Exploring Key Factors and Driving Mechanisms of Construction Waste Recycling Development in China: Combination of PEST Model and Fuzzy-Set Qualitative Comparative Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript required revision, based on the following comments:

1.       The title needs to be revised to illustrate the primary content of the paper appropriately. The abstract should be revised highlighting the fundamental subject matter as well as the main research findings.

2.       The literature review needs to be updated, since several important and recent contributions are missing, for example:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/20199706040

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-021-16980-y

3.       The research gap of the existing knowledge and the basic research objective and methodology are required to be clearer.

4.       Number of figures must be increased for better clarity. 

5.       It is not clear whether and how the developed model is validated.

6.       The significance and importance of the work are required to be included with appropriate design recommendations, preferably under separate heading. The novelty and limitations of the work should as well be included.

7.       The conclusions should be more specific, focused on the primary research findings. 

English write-up needs improvement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

 The article is currently highly topical around the world.

 The article meets all the necessary criteria for publication in the journal.

 My suggestions for increasing the quality of the article:

 1.    In part 3. Methods and data - it is necessary to state the research assumption, or also to state that in the article you discuss and react to two or three scientific hypotheses, this will increase the scientificity even more

2.    These two or three research hypotheses can also be statistically verified

 3.    I miss more graphic representation of some data or indicators - in the article is only 1 figure

Other sections as introduction, literature review, discussion and conclusion, number of references in the article are fine.

 The article has a high scientific credit. The article can then be published.

 Best regards,

 Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic is interesting, the proposed approach is original to achieve the objective of developing the CWR industry through the configuration of multiple factors but the development of the work is not entirely complete. A more detailed and in-depth examination of the problem is needed. Some steps of the methodology need to be addressed with more rigor.

For example, the authors state that:

1.       Based on the PEST framework, 84 this paper identified the key factors affecting the development of the CWR industry from 85 four aspects… The key factors,  in fig 1, The key factors, in fig 1, are objectively few for such an articulated and complex topic and above all the reasons for the choice of these key factors are not clear. Perhaps because the introductory discussion is poorly developed. For example in par 2.2. (not Policy measures but economy) , the authors state that: Due to the competitive relationship between natural aggregates (NA) and recycled 110 aggregates (RA), the use of RA will be directly influenced by the quantity and price of 111 natural aggregates. RA are more economically attractive when natural sand and gravel 112 are scarce and expensive [15]. The economic cost savings for consumers using RA is min- 113 imal when cheap NA is available, which seriously hinders the promotion and application 114 of RA [16].

Among the reasons why NA are favored over RA is not only the price but also the certified performances which are the guarantee of the behavior of "natural" products in operation compared to those coming from recycling. Without certifications, recycled products could even be free and could not, by law and for security reasons, be used.

Furthermore, the costs for landfill disposal greatly influence the interest in recycled products.

 Social conditions include local resource conditions, geographical conditions, etc. We 257 chose Urban Population Density as a representative index of social conditions. Because 258 the recycling of construction waste will be actively promoted in densely populated areas, 259 where the impact of construction waste landfills is more significant on residents due to 260 the restriction of land resources. The indicators were obtained from the China Urban Sta- 261 tistical Yearbook 2019.

In many large cities the landfills are elsewhere, unfortunately. The decision to use Population Density as a representative index of social conditions is questionable, certainly insufficient and in my opinion this choice has distorted the results. The population of a city is never homogeneous, not all inhabitants have the same income, the same level of education, the same "capacity" to produce construction waste which could later be reused. Indicators such as work and well-being are missing, why concentrate the simulations on such a heterogeneous factor?

Furthermore, if densely populated cities are the most suitable for the development of CWR industries, where will all the many small and medium-sized recycling industries be located or (the few large ones) in a densely populated city? Perhaps it would be better to move and encourage work in smaller cities from which to transport (with sustainable systems) waste and recycled products.

Finally, the technological research and development (R&D) level of each city can be ex- 263 pressed in the number of patents. Considering that the number of patents related to the 264 disposal of construction waste is difficult to obtain, the total number of patents approved 265 by the city was used. The data was collected from the China Urban Statistical Yearbook 266 2019.

This choice is also questionable and in any case poorly motivated. The margin for error could be out of control. Perhaps it would be better to take as a factor the recycling companies already present in the city.

Statements like these need to be reformulated:

11.     two configurations in Table 3 can be re- 311 garded as sufficient conditions for the high-level development of the CWR industry. In 312 other words, these casual paths can? May be COULD  BE achieve the purpose of high-level development of the 313 CWR industry equivalently.

22.      It means that CWR enterprises are inclined to invest and manufacture 322 waste-recycled products where adequate policy promotion measures are in place and the 323 population is dense as well.

Populous cities are not synonymous with a market for recycled materials. Not all the population has the same economic possibilities or the same interest in renovating their homes. You should investigate the trend not only of how many buildings are demolished and rebuilt but how many are actually sold.

3.       This is the case for mega-cities such as Beijing, 328 Shanghai, Guangzhou, and Shenzhen, as well as densely populated local cities such as 329 Xuchang, Handan, and Suzhou. Xuchang pioneered the franchise operation of CWR since 330 2009. In 2020, Xuchang's comprehensive utilization of 2.86 million tons of construction 331 waste, with the recycling rate up to 98%.  This data must be compared with: China's annual production 37 of construction waste reached 30 billion tons according to statistics in 2020 [1].

Although the authors declare the limitations of the work this is not enough to motivate many of the choices made: Finally, this study leaves several limitations to be improved. Given the availability of 422 data, the number of indicators chosen in this study is limited, which may be improved by 423 exploring more data sources in further study….

Summing up, the idea is good, the description of the problem is very summary, the conclusions reached are partial and even misleading.

You should enrich the introduction, use the statistical scheme you used and do a simulation as an example only, without claiming to have arrived at an answer, but only to explain how the tool developed works.

Notice:

In Table 3, ● and Ä denote, respectively, the presence and 314 absence of conditions; large and small circles ( where are in the Table 3?)  denote, respectively, core and edge condi- 315 tions; blanks represent conditions that may or may not exist.

As regards the introduction you mention :Therefore, it is valuable and prac- 46 tical to explore the influencing factors and driving mechanisms of development in the 47 CWR industry. A couple of studies have attempted to address this problem based on ex- 48 perience or surveys. Li, et al. [4] studied the key policies affecting the development of the 49 recycling industry. Ma, et al. [5] discussed in detail the potential challenges facing the re- 50 source industry. The lack of on-site sorting of construction waste [2,6], the absence of cer- 51 tification standards for resourceful products [6,7], unsound laws and regulations for con- 52 struction waste management [6,8,9], restricted land for resourceful disposal centers [6], 53 difficulties in marketing recycled products [7,9], lack awareness of resource conservation 54 and environmental protection [7-9] were identified as critical barriers  but later in the development of the work these factors are not taken into consideration.

To enrich the introduction you should also consider that among the questions for which an increasingly adequate and reliable answer can be provided  related to the recycle and reuse of waste from building sector are the following:

• from an eminently technical point of view: which types of waste should be favoured, what type of product to create, with what performance ranges; how to certify them;

• from an economic point of view: such as the costs, such as the cost/benefit ratio, such as the relationships with the market;

• from a management perspective: such as relationships with waste disposal consortia, such as relationships with producers, such as relationships with construction companies, how to involve design teams, such as relationships with private clients and /o publish;

• from a communication and training perspective: with university structures, with construction process operators, with sector publications;

• last but not least, "what architectural quality" can be achieved by reconnecting all the aforementioned aspects. To conclude: if the construction industry must reuse and recycle waste, obviously at zero km, the territory within which this waste is produced must be known. It will therefore be necessary to evaluate:

the morphology of the territory;  the current state; road and railway infrastructures; urban centers from the metropolitan area to smaller ones; natural resources; the most significant production activities; the points of greatest economic and tourist interest around which the supply chains must be structured.

This is the basic investigation, preparatory to everything else, but useful for verifying together with those interested (public administration, entrepreneurs, etc.) how this work can be used not only to develop economic development projects but also to provide a contribution to anyone called upon to collaborate in outlining the necessary services.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I agree with your answers.

The topics covered in your responses to my observations/doubts should also be shared with the readers of the paper (and not just with me) and all included in the text.

They are important to better explain some of your choices to everyone.

For example, clarification relating to the dependent and independent variables must be included:

In this study, we use the number of registered CWR companies in each city as dependent variable. We would like to examine if these influential factors determine the development state of CDW recycling industry. Thus, the recycling companies is not considered as an independent variable.

I also agree with figure 2, it is useful and supports the text.

Finally, a note: when you state in the response letter that in contrast, we currently cannot measure the “resident quality”, as you suggested, due to data deficiency.

I would like to point out that I have never referred to the "quality" of people.

When I stated that: the population of a city is never homogeneous, not all inhabitants have the same income, the same level of education, the same "capacity" to produce construction waste which could later be reused. Indicators such as work and well-being are missing, why concentrate the simulations on such a heterogeneous factor?,

it must be clear that all this has nothing to do with the quality of people.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf