Factors That Influence the Quantification of the Embodied Carbon Emission of Prefabricated Buildings: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and the Way Forward
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. Line 148: Why review articles were excluded from your analysis?
2. Line 217: How did you identify these 12 factors? I mean that you should display the rationale for your identification.
3. Line 211: How did you conduct this classification? The logic behind your classification of factors should be highlighted.
4. Table 2: The implications of each factor and variable should be displayed. For example, what is the definition of “low rise” (<=10m?)?
5. Section 3: How these 12 factors affect the quantification of carbon emission? For example, building size affect the volume of material consumption. Material consumption can affect the carbon emission.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript appears to be an excellent review article about the factors that influence the quantification of the embodied carbon emission of prefabricated buildings.
The article as a whole is well structured and well written; the conclusions are well argued.
Only a few minor comments can be made.
Line 3 – In the title, authors should consider whether it is preferable to use "buildings" instead of "building".
Lines 321-322 – Why the «GHG Protocol (WBCSD/WRI The Greenhouse Gas Protocol—A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard)» has not been reported in the reference list?
Lines 432-433 – The authors wrote «different caron quantification tools/software», but the probably meant “different carbon quantification tools/software”.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The research focuses on the carbon emissions generated at the early stage of the prefabricated building’s life cycle and attempt to disclose the correlation between the relevant carbon quantification influencing factors and the quantification results, through a systematical review and meta-analysis of 43 recent studies (96 building cases).
It is noted that the focus is slightly higher on the applied methodology than on the reviewed articles content results. However, the paper is really accurate, the approach and the obtained results are very interesting.
Some minor inconsistencies were found:
- Embodied carbon quantification results (kgCO2e/m2) – Figure 5 – A clear reference of which type of area is considered it is recommended to be added: net area, gross area, building’s envelope area?
- Line 282 – “the prefabricated building with a wood frame and aluminum profile had higher embodied carbon than the other structural forms” – there is an inconsistency with Figure 5 on which the wood frame has lower embodied carbon than the other structural forms.
- There is an inconsistency between Figure 7 (for P6 – 81 reviewed building cases) and lines 310-311, 315 – a number of 69 cases was available for the cradle-to-site (P1-P6).
- Figure 8 – on the legend there are 3 items, but there are analyzed 4 (with 0% from P1 to P6). Which is the 4th?
I recommend the paper for publication after minor revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has been significantly improved.
