Building a Sustainable Future: Tackling Carbon Challenges in Jordan’s Multi-Family Apartments

Comment ID

Reviewer comment

Reply

R1-C1

Pg 2 line 30 – define what you mean by greenhouse effect

The author has provided a clear definition of the greenhouse effect to ensure the reader’s understanding. See the first three sentences.

R1-C2

Pg2 line 46 ‘numerous studies’ – can you reference some? If these are the studies also referenced in the next sentence, this needs to be made clearer.

The author has added the relevant references and clarified the connection between the sentences. See line 50-51.

R1-C3

Pg2 line 50 – explain who you mean by housing investors.

The author has provided a clear definition of housing investors to avoid ambiguity. see line 53-55.

R1-C4

Pg2 line 70 – can you reference/give examples of sustainable urban growth?

The author has integrated pertinent instances of sustainable urban development in the revised edition, referencing studies that underscore the variety of factors affecting sustainability across various geographical scales. See line 83-88.

R1-C5

Pg 3 line 112 – can you explain how this enormous progress has been made? Will this help to contextualise why the construction sector is lagging behind?

The author has added context from Jordan's 2022 Voluntary National Review (VNR), highlighting that carbon emissions have been reduced through legislative and organizational reforms like the Energy Sector Strategy 2020-2030. While these efforts advanced SDG 7 (clean energy), the construction sector lags behind, as reflected by limited progress in SDG 11 (sustainable cities) and SDG 12 (responsible consumption). This contrast underscores the challenges the sector faces in aligning with sustainability goals.

R1-C6

Pg 4 line 134 – can you explain why you are focusing on EC and excluding OC?

The author has explained the focus on EC and the exclusion of OC in the revised manuscript. See line 52-54.

R1-C7

I don’t think that the first paragraph on page 6 (lines 171-185) is necessary as it is repetitive of the table content without really providing any additional information.

Deleted

R1-C8

The language/writing is largely fine. There are a couple of occasions where it would benefit from a more thorough proofread (e.g. line 324 ‘comprehensive comprehension’ doesn't read very well).

The author has completely copy edited the manuscript and revised the identified sections to improve the language flow and clarity.

R1-C9

the introduction reads a bit like a list of sentences rather than a coherent argument, so might need some minor adjustment here.

The author has adjusted the introduction to improve its coherence and ensure a smoother narrative.

R1-C10

The results section is very brief. Given there were repeated engagements with 14 stakeholders, I'd anticipate more insight into there perspectives here. This is indicated a bit in the discussion but could be made clearer in the results.

   The author prefers to maintain a clear distinction between the results and discussion sections to ensure clarity and avoid overlap. The questionnaire (see Appendix A), designed primarily for quantitative data collection, did not allow housing investors to express their opinions qualitatively. However, following your suggestion, the author has added a new paragraph in the conclusion section, incorporating side notes taken during the interviews (see line 503-504. These notes provide additional qualitative insights into the housing investors' perspectives on the strategies to overcome the barriers to implementing low-carbon emission practices in the construction sector.

R1-C11

In the first line of the abstract it is noted that apartment buildings make up 83% of all structures in Jordan, yet the paper does not reflect on any specific challenges relating to low-carbon emissions in the building and operation of apartment structures, which I think is an oversight.

 Regarding operation of apartment, the key aim of this paper, and what distinguishes it from others, is its focus on embodied energy in apartment buildings. This is clearly stated throughout the manuscript which emphasizes the significance of embodied carbon emissions in construction materials and processes. Also, a problem statement has been added in the abstract to clearly connect the problem with the purpose of the study. See line 11-13.

R1-C12

The discussion introduces a lot of new information to the reader, but seems to support existing research, which raises the question of what new information this study has provided. Could some of this discussion of existing literature be better placed in the introduction?

The author appreciates the reviewer’s thoughtful comment. However, the discussion section intentionally integrates relevant information to contextualize the study's findings within existing literature. The placement of certain details here helps to critically analyze the results and draw comparisons to previous work.

R1-C13

The point is made that there is little demand for low carbon housing, related to low public environmental consciousness. Did the developers see any role in promoting low carbon housing and therefore trying to improve this public consciousness? Some work has been undertaken in the UK with developers of low carbon housing who saw a role as innovators, so would be interesting to know if this happened elsewhere as well. 

In the last section of Conclusion, Insights and recommendations, the author has added a discussion on the role of developers in promoting low-carbon housing, with references to international examples, including those from the UK. See line 493-499.

Comment ID

Reviewer comment

Reply

R2-C1

 The authors provide a concise analysis of the study's limitations and propose prospective avenues for further research exploration. For instance, concerning frame structures against unforeseen disasters such as earthquakes, structural progressive collapse, or storms can significantly affect urban environments, as discussed in the literature (doi.org/10.1061/JSENDH.STENG-12056 and doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2023.116861), among others. The author should add a paragraph in the introduction to provide further description

The comment suggesting the inclusion of structural elements such as frame structures, earthquakes, and progressive collapse does not align with the scope of this study. This research focuses on barriers to low-carbon emission practices in the Jordanian housing sector, particularly addressing embodied energy in apartment buildings.

R2-C2

Figure 1 is not clea[r] enough; it is suggested to adjust it.

The author has revised Figure 1 to improve its clarity and adjusted its size to ensure it is appropriately presented in the manuscript. See new image line

R2-C3

How does the Fuzzy Delphi Method (FDM) ensure that the invited experts' perspectives are representative?

FDM ensures that the perspectives of invited experts are representative by selecting participants with substantial expertise and experience relevant to the research topic. Studies suggest that a panel size of 10 to 20 experts is typically effective, with the ideal number depending on the complexity and scope of the issue. Line 236-240.

R2-C4

Table 2 should provide the basis for the values of the fuzzy scale so that readers can understand.

The author has included a detailed indication of the fuzzy scale values in Table 2 to improve understanding. See line 250.

R2-C5

Table 4 contains a lot of information; is it possible to list it in points?

 The author prefers to keep Table 4 in its current format, as it provides a comprehensive overview of the analysis result in a structured and detailed manner.

R2-C6

The article only lists different obstacles; are there any correlations between these obstacles?

The author has examined potential correlations between the obstacles and included this analysis in the revised manuscript under the discussion section. See line 456-463.

R2-C7

Can the discussion section propose one or two more specific solutions to reduce the main barriers to carbon emissions?

The author has added specific solutions as bullet points based on notes taken during the interviews  in the last section aimed at addressing the main barriers to reducing carbon emissions. See line 495-507

R2-C8

The explanation of the meaning of the formula at line 224 is not clear.

The author has revised the explanation of the formula to ensure clarity and precision in the revised version. See line 260-267.

R2-C9

The conclusion should be more specific, listed point by point.

The author has revised the conclusion to be more specific .

Comment ID

Reviewer comment

Reply

R3-C1

The abstract mentions the relevance of apartment buildings to the construction sector, but the problem and its connection to the study's purpose remain unclear.

The author has revised the abstract to clearly connect the problem with the purpose of the study, particularly regarding the role of apartment buildings in the construction sector. See line 11-13.

R3-C2

While apartment buildings constitute a significant portion of the building stock, what specific issue are you addressing?

 The focus of this research is to examine the key barriers that prevent housing investors from adopting strategies and techniques aimed at mitigating carbon emissions during the construction process. This issue is critical, as apartment buildings represent a substantial portion of the building stock, and the construction process itself accounts for a significant amount of embodied carbon (EC). See line 64-71.

R3-C3

On line 18, alternative methods are mentioned as potential solutions, but the argument regarding contract types lacks strength. Could you clarify whether these contract types are indeed crucial for promoting low-carbon emission techniques?

 The author has expanded the discussion regarding this matter in the discussion section, providing a more detailed analysis of how specific procurement routes can influence the adoption of low-carbon emission techniques. The expanded discussion highlights the significance of contract structures in incentivizing or hindering the integration of sustainable practices within construction projects. See line 385-396 & line 411-421.

R3-C4

the introduction would benefit from a clearer problem statement. Is the issue industry-related, connected to policy enforcement, or due to a lack of policies? Please elucidate why this type of assessment is necessary. It would be helpful to review line 57 in this context.

The author has added a new para. In the introduction to provide a clearer problem statement, explicitly pointing it as an industry-related, and why this assessment is necessary. See line 11-13 & line 64-67.

R3-C5

The second section requires revision. The section appears to adopt an overly affirmative stance towards Jordan's environmental policies. Consider revising the style to present a more critical viewpoint, supported by facts and offering a more balanced perspective.

The author has revised the second section by incorporating a more balanced perspective, highlighting the weaknesses of the policies, supporting the critical perspective. See line 143-165.

R3-C6

Are you suggesting that despite extensive policy development, these principles aren't effectively reaching the decision-making processes of housing stakeholders?

 Yes, that is correct. This point has been clearly articulated in the newly revised manuscript. See line 170-172.

R3-C7

A more comprehensive explanation of how the barriers were identified would be valuable. Please consider identifying authors and providing background on the search method, keywords, and selection criteria.

 The author has addressed this concern in the table by adding a column to present supporting references. Also, the authors provides a comprehensive explanation of how the barriers were identified in the manuscript. See line 168, 215-221.

R3-C8

It would be helpful to explain why 8 barriers were chosen and to define what constitutes a barrier in this study.

See line 218-220.

R3-C9

Some barriers seem negatively phrased, which might introduce bias in the responses. Consider using more neutral language, for example, rephrasing "fear of jeopardizing..."

 According to Bryman, p.166. it is recommended that when designing a questionnaire using a Likert scale, the items must be statements and not questions, and they should relate to the same object. Additionally, the items should be all phrased either positively or negatively (in the same direction) to help identify response sets and maintain internal reliability. Bryman, A. (2016, p.166). Social research methods. Oxford university press.

R3-C10

The survey focuses solely on housing developers. Could you explain in the manuscript why other stakeholders were not included?

 This concern has been addressed which explains the rationale for focusing solely on housing developers. See line 170-172.

R3-C11

Additionally, how did you control for potential bias that housing developers might have against using low-emission techniques in Jordan's building stock?

 See line 269-273. The author used SDMR to guarantee the results were objective, which allayed fears of bias. One important method was to calculate the standard deviation of the mean response (SDMR) to see how much the participants' replies varied. The author was able to gauge the extent to which respondents agreed or disagreed using this statistical approach, which helped to reveal any notable differences in replies.

R3-C12

In line 372, you state: "the limited demand for low-carbon emission buildings in Jordan is not only a question of operational efficiency, but is fundamentally ingrained in the prevailing neoliberal market orientation that has come to dominate Jordan's political economy in recent times." Could you clarify whether this is a neoliberal issue, an enforcement problem, or related to housing developers' willingness? Please provide your rationale for including political aspects in this paper.

The author has clarified the rationale for including political aspects in the discussion and has explained whether this is primarily a neoliberal issue, an enforcement problem, or related to housing developers’ willingness.  See line 425-431.

R3-C13

The discussion would benefit from focusing on the particular issues related to the barriers, comparing them with other researchers' findings

The author has revised the discussion to focus more on the specific barriers and has compared these findings with those of other researchers, enhancing the academic rigor of the discussion.

R3-C14

Line 392 shifts focus to the concept of heritage. While this is an important topic, its relevance to the discussion on barriers in the construction market is not immediately apparent. Could you clarify its significance in this context?

The author has clarified the relevance of heritage in the context of barriers within the construction market to make this connection more explicit. Please see line 472-486.

R3-C15

The main finding appears oversimplified. Could you elaborate on what it means that there's a lack of demand for projects adhering to low-carbon construction standards in Jordan? How does this situation arise?

   This has been discussed in the third subsection of the discussion. In a neoliberal, market-driven economy, consumers prioritize cost and short-term comfort, while the construction industry focuses on efficiency and profit maximization, making the adoption of low-carbon standards difficult.  See line 423-463.

R3-C16

“Low-carbon buildings require different approaches to design, construction, and planning”: The current phrasing suggests a lack of demand for these standards. Is this an initiative that should come from the public, or should it be a top-down approach from government, non-profits, or other associations?

The author has addressed the concern in the discussion section. See line 444-457 in specific.

R3-C17

It would be helpful to consider whether housing developers are genuinely interested in new standards and regulations to comply with new policies, or if they prefer maintaining current practices.

 Thank you for this interesting suggestion. However, as there was no space in the interviews to explore this particular question, I am unable to address it in this paper, as doing so would rely primarily on speculation and subjective opinion. Nonetheless, it is indeed a valuable idea that could be investigated in future research endeavors. See line 493-499.

R3-C18

 Consider revising this narrative to strengthen the overall argument of the study.

 Thank you for your insightful feedback. A whole revision of the discussion section has been conducted to strengthen the overall argument of the study.

R3-C19

It would be beneficial to provide an explanation of Figure 1 before it appears in the manuscript. Please consider adding a detailed description and reviewing the size of the figure to ensure it's appropriate for the document.

The author has provided a detailed explanation of Figure 1 prior to its appearance and reviewed its size to ensure it is appropriate for the manuscript. See line 111-115.

R3-C20

For each barrier discussed, it would be helpful to include the authors who identified or studied them. This addition would provide valuable context and support for your analysis

 The author has addressed this concern in the table by adding a column to present supporting references. Also, the authors provides a comprehensive explanation of how the barriers were identified in the manuscript. See line 168, 215-221.

R3-C21

While the abbreviation "GHG" is commonly known, it's important to provide context for all readers. Please add an explanation for the GHG abbreviation when it first appears in the text.

 The author has provided a clear definition of the greenhouse effect to ensure the reader’s understanding. See the first three sentences.

R3-C22

To improve the structure and referencing within the paper, please assign a number to each equation presented.

The author has assigned numbers to each equation in the manuscript to improve structure and referencing, as requested.