Circularity as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy in the Building Sector: The Stakeholder’s Involvement in the Interconnected Life Cycle Phases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General

The paper provides a literature review on the topic of climate change regarding the building sector.

1. The literature review presented in the paper lacks a systematic approach- the information is not structured or organized. Consider dividing the review into sub-subjects, which is helpful for analyzing the topics.

2. the literature review needs to better emphasize the uniqueness of the papers included in the review, as it is a critical aspect of a comprehensive literature review, particularly when it is the main objective of the paper. This lack of emphasis on originality might hide the value of this paper.

3. in general, it seems more like a preliminary review of the subject, and not a deep state-of-the-art review. A state-of-the-art literature review is expected to provide an in-depth analysis of the current state of knowledge on the topic, including recent research trends and advances.

4. The literature review presented in the paper lacks sufficient reference to practical research and approaches that have been implemented in the construction industry. Are there existing approaches that have been carried out in the construction industry?

 5.  Figures:

·       Ensure that all figures in the paper are presented at a sufficiently high resolution.

·       Figure 1 – It appears to be overly simplified and requires further elaboration to clarify the presented relationships. Without an appropriate description, the figure may be viewed as lacking in value and clarity.

·       Figure 2 The figure is unclear and requires improvement.

 Conclusion

The authors should address the weaknesses, such as insufficient literature review, to enhance the quality of the paper.  In its current state, the paper does not meet the required scientific standards for publication in sustainability.  

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

You'll find the point-by-point response to the comment in the attachments.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewer comments for the manuscript titled ''Circularity as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy in the Building Sector: The Stakeholder’s Involvement in the Interconnected Life Cycle Phases'' (ID: sustainability-2378093)

 The authors mainly discuss the circular economy transition in the link between climate change and the building sector. The thoughtful analysis results in relevant results which contribute to the literature. I recommend acceptance pending some minor issues.

 1. Line 61. What is ‘(±0.4)’? Please clarify.

2. Lines 102-107 and 242-248. I think that it would be better to combine the relevant texts. The new text should be placed immediately before ‘Materials and Methods’ (line 249).

3. Check for omissions, mistakes etc. in ‘References’. For example, add the day before ‘March’ (line 482).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

You'll find the point-by-point response to the comment in the attachments.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper studies Circularity as a Climate Change Mitigation Strategy in the Building Sector: The Stakeholder’s Involvement in the Interconnected Life Cycle Phases. The results indicate an increasing contribution to scientific literature about the context, but the stakeholder concept is considerably taken less place in the scientific literature. The stakeholder focal point, which the innovativeness of this article lays down in the literature, is a gap that needs to be addressed and researched. There are a few weaknesses that should be addressed in this paper. Therefore, I suggest the authors resubmit it after a major revision. My suggestions are as follows:

1.     As the first step, I strongly suggest that the paper be proofread and reread meticulously again, particularly regarding the spelling and grammatical mistakes.

2.     The paper should be revised to include recent references on 2022-2023

3.     In some cases, such as Figures 1 and 2, the reference to figures is forgotten.

4.     I suggest you update section 3.1.1 to make the illustration used in this section more readable. Some things could be improved in this part.

5.     Including additional information in the result and discussion is necessary to define the scientific publication. Please elaborate on the example you visually presented in Figure 4 and provide a further explanation.

6.     Please indicate why you used the listed Interconnected Life Cycle Phases. You should provide documentation that provides supporting evidence for why you believe these Interconnected Life Cycle Phases are critical.

7.     Please consider the structure of your paper at the end of the introduction.

8.     Instead of state-of-the-art, consider a literature review part.

9.     Flowchart is beneficial; it’s also important to outline the methodology behind your approach.

10. What exactly do you mean when you mentioned “Beyond the decarbonization of energy systems? Please explain and clarify more. 

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

You'll find the point-by-point response to the comment in the attachments.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic is interesting and the authors have done well coming out with this debatable area. Notwithstanding, there are major issues that must be resolved. Please see my comments and suggestions below:

1. The paper is very well introduced. However, the problem that has merited this study to be undertaken must be well stated and discussed. Please integrate the stakeholder’s issues into the problem development as well.
2. Under Section 1, it will be good to mention some of the stakeholders under consideration in the paper.
3. Figure 1 depicts a relationship between stakeholders, climate change, and the building sector through environmental impacts. However, this relationship as depicted in the figure is not well explained in the text.
4. Please avoid too lengthy sentences. A typical example are lines 208-215. This sentence is very lengthy. The meaning is missing. It will also be good to reference these sentences.
5. How is circular economy a mitigation strategy against the problems of climate change in the building sector? This has been used throughout the manuscript but has not been well explained. Lines 208-226 try to do this but it must be expounded.
6. Please state the source of Figure 2. How did this Figure come about? The constructs in the Figure are not well explained. The relationships must be well established for the figure to make complete meaning.
7. The methodology section is flawed. If this study used the systematic literature review, I would recommend a more structured methodology to be followed. The PRISMA is the best way to go. Please rework the methodology by following the PRISMA. Provide a flowchart for the methodology using the PRISMA and indicate how the various phases assisted the authors to undertake this systematic review.
8. Good academic databases are plagued with literature on Circular economy. It is amazing as to why the search from 2013-2023 yielded only 15 publications. Also indicate why the search was restricted to only open access publications. If this is maintained, there is a huge bias created that apparently affects the outcome of this paper.
9. Under section 4, lines 269-276 must be given some clarity.
10. I would recommend to the authors to expand their search and include other important papers of CE.
11. I would rather the search includes the issues of stakeholders as well. The findings section is quiet on this.
12. How do the Figures 1 and 2 fit into the findings of this study? The figures seem isolated from the findings.
13. The entire results section must be reworked following the authors collecting extra literature sources.
14. The paper is not well concluded.
15. The outcome of this study does not really achieve the aim. The second bit of the topic: i.e., “The stakeholder’s involvement in the interconnected life cycle phases” is not well captured in this paper. This is a huge flaw.

Thank you very much for this paper. Although the paper reads well, there are still issues that must be resolved. Key among them is lengthy sentences that are difficult to comprehend.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

You'll find the point-by-point response to the comment in the attachments.

Please see the attachment.

Best regards,

The Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made the necessary improvements to the paper based on the review comments. 

The paper can be accepted for publishing.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for accepting the article for publishing. 

You can find the article with revisions from other reviewers in the attachment. Please see the attachment. 

Best Regards,

Fuat Emre Kaya

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors answered most of my comments. Some more comments:

1. The abstract should include significant findings and be structured clearly and easily. It should briefly summarize the paper's main findings to help readers understand the research.

2. The introduction should provide a logical framework for the research, with each paragraph flowing seamlessly into the next. The authors should improve the coherence between paragraphs and offer more connections. The introduction should also clearly highlight the research contributions and aim, articulating the research question and its importance.

3. Please provide the structure of your paper at the end of the introduction. 

4. The figures should be presented clearly and concisely, with informative captions that provide sufficient information to help readers understand them.

5. Consider the following five more related literature on the sustainability:

-  How Different Tools Contribute to Climate Change Mitigation in a Circular Building Environment?—A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability. 2022 Mar 22;14(7):3759.

-  Bridging the gaps for a ‘circular’bioeconomy: Selection criteria, bio-based value chain and stakeholder mapping. Sustainability. 2018 May 23;10(6):1695.

- Using a life cycle assessment to identify the risk of “circular washing” in the leather industry. Resources, Conservation and Recycling. 2022 Oct 1;185:106466.

-A novel artificial intelligent approach: Comparison of machine learning tools and algorithms based on optimization DEA Malmquist productivity index for eco-efficiency evaluation. International Journal of Energy Sector Management. 2021 May 12;15(3):523-50.

-  The Role of a Hazardous Waste Intermediate Management Plant in the Circularity of Products. Sustainability. 2022 Jan 22;14(3):1241.

- A novel machine learning approach combined with optimization models for eco-efficiency evaluation. Applied Sciences. 2020 Jul 28;10(15):5210.

Extensive editing of the English language required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your comments. The cover letter and article with revisions are in the attachment.

Please see the attachment.

Best Regards,

Fuat Emre Kaya

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Although I am not in total agreement with the authors regarding how they have addressed some of my issues (e.g. the part regarding the scanty literature sources used), it is their work and I only tried to assist them to improve it. I can see from their responses to some of my comments that they were not happy with some of them. Notwithstanding, this is their work and I do not wish to downplay what they have done. 

I do not have any further comments regarding this manuscript. I think it could be accepted for publication in its current state. 

The paper is still full of lengthy sentences which are difficult to understand. I will recommend to the authors to seek help with an English editing service to assist as such.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for accepting the article for publishing and your previous comments.

English language editing has been done, and you can find it in the updated version of the article.

You can find the article with revisions from other reviewers in the attachment. Please see the attachment. 

Best Regards,

Fuat Emre Kaya

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors answered all my comments and this version is acceptable.

 Minor editing of the English language required