How Can the Circular Economy Contribute to Resolving Social Housing Challenges?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper entitled How can the Circular Economy contribute to resolving social housing challenges? aims to answer to this question through a systematic literature review. The protocol for this study is very well established. The authors selected 905 documents from Scopus, 37 from Web of Science, and 70 from Science Direct and after articles processing only 344 documents were further analyzed. An Annex with identification data for all 344 documents should be added to the study. Graphs 1-4 should be redone, to look better.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The paper entitled How can the Circular Economy contribute to resolving social housing challenges? aims to answer to this question through a systematic literature review. The protocol for this study is very well established. The authors selected 905 documents from Scopus, 37 from Web of Science, and 70 from Science Direct and after articles processing only 344 documents were further analyzed.

• An Annex with identification data for all 344 documents should be added to the study.

Our team is in consensus that the inclusion of the Annex is crucial. To verify this solution, kindly refer to line 859 of the manuscript. We have adhered to APA referencing style, and the references cited in the annex are not included in the numbered references used in the manuscript text.

• Graphs 1-4 should be redone, to look better.

We are grateful for the recommendation to review the graphs, and would like to express our appreciation for the opportunity to improve the manuscript. Specifically, we have taken steps to enhance Graphs 1-4, and have also created Table 4 to augment the analysis by providing readers with a more dynamic interaction between countries/themes and a color-scale grade. The revised materials can be found on lines 284-317 of the manuscript.

Thank you for providing us with your valuable feedback. We are grateful for the opportunity to enhance the overall quality of our work.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper makes a systematic literature review about the topic of circular economy applied to social housing. The paper is clear and well-written, the results are interesting and supported by a robust data analysis. Nevertheless, I would recommend a few modifications before publish the paper:

1. Change the paper type from "article" to "review".

2. The novelty of the paper is not clerly underlined. The authors should identify current research gaps based, for example, on similar reviews published about the topics addressed and better highlight why/how the paper can answer to these research gaps.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The paper makes a systematic literature review about the topic of circular economy applied to social housing. The paper is clear and well-written, the results are interesting and supported by a robust data analysis.

Nevertheless, I would recommend a few modifications before publishing the paper:

• Change the paper type from “article” to “review”.

After reviewing the manuscript, our team has come to an agreement with your suggestion. The necessary changes will be made as per your suggestion.

• The novelty of the paper is not clearly underlined. The authors should identify current research gaps based, for example, on similar reviews published about the topics addressed and better highlight why/how the paper can answer to these research gaps.

This suggestion helped us improve the introduction and strengthen the manuscript proposal. Additional information pertaining to the same can be found on lines 93-109 of the manuscript. We would like to extend our appreciation for the feedback you have provided us. Your input has been invaluable in helping us improve the overall quality of our work.

We express our sincere gratitude for the assistance you have extended in enabling us to enhance the quality of our work. Your support has been invaluable to us and we remain committed to delivering exceptional results. Thank you for your continued collaboration and trust in our abilities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The overall premise of the paper is interesting and the introduction is well written. However the questions are not appropriate for a systematic literature review. The authors are taking a very narrow view of Circular economy. The search words should be extending to "reused/recycled materials, material passports, Designing for disassembly and other words that are associated with CE.

It study would give more insights if focused on just one issue- that of concepts associated with CE, rather than opening it up to other environmental issues.

It appears that the authors wanted to do a Sys lit review and tried to force fit it. If the research questions are better framed and the search words are modified, it can result in a useful paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

The overall premise of the paper is interesting and the introduction is well written.

• However the questions are not appropriate for a systematic literature review.

Upon receiving this feedback, our team spent time rethinking the questions to improve their appropriateness for a systematic literature review (SLR). Please see lines 118-127 in the manuscript for more information.

“QP1. Which themes related to circular economy have been studied in social housing research?

QP2. What circular economy principles have been addressed in studies on social housing?

QP3. How can the construction sector contribute to a circular economy model addressing social housing challenges?

QP4. What gaps remain in the relationship between social housing and the circular economy?”

• The authors are taking a very narrow view of Circular economy.1 The search words should be extending to "reused/recycled materials, material passports, Designing for disassembly and other words that are associated with CE.

We have discussed this point extensively during the SLR. After conducting simulations by expanding the search keywords, we concluded that the final keywords chosen to lead the SLR adequately cover the ones noted by the reviewers. However, we have proposed a broader set of Context words for better understanding.

“Criteria for selecting studies

Context: social housing, social housing policies, circular economy, life cycle assessment, reused materials, recycled materials, refurbishment, material passports, designing for assembly, designing for disassembly, cradle-to-cradle, built environment, energy efficiency, sustainable urban development.”

• It study would give more insights if focused on just one issue- that of concepts associated with CE, rather than opening it up to other environmental issues. It appears that the authors wanted to do a Sys lit review and tried to force fit it.

During our research, we conducted a thorough analysis of the 5 CE principles mentioned in the text, and we are confident that our selection was well-considered. We appreciate the feedback received and acknowledge the importance of determining the cutout range as a critical aspect of our work.

With regard to the reviewer's suggestion, we have made the necessary changes to the manuscript by replacing the term "environmental objectives" with "CE principles". We believe this change will enhance the study's clarity and educational value for the reader. For more information, we invite the reviewer to refer to lines 248-282 of the manuscript.

“In studies on social housing, several circular economy principles have been addressed. With the contribution of [23] and [24], in addition to the results of this SLR, circular economy principles related to the issue of SH were defined:”

• If the research questions are better framed and the search words are modified, it can result in a useful paper.

We would like to confirm that the matter in question has been addressed as per the suggestion (I). We kindly request that you review and verify if the resolution is satisfactory.

We would like to express our sincere gratitude for the time you have dedicated towards our work. We are hopeful that the manuscript aligns with the expectations of the reviewer. Thank you again for your valuable input. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors deal with a very timely topic. Due to population growth, more and more infrastructure investments are needed.

Regarding the article, I recommend the following:

- it was difficult for me to understand, it would be worthwhile to review the article with a language proofreader,

- Social Housing has traditions in many European countries, it would be appropriate to define exactly what the authors mean by this, as well as what the conceptual system of the circular economy means (see, for example, Kirchherr, Julian (2017): Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions, In. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, VL - 127, 221- 232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005),

- the exploration and comparison of the factual elements of the two concepts also brings us closer to the goal of the study,

- the literature examining the relationship between the circular economy and the construction economy is very large, in the recent period - especially as a result of the crises - the number of related literature sources has increased even more. In addition, I would recommend the authors to try to limit their research to the topic of social housing and to shed more light on how certain elements of the circular economy are related to this type of housing problem. I recommend revising the conclusions and results accordingly.

​

It was difficult for me to understand, it would be worthwhile to review the article with a language proofreader.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

The authors deal with a very timely topic. Due to population growth, more and more infrastructure investments are needed.

Regarding the article, I recommend the following:

• it was difficult for me to understand, it would be worthwhile to review the article with a language proofreader.

We have endeavoured to enhance the standard of English used in the manuscript to the best of our ability. We acknowledge and concur with your remarks.

• Social Housing has traditions in many European countries, it would be appropriate to define exactly what the authors mean by this.

We appreciate the feedback provided by the reviewer and have carefully considered their comments. In order to address their concerns, we have made revisions to the manuscript. For further clarification, please refer to the relevant section located between lines 42-54.

• as well as what the conceptual system of the circular economy means (see, for example, Kirchherr, Julian (2017): Conceptualizing the circular economy: An analysis of 114 definitions, In. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, VL - 127, 221- 232. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2017.09.005),.

Thank you for the suggestion. The study introduced by the reviewer is very relevant to our work. Please refer to lines 65-70 in the manuscript for more information.

“In this sense, the circular economy (CE) proposal enters. The circular economy is an economic model that aims to minimise waste and maximise the use of resources. Kirchherr et at (2017) [9] worked above this concept, and in this study, the authors would like to follow their concept of circular economy: “an economic system that replaces the ‘end-of-life’ concept with reducing, alternatively reusing, recycling and recovering materials in production/distribution and consumption processes”.

• the exploration and comparison of the factual elements of the two concepts also brings us closer to the goal of the study.

We express our gratitude for this valuable insight. It is hereby informed that the aforementioned information can be found on lines 76-80 of the manuscript.

“The circular economy model can be related to the provision of social housing in several ways. When CE is applied to the provision of social housing, the circular economy can be incorporated into the following actions such as (i)Retrofit and sustainable upgrades; (ii) Balancing needs; (iii)Policy integration; (iv)Environmental Justice and Equity; and (v) Economic and social benefits [10], [11].”

• the literature examining the relationship between the circular economy and the construction economy is very large, in the recent period - especially as a result of the crises - the number of related literature sources has increased even more. In addition, I would recommend the authors to try to limit their research to the topic of social housing and to shed more light on how certain elements of the circular economy are related to this type of housing problem.

Thank you for your feedback. We appreciate your insight on the challenge of narrowing the aspects to be analyzed regarding CE principles. After discussing this point with our team, we have decided to change the topic "environment objectives" to "CE principles" to ensure greater focus and clarity for our readers. We kindly suggest that you review the relevant information on lines 248-282 of the manuscript. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

“In studies on social housing, several circular economy principles have been addressed. With the contribution of [23] and [24], in addition to the results of this SLR, circular economy principles related to the issue of SH were defined:”

• I recommend revising the conclusions and results accordingly.

After incorporating the reviewer's suggestions, the ‘Discussion’ and ‘Conclusion’ chapters were reviewed, and important points were added. After implementing the valuable suggestions provided by the reviewer, we thoroughly reviewed the Discussion and Conclusion sections and incorporated significant points that significantly enriched our analysis.

We are pleased to inform you that the improvements you suggested have significantly enriched our overall analysis. Your valuable insights have helped us to achieve a higher level of proficiency in our work, and we are grateful for your contribution.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors reviewed the paper according to reviewers' comments, I think the paper is now acceptable for being published.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have done significant changes to address the comments. Great work!