Smart Sustainability in Construction: An Integrated LCA-MCDM Framework for Climate-Adaptive Material Selection in Educational Buildings

Reviewer 1

Comments and replies

C1

The abstract refers to “IPCC 22 global experts,” but the abbreviation “IPCC” is never defined in the text.

The reply

We thank the reviewer for identifying this clarity issue. We have corrected the manuscript to properly define the abbreviation 'IPCC' upon first use. The reference pertains to experts with backgrounds in climate change impact assessment, following methodologies similar to those used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), rather than actual IPCC panel members. We have clarified this distinction to avoid confusion.

C2

Each subsection in the literature review is written very briefly, which makes the discussion appear fragmented and descriptive rather than analytical.

The reply

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have substantially expanded the Literature Review section to provide deeper analytical insights rather than brief descriptive summaries. The revised subsections now highlight the interconnections among previous studies, critically discuss their methodological limitations, and clarify how our framework addresses these research gaps. This enhancement improves coherence, strengthens the argument for our study’s novelty, and ensures that the literature review transitions smoothly from existing knowledge to the identified research gap.

C3

Section 2.5 summarise the novelty of the study, but in its current form it reads more like a project highlights list than an academic discussion.

The reply

We thank the reviewer for this constructive comment. In revision, Section 2.5 has been rewritten to move beyond a highlight-style listing and instead provide a more cohesive academic discussion. The revised text now situates the study’s contributions within the broader literature, critically explains how each innovation addresses existing research gaps, and emphasizes the theoretical and practical significance of the proposed framework. This restructuring improves the scholarly tone of the section and reinforces the novelty of the research.

C4

The introduction states validation with eight case studies. Later, implementation examples are given for three real-world projects. Can you please explain it?

The reply

We appreciate the reviewer's request for clarification regarding our validation approach. Our methodology employed two complementary validation strategies: (1) Eight theoretical case studies across diverse climate zones for framework development and cross-validation, and (2) Three active construction projects for real-world implementation validation. We have enhanced the manuscript to better distinguish between these two validation approaches and explain their complementary roles in establishing framework reliability and practical applicability.

C5

“Climate-Adaptive Ranking Analysis” in section 4.5.2 and “Performance Trade-off Analysis” in section 4.6.1 appear twice.

The reply

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful reading and for pointing out the duplicated subsection titles in Sections 4.5.2 and 4.6.1. In the revised manuscript, we have removed the redundancies and consolidated the overlapping content to ensure each subsection is uniquely titled and contributes distinct analytical insights. This adjustment improves clarity, avoids repetition, and strengthens the logical flow of the Results and Discussion section.

C6

The methodology and findings sections are more like a technical manual than a journal article. I recommend restructuring both sections completely.

The reply

We acknowledge the reviewer's concern about the overly technical presentation of our methodology and findings sections. We have restructured both sections to provide a more concise, analytically-focused narrative while maintaining methodological rigor. The revised sections now emphasize key methodological innovations, critical findings, and their implications rather than exhaustive technical details. Detailed procedures have been moved to supplementary materials where appropriate.

C7

The presentation of tables and references does not fully comply with MDPI formatting requirements.

The reply

We thank the reviewer for highlighting this important point. In the revised manuscript, we carefully reviewed all tables and references to ensure full compliance with MDPI formatting requirements. Tables have been reformatted according to MDPI guidelines, with consistent captions, numbering, and alignment. The reference list has also been updated to match the journal’s prescribed style (including order, punctuation, DOI inclusion, and citation format). These revisions improve the manuscript’s readability and bring it into conformity with MDPI standards.

C8

 Figure 3 has placeholder text “[INSERT FIGURE 2…]”, which is incorrect.

The reply

We thank the reviewer for catching this formatting error. The placeholder text has been removed and replaced with the correct figure reference and caption.

C9

The discussion section is written in a way that largely repeats technical results rather than critically analysing them. It is presented with very short sentences and bolded sub-sections, which makes it resemble a report rather than an academic discussion. I recommend rewriting the discussion in a more continuous academic style.

The reply

We acknowledge that our discussion section was overly focused on summarizing results rather than providing critical analysis and scholarly discourse. We have completely rewritten the discussion to emphasize theoretical contributions, practical implications, and critical evaluation of findings within the broader research context. The revised discussion adopts a flowing academic narrative that synthesizes results into meaningful insights while addressing limitations and future directions in a more scholarly manner.

Reviewer 2

Comments and replies

C1

The manuscript proposes an LCA-MCDM framework to study climate-adaptive material selection for educational buildings, but the following issues require improvement:

 1. The framework's innovation appears insufficient, with no clear indication of its uniqueness or necessity.

The reply

We appreciate the reviewer's concern about framework innovation and have strengthened the manuscript to clearly articulate our unique contributions. Our framework addresses critical gaps in existing literature through four specific innovations that have not been previously integrated: (1) comprehensive cradle-to-grave LCA with social criteria integration, (2) climate-adaptive weighting systems validated across diverse environmental contexts, (3) multi-method MCDM cross-validation with uncertainty quantification, and (4) dual validation through both theoretical case studies and real-world implementation. We have enhanced the introduction and methodology sections to clearly position these contributions against existing limitations

C2

2. The life cycle boundary definition remains unclear.

The reply

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In the revised manuscript, we have clarified the definition of the life cycle boundary to ensure methodological transparency. Specifically, we explicitly state that the analysis follows an ISO 14040/44-compliant cradle-to-grave boundary, covering production, construction, use, and end-of-life phases. We have also detailed which processes are included within each stage, and explained any assumptions or exclusions. This clarification strengthens the methodological rigor and improves the reproducibility of the study.

C3

3. What are the data sources used in the analysis? These are also not clearly defined.

The reply

We acknowledge that data sources were insufficiently detailed in the original manuscript. We have enhanced Section 3 to provide comprehensive specification of all data sources, including primary experimental data collection protocols, secondary database sources with version numbers, expert consultation procedures, and real-world project data acquisition methods. A detailed data sources table has been added, and data availability statements have been included to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

C4

4. Why combine the three aforementioned methods for MCDM analysis? What are the advantages of this combination?

The reply

We appreciate the reviewer's request for clarification on our multi-method MCDM approach. We have enhanced Section 3.3 to explicitly explain the theoretical rationale and practical advantages of combining AHP, TOPSIS, and VIKOR methods. Each method addresses different aspects of decision-making philosophy and provides complementary insights that strengthen overall framework robustness and decision confidence.

C5

5. It is recommended to supplement the tables with key material parameters and sample sizes, and to clarify data collection methods and sources.

The reply

We acknowledge the reviewer's concern about data transparency and methodological detail in our tables. We have enhanced the relevant tables to include key material parameters, explicit sample sizes, and detailed data collection methods with sources. These additions improve reproducibility and enable readers to assess the robustness of our experimental approach and data quality.

C6

6. The analysis of results lacks depth; further strengthening is advised.

The reply

We acknowledge that our results analysis required deeper interpretation and broader implications. We have substantially enhanced Section 4 by adding theoretical interpretation of findings, cross-sectional analysis patterns, mechanistic explanations for observed performance differences, comparative contextualization with existing literature, and discussion of practical implications. The revised analysis transforms from descriptive reporting to critical examination of results and their significance for sustainable construction theory and practice.

Reviewer 3

Comments and replies

C1

The manuscript studies the issue of smart sustainability in construction using an integrated LCA-MCDM framework, which is clearly and reasonably organized. Several suggestions are provided for the further improvement.

1.The literature review is well conducted from for perspectives, including LCA, multi-criteria decision making, etc. But the section 2.5 research contribution and novelty is not suitable to be stated here.

The reply

We thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In the revised manuscript, Section 2.5 “Research Contribution and Novelty” has been relocated and rewritten for better alignment with the paper’s structure. Instead of appearing as a subsection within the Literature Review, the contributions are now presented at the end of the Introduction, where they logically highlight the research gap and justify the novelty of the study. This restructuring ensures that the Literature Review remains focused on critical analysis of prior studies, while the unique contributions of our framework are introduced in a more appropriate context.

C2

2.Chapter 4 is not like a chapter of a paper. All the paragraphs are briefly listed, just like an outline. And the criteria of smart sustainability are separately listed, not friendly to read. The authors should give out a general table of criteria index, to show all the dimensions and criteria.

The reply

We acknowledge that Section 4 suffered from fragmented presentation resembling an outline rather than cohesive academic analysis. We have completely restructured Section 4 to provide flowing narrative analysis with better paragraph integration and logical progression. Additionally, we have added a comprehensive criteria framework table that systematically presents all sustainability dimensions, criteria, sub-criteria, and indicators in an integrated format to improve readability and framework comprehension.

C3

3.     What are the criteria in section 3.4.1 (A1-A4, A4-A5, B1-B7, C1-C4)? It is not clear. And it maybe causes some confusion between the material alternative categories, which also involves C1, C2, B1, B2.

The reply

We acknowledge the nomenclature confusion between LCA lifecycle phase codes (A1-A3, B1-B7, C1-C4) and material alternative designations (C1, C2, B1, B2). We have clarified Section 3.4.1 by explicitly defining the LCA phase coding system and modified our material alternative nomenclature to eliminate overlap and confusion.

C4

4.     There are two section 4.5.2, and two section 4.6.1. Generally this manuscript is written in an incompact way. Please organize it better.

The reply

We sincerely thank the reviewer for highlighting the duplication of subsection numbering (two Section 4.5.2 and two Section 4.6.1) and for noting that the manuscript appeared in an incompact form. In response, we have carefully reorganized the Results and Discussion section to improve clarity and consistency. The numbering inconsistencies have been corrected, and overlapping subsections have been consolidated to remove redundancy, particularly in the repeated parts of the Climate-Adaptive Ranking Analysis and Performance Trade-off Analysis. Furthermore, the overall structure has been streamlined to ensure a more concise and coherent flow of information. These revisions enhance the readability of the manuscript, eliminate unnecessary repetition, and provide a more compact and professional organization of the results.