A New Decision-Making Tool for Guiding the Sustainability of Adaptive Reuse of Earthen Heritage Complexes in Desert Oases
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview Report
Dear authors, the manuscript presents a well-structured and original research contribution focusing on a wide topic in heritage conservation. The sustainability assessment in heritage conservation, emphasizing adaptive reuse of earthen architecture in an arid context like Egypt, brings novelty to the work. Furthermore, followed scientific methodology in which integration of the MIVES model with the Delphi technique to present a decision-making tool for sustainable material selection represents innovation and practical significance to work.
Overall, the manuscript is clear and methodologically rigorous but requires some strengthening in data transparency, and a more details discussion would increase the standard of the article.
Minor comments:
The use of Delphi rounds for weighting and validation adds robustness, but details on data derivation for quantitative indicators like life cycle cost, embodied energy, and CO2 emissions are insufficient to assess sustainability.
The final sample size confused also if 12 or 5 samples were collected, then that number is small and also lacks a demographic diversity explanation. Whether they were collected from institutions or from the involved community.
Adding a subsection and a table may help in the case of representation of Delphi responses and MAD results.
Figure in Appendix E lacks reference to data sources, measurement methods, and uncertainty ranges.
In the discussion section, replication of results has been observed instead of a critical explanation of dominating/dominated criteria. The reasoning that cultural weights outweigh economic ones would strengthen the justification for the dominant criteria.
The conclusion part could emphasize the broader relevance of the work for adaptive reuse policymakers and stakeholders.
Author Response
Comment1: The use of Delphi rounds for weighting and validation adds robustness, but details on data derivation for quantitative indicators like life cycle cost, embodied energy, and CO2 emissions are insufficient to assess sustainability.
Response 1: We appreciate this valuable comment. In the revised manuscript, a paragraph is added to P1-Requirements tree (line 273-278) (located in Section 2.1., Stage 2) to clarify the main sources and normalization approach used for the quantitative indicators (LCC, embodied energy, and COâ‚‚ emissions). However, the detailed step-by-step calculations for each indicator were intentionally not included in the main text to maintain focus and avoid excessive process-related content. These detailed computational steps would considerably lengthen the paper and shift attention away from the methodological contribution.
Comment 2: The final sample size confused also if 12 or 5 samples were collected, then that number is small and also lacks a demographic diversity explanation. Whether they were collected from institutions or from the involved community.
Response 2: The manuscript has been revised to clarify the composition and number of participants in each Delphi round. The first Delphi round involved 12 multidisciplinary experts from academia and professional practice who assigned initial weights to requirements, criteria, and indicators. A second round was conducted with 5 of the same experts to re-evaluate the indicators that did not reach consensus. In addition, a third Delphi round was carried out with 29 participants, including local residents, craftsmen, and practitioners from Siwa, to assess the social and cultural indicators through qualitative scoring. This clarification has been added to (Section 2, stage 2) and experts’ selection criteria and information is included in Appendix A to ensure transparency and highlight the diversity of the participants involved.
Comment 3: Adding a subsection and a table may help in the case of representation of Delphi responses and MAD results.
Response 3: Three tables were added in Appendix D to show responses of the experts on weights of requirements, criteria and indicators in Delphi round 1 and 2.
Comment 4: Figure in Appendix E lacks reference to data sources, measurement methods, and uncertainty ranges.
Response 4: Appendix E was removed and part of the included data was integrated in table 2 to indicate the performance of alternatives in each indicator.
Comment 5: In the discussion section, replication of results has been observed instead of a critical explanation of dominating/dominated criteria. The reasoning that cultural weights outweigh economic ones would strengthen the justification for the dominant criteria.
Response 5: A paragraph was added in the end of results’ analysis to highlight the dominance of cultural and social criteria over the economic ones (line 453-460). Additionally, a new subsection (4.4. Implications for Adaptive Reuse Policies and Practices) was introduced to further elaborate on the practical relevance of these findings, linking the dominance of cultural and social factors to policy-making, community engagement, and long-term sustainability of adaptive reuse projects.
Comment 6: The conclusion part could emphasize the broader relevance of the work for adaptive reuse policymakers and stakeholders.
Response 6: The conclusion has been revised to highlight the relevance of the work and an additional section has been added to the discussion (section 4.4. 4.4. Implications for Adaptive Reuse Policies and Practices)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this manuscript, a novel decision-making tool was introduced to evaluate the sustainability of building technologies used in the adaptive reuse of earthen heritage conservation in desert oases. The author has carried out a large amount of exploration work, considering more influencing factors for a comprehensive evaluation, and introducing innovative methods for comprehensive calculation, all of which are highly worthy of recognition and encouragement. However, the manuscript also has some obvious flaws that require significant revision and improvement. The following are the opinions and suggestions:
1）The abstract should concisely introduce the key points of the academic research, and elaborate on the contents such as the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. The content from line 14 to line 22 belongs to the background information of the topic and can be placed in the introduction. It is suggested that the discussion should focus on the selection of impact factors and the calculation of evaluation indicators.
2）This article explores the innovation of evaluation methods. The current work involves comparing this method with three building technical solutions. The goal of the paper is to examine the effectiveness and accuracy of this method. However, no clear comparison with previous methods was found in the text, especially in terms of case studies and data, to highlight the advantages and practicality of this method.
3）The several building technical solutions listed in this article belong to the descriptive content. The article is supported by examples. For such descriptive content, it is advisable to present it in a visually appealing way through combining text and images. Suggestions for revision and improvement are hereby made.
4）Table 2 presents the weight values determined through the Delphi method. As another key element in the comprehensive evaluation, the score values of the indicators are not fully demonstrated in the text. It is suggested that the content be elaborated and presented more clearly.
5）The article presents a lot of process-related content, from page 5 to page 13. However, the introduction of key points is somewhat unclear, and there is too much unnecessary information. The content of the results and discussion section is relatively limited. From page 13 to page 18, the elaboration on the innovative methods and evaluation models is insufficient, lacking in depth of thought. There is a certain gap compared to the conception of high-level academic papers. It is recommended to make revisions and improvements.
6）The presentation of the conclusion also lacks academic rigor. It should closely align with the analysis model and concisely explain the model's accuracy, effectiveness, and practicality, etc. Efforts should be made to minimize vague and abstract expressions.
Based on the above comprehensive analysis, The author has given more thorough consideration to the impact factors and has also adopted innovative methods. These efforts are worthy of recognition and encouragement. However, the current manuscript still has a certain gap compared to high-level journal papers. It is recommended to make revisions and improvements.
Author Response
Comment 1: The abstract should concisely introduce the key points of the academic research, and elaborate on the contents such as the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions. The content from line 14 to line 22 belongs to the background information of the topic and can be placed in the introduction. It is suggested that the discussion should focus on the selection of impact factors and the calculation of evaluation indicators.
Response 1: The abstract has been rewritten to focus on the main research purpose, methodology, results, and conclusions. Background information previously contained in lines 14–22 was removed and integrated into the Introduction section. The revised abstract now concisely presents the tool’s methodological framework, application process, and main findings, in line with the journal’s academic writing standards.
Comment 2: This article explores the innovation of evaluation methods. The current work involves comparing this method with three building technical solutions. The goal of the paper is to examine the effectiveness and accuracy of this method. However, no clear comparison with previous methods was found in the text, especially in terms of case studies and data, to highlight the advantages and practicality of this method.
Response 2: We appreciate this observation. A new subsection entitled “4.1. Comparative Position of the Proposed Method” has been added to the Discussion section. It compares the proposed MIVES–Delphi framework with the most commonly used MCDM approaches (e.g., AHP, ANP, TOPSIS, PROMETHEE, ELECTRE), emphasizing its advantages, such as transparency, stability, and participatory nature. This section also highlights the framework’s practical applicability to heritage-sensitive contexts.
Comment 3: The several building technical solutions listed in this article belong to the descriptive content. The article is supported by examples. For such descriptive content, it is advisable to present it in a visually appealing way through combining text and images. Suggestions for revision and improvement are hereby made.
Response 3: The image of the 3D-printed salt blocks is currently under the copyright permission process. Once authorization from the original source is obtained, the three figures showing the building techniques will be added to the final version prior to publication.
Comment 4: Table 2 presents the weight values determined through the Delphi method. As another key element in the comprehensive evaluation, the score values of the indicators are not fully demonstrated in the text. It is suggested that the content be elaborated and presented more clearly.
Response 4: The manuscript has been revised to include the indicator score values directly in Table 2, along with a brief explanation of their derivation and data sources. This addition improves clarity and transparency regarding the evaluation process. To further enhance transparency, Appendix D now presents the Delphi responses, showing the experts’ inputs and consensus levels (MAD values)
Comment 5: The article presents a lot of process-related content, from page 5 to page 13. However, the introduction of key points is somewhat unclear, and there is too much unnecessary information. The content of the results and discussion section is relatively limited. From page 13 to page 18, the elaboration on the innovative methods and evaluation models is insufficient, lacking in depth of thought. There is a certain gap compared to the conception of high-level academic papers. It is recommended to make revisions and improvements.
Response 5: We fully agree with the reviewer. The Methodology and Application of the Proposed Methodology sections were substantially shortened to remove procedural repetition and enhance clarity. All equations were moved to Appendices. Meanwhile, the Discussion section was enriched with two new subsections — 4.1. Comparative Position of the Proposed Method and 4.4. Implications for Adaptive Reuse Policies and Practices — to provide deeper critical analysis of the method, its innovation, and its practical relevance for adaptive reuse.
Additionally, several recent high-level academic references were incorporated to strengthen the scientific rigor and situate the study within the broader body of MCDM literature. These include:
Triantaphyllou & Mann (1989); Moghtadernejad et al. (2018); Azhar et al. (2021); Pohekar & Ramachandran (2004); Hosseini (2019); Aruldoss et al. (2013); Stanujkic et al. (2013); Velasquez & Hester (2013); Opricovic & Tzeng (2007); Podvezko (2011); Ayrim et al. (2018).
These references are highlighted in yellow in the revised manuscript for your convenience.
Comment 6: The presentation of the conclusion also lacks academic rigor. It should closely align with the analysis model and concisely explain the model's accuracy, effectiveness, and practicality, etc. Efforts should be made to minimize vague and abstract expressions.
Response 6: The Conclusion has been completely rewritten to emphasize the model’s accuracy, effectiveness, and replicability. The revised version clearly links the findings to the proposed analytical framework and highlights its practical value for guiding sustainable adaptive reuse of earthen heritage.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSummary of the Manuscript and Key Contributions
The manuscript addresses a highly relevant challenge in heritage conservation and sustainable architecture. It introduces a decision-making tool that integrates the MIVES framework with the Delphi technique to evaluate building technologies in adaptive reuse projects. The case study of the Adrere Amellal Ecolodge in Siwa Oasis demonstrates that traditional Karshif techniques can outperform both modern and experimental solutions, especially in cultural and social sustainability. The paper’s main contribution lies in combining cultural and community-based indicators with economic and environmental aspects, filling a gap in existing MCDM tools.
Evaluation of the Methodology, Analyses, and Conclusions
The research design is well structured and logically presented. The integration of expert and community perspectives through strengthens the credibility of the qualitative indicators. The choice of MIVES is adequately justified and well applied. However, certain methodological limitations should be more explicitly acknowledged. The weighted-sum approach assumes compensability between indicators, which can oversimplify trade-offs. The sensitivity analysis, while informative, relies on simplified scenarios; more advanced techniques such as Monte Carlo simulation could provide stronger validation. Furthermore, although the exclusion of some indicators (e.g., reversibility, water consumption, operational energy use) is noted in the discussion, a clearer justification in the methodology section would be beneficial. The conclusions are well aligned with the results, though broader reflections on applicability beyond Egypt would strengthen the international relevance.
Constructive Feedback for Authors
-Expand the discussion to reflect on implications for heritage management policies and adaptive reuse in different contexts beyond Egypt.
-Clarify the rationale for the selection and exclusion of certain sustainability indicators.
-Indicate the potential value of more advanced sensitivity analysis techniques for future research.
-Improve the presentation quality of figures and tables (resolution, consistency).
-Consider professional language editing to improve conciseness and fluency.
Overall Recommendation
The manuscript presents a novel and methodologically sound contribution to sustainability assessment in heritage conservation. With the incorporation of the suggested revisions, I recommend acceptance after minor revision.
The manuscript is written in generally clear and comprehensible English, and the arguments are conveyed in a coherent manner. Nevertheless, there are several instances where the language could be refined to achieve greater conciseness and fluency. In particular, some sentences in the methodology and discussion sections are rather lengthy and could be simplified to improve readability. Additionally, minor grammatical adjustments and stylistic improvements would enhance the overall clarity of the manuscript. A light professional proofreading is therefore recommended to ensure that the quality of the English expression fully matches the high scholarly value of the research.
Author Response
Comment 1: Expand the discussion to reflect on implications for heritage management policies and adaptive reuse in different contexts beyond Egypt.
Response 1: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In the revised version, a new subsection titled “4.4. Implications for Adaptive Reuse Policies and Practices” has been added to the Discussion section. This subsection expands the scope of the paper beyond Egypt, discussing the applicability of the tool to other desert oases and heritage contexts worldwide.
Comment 2: Clarify the rationale for the selection and exclusion of certain sustainability indicators.
Response 2: Additional explanations were included P1-Requirements tree (line 268-269) (located in Section 2.1., Stage 2) to clarify the criteria used in selecting indicators.
Comment 3: Indicate the potential value of more advanced sensitivity analysis techniques for future research.
Response 3: This point has already been addressed in Section 4.3 (Limitations of the Study) of the revised manuscript. The section explicitly acknowledges that the current sensitivity analysis represents a simplified robustness test and suggests the application of advanced global techniques —such as Monte Carlo simulation, bootstrapping, and variance-based sensitivity analysis— in future research to further validate the model’s stability and explore uncertainty across all factors.
Comment 4: Improve the presentation quality of figures and tables (resolution, consistency).
Response 4: All figures and table layouts have been revised for improved clarity and uniformity.
Comment 5: Consider professional language editing to improve conciseness and fluency.
Response 5: We appreciate this suggestion. The manuscript has been thoroughly revised by a native English-speaking reviewer to improve conciseness, readability, and academic tone.
