Review Reports - Life Cycle Assessment-Based Analysis of Environmental and Economic Benefits in Construction Solid Waste Recycling

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the introduction, this paper proposes a life cycle assessment of the environmental benefits of construction solid waste recycling and disposal, but the empirical part does not fully adopt the standard method of life cycle assessment, ignoring the environmental impact of some key stages, such as raw material procurement and the environmental load of final waste disposal. This methodological inconsistency calls into question the reliability of the findings.
Although this paper claimed to have adopted a systematic data collection framework, it did not specify the specific source and quality of the data, nor did it control or discuss the possible bias in the data collection process, which affected the transparency of the research and the explanatory power of the results.
Although the authors attempted to analyze the market demand for construction solid waste recycling products, the relevant analysis was not enough and unsuccessful to delves into the practical issues and complexities of market acceptance, such as consumer preferences, policy implications, and their long-term impact on market demand.
Although the suggestions on strengthening policy support in this manuscript are in the right direction, they lack in-depth analysis and criticism of existing policies and do not put forward specific and feasible policy improvement measures.
The literature review part of this study cited some outdated or less authoritative literature, which failed to make full use of the latest research results to support research hypotheses and conclusions, which is a serious defect in academic research.
The conclusion part of this study fails to specify the innovation points of the recycling and treatment of construction solid waste and its specific contribution to the environment and economy but uses some vague and extensive expressions, which are not convincing.

Best regards,

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Detailed Response to Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer 1：

Thank you so much for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Through this revision, we have responded to all the comments, and revised the manuscript accordingly (Highlight changes in the article in red), with the revisions listed below right after each comment.

Comment 1: In the introduction, this paper proposes a life cycle assessment of the environmental benefits of construction solid waste recycling and disposal, but the empirical part does not fully adopt the standard method of life cycle assessment, ignoring the environmental impact of some key stages, such as raw material procurement and the environmental load of final waste disposal. This methodological inconsistency calls into question the reliability of the findings.

Answer 1：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In view of your opinion, we have modified and supplemented the relevant information in chapter “4.2 Determining the Scope”. Specifically, we explain in detail how this paper determines the scope and system boundaries when conducting a life cycle assessment. Since the purpose of this study was to compare simple landfilling and recycling of construction solid waste, we set specific system boundaries to ensure consistency in the comparison phase. This change will help to define the scope of the research more clearly and enhance the scientific and comparability of the research. The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [297-339] of the paper.

Comment 2: Although this paper claimed to have adopted a systematic data collection framework, it did not specify the specific source and quality of the data, nor did it control or discuss the possible bias in the data collection process, which affected the transparency of the research and the explanatory power of the results.

Answer 2: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. The data in this study mainly come from a construction solid waste treatment enterprise in North China, and we have been authorized by the enterprise to access and use the data for academic research. In the process of data collection, we strictly follow the principles of data privacy and confidentiality to ensure that the use of data complies with laws and regulations and corporate policies. At the same time, we conducted a detailed collation and verification of the data, and combined industry standards and literature and other ways to further analyze and calibrate the data to ensure that it can accurately reflect the actual situation in the construction solid waste treatment process. In particular, the on-site data is directly derived from the actual measurement and recording of the construction solid waste treatment and recycling process, which is obtained through the statistical records of the production unit and is rigorously audited. Where direct measurement is not possible or field data is lacking, we preferentially use officially validated data from government agencies and literature reports that meet the requirements of the relevant Life Cycle assessment (LCA) standards. In view of the fact that the construction industry has not yet developed a unified standard for the recycling of construction solid waste, we propose in the paper "9.5 Improve data collection and management" that future policies should focus on solving the problem of data comprehensiveness.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [610-611, 1027-1038].

Comment 3: Although the authors attempted to analyze the market demand for construction solid waste recycling products, the relevant analysis was not enough and unsuccessful to delves into the practical issues and complexities of market acceptance, such as consumer preferences, policy implications, and their long-term impact on market demand.

Answer 3: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In response to the comments, we revised chapter 8. In chapter “8.2 Comparative Analysis of Market Demand”, we analyzed the market demand of construction solid waste recycling products from three aspects: consumer preference, policy drive and product acceptance. In chapter “8.3 Long-term Benefit Comparison”, the long-term economic benefits of construction solid waste are analyzed.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [736-928].

Comment 4: Although the suggestions on strengthening policy support in this manuscript are in the right direction, they lack in-depth analysis and criticism of existing policies and do not put forward specific and feasible policy improvement measures.

Answer 4: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have revised the chapter “9 Countermeasures and Suggestions”, in which chapters “9.1 Improve laws, regulations, management policies, and technical specifications” and “9.2 Strengthen publicity and government guidance, and use a combination of rewards and punishments to handle the situation” propose specific policy improvement measures, such as: Improve laws and regulations, management policies and technical norms, strengthen publicity and government guidance, implement rewards and punishments, etc., and promote the recycling of construction solid waste from the policy aspect.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [941-997].

Comment 5: The literature review part of this study cited some outdated or less authoritative literature, which failed to make full use of the latest research results to support research hypotheses and conclusions, which is a serious defect in academic research.

Answer 5: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We increased the number of references from 28 to 41, and the new references are all the latest research results in 2024 and 2025.

New references mainly focus on lines [104-110, 172-193, 773-789].

Comment 6: The conclusion part of this study fails to specify the innovation points of the recycling and treatment of construction solid waste and its specific contribution to the environment and economy but uses some vague and extensive expressions, which are not convincing.

Answer 6: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have supplemented and improved the expression of the conclusions. In chapter “10.1. Conclusion”, three main research results of this paper are listed in detail: the carbon emission reduction benefit under the recycling treatment of construction solid waste is significant, indicating that the treatment method has significant positive environmental benefits; In the long run, renewable building materials have significant advantages in resource recycling, reducing environmental costs and policy stability, and will achieve higher return on investment with technological progress and market demand growth; The countermeasures and suggestions to promote the development of construction waste resources are put forward, including strengthening government guidance, rational planning of site selection, research and development of low-energy equipment technology, and improving data collection and management.

Therefore, we made a modification in lines [1040-1084].

The references we have added or revised are listed as follows, and are also reflected in the revised manuscript.

Jiang, B., Huang, H., Ge, F., Huang, B., & Ullah, H. (2025). Carbon Emission Assessment During the Recycling Phase of Building Meltable Materials from Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China. Buildings, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030456.
Niekurzak, M., Lewicki, W., & Wróbel, J. (2024). Efficiency Assessment of the Production of Alternative Fuels of High Usable Quality within the Circular Economy: An Example from the Cement Sector. Sustainability, 16(20), 8762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208762.
Y. Liu, Z.N. Ye, J.X. Lu, Comparative LCA-MCDA of high-strength eco-pervious concrete by using recycled waste glass materials, J. Clean. Prod. 479 (2024) 144048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144048.
Jasim, Abbas F., Ali, Zahraa K., Al-Saadi, Israa F., A Comprehensive Review of Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Recycled Materials in Asphalt Pavements Rehabilitation, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 2004803, 19 pages, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2004803.
Hasheminezhad, A., King, D., Ceylan, H., & Kim, S. (2024). Comparative life cycle assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175310.
Zhang, M., Liu, X., & Kong, L. (2023). Evaluation of carbon and economic benefits of producing recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138946.
Liu, Y.H., Li, A.J., Guo, G.Z., Zhang, J.W., Ren, Y., Dong, L., Gong, L.F., Hu, H.Y., Yao, H., Naruse, I., 2024. Comparative life cycle assessment of organic industrial solid waste co-disposal in a MSW incineration plant. Energy 305, 11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132322.
Wang, X., Yang, J., Wu, Y., Zhu, P., Yan, X., & Liu, H. (2024). Tailoring high ductility cementitious composite incorporating recycled fine aggregate based on shrinkage and mechanical properties. Journal of Building Engineering, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109868.
Aghamohammadi, O., Jafari, Z., Bahmani, H., & Mostofinejad, D. (2024). Novel eco-friendly high-strength concrete based on slag activated with calcium oxide: Environmental, thermal, and mechanical performance. Construction and Building Materials, 449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138334.
Ling, H. M., Yew, M. C., Yew, M. K., & Saw, L. H. (2024). Analyzing recent active and passive cool roofing technology in buildings, including challenges and optimization approaches. Journal of Building Engineering, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109326.
Oberender, A., Fruergaard Astrup, T., Frydkjær Witte, S., Camboni, M., Chiabrando, F., Hayleck, M., Akelyte,, 2024. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol including Guidelines for Pre-Demolition and Pre-Renovation Audits of Construction Works: Updated edition 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. 10.2873/77980.
Yi, Y., Fei, X., Fedele, A., Lavagnolo, M. C., & Manzardo, A. (2024). Decision support model for selecting construction and demolition waste management alternatives: A life cycle-based approach. Science of the Total Environment, 951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175408.
Patil, Yuvraj R., Dakwale, Vaidehi A., Ralegaonkar, Rahul V., Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in the Sector of Construction, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 6234010, 13 pages, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6234010.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Thanks for your time and kind consideration. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article "Life Cycle Assessment-Based Analysis of Environmental and Economic Benefits in Construction Solid Waste Recycling" presents a rigorous methodology for comparing carbon emissions between the production of natural and recycled aggregates when used as construction materials. The study has significant scientific and industrial relevance. The use of solid waste in the construction sector is increasing. Scientific information is needed to support and justify its benefits. Below are some suggestions that could improve the document before publication:

The introduction should present what is known and unknown about the topic. It should also clarify the article's contribution and objective.

There are abbreviations that are not defined, for example, OSPW.

The authors say: “Based on the evaluation results, more effective environmental improvement strategies can be further identified and formulated.” Explain the efficiency of current strategies and to what extent the strategies found in this research are expected to improve said efficiency.

The document presents in detail the boundary conditions (assumptions) for CO₂ measurement analysis. The determined values should have an error value, in order to understand the effects of these assumptions.

Much of the document rigorously presents the LCA methodology followed. For greater clarity, I suggest separating the Analysis and Results into a separate chapter.

Throughout the document, the assumed values for the calculations (demolition, transportation, construction, etc.) are presented. I suggest summarizing these values in a table that differentiates the assumed values for natural and recycled aggregates. Likewise, present a summary table of the results obtained in the study.

Chapter 7 (Economic Benefit Analysis) has no bibliographic references. If its content includes claims made by the authors, scientific evidence supporting these claims must be presented.

The conclusions chapter is more of a summary. The conclusions should be in line with the objective, contribution of the article, and the results of the research.

Author Response

Detailed Response to Reviewer 2

Dear Reviewer 2：

Before we respond, thank you very much for taking the time to review our article and for your positive feedback. We are glad to hear that you found our methodology rigorous and the study relevant to both science and industry. We appreciate your suggestions for improvement and will carefully consider each one as we revise the document before publication. Your expertise and input are invaluable to us, and we are confident that incorporating your recommendations will strengthen our work.

Comment 1: The introduction should present what is known and unknown about the topic. It should also clarify the article's contribution and objective.

Answer 1: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have revised the last three paragraphs of the introduction to highlight the contributions and objectives of this study.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [38-74].

Comment 2: There are abbreviations that are not defined, for example, OSPW.

Answer 2: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have conducted a supplementary analysis of the definition of abbreviations and attached a table of abbreviations at the end of the article.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1111-1127].

In future studies, we will pay attention to avoid such problems.

Comment 3: The authors say: “Based on the evaluation results, more effective environmental improvement strategies can be further identified and formulated.” Explain the efficiency of current strategies and to what extent the strategies found in this research are expected to improve said efficiency.

Answer 3: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have added a chapter "9 Countermeasures and Suggestions" on developing more effective environmental improvement strategies, which analyzes how different strategies and approaches can improve efficiency.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [929-1038].

Comment 4: The document presents in detail the boundary conditions (assumptions) for CO₂ measurement analysis. The determined values should have an error value, in order to understand the effects of these assumptions.

Answer 4: Thank you for your valuable comments. The source and boundary conditions of the field data in this paper are strictly set. The field data in this study were derived directly from actual measurements and records during the same construction solid waste treatment and recycling process. Among them, the processing capacity of the equipment is the biggest source of error in this study, which is mainly reflected in its influence on power. In response to your questions, we have added "6.3 Interpretation of error values" to the original text to evaluate the error of the processing capacity of the equipment and form a table, as shown in Table 2, so as to better understand the impact of these assumptions on the research results.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [691-708].

Comment 5: Much of the document rigorously presents the LCA methodology followed. For greater clarity, I suggest separating the Analysis and Results into a separate chapters.

Answer 5: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In response to your comments, we have added chapter "7. Life Cycle Interpretation" to the article, which is divided into two parts: "7.1 Calculation Results" and "7.2 Results Analysis", so as to make the content clearer.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [709-735].

Comment 6: Throughout the document, the assumed values for the calculations (demolition, transportation, construction, etc.) are presented. I suggest summarizing these values in a table that differentiates the assumed values for natural and recycled aggregates. Likewise, present a summary table of the results obtained in the study.

Answer 6: Thank you again for your valuable suggestions, which we earnestly adopted and implemented into the chapter "7.1Calculation Results", listed the carbon emission results of natural aggregate and recycled aggregate at different stages, and presented the results directly in the form of carbon emission summary table at each stage. The carbon emission data generated by natural aggregate and recycled aggregate at different stages are compared, as shown in Table 3.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [709-721].

Comment 7: Chapter 7 (Economic Benefit Analysis) has no bibliographic references. If its content includes claims made by the authors, scientific evidence supporting these claims must be presented.

Answer 7: Thanks again for your valuable suggestions, we have made a comprehensive revision to the chapter "8. Economic Benefit Analysis", comparing and analyzing the economic benefits of raw building materials and recycled building materials from three aspects: cost comparison, market demand comparison and long-term benefit comparison, and adding the latest references.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [736-928].

Comment 8: The conclusions chapter is more of a summary. The conclusions should be in line with the objective, contribution of the article, and the results of the research.

Answer 8: Thanks again for your valuable suggestions, we have revised Chapter "10 Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research", in which 3 main research results of this paper are detailed in chapter "10.1 Conclusion": The efficiency of carbon emission reduction under the recycling treatment of construction solid waste is significant, which indicates that the treatment has significant positive environmental benefits. In the long run, renewable building materials have significant advantages in resource recycling, reducing environmental costs and policy stability, and will achieve higher return on investment with technological progress and market demand growth; The countermeasures and suggestions to promote the development of construction waste resources are put forward, including strengthening government guidance, rational planning of site selection, research and development of low-energy equipment technology, and improving data collection and management. In chapter "10.2 Limitations and Future Research", the paper shortcomings and future prospects are presented.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1039-1110].

The references we have added or revised are listed as follows, and are also reflected in the revised manuscript.

Jiang, B., Huang, H., Ge, F., Huang, B., & Ullah, H. (2025). Carbon Emission Assessment During the Recycling Phase of Building Meltable Materials from Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China. Buildings, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030456.
Niekurzak, M., Lewicki, W., & Wróbel, J. (2024). Efficiency Assessment of the Production of Alternative Fuels of High Usable Quality within the Circular Economy: An Example from the Cement Sector. Sustainability, 16(20), 8762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208762.
Y. Liu, Z.N. Ye, J.X. Lu, Comparative LCA-MCDA of high-strength eco-pervious concrete by using recycled waste glass materials, J. Clean. Prod. 479 (2024) 144048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144048.
Jasim, Abbas F., Ali, Zahraa K., Al-Saadi, Israa F., A Comprehensive Review of Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Recycled Materials in Asphalt Pavements Rehabilitation, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 2004803, 19 pages, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2004803.
Hasheminezhad, A., King, D., Ceylan, H., & Kim, S. (2024). Comparative life cycle assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175310.
Zhang, M., Liu, X., & Kong, L. (2023). Evaluation of carbon and economic benefits of producing recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138946.
Liu, Y.H., Li, A.J., Guo, G.Z., Zhang, J.W., Ren, Y., Dong, L., Gong, L.F., Hu, H.Y., Yao, H., Naruse, I., 2024. Comparative life cycle assessment of organic industrial solid waste co-disposal in a MSW incineration plant. Energy 305, 11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132322.
Wang, X., Yang, J., Wu, Y., Zhu, P., Yan, X., & Liu, H. (2024). Tailoring high ductility cementitious composite incorporating recycled fine aggregate based on shrinkage and mechanical properties. Journal of Building Engineering, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109868.
Aghamohammadi, O., Jafari, Z., Bahmani, H., & Mostofinejad, D. (2024). Novel eco-friendly high-strength concrete based on slag activated with calcium oxide: Environmental, thermal, and mechanical performance. Construction and Building Materials, 449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138334.
Ling, H. M., Yew, M. C., Yew, M. K., & Saw, L. H. (2024). Analyzing recent active and passive cool roofing technology in buildings, including challenges and optimization approaches. Journal of Building Engineering, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109326.
Oberender, A., Fruergaard Astrup, T., Frydkjær Witte, S., Camboni, M., Chiabrando, F., Hayleck, M., Akelyte,, 2024. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol including Guidelines for Pre-Demolition and Pre-Renovation Audits of Construction Works: Updated edition 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. 10.2873/77980.
Yi, Y., Fei, X., Fedele, A., Lavagnolo, M. C., & Manzardo, A. (2024). Decision support model for selecting construction and demolition waste management alternatives: A life cycle-based approach. Science of the Total Environment, 951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175408.
Patil, Yuvraj R., Dakwale, Vaidehi A., Ralegaonkar, Rahul V., Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in the Sector of Construction, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 6234010, 13 pages, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6234010.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Thanks for your time and kind consideration. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study applies to a standard LCA framework without introducing novel analytical techniques. The lack of methodological innovation limits its contribution to the field.
On literature review section, you must mention how does this study advance beyond previous studies on CSW analysis?
On Scope and definition section, authors mentioned that this approach aims to evaluate the environmental benefits of construction solid waste (CSW) recycling using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and they highlighted the simplification of complex waste compositions and treatment methods. While simplifications are often necessary in LCA studies, they need to address the validity concerns that may impact the robustness and applicability of the findings. Is this simplification based on standard policy which does not negatively impact on results.
You stated the comparative analysis you conducted is based on Homology in which sources of construction solid waste are the same, and the composition is consistent. Don’t you think this same composition on comparative analysis is a little unrealistic?
In this regard, it is stated that consistency on material substitution ratio, in real practice we have varying proportion of natural resources depending on quality. You should consider the real practice on your comparative analysis.
The landfill distances could be varied. Why are transportation emissions assumed to be equal in both scenarios? This assumption is another limitation of your analysis.
By not considering these variables the emissions analysis may not reflect real-world recycling benefits or costs accurately.
You mentioned the unified data collection is conducted without mentioning the way of data standardization
Can you add different case studies on material performance to compare? How about long-term cost benefit?
Did you consider the impact of green building certificate like LEED into analysis
?
You just addressed 2 papers from 2024? Are those the only papers which have recently been conducted on this subject? You should add the most recent research to address clear and strong research gap.
You need to further discuss about policy Implementation on your analysis. You should evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies in different regions should be compared more explicitly not just in China.

Author Response

Detailed Response to Reviewer 3

Dear Reviewer 3：

Comment 1: The study applies to a standard LCA framework without introducing novel analytical techniques. The lack of methodological innovation limits its contribution to the field.

Answer 1: Thank you very much for your careful review and valuable comments on our research. With regard to your suggestions on method innovation, this study integrates and utilizes existing data resources to evaluate and validate the results by using the standard Life cycle assessment (LCA) framework. Based on the mature LCA framework, this study adds some innovative points and unique contributions to specific applications and research objectives. These innovations not only make up for the deficiencies in the analysis of carbon emissions of recycled building materials in the existing literature, but also provide important theoretical basis and decision-making support for policy making.

In this regard, we revised the last two paragraphs of chapter "1. Introduction" to highlight the innovations and contributions of this study. The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [38-74].

Comment 2: On literature review section, you must mention how does this study advance beyond previous studies on CSW analysis?

Answer 2: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. Based on your comments, we have increased the number of references from 28 to 41, and the newly added references are all the latest research results in 2024 and 2025. At the same time, in chapter "10.Conclusions, Limitations and Future Research", we list the three main research results of this paper in detail, and put forward the innovation points of this study that are different from previous studies.

The new references are mainly concentrated in lines [104-110, 172-193, 773-789], and the conclusions are in lines [1040-1084].

Comment 3: On Scope and definition section, authors mentioned that this approach aims to evaluate the environmental benefits of construction solid waste (CSW) recycling using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and they highlighted the simplification of complex waste compositions and treatment methods. While simplifications are often necessary in LCA studies, they need to address the validity concerns that may impact the robustness and applicability of the findings. Is this simplification based on standard policy which does not negatively impact on results.

Answer 3: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. The study has appropriately simplified the complex composition and treatment methods of construction solid waste (CSW) when assessing the environmental benefits of CSW recycling using the Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) method, which is based on the standard methods and principles of LCA. These simplified assumptions are not arbitrary, but are based on practical feasibility and industry standards to ensure the reliability and applicability of the study results.

In order to further respond to your comments, we have given a more detailed description in the chapter of "4.1. Scenario Construction" and set clear constraints to demonstrate the consistency of the method and the results.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [259-287].

Comment 4: You stated the comparative analysis you conducted is based on Homology in which sources of construction solid waste are the same, and the composition is consistent. Don’t you think this same composition on comparative analysis is a little unrealistic?

Answer 4: Thank you for your valuable comments. The composition and quality of construction solid waste varies significantly across construction projects, which can have an important impact on material substitution ratios and environmental impact assessments. However, in the same building demolition project, the composition and quality of waste are relatively consistent, and this consistency provides us with a relatively stable experimental platform, which helps us to better control variables and conduct comparative analysis, so as to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the research results.

In order to further respond to your comments, we have given a more detailed description and set clear constraints in the chapter of "4.1. Scenario Construction". In addition, in chapter of "10.2 Limitations and Future Research", we put forward the necessity of further discussing the combination of scientific experiment and practical application, and emphasized the importance of considering the difference of waste composition from different sources in future research.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [259-287, 1085-1110].

Comment 5: In this regard, it is stated that consistency on material substitution ratio, in real practice we have varying proportion of natural resources depending on quality. You should consider the real practice on your comparative analysis.

Answer 5: Thank you for your valuable comments. In practice, the proportion of natural resources does vary by quality, a phenomenon that has important implications for the accuracy and applicability of comparative analysis. We attach great importance to your suggestion and have analyzed and thought about this issue in detail.

In order to further respond to your comments, we have given a more detailed description and set clear constraints in the chapter of "4.1. Scenario Construction". The scenario construction is based on widely accepted scientific literature, industry standards, and best practices in practical applications to provide a uniform benchmark for comparison.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [259-287].

Comment 6: The landfill distances could be varied. Why are transportation emissions assumed to be equal in both scenarios? This assumption is another limitation of your analysis.

Answer 6: Thanks for your valuable comments, in this study, diesel combustion consumption during transport is a core source of carbon emissions during the transport phase, although the actual distance to the landfill may vary from case to case. Considering that the actual model of the dump truck is basically the same, it is necessary to consider the weight of the building materials carried rather than the source of building materials.

In order to further improve the accuracy and transparency of the research, we explain the reason for this hypothesis in chapter of "4.2. Determining the Scope". Thank you again for your valuable comments. Your feedback is very important for us to improve our research and improve the quality of our research.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [297-339].

Comment 7: By not considering these variables the emissions analysis may not reflect real-world recycling benefits or costs accurately.

Answer 7: Thanks to your valuable comments, we have made the differences between scientific experiments and practical applications clearer in Chapter "4. Goal and Scope Definition". In order to further improve the scientific and practical nature of the study, we have revised in chapter of "10.2 Limitations and Future Research". In future studies, we will further discuss how to more accurately consider the impact of different variables on carbon emissions, so as to further improve our analysis method.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1085-1110].

Comment 8: You mentioned the unified data collection is conducted without mentioning the way of data standardization.

Answer 8: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. The data of this study came from a construction solid waste treatment enterprise in North China. The data are sorted and verified in detail, and analyzed and calibrated in combination with industry standards and literature to accurately reflect the actual situation. Field data are directly derived from actual measurements and records. For cases where direct measurements are not possible or field data is lacking, official verified data, which are obtained from government agencies and literature reports, are preferred and meet the requirements of Life cycle evaluation (LCA) standards. In order to further respond to your comments, we have revised the chapter of "6.1. Building Materials Production Stage". The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [609-610].

In addition, in view of the fact that the world has not yet formulated a unified standard for the recycling of construction solid waste, we propose in the chapter of "9.5 Improve data collection and management" that future policies should focus on solving the problem of data comprehensiveness. The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1027-1038].

Comment 9: Can you add different case studies on material performance to compare? How about long-term cost benefit?

Answer 9: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have revised Chapter of "8.Economic Benefit Analysis"to add a reference on the comparison of properties of different materials in chapter of "8.1.2. Comparison of Service Life and Maintenance Costs". The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [756-789].

In addition, in chapter of "8.3 Long-term Benefit Comparison" is the long-term economic benefit comparison. The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [872-928].

Comment 10: Did you consider the impact of green building certificate like LEED into analysis?

Answer 10: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have added LEED to the article.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [845-852, 988-997].

Comment 11: You just addressed 2 papers from 2024? Are those the only papers which have recently been conducted on this subject? You should add the most recent research to address clear and strong research gap.

Answer 11: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We increased the number of references from 28 to 41, and the new references are all the latest research results in 2024 and 2025.

New references mainly focus on lines [104-110, 172-193, 773-789].

Comment 12: You need to further discuss about policy Implementation on your analysis. You should evaluate the effectiveness of existing policies in different regions should be compared more explicitly not just in China.

Answer 12: Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In response to the questions raised by reviewers, we revised Chapter of "9. Countermeasures and Suggestions", in which Chapter of "9.1 Improve laws, regulations, management policies, and technical specifications" and "9.2 Strengthen publicity and government guidance, and use a combination of rewards and punishments to handle the situation" put forward specific policy improvement measures, such as: improving laws and regulations, management policies and technical specifications, strengthening publicity and government guidance, and implementing ways of combining rewards and punishments, etc. The feasibility and effectiveness of recycling construction solid waste were analyzed from the policy aspects of different countries.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [941-997].

The references we have added or revised are listed as follows, and are also reflected in the revised manuscript.

Jiang, B., Huang, H., Ge, F., Huang, B., & Ullah, H. (2025). Carbon Emission Assessment During the Recycling Phase of Building Meltable Materials from Construction and Demolition Waste: A Case Study in China. Buildings, 15(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15030456.
Niekurzak, M., Lewicki, W., & Wróbel, J. (2024). Efficiency Assessment of the Production of Alternative Fuels of High Usable Quality within the Circular Economy: An Example from the Cement Sector. Sustainability, 16(20), 8762. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16208762.
Y. Liu, Z.N. Ye, J.X. Lu, Comparative LCA-MCDA of high-strength eco-pervious concrete by using recycled waste glass materials, J. Clean. Prod. 479 (2024) 144048, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.144048.
Jasim, Abbas F., Ali, Zahraa K., Al-Saadi, Israa F., A Comprehensive Review of Life Cycle Cost Assessment of Recycled Materials in Asphalt Pavements Rehabilitation, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 2004803, 19 pages, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/2004803.
Hasheminezhad, A., King, D., Ceylan, H., & Kim, S. (2024). Comparative life cycle assessment of natural and recycled aggregate concrete: A review. Science of the Total Environment, 950. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175310.
Zhang, M., Liu, X., & Kong, L. (2023). Evaluation of carbon and economic benefits of producing recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste. Journal of Cleaner Production, 425. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.138946.
Liu, Y.H., Li, A.J., Guo, G.Z., Zhang, J.W., Ren, Y., Dong, L., Gong, L.F., Hu, H.Y., Yao, H., Naruse, I., 2024. Comparative life cycle assessment of organic industrial solid waste co-disposal in a MSW incineration plant. Energy 305, 11.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2024.132322.
Wang, X., Yang, J., Wu, Y., Zhu, P., Yan, X., & Liu, H. (2024). Tailoring high ductility cementitious composite incorporating recycled fine aggregate based on shrinkage and mechanical properties. Journal of Building Engineering, 93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109868.
Aghamohammadi, O., Jafari, Z., Bahmani, H., & Mostofinejad, D. (2024). Novel eco-friendly high-strength concrete based on slag activated with calcium oxide: Environmental, thermal, and mechanical performance. Construction and Building Materials, 449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.138334.
Ling, H. M., Yew, M. C., Yew, M. K., & Saw, L. H. (2024). Analyzing recent active and passive cool roofing technology in buildings, including challenges and optimization approaches. Journal of Building Engineering, 89. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.109326.
Oberender, A., Fruergaard Astrup, T., Frydkjær Witte, S., Camboni, M., Chiabrando, F., Hayleck, M., Akelyte,, 2024. EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol including Guidelines for Pre-Demolition and Pre-Renovation Audits of Construction Works: Updated edition 2024. Publications Office of the European Union. 10.2873/77980.
Yi, Y., Fei, X., Fedele, A., Lavagnolo, M. C., & Manzardo, A. (2024). Decision support model for selecting construction and demolition waste management alternatives: A life cycle-based approach. Science of the Total Environment, 951. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2024.175408.
Patil, Yuvraj R., Dakwale, Vaidehi A., Ralegaonkar, Rahul V., Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in the Sector of Construction, Advances in Civil Engineering, 2024, 6234010, 13 pages, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1155/2024/6234010.

We would like to express our great appreciation to you for comments on our paper. Thanks for your time and kind consideration. I am looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely yours,

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the system boundary is set by the authors in Section 4.2 (lines 297-339), it is oversimplified and weakens the integrity of the LCA method. According to ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, LCA must cover the whole process from the acquisition of raw materials to the final disposal (cradle to grave), but the author excluded "transportation process," "building use stage," "building demolition stage," and so on just because they are assumed to be the same, which violates the principle of LCA to compare the complete system. More critically, the authors did not consider the environmental load of "raw material mining" and "final landfill of non-renewable residue," resulting in the lack of comprehensiveness and representativeness of the results. In addition, the authors did not use sensitivity analysis or uncertainty assessment, nor did they explain why they chose only CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O as greenhouse gases and ignored pollutants with equally significant environmental impacts such as SO₂, NOx, and PM2.5. The method still has serious limitations.
Although the authors declare that the data are authorized by the enterprise, they do not provide the specific data collection form, measurement error range, sampling time span, measurement instrument model, and data correction method. In particular, in the production process of energy consumption, power consumption, transportation distance, and other key parameters, if the specific value and estimation logic are not disclosed, it is impossible to achieve repeatability and cross-regional application promotion. In academic research, the data acquisition path and verification logic must be auditable and verifiable, and the current processing method of the author obviously still does not meet the journal's standards for data transparency and repeatability.
The content of "market analysis" added by the author is still a macro overview, without the support of empirical data or questionnaire results. For example, in the "consumer preference" section, it only states that "the proportion of renewable aggregate used in some green building projects is increasing," but there is no specific data evidence or application examples in different industries, and there is no modeling or scenario analysis of consumer acceptance. More importantly, there is no in-depth analysis of the coordination mechanism between the upstream and downstream of the green building materials industry chain (such as real estate developers, design units, contractors, etc.) and the risk preference and price expectation in the process of accepting recycled products, resulting in a lack of depth in the market analysis.
Most of the authors' supplementary policy suggestions are statements and templates (such as "improving laws and regulations," "strengthening guidance," and "establishing reward and punishment mechanisms"), which are not combined with the difficulties of China's existing policy implementation. For example, the author does not analyze the pain points existing in the current recycled building materials industry, such as local protectionism, non-uniform standards, and fuzzy market positioning of recycled products. It also does not analyze the differences in the effectiveness of financial subsidies, green credit, green building scoring, and other mechanisms in the existing policy system for the industry. Therefore, policy suggestions lack the logic of critical reflection and mechanism embedding, and it is difficult to support the academic value of "countermeasure research."
Although the authors have increased the number of documents (lines 104-110, etc.), most of the citations are from non-top journals (such as Advances in Civil Engineering and Journal of Building Engineering). There is a lack of recent research responses to internationally recognized high-level journals such as Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Waste Management, and Resources, Conservation & Recycling. Some of the cited literature has a low fit with the research questions of this paper, which is a general citation and cannot really support the core analysis. Thus, the literature update, while progressive, still falls short of the requirements of systemic and international dialogue.
Although the structure of the extended conclusion is more complete, the so-called "innovation points" are only repeated expressions of results (such as "obvious carbon emission reduction" and "high return on renewable aggregates") rather than innovations in theoretical mechanisms, model tools, and data methods. The whole article is still the basic idea of "comparing the difference in carbon emissions between Plan A and Plan B." There are a lot of similar studies in the existing literature, especially in the context of China; there are many city-level or industry-level cases (such as Beijing and Shanghai). This study does not propose a new LCA segmentation model, boundary setting method, or dynamic modeling considering industrial synergy and path optimization, and the academic contribution is still not outstanding.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1：

Thank you so much for the reviewer for the detailed and constructive feedback on our manuscript. Through this revision, we have responded to all the comments, and revised the manuscript accordingly (Highlight changes in the article in red), with the revisions listed below right after each comment.

Comment 1: Although the system boundary is set by the authors in Section 4.2 (lines 297-339), it is oversimplified and weakens the integrity of the LCA method. According to ISO 14040 and 14044 standards, LCA must cover the whole process from the acquisition of raw materials to the final disposal (cradle to grave), but the author excluded "transportation process," "building use stage," "building demolition stage," and so on just because they are assumed to be the same, which violates the principle of LCA to compare the complete system. More critically, the authors did not consider the environmental load of "raw material mining" and "final landfill of non-renewable residue," resulting in the lack of comprehensiveness and representativeness of the results. In addition, the authors did not use sensitivity analysis or uncertainty assessment, nor did they explain why they chose only CO₂, CH₄, and N₂O as greenhouse gases and ignored pollutants with equally significant environmental impacts such as SO₂, NOx, and PM2.5. The method still has serious limitations.

Answer 1：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In response to your comments about the boundaries of the system, we supplement and explain it in chapter "4.2. Determining the Scope". Although carbon emissions occur in the whole process of the generation, treatment and use of recycled products of construction waste, the focus of calculation is the stage with differences, so the calculation scope needs to be properly defined. This method is based on the comprehensive consideration of data availability and research purpose in the actual research.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [317-344] of the paper.

At the same time, we plan to consider collecting more comprehensive data in future studies that we can more accurately assess the environmental impact of these stages. herefore, we made a supplementary explanation in the chapter "10. Conclusion and Future Research Directions".

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1256-1258] of the paper.

In response to your comments about parameter sensitivity analysis, we have added the chapter "7.3 Parameter Sensitivity Analysis" in the paper. We selected 10%, 20% and 30% fluctuation of fossil energy consumption as the scenario setting of sensitivity analysis. The carbon emission data were used as the calculation results to quantitatively analyze the changes in carbon emissions under different scenarios when fluctuations occur.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [770-794] of the paper.

Since this paper focuses on the effects of greenhouse gases, we have explained in the chapter "5. Life Cycle Inventory Analysis (LCI)" that "In this study, the environmental benefit evaluation mainly measures the environmental impact of each stage through the difference in carbon emissions, especially the comprehensive accounting of greenhouse gas emissions". The greenhouse gases mainly include CO₂, CH4, and N2O and some fluorine gases. However, related pollutants such as SO₂, NOx, and PM2.5 are not classified as greenhouse gases. The reason why we choose to study greenhouse gases is because of the well-established accounting methods of IPCC. Also, The greenhouse gas has a far-reaching influence on the global climate system. However, in view of the comparison of the discharge of multiple pollutants under different disposal methods proposed, we have made additional explanations in the chapter "10. Conclusion and Future Research Directions".

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1265-1271] of the paper.

Comment 2: Although the authors declare that the data are authorized by the enterprise, they do not provide the specific data collection form, measurement error range, sampling time span, measurement instrument model, and data correction method. In particular, in the production process of energy consumption, power consumption, transportation distance, and other key parameters, if the specific value and estimation logic are not disclosed, it is impossible to achieve repeatability and cross-regional application promotion. In academic research, the data acquisition path and verification logic must be auditable and verifiable, and the current processing method of the author obviously still does not meet the journal's standards for data transparency and repeatability.

Answer 2：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In response to your comments, we have revised the chapter of "6.3. Interpretation of Data Sources and Error Values", and comprehensively sorted out the key parameters and measurement methods of different equipments used in the paper, covering important information such as data collection forms, sampling time span, type of measuring instrument and data validation method of equipment and machines. (shown as Table 2). At the same time, we also indicate the data sources of this paper in the chapter "6.1. Building Materials Production Stage".

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [710-729, 628-629] of the paper.

In addition, in order to more intuitively display the information of the equipment required for processing natural and recycled aggregates, we have shown figure 5 and 6 in the chapter "6. Life Cycle Impact Assessment" . Specifically, figure 5 (a) and 6 (a) show the power information of the equipment required to process natural aggregate and recycled aggregate, respectively, and figure 5 (b) and 6 (b) show the processing capacity information of the equipment required to process natural aggregate and recycled aggregate. These data have been included in the evaluation formula of this study for calculation, and are reflected in the results.

Comment 3: The content of "market analysis" added by the author is still a macro overview, without the support of empirical data or questionnaire results. For example, in the "consumer preference" section, it only states that "the proportion of renewable aggregate used in some green building projects is increasing," but there is no specific data evidence or application examples in different industries, and there is no modeling or scenario analysis of consumer acceptance. More importantly, there is no in-depth analysis of the coordination mechanism between the upstream and downstream of the green building materials industry chain (such as real estate developers, design units, contractors, etc.) and the risk preference and price expectation in the process of accepting recycled products, resulting in a lack of depth in the market analysis.

Answer 3：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. we have revised part of the chapter "8.2. Market Demand Comparison". We add data evidence on the increasing proportion of recycled building materials used in green building projects in chapter "8.2.1. Consumer Preferences".And we supplemented the actual application status of policy incentives in some parts of Beijing to further enhance the alignment of policy impact with local conditions in chapter "8.2.3. Policy Impact".

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [869-875, 971-973] of the paper.

At the same time, based on the reviewers' key concerns, we added chapter "8.2.2. Industrial Chain" to discuss the different risk preferences and decision-making logic of different stakeholders such as developers, design units and contractors in the upstream and downstream of the green building industry chain towards recycled and natural building materials. We also discussed the coordination mechanism of the industry chain.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [883-946] of the paper.

Comment 4: Most of the authors' supplementary policy suggestions are statements and templates (such as "improving laws and regulations," "strengthening guidance," and "establishing reward and punishment mechanisms"), which are not combined with the difficulties of China's existing policy implementation. For example, the author does not analyze the pain points existing in the current recycled building materials industry, such as local protectionism, non-uniform standards, and fuzzy market positioning of recycled products. It also does not analyze the differences in the effectiveness of financial subsidies, green credit, green building scoring, and other mechanisms in the existing policy system for the industry. Therefore, policy suggestions lack the logic of critical reflection and mechanism embedding, and it is difficult to support the academic value of "countermeasure research."

Answer 4：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We supplemented and optimized chapter "9. Countermeasures and Suggestions". Combined with the difficulties of China's existing policy implementation, we discussed the pain points in the renewable building materials industry and the effectiveness differences of different policy mechanisms. We have revised chapter "9.1. Improve laws and regulations, management policies, and technical specifications, and optimize the governance framework of the entire industry chain", which focuses on resolving pain points such as local protectionism and inconsistent standards at the institutional level to optimize the governance framework of the whole industrial chain. We have also revised the chapter "9.2. Diversified policy coordination promotes path optimization of construction waste resource utilization treatment", emphasizing that through the synergies of multiple policy tools such as financial subsidies, green credit, and green building certification, we can crack the cost barriers and cognitive barriers in the promotion of recycled building materials.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1071-1188] of the paper.

Comment 5: Although the authors have increased the number of documents (lines 104-110, etc.), most of the citations are from non-top journals (such as Advances in Civil Engineering and Journal of Building Engineering). There is a lack of recent research responses to internationally recognized high-level journals such as Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Waste Management, and Resources, Conservation & Recycling. Some of the cited literature has a low fit with the research questions of this paper, which is a general citation and cannot really support the core analysis. Thus, the literature update, while progressive, still falls short of the requirements of systemic and international dialogue.

Answer 5：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. We have added a selection of recently published, internationally recognized, high-level Journal articles with higher relevance (including Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Waste Management, Journal of Cleaner Production) in the chapter "3. Life Cycle Assessment".

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [189-197,222-232] of the paper.

The references we have added or revised are listed as follows, and are also reflected in the revised manuscript.

Li, X., Jiang, M., Lin, C., Chen, R., Weng, M., & Jim, C. Y. (2025). Integrated BIM-IoT platform for carbon emission assessment and tracking in prefabricated building materialization. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108122.
Zhang, B., Pan, L., Chang, X., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Jie, Z., Ma, H., Shi, C., Guo, X., Xue, S., & Wang, L. (2025). Sustainable mix design and carbon emission analysis of recycled aggregate concrete based on machine learning and big data methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144734.
Hussain, M., Zheng, B., Chi, H.-L., & Hsu, S.-C. (2023). Automated and continuous BIM-based life cycle carbon assessment for infrastructure design projects. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106848.
Al-Najjar, A., Malmqvist, T., Stenberg, E., & Höjer, M. (2025). Stock, flow and reuse potential of precast concrete in Swedish residential buildings: Embodied carbon assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108229.
Hoang, N. H., Ishigaki, T., Kubota, R., Tong, T. K., Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, H. G., Yamada, M., & Kawamoto, K. (2021). Financial and economic evaluation of construction and demolition waste recycling in Hanoi, Vietnam. Waste Management, 131, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.06.014.

Comment 6: Although the structure of the extended conclusion is more complete, the so-called "innovation points" are only repeated expressions of results (such as "obvious carbon emission reduction" and "high return on renewable aggregates") rather than innovations in theoretical mechanisms, model tools, and data methods. The whole article is still the basic idea of "comparing the difference in carbon emissions between Plan A and Plan B." There are a lot of similar studies in the existing literature, especially in the context of China; there are many city-level or industry-level cases (such as Beijing and Shanghai). This study does not propose a new LCA segmentation model, boundary setting method, or dynamic modeling considering industrial synergy and path optimization, and the academic contribution is still not outstanding.

Answer 6：Thank you for your careful review and valuable comments on this article. In combination with the relevant changes in Comments 4 and 5, we have revised the chapter "10. Conclusion and Future Research Directions". Based on the quantitative assessment of the carbon emission reduction benefits of construction waste recycling, this study further comprehensively evaluates the economic benefits of natural aggregates and recycled aggregates from different dimensions. And by analyzing the linkage mechanism between the construction waste recycling industry and the upstream and downstream industries, identifying the competitive advantages and development bottlenecks of recycled building materials in the circular economy system, and the path optimization strategy is proposed accordingly. At the same time, we further discuss the improvement direction and future research focus based on the contents of comment 1, hoping that these changes can enhance the academic contribution and innovation of this research.

The relevant changes have been reflected in lines [1230-1278] of the paper.

The references we have added or revised are listed as follows, and are also reflected in the revised manuscript.

Li, X., Jiang, M., Lin, C., Chen, R., Weng, M., & Jim, C. Y. (2025). Integrated BIM-IoT platform for carbon emission assessment and tracking in prefabricated building materialization. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108122.
Zhang, B., Pan, L., Chang, X., Wang, Y., Liu, Y., Jie, Z., Ma, H., Shi, C., Guo, X., Xue, S., & Wang, L. (2025). Sustainable mix design and carbon emission analysis of recycled aggregate concrete based on machine learning and big data methods. Journal of Cleaner Production, 489. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2025.144734.
Hussain, M., Zheng, B., Chi, H.-L., & Hsu, S.-C. (2023). Automated and continuous BIM-based life cycle carbon assessment for infrastructure design projects. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 190. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2022.106848.
Al-Najjar, A., Malmqvist, T., Stenberg, E., & Höjer, M. (2025). Stock, flow and reuse potential of precast concrete in Swedish residential buildings: Embodied carbon assessment. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2025.108229.
Hoang, N. H., Ishigaki, T., Kubota, R., Tong, T. K., Nguyen, T. T., Nguyen, H. G., Yamada, M., & Kawamoto, K. (2021). Financial and economic evaluation of construction and demolition waste recycling in Hanoi, Vietnam. Waste Management, 131, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2021.06.014.
He, W., Zhang, Y., Kong, D., Li, S., Wu, Z., Zhang, L., & Liu, P. (2024). Promoting green-building development in sustainable development strategy: A multi-player quantum game approach. Expert Systems with Applications, 240. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2023.122218.
Sun G., Jiang D., Feng J., Chen X. (2022)Mechanism on Driving Factors of Green Construction Technology Under Carbon Peak Target in China: Based on System Dynamics Simulation Analysis. SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY MANAGEMENT RESEARCH, (14).
Cao, X., Zhao, T., & Xing, Z. (2022). How Do Government Policies Promote Green Housing Diffusion in China? A Complex Network Game Context. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(4), 2238. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19042238.
He, L., & Chen, L. (2021). The incentive effects of different government subsidy policies on green buildings. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2020.110123.
Li, X., Wang, C., Kassem, M. A., Liu, Y., & Ali, K. N. (2022). Study on Green Building Promotion Incentive Strategy Based on Evolutionary Game between Government and Construction Unit. Sustainability, 14(16), 10155. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141610155.
Ning, X., Ye X., Wang W. (2023). Research on the evolution path of high-quality innovative development of green housing under the background of “peak carbon emissions and carbon neutrality”.Systems Engineering-Theory&Practice,43(9):2653-2668. https://doi.org/10.12011/SETP2022-3151.
Wand Y., Zhang L. (2018). A Simulation Analysis of Optimized Incentive Policies in Green Housing Market——A Case Study of Xi'an. Systems Engineering, 36(5):37-46.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no additional comments.