Review Reports - Comparison Regarding the Carbon Footprint of Various Sustainable Seismic Consolidation Solutions for Romanian Orthodox Churches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript sustainability-2926368, titled “Comparison Regarding the Carbon Footprint of Various Sustainable Seismic Consolidation Solutions for Romanian Orthodox Churches” focused on environmental protection context to analyse the carbon footprint of several different consolidation proposals to an Orthodox church with structural deteriorations. The complicated relationship between the interacted components is explained in detail step by step. The research is interesting, innovative and powerful, supplying inspirational insights into the solutions to tackle similar issues. This manuscript satisfies the research scope of Sustainability, but major revisions are required to improve the manuscript’s quality.

A. Abstract:

1. The abstract should be written as one paragraph.

2. The methodology and important findings have not been mentioned in the abstract.

B. Introduction:

3. P2, L59: mention the techniques and materials used in retroffiting process.

4. P2, L69: mention the advantages and disadvantages of each material.

5. The authors should update the list of references using recent papers. The reviewer recommend the following:

· Shear behavior of RC pile cap beams strengthened using ultra-high performance concrete reinforced with steel mesh fabric

· Feasibility of improving shear performance of RC pile caps using various internal reinforcement configurations: Tests and finite element modelling

C. Church description

6. Dimensions of the Church is not clear.

D. Description of degradations

7. How do the authors recoded the mentioned degradations.

8. A lot of symbols were used in the paper, the authors should provide a table list for the definitions of such symbols

E. Consolidation solutions

F. 15

9. A cost analysis for the proposed alternatives should be introduced in the manuscript.

10. How the CO2 mission was recorded?

Author Response

We have tried to address all the reviewers notes within the time limit we had

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is an important read on the subject of monumental or heritage buildings which has been getting continuous global attention in recent years. I strongly believe it will significantly add to the global body of knowledge on the focus of the research. To further enhance the quality of the manuscript, the following are hereby the few corrections to be attended to by the authors.

1. Line 66 contains ICOMOS which is an acronym with no prior meaning within the manuscript. The authors need to understand that the full meaning and representation of any acronym must first be stated before subsequent use of such an acronym.

2. The conclusion section is scanty and needs to be enhanced to comprehensively capture the conclusion of the study and also to draw inferences from the proposals/results presented. The authors are implored to address these comments.

3. The recommendation part is missing and should be incorporated to highlight and present the various issues or gaps within the manuscript. This section will also present areas that require further research and suggestions aimed at empowering other researchers with the ability to handle the work.

Author Response

1 we have added a table with list of symbols and acronyms to make the reading of the article easier.

2. The conclusion section was enriched and integrated with the recommendation and further research part.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The note submitted for review appears to be much more of a technical and planning report than a scientific article. There is no innovative technique proposed, but only the application of construction techniques known to the majority of engineers and architects who work in the field of restoration of churches and monumental and art works. Even the measurement of the CO2 footprint appears to be a simple, well-established calculation. The conclusions are quite obvious, it was predictable that the more the reinforcement and adaptation actions increase, up to demolition and reconstruction, the more CO2 consumption increases. For these reasons, I do not believe the note is appropriate for publication as an article on an internationa journal as "sustainability". If the journal's editor allows it, it could be a technical note of support and example for operators in the sector.

Author Response

The simple calculations of CO2 emissions for these alternatives presented in the paper should open the discussion of sustainable retrofitting of the existing heritage of Romanian orthodox churches, the research is proposed to be a stepping stone for determining the sustainability of interventions for orthodox churches, as the existing literature is scarce when it comes to emissions of these churches and there is no norm to prevent unsustainable interventions. In the present day in Romania, many new churches are being built next to the old existing ones that are left unattended or demolished. The approach is not sustainable and further research should be done to properly assess the complete image of sustainability when retrofitting or building new orthodox churches. Today, the discussion is only made whether or not there is a budget to make the interventions or build a new one with complete disregard in terms of the carbon footprint or the sustainability of the decisions. However, the author understands the limitations of the simple approach for calculating the CO2 emissions used in the paper that’s why we recommend and intend to carry out further, more detailed and comprehensive studies regarding all modules of sustainability and include multiple churches for the studies.