methods can be defined and organized [25]. Author should consider finding more sourcer to back up this statement, as the author clearly speaks in plural.  22. Row: 122-124: These models can be implemented in different ways, but the specific model use depends on the industry, sector, and application. Author should rephrase this statement. E.X. Given models' vast range of applicability, specific use cases within specific sectors are required to fully leverage its potential.  23. Row 130: optimize resources use. Author should have said "Resource productivity"  24. Row 129-144: This entire section should be restructured. Measures include: enhanced vocabulary, sentence construction, sentence shortening, and less repetition.  25. Row 145: Various - Author should consider the word "different" 26. Row 146: For instance - Author should consider "For example" 27. Row 146-151: Author should shorten this section summarizing it in one sentence. Besides, Figure 3 seems redundant.  28. Row 152-154: Ultimately, continuous implementation of traceability in decision-makings and practices may lead to increased ethics and growths for businesses and industries, as well as sustainable trade practices. Author should work on vocabulary and sentence restructuring.  29. Row 166-174: Author should work on vocabulary and sentence restructuring. Following statements, it seems illogical. After mentioning reason, authors represent results, and afterwards, speak of reasons again. This should be clustered and then come up with a solution.  30. Row 178-179: While traceability is an emerging field of... This statement is more suitable in introduction, not at the middle of the paper.  31. Row 195-196: Digitalization plays an important role in enabling traceability of construction products in the context of BES 6001. Author should consider leaning into this statement, rather than jumping straight on it.  32. Row 214: In this light.  Author should consider other phrases: In this vein; Accordingly; etc. 33. Row 230: industrial practitioners. Author should consider other phrases: "industry experts" / or just practitioners.  34. Row 230-232: Many scholars and industrial 230 practitioners have agreed on some necessary actions such as establishment of clear standards and guidelines. Author should exclude the word "some", or replace it with "certain" 35. Row 234-237: However, there still lacks a comprehensive understanding of such actions and how they are to be conducted in the development of a common approach to traceability to support the application of CE principles in the built asset industry. Author should work on vocabulary and sentence restructuring. 36. Row 283: For this purpose, the research team took. Author should just use the word "we". 37. Row 284-287:  In parallel, a series of workshops were held, and a diverse range of the stakeholders were invited to provide valuable feedbacks about findings from existing data sources, potential outcomes and applications of the traceability framework, identification of use cases and their values in the built asset industry. Author should work on vocabulary and sentence restructuring, as it is too clustered and unclear.  38. Row 289: The first round. This should be phrased as in row 294 "This included". The current statement is too repetitive vocabulary wise.  39. Row 317-319: This section presents the traceability framework by bridging the key findings from the reviewed literatures and workshops to the traceability reference model by Ramesh & Jarke [51]. This statement is not in line with statement in row 43-45, where the author clearly indicates "there are currently no formal frameworks or guidelines that provide practical suggestions to implement traceability in the construction domain". How come it appears now? (Following this logic, as the author's endeavor is to come up with a framework, which appears to exist, the purposefulness of the paper is highly doubtful lacking new value.)  Besides, the author should work on vocabulary and sentence restructuring. 40. Row 327:329: Past research has emphasized the potential of traceability to support circularity of products and materials and minimize negative impacts on environment, economy, and social aspects. What past research? 41. Row 327-340. This entire section lacks context.  42. Row 351-375. This section should be written in a more informative manner, using better phrases and enhanced vocabulary. Additionally, throughout the entire section, the author hasn't referenced any literature sources.   43. Row 378-379: According to Succar and Poirier [61], there are eight milestones that information transforms... This sentence is unclear. I don't know what the author means by this? 44. Row 383-387. This sentence is unclear, especially the beginning.  45. Row 407-408: The built asset industry is complex and involves multiple actors with various skills and competency. This statement should be restructured, as it lacks sense.  46. Row 408-412. The author has mentioned multiple elements, and at the end stated " as one of the main barriers". It is unclear which specific barrier the author refers to. 47. Row 412-413. Understanding the web of relationships between... What does "web of relationship" mean? 48. Row 449: If companies and organization... One of the words should be excluded.  49. Row 448-511. It is my impression that the author jumped from topic to topic, without adequate introduction/shift to another logical whole. In this sense, the author should consider making more "natural" jumps from one topic to another, as it appears to be unstructured and unrelated.  50. Row 520-525: Author should rephrase this section, as the author unnecessarily used multiple phrases one after the other. Besides, the section lacks clarity. 51. Row 564. What framework? If the author references figure 6 as a framework, then in that case, it is unclear. If that is the case, the proposed "framework" lacks proper description, usability, and eventually proper scientific representation to considered a framework.   Overall impression:   First and foremost, the paper lacks proper/advanced vocabulary/sentence construction/phrasing.
Secondly, the author has used too many Figures from other authors without proper description/logic to place them in the paper.
Thirdly (probably most importantly), at the beginning as stated by the author, "there are currently no formal frameworks or guidelines that provide practical suggestions to implement traceability in the construction domain", but the paper presented an existing formal framework (Figure 7). Following this, as stated above, the real value/purposefulness of this paper is questionable (taking into account the overall approach to writing the article - First and Second comments).
Fourthly, the author has made sudden illogical jumps from topic to topic, without prior/proper introduction to the next whole.
Last, but not least, there are too many issues including the logic behind the article, ranging from the author's clear comprehension of the analyzed topic. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your contributions to the advancement of our field. Your constructive comments, and thoughtful feedback have been invaluable in shaping the final version of the manuscript.

We have carefully reviewed your comments on our manuscript and have prepared a detailed response to each of them (in accordance with the number of reviews). We have incorporated your feedback into our manuscript and hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

However, we would like to address some of your reviews with further explanation:

[17]: Figure 2 is generated by authors of this study to highlight the existing challenges and issues regarding the information gaps, collaboration gaps, and digital gaps in circularity of built assets. The components of this figure are outlined based on the interoperation of state-of-art and current practices in this field of study.

[27]: The study done by Katenbayeva et.al is one of the critical references of this paper. Therefore, a proper explanation of its construct may need to be remained in this paragraph as they were referenced several times in the following sections.

[39]: First, the statement "there are currently no formal frameworks or guidelines that provide practical suggestions to implement traceability in the construction domain" is now revised to address the issue raised. Second, the work done by Ramesh & Jarke is a “reference” traceability model allowing researchers to develop contextualized frameworks by using its dimensions. Yet, it’s not formal or standardized in the built asset industry and can be applied to any other domain. Third, as a nascent field of study, an increasing number of traceability frameworks are proposing across domains, therefore, there is a probability that authors of this paper have overlooked the most recent studies (particularly those published in recent months) in this field of research. This, however, was mentioned as one of the limitations of the work in the discussion section.

[43]: This paragraph is now restructured and revised. The term “information milestones” is a marker emphasizing the milestones in which information may pass or transform across “targeted” or “actual” state of an asset. This term is well-established in the field of information management of the built assets and resources (Kindly refer to BIM Dictionary:https://bimdictionary.com/en/information-milestone/1) and can be used to trace the information of an asset through its purposes, deliverables, resources and methods.

[51]: The term “framework” refers to the overreaching outcome of this research which articulated existing standards, strategies, and guidelines in the traceability literature using the five main dimensions. Figure 7 visualizes these five dimensions as well as their specific components, helping readers to understand these components and their relationships.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The title is excellent. The way of approaching of the abstract is fantastic but findings are missing in abstract. Kindly include findings in abstract. The introduction lacks clarity and needed more past studies to back up arguments. Introduction is written very normal and it's not aligning with title and abstract. On the other side, this study provides some novel insights for theoretical and managerial implications. However, some areas need further improvement.

Literature review

Again, the same issues as the previous sections, reference support is very less. Most of the statements are given as their own. The literature review is ok. Authors may discuss more recent studies here (2021-2022) in relation to the statement of problem and objective of the study that will provide readers more insights regarding the study. Some pictorial illustrations to summarize the story could be beneficial for improving the article. This section has been written very well. But a separate research gap as a sub-section could improve the article's strength as well as offer novelty. The entire stature of paper is not up to the journal. If possible, please offer a clear motivation, gap, and research question in the introduction. The introduction could do more to ground the paper's RQ in the debate and the related literature. In the actual version of the manuscript, scant attention is given to a theoretical derivation of the study's RQ and its actual positioning.See the following: Designing Value Chains for Industry 4.0 and a Circular Economy: A Review of the Literature. Sustainability. 2022; 14(12):7084. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14127084

Although, the section clearly expresses the problem statement. Still, it would be good if we had more references while offering the arguments in this section. The literature review reads more like a list of previous research on various topics rather than a theory section explaining how your different concepts are related. Try to integrate this section better and build a stronger case of the need for your study. Although this paper dealt with interesting phenomena, it did not provide adequate theoretical background and support for the development of its hypotheses. This is the critical limitation of this paper.

 Significance of this study is also ignored in the discussion. Implications are ignored during the discussion. This section lacks clarity.   Finally, the conclusion section needs significant improvement. Usually, in any paper article, this section should have concluded with the identification of gaps, significant findings and future direction or future research. This current format is too short.

- Implications for future research may also be included in the conclusion at the end. Improve the structure of this section and add the limitations and future research directions more clearly. Authors may add separate section for Implications (Future Directions of Study) as theoretical and practically. Limitations can be mention in conclusions.

 

 

 

This study provides sufficient theoretical support and made a literature contribution. However, how this research contributes to the entire field of research needs to be addressed in light of the existing literature. The study must discuss who the potential beneficiaries of this research are. Especially, the introduction section needs to re-organize. The major debate or Argument is not clear stated in the introduction session. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. We are truly grateful for your contributions to the advancement of our field. Your constructive comments, and thoughtful feedback have been invaluable in shaping the final version of the manuscript.

We have carefully reviewed your comments on our manuscript and have prepared a detailed response to each of them. We have incorporated your feedback into our manuscript and hope that you find the revised version satisfactory.

1 . “Findings are missing in abstract. Kindly include findings in abstract”:

Agreed – findings are now added in abstract.

2. “The introduction lacks clarity and needed more past studies to back up arguments. Introduction is written very normal and it's not aligning with title and abstract [...] please offer a clear motivation, gap, and research question in the introduction. The introduction could do more to ground the paper's RQ in the debate and the related literature”:

Past traceability studies are now added to the introduction section. Regarding the clarity of the section, the main motivation, research problems and gaps, research objectives, and research questions are further restructured and clarified in the introduction.

3. “Reference support is very less. Most of the statements are given as their own Authors may discuss more recent studies here (2021-2022) in relation to the statement of problem and objective of the study that will provide readers more insights regarding the study [...] Although, the section clearly expresses the problem statement. Still, it would be good if we had more references while offering the arguments in this section.”:

More recent studies - mostly after 2020 - are now added to the background section of the paper to support the arguments.

4 . “But a separate research gap as a sub-section could improve the article's strength as well as offer novelty.”

Section 2.4 is added to the manuscript.

5 . “Although this paper dealt with interesting phenomena, it did not provide adequate theoretical background and support for the development of its hypotheses. This is the critical limitation of this paper.”:

A limited number of traceability framework have been proposed in the context of the built asset industry. Some of the most recent and important studies are provided in the background section of the paper to frame the potential concepts, tools, and guidelines in the context of this research. This includes This includes: (1) a Theoretical Framework of Traceability for Sustainability in the Construction Sector by Katenbayeva et.al; (2) A Blockchain and Smart Contract-Based Framework to Increase Traceability of Built Assets by Li et.al; (3) Traceability for Built Assets: Proposed Framework for a Digital Record by Watson et.al.; (4) Designing a Traceability Framework for Sustainable Agri-Food Supply Chains by Anastasiadis; (5) Traceability and Management of Dispersed Product Knowledge framework by Ouertani et.al.; (6) A Reference Models for Requirements Traceability by Ramesh & Jarke.

6 . “Significance of this study is also ignored in the discussion. Implications are ignored during the discussion. This section lacks clarity [...] with the identification of gaps, significant findings and future direction or future research. This current format is too short":

The discussion section is now revised and restructured to clarify the significance and implications of the research.

7 . “Implications for future research may also be included in the conclusion at the end [...] Authors may add separate section for Implications (Future Directions of Study) as theoretical and practically. Limitations can be mention in conclusions.":

The future works are now restructured and added into conclusion section of the paper. Limitations of the research are also added and discussed at the end of discussion section.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My main concerns have not been effectively addressed, and I suggest that the authors combine the tests with case studies.

Please check the grammar carefully.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again for the second round of the peer-review process. We appreciate your constructive comments, particularly regarding the testing and case studies of our research. As mentioned in the discussion and conclusion sections of the paper, validation of the framework is an on-going research project that has implemented two use cases along with their value propositions. However, due to space constraints, we were unable to include detailed descriptions of these use cases in the current paper. We would be more than happy to include the details in a follow-up paper.

Once again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and for your continued support of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have taken our suggestion and developed the literature. They have updated the references and have included the missing references. Moreover, the literature review has been improved and reinforced. The manuscript concerning the presentation of ideas shows improvement, but there are still some sentence structure changes and develop more clear research gap with the support of previous published studies in the domain of your study aim.

I appreciate their attentiveness to my comments and believe that the manuscript is improved. See the following

Designing value chains for industry 4.0 and a circular economy: A review of the literature." Sustainability 14, no. 12 (2022): 7084.

- In the last paragraph must be done a summary (resume) of the paper, i.e., a clear idea about what will be studied in the paper. The last paragraph's purpose in the Introduction section is to summarize the main points, restate the paper's main idea, and show how the paper statements were proven. It should have the general objective of the work that the authors must write –

-Then, the authors need to clearly show to the reader how the findings were achieved. The data analysis process is not enough and well explained or justified as well as detailed in order to show the reader how the authors achieve their findings and conclusions.

Finally, and consequently the contribution of the paper is not clear and/or traceable. Moreover, the authors suggest several points for further research that should would be taken in consideration to overpass the research limitations

 

 

 

yes

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for reviewing our manuscript again for the second round of the peer-review process. We are pleased to inform you that we have carefully considered all of your comments and have made the necessary changes to address the concerns raised in the first review. We believe that the revised version of the manuscript is improved, and we hope that it meets your expectations.

1. “In the last paragraph must be done a summary (resume) of the paper, i.e., a clear idea about what will be studied in the paper. The last paragraph's purpose in the Introduction section is to summarize the main points, restate the paper's main idea, and show how the paper statements were proven. It should have the general objective of the work that the authors must write – “

   We have addressed this comment in the paper. Please refer to introduction section, rows 75-111.

2. “Then, the authors need to clearly show to the reader how the findings were achieved. The data analysis process is not enough and well explained or justified as well as detailed in order to show the reader how the authors achieve their findings and conclusions.”

   We have addressed this comment in the paper. The data collection and analysis of research activities were further restructured and clarified. Please refer to section 3.2, rows 402-437.

3. “Finally, and consequently the contribution of the paper is not clear and/or traceable. Moreover, the authors suggest several points for further research that should would be taken in consideration to overpass the research limitations”

   We have addressed this comment in the paper. The contribution of the research was further highlighted both in introduction and conclusion (rows 719-727) parts of the paper. Regarding the future works, addressing the limitations of the research were further pointed out in the last paragraph of the paper (rows 728-739).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper have not been improved well.

General