Integrating Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) to Evaluate the Economic Benefits of Designing Aging-In-Place Homes at the Conceptual Stage

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The introduction should be supplemented with details on the contents of each section of the manuscript as research methods for achieving the research objectives.

- Is the research objective to design a system through the integration of BIM & LCA? There seems to be no clear distinction from previous studies that attempt to integrate BIM & LCA. The results of the literature review should present the distinctions from previous research.

In the 'Model Testing and Results' section, it is not enough to simply apply and present results; there should be a case study demonstrating that the research problems presented in the introduction have been resolved.

- An explanation is needed for 'Alternative 2'.

- The format of tables should conform to the paper format.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Excellent paper. It has been a long time since I have read such a good item in the peer review process. The manuscript has a very good IMRaD structure, presents good results and may be of interest to a wide range of readers. The precise title reflects the content - it needs no change. The subject and purpose of the paper are well described. However, I would strengthen the article in several places especially with references. My detailed comments:

- The phrase “The strategic integration of AIP requirements during the

conceptual design stage holds the potential to significantly reduce the costs associated with

retrofitting and modifying of a house over the long run” I would support with a reference such as https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4485(01)00157-9

- BIM is used during the conceptual stage, e.g., for development planning, it is worth mentioning in the literature review, as visual and generative programming tools offer incredible opportunities: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/DWW7AXHGMYDVCUBC4ZMZ/full?target=10.1080/09544828.2024.2303282

- section 3 probably should be called simply “methodology” without the word development, and drawing “flow” of research work would intensify the perception, 

- on the other hand, section 4 in my opinion is “Results”, the model could be described in methodology, or in the section “Materials and methods”,

- in the discussion section, in my opinion, reference should be made to the latest literature, so as to refer to current research and the state of the art.

 My decision is “minor revision”. After meticulous application of the above comments, the article can be published. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewed paper outlines a methodology that integrates Building Information Modelling and Life Cycle Cost Analysis to evaluate the economic implications of designing Aging-In-Place homes at the conceptual stage, in response to the growing need for tailored housing solutions for the elderly. The authors emphasize early-phase design; thus, the study aims to enhance decision-making by offering a comprehensive assessment of life cycle costs, introducing a semi-automated model for economic evaluation spanning design, construction, operation, maintenance, and renovation or disposal stages. In my opinion, the problem is interesting and up-to-date, especially in the light of the phenomenon of an aging population. Publication in the Sustainability journal is worth considering.

Research gap and an objective of the study

Research gap is clearly explained. There is also clear statement about research goals.

Literature review

The authors cite around 40 works published in the last 15 years. In my opinion these works are relevant for the topic of the paper. However the way these works are referred to must be improved. In the formatting of citations, there are several inconsistencies. Citations must be standardized while adhering to the journal's standards and requirements.

Methodology

Overall, the description of the methodology is satisfactory. I would recommend placing Fig. 1 earlier in the text, before discussing successive phases in detail. Additionally, some formal explanations and equations are missing:

In Phase 2: construction cost calculation equation/equations.

In Phase 3: life cycle analysis and simulations – assumptions, formal explanations, and equation/equations.

In Phase 4: initial costs as well as operation costs – assumptions, formal explanations, and equation/equations.

In Phase 4: selection of optimal design – criteria and assumptions for selection.

Moreover, the authors should clearly explain the criteria for deciding whether the design is acceptable.

Results

The model presented by the authors is tested on only one case. My question to the authors: is that enough to determine that the model works well? Is it possible to consider more cases (say, 3 to 5)?

Although the overall concept of the model is, in my opinion, justifiable, there are some doubts about the case study. Why did the authors assume certain input data such as a study period of 25 years, an MARR value of 5%, and designer fees of 10% of the construction costs? This needs to be justified. Are there any principles that the end-user is supposed to follow when assuming these values?

Discussion and Conclusions

The discussion and conclusions parts are satisfactory. These two sections may need minor additions and corrections after improvements have been made to the manuscript.

 

In light of the above, my recommendation is a major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The following review comments need refinement:

Table 1(line 468) still does not conform to the proper formatting standards. And the table numbering system should be thoroughly reviewed for consistency and accuracy.

There is no validation visible in this study; simply applying examples as done here is verification, not validation. The reason why “the integration of LCCA and BIM to inform decision-making processes during the early stages of design” is necessary (research problem) and whether the proposed process solves this problem is not demonstrated. For instance, if this process can lead to better design alternatives, expert opinions or quantitative evidence showing that these alternatives are indeed better should be provided. Alternatively, if the goal is to facilitate efficient decision-making, usability evaluations from potential users of the system should be presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I stand by my previous opinion that the reviewed paper is worth considering of publication in the Sustainability journal is worth considering. Still some essential improvements are needed.

Literature review

My remarks about the citations standardization have been addressed.

Methodology:

Some of my remarks have been addressed. However the formal explanations, especially mathematical equations with proper comments for:

-        construction cost calculation in terms of mathematical equation/equations for the research phase 2,

-        assumptions, formal explanations, and mathematical equation/equations for life cycle analysis and simulations for the research phase 3,

-        initial costs as well as operation costs – assumptions, formal explanations, and mathematical equation/equations for the research phase 4,

are still missing.

In terms of optimal design selection the improvements in the manuscript are not satisfactory. For criteria and assumptions for optimal design selection in the phase 4 I would recommend to add a table or a scheme to present the particular applied criteria and selection process in a clear way.

 

Results:

I acknowledge the authors’ response to the comment about consideration of more cases in the research for testing models. However the facts given in the response should be placed in the text of the manuscript as current limitations of the research in the discussion section.

 

In light of the above, my recommendation is still a major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I stand by my previous opinion that the reviewed paper is worth considering for publication in the Sustainability journal. My essential remarks have been addressed, and the improvements made in the current version are satisfactory.

Methodology:

My remarks regarding the formal explanations for the following points:

construction cost calculation in terms of mathematical equations for research phase 2;

Assumptions, formal explanations, and mathematical equations for life cycle analysis and simulations for research phase 3;

Initial costs and operation costs, including assumptions, formal explanations, and mathematical equations for research phase 4;

have been addressed. The improvements are satisfactory.

Additionally, the improvements related to the criteria and assumptions for optimal design selection in phase 4 have been satisfactorily addressed by the authors.

Results:

My remarks about the limitations of the research in the discussion section have also been addressed.

In light of the above, my recommendation is to accept the manuscript for publication.