Integrated Value Model for Sustainable Assessment of Modular Residential Towers: Case Study: Ten Degrees Croydon and Apex House in London

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.      The article has a reference section in alphabetic format in the content (Chicago format), but a numbering format in the reference section. Why? I suggest you follow one of those formats as per MDPI guidelines

2.      You have added a picture from a Google source, but please verify whether it is allowed according to MDPI's guidelines. I believe you may need to obtain permission from the respective author

3.      This article addresses sustainability in certain areas, but it lacks references to some relevant review articles. You may find the study 10.3390/su15086751 helpful in this regard

4.      Tables 3 and 4 appear to be screenshots. Are these the original tables? Please provide clarification

5.      I suggest enhancing the quality of the figures by using vector images, as the current quality is very poor

6.      Please include the study's methodology flowchart in section 2

7.      The conclusion section is lengthy and difficult to follow. Please present the conclusion in a more concise and clear manner

moderate 

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 1)

Thanks for your comments. Improved sentences that have changed from English structure are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled “Sustainability MIVES-based assessment of modular residential towers. Case study: Ten Degrees Croydon and Apex house in London”  presents the comprehensive approach for assessing the sustainability index of high-rise modular buildings. The following suggestions are helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript.

1. Add quality latest literature in introduction section.

2. It is very helpful to understand representation of methodology with flowchart. It is advised to add flowchart methodology with simple meaning in section 2.1 & in Section 2.2.

3. Discuss major points in MIVES approach & AHP method in separate paragraph after section 2.2.

4. Replace fig-1 with good quality image. It is not clear.

5. Table-3 & Table-4 is not clear. Replace with text. The presented table in image format.

6. In Case study-1, In section 3.1, The representation of  fig-2 is not clear.

7. In Case study-2, In section 3.2, The representation of  fig-3 is not clear.

8. In results and discussion section Sustainability index equation is discussed. It is advised to discuss the equation part before results and discussion part.

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Thanks for your comments. The word model has replaced all the words methodology and method that refer to MIVES. Improved sentences that have changed from English structure are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

You have developed a valuable tool to evaluate buildings. 

Overall the objective of the study and how your methodology helped you to achieve this is not clear. For instance, if the objective is to present the developed model, then the study should include more details in its development and validate the constructs. 

If the objective is to demonstrate the use of it, it should provide guidance on how to use, outcome and why it is important to use this. 

In the introduction section, the argument was not strongly presented why one should use this, at which stage. If this is a decisions tool do we use it at the early design stage or do we assess like what you have presented once the building is completed and occupied, these have be justified as well. 

In any case a strong argument should be made how this is different from conventional assessments tools we use, such as LEED or BREEAM. Does this provide better assessment? Were you able to demonstrate this in your case studies?  This should be your basis for discussion. 

Why the selection of high rise modular buildings are not clearly justified.

Also try to add an overall diagram to show the model and how it works.  

You have added some differentiating factors within conclusions, but this section should provide what you can conclude based on the results. Also add limitations of the model as well as the study. 

Author Response

Please find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

In this study, the authors conduct a sustainability assessment of modular integrated construction using two case studies: Ten Degrees Croydon and Apex House in London. Many benefits of modular construction lack empirical backing. This study is an empirical investigation into the sustainability benefits of modular construction.  The findings could be relevant to policymakers. That said, I would like to make comments to improve the manuscript:

1. Concerning the abstract, both the theoretical and practical implications of the study should be emphasized in the abstract.

2. In the introduction, the research problem should be highlighted and emphasized before stating the aim of the study.

3. In the methodology, there should be adequate justifications for using MIVES. For instance, the "MIVES method can be coupled with other decision making methods..." Why?

4. There is no literature review in the manuscript. That should be provided after the introduction. And the review should be critical. 

Minor editing of the English language is required. 

Author Response

Please find the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

can be accepted in present form

moderate english language editing is required

Author Response

Please find the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for taking time to address the feedback. 

I would like to bring to your notice that terms model, and method was used intermittently. Ensure consistency bu selecting either, model or method to refer to your develop 'method' to evaluate modulate buildings. Laos noticed that you have used the term methodology, I would assume this referred to justification of the methods. Make them clear so the readers would not get confused. 

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

Thanks for your comments. In the text of the paper, all the words "method" and "methodology" that refer to the MIVES have been replaced with the word "model".

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have satisfactorily responded to my comments. 

Minor editing of the English language is required

Author Response

Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 4)

Thanks for your comments. Improved sentences that have changed from English structure are highlighted in yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf