An Approach to Environmental Criteria in Public Procurement for the Renovation of Buildings in Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article: An approach to environmental criteria in public procurement for the renovation of buildings in Spain (Manuscript ID: sustainability-902305)

General comments

This paper represents a remarkable contribution to the topic of study . I think that in general terms, the paper at a theoretical level provides an interesting perspective by critiquing the current paradigms on which he efficiency in the inclusion of  environmental standards in public procurement for the renovation of buildings in Spain. It is based mainly from the legislative, regulatory and  technical point of view. It shows how these paradigms are altered by not taking into consideration other dimensions.

The text is very dense, especially the results and discussion sections. It is suggested to synthesize and illustrate with graphics to help reading and understanding.

Moderate changes in English required. Sentences are sometimes too long or seems to contain grammatical errors. The reviewer suggests that the document be reviewed by a native speaker.

There are some points that need to be improved. I suggest some improvements to increase the scientific value of the article as well as its clarity and readers' interest.

Specific comments

Abstract. The section is not very communicative. I recommend to stress the following two points:

- which specific knowledge gap the research aims to fill;

- the method used, explained it in a clearer way.

 1.- Introduction

Since this is a journal of international scope, it is necessary to broaden the international framework in this section.

It is necessary to improve the introduction with references and specific international studies on the subject.

Lines 80 to  96 should be part of a section called objectives.

2.-  Background. Eco-criteria in the EU

This paragraph should be included as a section of paragraph 1 Introduction.

Points 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 could be summarised as they do not bring anything new . Too long should be synthesized.

3. Methodology

Lines 157-171. The methodology used in the article is not accurately reflected. Chapter 3 does not provide methods or materials. It is recommended that it be rewritten.  With the aim of illustrating the method in a clearer manner, I suggest to add a flow chart showing the phases followed in the study.

4. Results

4.1. Regulations and guides. In general, results about its application are missing. The text is only a descriptive study of existing legislation and documentation in Spain but does not refer to comparative studies on its application. It is recommended that these be included.

4.2.1. Passive measures of energy saving, 4.2.2. Active measures of energy saving, 4.2.3. Active measures of water saving, 4.2.4. Life cycle, 4.2.5. Products, 4.2.6. Waste or 4.2.7. Measures to ensure the interior quality in regards to comfort, air quality and health.  A general description is given of the criteria to be taken into account in design but there are no new contributions. As these are results, experiences of their application should be included and a comparative analysis carried out.

5. Discussion

The “discussion” paragraph (maybe better “Discussions”) dies little discussions on the results. Sometimes it contains further results.  It would also be interesting to note the existence of limitations to the application of the proposed concept of efficiency in the reglamentary , for example in the historic centres of heritage cities, since in many cases the legislation does not yet consider the full extent of the concept.

6. Conclusions

Conclusions do not bring any notable progress; they are too generic. Conclusion should recap the findings of the quantitative analysis and make suggestions based on them.

In order to correlate the Authors’ key findings with the implications or applications of the work, I suggest stressing the importance of these studies to prioritize the allocation of financial resources. Lastly, the Authors should discuss on the research outlook.

References

The references are up to date however there are many references in Spanish that could be exchanged with references in English.

The references section should be revised (lines 877-1337). There are many errors. The reference style is not correct. For example references  [2] , [7] or [10] you should use capital letters; citation error in the reference  [18] " J. Jolien" should be replaced by " Jolien, J." the reference [19] or the reference [24]  "Rivela, B.; B." should be replaced by "Rivela, B."

Author Response

In the attached file you can find the answers to your review of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 An approach to environmental criteria in public procurement for the renovation of buildings in Spain

Abstract is well structured and clear. Manuscript is well presented.

Despite being quite a long piece, the manuscript includes interesting discussions. 

However, the methodology needs to have further clarifications about the strategies of collecting and analysing the data weather this data was primary or secondary.

The strategies followed for looking at regulations and other sources should be clearer, in terms of selection and analysis.

This would help the reader to follow up with the long sections after that.

The methodology should also include some clarifications about the differences between the regulations put into practice in EU and Spain, and how these differ from each other.

The conclusion does not reflect the manuscript’s findings. It would be better if the conclusion includes some of the limitations of this study as well as including future research.

Author Response

In the attached file you can find the answers to your review of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article entitled “An approach to environmental criteria in public procurement for the renovation of buildings in Spain” analyses various aspects of green public procurement in Spain, with focus on the buildings sector. Overall, the article is well written, very actual and interesting. I have no major remarks but the suggestions below that the authors should take into account to further improve their article:

1. You mention that the implementation of environmental measures for public procurement in Spain is low when compared to those in the Green 7 countries (lines 61-62). Please give a short overview of the most implemented strategies for green public procurement in the Green 7 countries. In your opinion, what can Spain learn from the experience in the Green 7 countries?
2. Several references apeear not cited in the manuscript but are found in the reference list: [28], [31], ... please check that all the references appear in the manuscript.
3. From section 4.1. it can be understood that Spain lacks a general green public procurement law (or a climate change law) that would give a mutual and harmonized framework to all the Regional Authorities in Spain. Please comment what should address the future Spanish green procurement law: climate change mitigation, alleviation of resource over-exploitation, promotion of green technologies and energy sources, or even something else?
4. Regional Authorities and Autonomous Communities (Madrid, Catalonia, Basque Country, Navarra, Valencia, etc.) in Spain are putting forward their own energy efficiency strategies for buildings. Please comment on wheter this decentralized and heterogeneous approach for achieving green public procurement is positive or it coud prove disadvantageous in the long term at the national level?
5. Please comment what tools will be used to track and evaluate the actual performance of green public procurement for the buildings sector in Spain. This is because green public procurement, beside price and quality criteria, must look into extrinsic long-term factors such as environmental impact, resource efficiency and social responsibility. What tools/instruments are available or should be developed to assess the performance of green public procurement in Spain? What would be the responsibilities and the duties of Regional interdepartmental committees and the National Commission for the incorporation of ecological criteria in public procurement (lines 793-797)?
6. Please comment on how green public procurement could affect (positevely and negatively) small and medium size enterprises that operate in the buildings sector in Spain. What are the main barriers to the development of a healthy market of green building contractors and green suppliers of building materials and services?
7. Line 370: it says "200.000 kWh/año", correct into 200.000 kWh/year.
8. Lines 583 and 586: you mention building materials with ecolabels type I and type II, but in figure 5 (last row) you say ecolabels type I and type III, is that correct?
9. Line 605: “weed works”? Line 633: “implantation”? Please correct the typos.

Author Response

In the attached file you can find the answers to your review of the article

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors followed all of the reviewer's suggestions. After that, the manuscript will be ready to be published in the Journal.