CARES Framework: A Circularity Assessment Method for Residential Building Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper proposed a circularity assessment method for residential building structures. The paper is very well written. However, there are some problems should be solved.

 

1. The paper's methodology section is thorough but could benefit from more explicit explanations about the equations used for calculating circularity indices, especially for readers unfamiliar with MCI-based models. Provide more intuitive descriptions or visual aids to support comprehension.

 

2. While the focus is on residential structures, the results and methodology could be expanded to suggest applications for other types of buildings (e.g., commercial or institutional structures). This would highlight the framework's versatility and its potential to be adopted more widely.

 

3. The sources for local material reuse, recycling percentages, and distances from suppliers and waste management facilities are crucial to the accuracy of the circularity assessment. Further elaboration on how reliable and current these data sources are would enhance the study's robustness.

 

4. Consider referencing A two-stage importance-aware subgraph convolutional network based on multi-source sensors for cross-domain fault diagnosis to strengthen the discussion on data-driven methodologies. This paper offers insights into fault diagnosis across domains, which could help in assessing material lifespan and performance more accurately.

 

5. The paper provides some comparative analysis between CARES-F and WBCI. However, expanding this comparison by adding more competing frameworks or indicators could provide further validation of the strengths and weaknesses of CARES-F.

 

6. Expand the section on future research by suggesting how the proposed framework can evolve to handle emerging building materials, like bio-based or smart materials, that are being increasingly integrated into modern structures.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English writing as well as the presentation skill should be improved.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments to the authors: 

The review paper titled “CARES Framework: A Circularity Assessment Method for Residential Building Structures” tackles the pressing issue of waste generation within the construction industry due to the prevalent "extract-make-dispose" model, which highlights the urgent need for a shift to a Circular Economy (CE). The manuscript demonstrates a thorough and well-conducted literature review. The reviewer has the following questions/remarks: 

1. It is recommended to show some significant result findings in the abstract to attract readers. 

2. In line 48, please clarify what is Rs before use it? 

3. The research could benefit from including other comparative analysis with other existing models. This would strengthen your claims.  

4. The paper claims improvements in circularity performance, but quantitative outcomes are not discussed sufficiently.  

5. Add more sentences at the end of the introduction section to clarify the novelty and feasibility of this research. 

6. In the conclusion section, you may shorten the list you provided as possible and focus on the main results findings.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A paper titled "CARES Framework: A Circularity Assessment Method for Residential Building Structures" has been presented. The paper is very interesting and requires only minor revisions before publication.

1. The Introduction section should be expanded with additional references to strengthen the background and contextual understanding of the study.

2. Clarification is needed regarding the purpose of Section 2.1. Please explain the rationale for including this section and how it contributes to the overall framework or analysis.

3. The paper presents 49 equations, which may seem excessive. Could the authors clarify the necessity of including each of these equations, and consider whether the presentation can be streamlined for better clarity and focus?

4. The conclusion part should be extended based on results.
5. Thanks

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Its good

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf