Assessing the Environmental Impact of Demountable Space-Dividing Walls: A Scenario Analysis Approach in a Semi-Detached Case Study Dwelling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled Assessing the Environmental Impact of Demountable Space-Dividing Walls: A Scenario Analysis Approach in a Semi-Detached Case Study Dwelling considers a very significant issue in the field of construction. The manuscript should be accepted with minor changes.
The authors consulted a large number of references that gave the manuscript additional importance. The conclusions of this research will be useful in future research and civil engineering.
The abstract needs to be modified with emphasis on the main research findings that are missing in the text.
Image 1 should be smaller than it is.
Figure 2 should be more reasonable and clear.
Table 1 should have more prominent text colors. The same applies to Figure 4.
All sizes are written in italic font.
The conclusion needs to be longer and more comprehensive.
A large number of recent references are used, which indicates that the authors have thoroughly researched this area related to different types of walls.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates whether demountable space dividing walls could provide a more environmentally sustainable option than conventional walls in a case study. The research assesses seven different walls' overall life cycle environmental impacts across four specified refurbishment scenarios within a semi-detached house. The topic is very interesting, and the subject is worth investigating. Overall, the manuscript is well-organized and well-structured. Several figures are particularly impressive and of high quality.

 

The authors should elaborate on the following issues before publication:

1. Informal language, e.g., abbreviations, is used in some sections and needs to be revised.

2. In-text references are missing in several parts.

3. Line 183: The quality of Figure 2 should be enhanced.

4. Line 200, Line 535: Table captions must be placed above each table.

5. The conclusion section is too general now and requires further improvement to strengthen the impact of the paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx