Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

（1）The title of the paper is not attractive enough for readers. The title of the paper suggests not using "Research on".

(2) The research problem of the paper is not clear. According to the research question, the author should also state the research objectives.

（3）  Literature review. I encourage that the authors should provide the research gaps and departure of this study through literature review, not just summarizing the literature in this section.

(4) Figures 3 should be further explained in more details. What means C&T mechanisms?

（5）The logical structure of the whole paper is not very good. I suggest supplementing a technical roadmap for the paper.

（6） “5. Discussion”，The discussion section should also compare the views of other scholars and explain the different views. The content of the discussion should precede the conclusion of the paper.

（7）6. Numerical simulations, Why do you choose literature 37 and 39 for the data of case simulation?

(8) How has the Stackelberg game model been validated and the extent of its validity.

（9）Finally, the review of the literature could have been much stronger.. Such as:

①Quantifying the embodied carbon saving potential of recycling construction and demolition waste in the Greater Bay Area, China: status quo and future scenarios. Sci Total Environ 2021;792(3):148427. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/J.SCITOTENV.2021.148427.;

②System dynamics-life cycle assessment causal loop model for evaluating the carbon emissions of building refurbishment construction and demolition waste. Waste Biomass Valorization 2022;13(9): 4099–113. https://doi.org/10.1007/S12649-022-01796-9.

③Factors driving waste sorting in construction projects in China, JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION, DOI10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129400;

④The potential for carbon reduction in construction waste sorting: A dynamic simulation, Energy 275 (2023) 127477,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2023.127477

⑤Potential for CO2 mitigation and economic beneffts from accelerated carbonation of construction and demolition waste. Renew Sustain Energy Rev 2022;169:112920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112920.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 The author proposed a model for recycling strategies in constructon supply chain. A little (not detailed) example or cases were studied.

Many equations were quoted in the paper, more detailed explanation shall be provided. The conclusion of paper shall be enhanced.

The paper is well-written

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

1.      In assumption-1, demand is the function of selling price and carbon emission. But single line is not written about selling price in this assumption.

2.     In assumption 3, what is Cn,Co. Is this standard notation?

3.     Provide managerial insights in separate section.

4.     Upgrade the literature review considering the works: Reduction of pollution through sustainable and flexible production by controlling by-products; Reduction of waste and carbon emission through the selection of items with cross-price elasticity of demand to form a sustainable supply chain with preservation technology.

5. Line 194, check the spelling “receptively”. Fix all these issues in entire manuscript. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

1-The writing of the paper needs a large amount of revisions. Some statements are really hard to understand

2-Mathematical formulations should be referenced in the text and also you should give more details for some of them specially in the given two models

3-Why did you consider Stackelberg game? Why not considering Nash Equilibrium? 

4-The abstract is not informative and it is not really clear what the authors want to do in the end?

5-In introduction section, the authors should give the required backgrounds of understanding the mathematical models. I can not find such content in the introduction

For example in the abstract the authors have written Police instead of policy

There are a lot of English writing points. In some sections the the sentence is correct from Grammatical aspect while the concept is not clear

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have carefully revised the paper, and I agree that the paper is accepted by the journal

Reviewer 2 Report

The author addressed all comments, the paper was well-written.