Evaluating Sustainability in Post-Conflict Reconstruction: A Case Study of Blast-Damaged Buildings Without Structural Collapse Risk in Syria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study brings remarkable innovations in the field of post-war building reconstruction assessment. Firstly, it develops a model based on MIVES integrated with the Delphi method, comprehensively considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions. This fills the gap in assessment tools for damaged but non-collapsed buildings, with a multi-indicator system that is both comprehensive and systematic. Secondly, it is customized for the Syrian case and applicable to resource-scarce areas. For example, it adopts simplified assessment and local data acquisition methods. Thirdly, in the case study, it compares four reconstruction strategies and obtains sustainability indices for different strategies through actual data calculation and analysis, providing a quantitative basis for decision-making. It is highly instructive for building reconstruction planning in similar post-conflict areas and significantly promotes the development of sustainable reconstruction research.

 

In the introduction section, the limitations of existing building assessment standards and frameworks (such as ISO TC71/SC-7/WG-2, EN 1504 Part 9, etc.) can be further elaborated. For example, specific examples can be given to illustrate the difficulties in accessing the advanced testing equipment and laboratory facilities required by these standards in the actual application in Syria due to the lack of infrastructure and resources, enhancing the persuasiveness of the research background.

In the model construction, although the Delphi expert selection criteria have been listed, a detailed description of the selection process can be added. For example, how to widely solicit experts and the specific process of preliminary screening of the materials submitted by experts, so that readers can more clearly understand the professionalism and representativeness of the expert team.

For the building description of the Al Safeer Hotel in the case study, an explanation of the differences between the original design purpose and the actual use situation of the building can be added. If there are differences, analyze the potential impact of these differences on the building damage situation and reconstruction strategy selection, enriching the case background information.

In the indicator calculation part, for the process of obtaining environmental indicator data from the ICE database, the method of data screening and processing should be described in detail. For example, how to determine the appropriate data in the database according to the specific building materials and reconstruction processes of the hotel, and the treatment methods for possible errors or uncertainties in the data.

In the sensitivity analysis part, when changing the weights for different scenario analyses, an explanation of the practical significance of different scenarios can be added. Combined with the possible situations in actual reconstruction projects, such as the different emphases on economic weights in developed and underdeveloped areas, to help readers better understand the rationality of different scenario settings.

In the discussion section, when comparing the results of this study with those of other similar studies, a comparison table can be made. Clearly list the similarities and differences in assessment indicators, building types, research areas, etc. among various studies, as well as the differences in the final sustainability assessment results, making the comparison results more intuitive.

In the figures and tables section of the article, the axis labels of some figures (such as the value function graph) can be made clearer. Clearly label the variable names, units, and scale meanings of the axes to facilitate readers' accurate understanding of the information conveyed by the figures and improve the readability of the figures.

For some research results and standard specifications cited in the article, brief annotation explanations can be added in the reference section. Introduce the specific roles of these literatures in this study, such as providing reference data for indicator determination and theoretical basis for method selection, facilitating readers' reference and further research.

In the future research directions section, for the idea of integrating technologies such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) into the model, the possible integration methods and expected effects can be preliminarily explored. For example, how BIM can assist in building

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This study brings remarkable innovations in the field of post-war building reconstruction assessment. Firstly, it develops a model based on MIVES integrated with the Delphi method, comprehensively considering economic, environmental, and social dimensions. This fills the gap in assessment tools for damaged but non-collapsed buildings, with a multi-indicator system that is both comprehensive and systematic. Secondly, it is customized for the Syrian case and applicable to resource-scarce areas. For example, it adopts simplified assessment and local data acquisition methods. Thirdly, in the case study, it compares four reconstruction strategies and obtains sustainability indices for different strategies through actual data calculation and analysis, providing a quantitative basis for decision-making. It is highly instructive for building reconstruction planning in similar post-conflict areas and significantly promotes the development of sustainable reconstruction research.

In the introduction section, the limitations of existing building assessment standards and frameworks (such as ISO TC71/SC-7/WG-2, EN 1504 Part 9, etc.) can be further elaborated. For example, specific examples can be given to illustrate the difficulties in accessing the advanced testing equipment and laboratory facilities required by these standards in the actual application in Syria due to the lack of infrastructure and resources, enhancing the persuasiveness of the research background.

• The authors thank the reviewer for the helpful comment. Additional details have been included in the introduction to better explain the limitations of existing building assessment standards. Specific examples were added to show the challenges of using advanced testing equipment and laboratory facilities in post-war settings like Syria, where infrastructure and resources are limited were added in the introduction from line 62 to line 71.

In the model construction, although the Delphi expert selection criteria have been listed, a detailed description of the selection process can be added. For example, how to widely solicit experts and the specific process of preliminary screening of the materials submitted by experts, so that readers can more clearly understand the professionalism and representativeness of the expert team.

• The authors thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. To address this, a detailed description of the Delphi expert selection process has been added to the article. This includes an explanation of how experts were solicited through academic networks, professional associations, and relevant organizations, ensuring a diverse and representative panel. The preliminary screening process of submitted materials has also been clarified, highlighting the review of professional qualifications, experience in reconstruction projects, and specific expertise related to sustainability and post-war reconstruction. These updates aim to enhance the readers' understanding of the professionalism and representativeness of the expert team. The revisions are located from line 227 to 247.

For the building description of the Al Safeer Hotel in the case study, an explanation of the differences between the original design purpose and the actual use situation of the building can be added. If there are differences, analyze the potential impact of these differences on the building damage situation and reconstruction strategy selection, enriching the case background information.

• The authors appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. In response, the building description of the Al Safeer Hotel has been expanded to clarify that there are no differences between the original design purpose and the actual use situation of the building. Furthermore, it has been specified that the original designed structure aligns with the implemented structure. This consistency eliminates any potential impact on the building's damage situation or the reconstruction strategy selection. The revisions can be found in the case study section, lines 421 to 425.

In the indicator calculation part, for the process of obtaining environmental indicator data from the ICE database, the method of data screening and processing should be described in detail. For example, how to determine the appropriate data in the database according to the specific building materials and reconstruction processes of the hotel, and the treatment methods for possible errors or uncertainties in the data.

• The authors thank the reviewer for the insightful comment. In response, the process of obtaining environmental indicator data from the ICE database has been elaborated upon in the revised manuscript. Specifically, the method of data screening and processing has been detailed, and steps to address potential errors or uncertainties in the data. The revisions can be found in Section 3.4, lines 537 to 548.

In the sensitivity analysis part, when changing the weights for different scenario analyses, an explanation of the practical significance of different scenarios can be added. Combined with the possible situations in actual reconstruction projects, such as the different emphases on economic weights in developed and underdeveloped areas, to help readers better understand the rationality of different scenario settings.

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer for the comment. In response, the practical significance of different weighting scenarios in the sensitivity analysis has been clarified. The revised section explains how each scenario reflects real-world considerations in reconstruction projects. The revisions have been incorporated into Section 5.1, lines 679 to 690.

In the discussion section, when comparing the results of this study with those of other similar studies, a comparison table can be made. Clearly list the similarities and differences in assessment indicators, building types, research areas, etc. among various studies, as well as the differences in the final sustainability assessment results, making the comparison results more intuitive.

• The authors thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. A comparison table has been created to clearly present the similarities and differences between this study and other relevant research. The table includes key aspects such as assessment indicators, building types, research areas, and sustainability assessment results. This format aims to provide a more intuitive comparison and enhance the reader's understanding of the broader context of the study. The new comparison table has been included in the discussion section (Section 5, Table 7, from line 578 to 618) and referenced accordingly in the revised text. Additionally, the narrative following the table has been adjusted to highlight the implications of these comparisons and their relevance to the study’s findings.

In the figures and tables section of the article, the axis labels of some figures (such as the value function graph) can be made clearer. Clearly label the variable names, units, and scale meanings of the axes to facilitate readers' accurate understanding of the information conveyed by the figures and improve the readability of the figures.

• The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The axis labels of the figures, including the value function graph, have been revised for improved clarity and readability (Figure 3) . Variable names, units, and scale meanings have been explicitly added to the axes to ensure readers can accurately interpret the information presented. Clarification have been implemented in Figures 7, 8, and 9, as referenced in the revised text.

For some research results and standard specifications cited in the article, brief annotation explanations can be added in the reference section. Introduce the specific roles of these literatures in this study, such as providing reference data for indicator determination and theoretical basis for method selection, facilitating readers' reference and further research.

• The authors thank the reviewer for this suggestion. While the importance of providing additional annotations or explanations for references in the reference section is understood, the journal guidelines make quite impossible to add modifications or annotations in this section. Nevertheless, in order to satisfy this suggestion, the role of key references has been clearly explained within the main text, particularly in the context of indicator determination and methodological choices. The updated Table 11 now cites two to three significant references per indicator, and Section 2.2 has been revised to include a detailed explanation of how the study's indicators were derived from these references. This clarification is provided from lines 176 to 193.

In the future research directions section, for the idea of integrating technologies such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) into the model, the possible integration methods and expected effects can be preliminarily explored. For example, how BIM can assist in building.

• The authors appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The section on future research directions has been expanded to include a preliminary exploration of integrating advanced technologies such as Building Information Modeling (BIM) and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) into the proposed model. Specifically, the revised text outlines how BIM can assist in creating detailed digital models for simulation of repair scenarios, facilitating stakeholder collaboration, and improving the precision of sustainability assessments. Similarly, GIS integration has been discussed as a tool for spatial analysis, enabling prioritization of reconstruction efforts based on regional needs, accessibility, and resource availability. The revisions have been incorporated into Section 6, lines 748 to 761.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the context of post-war reconstruction of buildings exposed to blast impacts but not at risk of collapse, there is a need for an effective preliminary assessment of reconstruction options. This paper proposes a new assessment model using the MIVES method and the Delphi method to select the optimal reconstruction strategy. The model takes into account economic, environmental and social aspects, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of options such as reconstruction, demolition, preservation for future use and dismantling with subsequent identity restoration. The validation of the proposed model was carried out on a tourist hotel in Damascus. The study showed that from an environmental perspective, the most sustainable option is preservation for future use, while from an economic and social point of view, the reconstruction option is preferable. The paper highlights the importance of conducting a comprehensive damage assessment and using resilience-oriented tools to develop reliable reconstruction strategies in a post-war context, while taking into account the context of cultural heritage conservation.

Despite the important topic of the paper, some adjustments are necessary.

1. Add a couple of specialized keywords. 2. The introduction clearly identifies the problem of assessing and restoring buildings after blasts, but it could be emphasized that existing methods focus on designing blast-resistant elements rather than on restoration, neglecting the problem of resilience of damaged buildings.

3. Despite mentioning various approaches to damage assessment, the literature review lacks a detailed comparison of these methods and their applicability in resource-constrained settings. It would be useful to analyze in more detail why existing standards (ISO, ATC, FEMA, UFC) are not applicable in post-war conditions.

4. It is necessary to describe in more detail how the requirements, criteria, and indicators of the requirements tree (RT) creation process were defined. Especially considering the variety of resilience factors. It is necessary to justify the inclusion of specific indicators and how they relate to the main objectives of the study and the principles of resilient restoration.

5. It is desirable to explain in more detail how the parameters of the value functions (minimum, maximum, shape, trend) were determined and how these parameters are justified in terms of the study context. How were the function types (linear, convex, concave) chosen and why were they the most suitable for specific indicators?

6. How do the obtained GSI values ​​compare with existing studies? How do the results compare with other similar studies and how consistent are they with the real needs of the region for restoration? These issues should be described in more detail in the article.

7. The conclusions should more clearly formulate the practical application of the results for designers and decision makers. Also describe the limitations of the model, such as the need to adapt to different regions and climatic conditions.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

In the context of post-war reconstruction of buildings exposed to blast impacts but not at risk of collapse, there is a need for an effective preliminary assessment of reconstruction options. This paper proposes a new assessment model using the MIVES method and the Delphi method to select the optimal reconstruction strategy. The model takes into account economic, environmental and social aspects, allowing for a comprehensive assessment of options such as reconstruction, demolition, preservation for future use and dismantling with subsequent identity restoration. The validation of the proposed model was carried out on a tourist hotel in Damascus. The study showed that from an environmental perspective, the most sustainable option is preservation for future use, while from an economic and social point of view, the reconstruction option is preferable. The paper highlights the importance of conducting a comprehensive damage assessment and using resilience-oriented tools to develop reliable reconstruction strategies in a post-war context, while taking into account the context of cultural heritage conservation.

Despite the important topic of the paper, some adjustments are necessary.

1. Add a couple of specialized keywords. 2. The introduction clearly identifies the problem of assessing and restoring buildings after blasts, but it could be emphasized that existing methods focus on designing blast-resistant elements rather than on restoration, neglecting the problem of resilience of damaged buildings.

• The authors thank the reviewer for the suggestion. Two specialized keywords— post-conflict recovery; Blast-damaged structures—have been added to the list of keywords. for the second part of the comment, the authors appreciate this valuable observation. A new sentence has been added to the introduction to highlight this critical gap. The revised text underscores that while existing methodologies primarily address designing blast-resistant elements for new structures, they often neglect the resilience and restoration of damaged buildings, which is especially crucial in resource-constrained, post-war environments. The relevant updates can be found in the introduction section, lines 41 to 55.

3. Despite mentioning various approaches to damage assessment, the literature review lacks a detailed comparison of these methods and their applicability in resource-constrained settings. It would be useful to analyze in more detail why existing standards (ISO, ATC, FEMA, UFC) are not applicable in post-war conditions.

• Thank you for this insightful comment. The authors have addressed this point by expanding the discussion in the introduction section. A detailed analysis has been added to clarify the limitations of existing standards such as ISO TC-71, ATC-20, FEMA 306, and UFC 3-340-02 in resource-constrained post-war settings. Specifically, the text now explains the challenges associated with the reliance of these methodologies on extensive testing equipment, skilled operators, and stable infrastructure, which are often unavailable in war-affected regions like Syria. These revisions are located in the introduction section, specifically from lines 62 to 71.

4. It is necessary to describe in more detail how the requirements, criteria, and indicators of the requirements tree (RT) creation process were defined. Especially considering the variety of resilience factors. It is necessary to justify the inclusion of specific indicators and how they relate to the main objectives of the study and the principles of resilient restoration.

• The authors totally agree with this valuable comment. The description of the Requirements Tree (RT) creation process has been expanded to include a detailed explanation of how requirements, criteria, and indicators were defined. Specifically, additional information has been added to justify the inclusion of specific indicators and their alignment with the study's objectives. The revisions explain how the indicators were selected based on a comprehensive review of the related literature presented in the table 11 in the appendix part A, and expert consultations, and case study needs by adding paragraph to section 2.2 from line 176 to 193.

5. It is desirable to explain in more detail how the parameters of the value functions (minimum, maximum, shape, trend) were determined and how these parameters are justified in terms of the study context. How were the function types (linear, convex, concave) chosen and why were they the most suitable for specific indicators?

• The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, the authors have expanded and clarified the Value Function Definition section, providing additional details to explain the determination and justification of parameters such as minimum, maximum, shape, and trend. This enhancement offers a more comprehensive explanation of how value function types (linear, convex, concave) were selected and tailored to align with the study's objectives and the context of post-war reconstruction. The modifications can be found from lines 297 to 314 and lines 341 to 359.

6. How do the obtained GSI values ​​compare with existing studies? How do the results compare with other similar studies and how consistent are they with the real needs of the region for restoration? These issues should be described in more detail in the article.

• The authors thank the reviewer for this insightful suggestion. In response, the Discussion section has been expanded to include a more detailed analysis of the obtained GSI values compared with similar studies. A comprehensive comparison table (Table 7) has been added, highlighting key aspects such as assessment indicators, building types, research areas, and sustainability assessment results. This table aims to clearly present the similarities and differences between this study and other relevant research, providing a more intuitive understanding for readers. These updates are included in Section 5, from lines 578 to 618.

7. The conclusions should more clearly formulate the practical application of the results for designers and decision makers. Also describe the limitations of the model, such as the need to adapt to different regions and climatic conditions.

• The authors thank the reviewer for this valuable comment. In response, the Conclusions section has been revised to explicitly address the practical applications of the study's results for designers and decision-makers in post-war reconstruction. The updated text highlights how the MIVES-Delphi model can guide resource allocation, alternative evaluation, and stakeholder prioritization in real-world scenarios. Additionally, a discussion of the model's limitations has been incorporated, specifically emphasizing the need for adaptation to different regions, climatic conditions, and construction practices. The modifications are located in Section 6, from lines 722 to 738.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have qualitatively revised the article. All necessary information has been added to the article. In my opinion, the article can be published.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In this study, the New Sustainability Assessment Model for Post-War Reconstruction of Blast Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings is examined and the sustainability status of different reconstruction alternatives is evaluated. Comments and suggestions on the paper are presented below.

 

·         When the properties of the existing building elements given in Table 4 are analyzed, it is seen that the system does not meet the requirements of the current regulations. Considering this situation, even if there is no war environment, it is necessary to re-evaluate the performance of existing buildings and take precautions if necessary.

·         Were the structural elements of the building taken into account separately in the calculations according to their weights? For example, a damage to the column is much more important than a damage to the slab.

·         In Table 6, CSI should be changed to GSI.

·         Since a hotel type building was selected for the study, the GSI value was found to be 63%. It should be interpreted whether the GSI value can be expected to be Refurbishment in a residential or historically important building.

·         Table 6 shows that the most important parameter is economic reasons in all cases. Under what conditions can the economy be relegated to the second position?

·         VI13 does not appear in table 6.

·         In line 492, the sentence beginning with El-Hage does not seem to fit the paragraph.

Author Response

- Reviewer #1:

In this study, the New Sustainability Assessment Model for Post-War Reconstruction of Blast Damaged Reinforced Concrete Buildings is examined, and the sustainability status of different reconstruction alternatives is evaluated. Comments and suggestions on the paper are presented below.

 

(1) When the properties of the existing building elements given in Table 4 are analyzed, it is seen that the system does not meet the requirements of the current regulations. Considering this situation, even if there is no war environment, it is necessary to re-evaluate the performance of existing buildings and take precautions if necessary.

 

• The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. In this sense, the authors have clarified the preliminary approach behind this model in the abstract, introduction and conclusions. The authors have also added a new paragraph in the case study section, from line 403 to 446 and tables 16, 17 and 18 in the Appendix part D.

 

(2) Were the structural elements of the building considered separately in the calculations according to their weights? For example, a damage to the column is much more important than a damage to the slab.

 

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer comment. This model considers the damage level but not the consequences of the collapse of an individual element and the possibility of a progressive collapse. This is in line with the preliminary approach of this model. Considering these consequences would be part of future works. To clarify this preliminary approach the authors have added an explanation in the abstract (line 9) and introduction (lines 69-72) and the last lines of the conclusions. The authors have also further clarified in line 422 that the elements importance is as it is presented in Table 18 in the Appendix.

 

(3) In Table 6, CSI should be changed to GSI.

 

• The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have modified it.

(4) Since a hotel type building was selected for the study, the GSI value was found to be 63%. It should be interpreted whether the GSI value can be expected to be Refurbishment in a residential or historically important building.

• The authors agree with the reviewer and have added in the Methodology section a part that explains the adaptability and robustness of the MIVES method, from line 103 to 109, and the authors have added in the discussion section a new paragraph discussing the refurbishment value, from line 519 to 527, with three new references (29, 34 and 35).

 

(5) Table 6 shows that the most important parameter is economic reasons in all cases. Under what conditions can the economy be relegated to the second position?

 

• The authors completely agree with this comment. Thus, the authors have added in the discussion section a new paragraph discussing cases in which economic issues may be considered as a secondary parameter, from line 536 to 552, with four new references (83, 84, 85 and 86).

 

(6) VI13 does not appear in table 6

 

• The authors are grateful to the reviewer for this comment, which shows that this consideration had not been clarified enough. The authors have mentioned in the Calculation of the indicators part that the I13 will not be considered due to the hotel’s unique location on top of a mountain isolated from urban infrastructure, and that its weight will be added to the weight of I12 as presented in the lines from 489 to 493.

 

(7) In line 492, the sentence beginning with El-Hage does not seem to fit the paragraph.

 

• The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have modified all this paragraph as presented in the lines 536 to 552.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the context of familial documentation and inheritance, this paper introduces a detailed update regarding the transfer of property-related certificates associated with Hossein Mobaraki, highlighting the critical importance of addressing administrative formalities within the constraints of language, legal processing, and recipient interest, while considering cultural and procedural dimensions.. While the research presents intriguing findings, it needs further refinement prior to being published.

1.      Avoiding abbreviation in the abstract.

2.      Avoid large sentence is the abstract and body of the paper.

3.      Chapter 1, Introduction is also so limited, the authors could discuss the recent papers focusing on the proposed approached to mitigate the effects of blast loading on structures as well as the numerical methods to assess dynamic response of infrastructures.

4.      Summarizing figure 2 by presenting the key components.

5.      In the Table 6 while authors are proposing the refurbishment, did they consider the sustainability and safety parameters after the targeted process? Discuss it.

6.      Figure 9 is not well presented. Presenting the information of the tables on the graph.

7.      Limitation of the study may be discussed in detail.

8.      Any proposal for future research?

9.      Avoiding abbreviation in conclusions.

 

 

 

Author Response

- Reviewer #2: In the context of familial documentation and inheritance, this paper introduces a detailed update regarding the transfer of property-related certificates associated with Hossein Mobaraki, highlighting the critical importance of addressing administrative formalities within the constraints of language, legal processing, and recipient interest, while considering cultural and procedural dimensions. While the research presents intriguing findings, it needs further refinement prior to being published.

(1) Avoiding abbreviation in the abstract.

• The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have modified the Abstract from line 8 to 21.

 

(2) Avoid large sentence is the abstract and body of the paper

 

• The authors agree with the reviewer and, therefore, they have modified the Abstract and the body of the paper. For instance, in the introduction in lines 42 to 53, and the discussion from line 519 to 553.

 

(3) Chapter 1, Introduction is also so limited, the authors could discuss the recent papers focusing on the proposed approached to mitigate the effects of blast loading on structures as well as the numerical methods to assess dynamic response of infrastructures.

 

• The authors are grateful to the reviewer for this comment. The authors have modified the introduction, and added a new paragraph, including some numerical studies from line 42 to 53 with related references [7,8,9]

 

(4) Summarizing figure 2 by presenting the key components

 

• The authors totally agree with this comment. The authors have clarified the Fig. 2 components in lines 169 to 186.

 

(5) In the Table 6 while authors are proposing the refurbishment, did they consider the sustainability and safety parameters after the targeted process? Discuss it.

 

• The authors agree with the reviewer about this comment. They think the explanation of the approach taken in the article had room for improvement. Therefore, the authors have further clarified the approach in lines 127-140.

 

 

(6) Figure 9 is not well presented. Presenting the information of the tables on the graph

 

• The authors completely agree with the reviewer. So, the authors have modified Fig 9 by dividing it between Fig 9 and Table 10.

 

(7) Limitation of the study may be discussed in detail

 

• The authors thank the reviewer for the comment. The authors have further explained the limitation section from line 127 to 140.

 

(8) Any proposal for future research?

 

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer. Thus, they have added the future work in the last paragraphs of the conclusion.

 

(9) Avoiding abbreviation in conclusions

 

• The authors are grateful to the reviewer for the comment. The authors have modified the conclusion section from line 653 to 690.