Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. 1. t is highly appreciated to the authors, who provide comprehensive statistical data to be a useful reference for other researchers. Thus, the contribution of this review article is recommended to be enhanced in the Abstract and Conclusion sections.
   2. The Figure seems not to be a framework of the review article. It more like a list for the review work.  The authors are recommended to create a new framework to illustrate this article's review steps/levels clearly.
   3. Line 84-86, “Finally, the fourth phase defined the search procedure and how and to what extent each database was emptied.”, the meaning is not exact.
   4. Line 106-108, It is quite a long sentence. The authors are recommended to rewrite this sentence by using other terms, such as,

        XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

   • XXXXX-example: XXXX,
   • XXXXX-example: XXXX

        XXXXXXXXXXXX

   5. Please provide more explanation for Table 2. What is the difference between the Mt&St1 and St4?
   6. Line 149-153, it is recommended to be listed as,

    

        1) XXXX

        2) XXXX

        3) XXXX

    

   7. Line 189-198, again, it is not an unmistakable style to describe the results.
   8. The article doi:10.3390/su11072117 to be listed as the reference is recommended.
   9. It looks that the first paragraph of the Conclusion is not a concluded statement. It is recommended to move to some other section of the manuscript.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for giving us constructive suggestions which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. It has been reworked following the recommendations and suggestions made.

Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: a Review" as well as the answers to each comment and indications of the modifications carried out on the manuscript. All changes in the main text are highlighted in orange. Some new citations have been included as suggested by the reviewers. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper and are expected to fulfill the reviewers’ suggestions.

1. t is highly appreciated to the authors, who provide comprehensive statistical data to be a useful reference for other researchers. Thus, the contribution of this review article is recommended to be enhanced in the Abstract and Conclusion sections.

 

• We thank the reviewer for this positive comment and we agree with the reviewer that this is a very important issue. Therefore, we have added this contribution in both parts of the article.

 

1. The Figure seems not to be a framework of the review article. It more like a list for the review work.  The authors are recommended to create a new framework to illustrate this article's review steps/levels clearly.

 

• We agree with the reviewer that Figure 1 is not a framework of our review. Instead, this Figure presents the steps followed in our review. We have weighed the possibility of elaborating a framework but, in our opinion, in this part of the article about the methodology, a diagram with only the steps and no results is required. On the other hand, later on in the article we think that it is better to focus on the results of our review. Finally, we have decided to change the caption of the figure to solve this weakness that the reviewer found out.

 

1. Line 84-86, “Finally, the fourth phase defined the search procedure and how and to what extent each database was emptied.”, the meaning is not exact.

 

• We agree with the reviewer that this part needed improvement and we have explained more this part (now lines 87-90).

 

1. Line 106-108, It is quite a long sentence. The authors are recommended to rewrite this sentence by using other terms, such as,

     XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

• XXXXX-example: XXXX,
• XXXXX-example: XXXX

     XXXXXXXXXXXX

• We agree with the reviewer that this part needed improvement and we have modified it.

1. Please provide more explanation for Table 2. What is the difference between the Mt&St1 and St4?

 

• We totally agree with the reviewer that this part was not properly presented. There was a problem with St4 that we have solved, and we have added a legend explaining each term.

 

1. Line 149-153, it is recommended to be listed as,

 

     1) XXXX

     2) XXXX

     3) XXXX

• We agree with the reviewer and we have done so.

 

1. Line 189-198, again, it is not an unmistakable style to describe the results.

 

• We agree with the reviewer and we have rewritten this paragraph to improve its readability. Another English language reviewer has also revised the text to improve it.

 

 

1. The article doi:10.3390/su11072117 to be listed as the reference is recommended.

• We agree with the reviewer and this reference been added in line 53

 

1. It looks that the first paragraph of the Conclusion is not a concluded statement. It is recommended to move to some other section of the manuscript.

10. We agree with the reviewer and we have moved it to the beginning of the analysis before improving it.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides a clear presentation of a literature review based on keyword search in scientific databases.

However, it is a serious limitation that the review does the include 'renovation' as one of the keywords. 'Building renovation' and other combinations of the term 'renovation' is frequently used in scientific papers, including articles in 'Sustainability' journal, and it is also used by the EU, for instance in the Horizon 2020 programme. 

Including 'renovation' would have added a large number of studies to the review. Instead the paper uses the keyword 'restauration', which did not provide any hits. This limitation greatly distorts the results.

I suggest that the study is repeated with 'renovation' replacing 'restauration'.

I also lack definitions and discussions of the keywords used in the review (Table 1): 'refurbishing', 'retrofitting' and 'restauration'. 

 

   

Author Response

We would like to thank you for giving us constructive suggestions which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. It has been reworked following the recommendations and suggestions made.

Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: a Review" as well as the answers to each comment and indications of the modifications carried out on the manuscript. All changes in the main text are highlighted in orange. Some new citations have been included as suggested by the reviewers. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper and are expected to fulfill the reviewers’ suggestions.

The paper provides a clear presentation of a literature review based on keyword search in scientific databases.

• We thank the reviewer for this positive comment

However, it is a serious limitation that the review does the include 'renovation' as one of the keywords. 'Building renovation' and other combinations of the term 'renovation' is frequently used in scientific papers, including articles in 'Sustainability' journal, and it is also used by the EU, for instance in the Horizon 2020 programme. 

Including 'renovation' would have added a large number of studies to the review. Instead the paper uses the keyword 'restauration', which did not provide any hits. This limitation greatly distorts the results.

I suggest that the study is repeated with 'renovation' replacing 'restauration'.

• The authors totally agree with these comments. To solve them, we have corrected restauration for restoration and we have added renovation as well. This has added 226 important studies while 194 results from this new search were already present in the previous searches.

I also lack definitions and discussions of the keywords used in the review (Table 1): 'refurbishing', 'retrofitting' and 'restauration'. 

• The authors agree with the reviewer that this issue should be solved. We have added the definitions and discussion in the fourth paragraph of section 3.1.

Reviewer 3 Report

line 9-10: "is time that architecture and its 10 sector minimize their high negative impacts and maximize their
contribution to sustainability" - There was such time, not long ago...

line 29: "moving towards a less polluting model [3]." in what sense - less poluting?

32-33: "these solutions would be sustainable following the modern times holistic definition of sustainability"
Are there other definitions of "sustainability"? May be they also should be given here to give thre Reader more
objective view?

102-103: "St1) sustainability assessment (SA) in architecture, St2) SA in
103 construction, St3) SA in refurbishment and St4) SA in restauration. This"

Why exploitation was not included?

 

style/grammar
58: "this present review" ???
73-74: "ii) Assessing results chronologically and bibliography" ??
92: "on how each related to the main objective in this review." ??
152: "9) Real state" Real estate?
194: "focusing on their parts maintenance and refurbishment"
243: "than 2% of the article have" - articles?
308: "practice to find out to what extend" - extent?

 

Table 2 is very awkwardly divided

Author Response

We would like to thank you for giving us constructive suggestions which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. It has been reworked following the recommendations and suggestions made.

Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: a Review" as well as the answers to each comment and indications of the modifications carried out on the manuscript. All changes in the main text are highlighted in orange. Some new citations have been included as suggested by the reviewers. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper and are expected to fulfill the reviewers’ suggestions.

line 9-10: "is time that architecture and its 10 sector minimize their high negative impacts and maximize their
contribution to sustainability" - There was such time, not long ago...

line 29: "moving towards a less polluting model [3]." in what sense - less poluting?

• The authors agree with the reviewer that these issues should be solved. They have further explained this issues and a professional English language reviewer has also revised the text to improve it.

32-33: "these solutions would be sustainable following the modern times holistic definition of sustainability"
Are there other definitions of "sustainability"? May be they also should be given here to give thre Reader more
objective view?

• The authors agree with the reviewer that this issue had to be solved and have added other sustainability factors added later by other research projects and their references.

102-103: "St1) sustainability assessment (SA) in architecture, St2) SA in
103 construction, St3) SA in refurbishment and St4) SA in restauration. This"

Why exploitation was not included?

• The authors agree with the reviewer that exploitation would be an interesting issue to study. However, this issue is beyond this article that focuses on design, construction refurbishment and restoration. Nevertheless, there were some parts of the article that needed further clarifying the scope of the article and the authors have done so.

style/grammar
58: "this present review" ???
73-74: "ii) Assessing results chronologically and bibliography" ??
92: "on how each related to the main objective in this review." ??
152: "9) Real state" Real estate?
194: "focusing on their parts maintenance and refurbishment"
243: "than 2% of the article have" - articles?
308: "practice to find out to what extend" - extent?

• The authors agree with the reviewer that these issues should be solved. A professional English language reviewer has also revised the text to improve it.

Table 2 is very awkwardly divided

• We totally agree with the reviewer that this table was not properly done. There was a problem with St4 that we have solved, and we have added a legend explaining each term.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

Presenting the different sustainability evaluation alternatives developed in research in the fields of architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration, is informative and important. However, in order to emphasize the contribution of the review in presenting the topics, and for the usefulness of this review, it is recommended that the authors address the following comments.

 1. General Comments

Corrections are required regarding grammar, and the editing of sentences. It is important to use the right words for accurate presentation. If the text is improved, the message you intend to convey will be much clearer and more understandable. Beyond that, using the right word may fundamentally change the results of the review and its conclusions. Some examples that require appropriate consideration are presented below.

a. Analysis, page 9, line 276. "In this present review these energy studies have been the fifth group of tools used, which the authors explain because this review focused on sustainability but not on energy and no search word covered this field because it was not the scope". The formulation of the sentence is required.

b. Title, results, conclusions. "restauration". Was the wording intended to use the term "restoration"? If so, the terminology should be corrected throughout the review sections.

c. All data should be substantially examined in accordance with the terminology relating to "restoration" in the search results.

 2. Specific comments

2.1. Abstract

The title of the review refers to the sustainability of architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration. However, in the description of the purpose of the review the reference is to "sustainable architecture" only. It is required to explain the separation between the concepts in the title compared to the generalization proposed by the authors in the description of the review and its purpose.

2.2. Introduction – Section 1

In presenting the definition of sustainability it is important to refer to culture, which is its fourth pillar, as a reference base. The concept of culture is of particular importance to this review in view of the fact that it is intended to present data in relation to restoration. It is possible that a lack of reference to the culture may lead to a distortion in the search results. If there is no intention to refer to all concepts, this must be explained.

2.3. Preparation – Section 3.1

It is required to explain explicitly why construction, refurbishment and restoration were presented separately from architecture in the title of the review and yet are also presented as part of architecture in examining the data.

2.4. Detailed results – Section 3.5

Against the background of the objectives of the review, it would have been worthwhile to present a division of the results according to the pillars of sustainability with regard to architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration.

2.5. Analysis – Section 4

It is not clear what the practical significance of the findings is in terms of the different types of sustainability in relation to the selected topics. Against the background of the objectives of the review, it would have been worthwhile to present a discussion of the results according to the pillars of sustainability, with reference to architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration.

2.6. Conclusions – Section 5

The concluding reference in this review is to the articles while it was noted that it was also based on additional sources. It was also noted that this review included "the most important articles". It is not explained by what criteria this definition was determined. Formulation and explanation are required.

                                             

Author Response

We would like to thank you for giving us constructive suggestions which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. It has been reworked following the recommendations and suggestions made.

Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: a Review" as well as the answers to each comment and indications of the modifications carried out on the manuscript. All changes in the main text are highlighted in orange. Some new citations have been included as suggested by the reviewers. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper and are expected to fulfill the reviewers’ suggestions.

Presenting the different sustainability evaluation alternatives developed in research in the fields of architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration, is informative and important. However, in order to emphasize the contribution of the review in presenting the topics, and for the usefulness of this review, it is recommended that the authors address the following comments.

• We thank the reviewer for this positive comment and we agree with the reviewer that the review can improve in the reviewer’s following comments that we have addressed as follows.

1. General Comments

Corrections are required regarding grammar, and the editing of sentences. It is important to use the right words for accurate presentation. If the text is improved, the message you intend to convey will be much clearer and more understandable. Beyond that, using the right word may fundamentally change the results of the review and its conclusions. Some examples that require appropriate consideration are presented below.

• The authors agree with the reviewer that the English language needed improvement and in this sense a professional English language reviewer has revised the text.

276. Analysis, page 9, line 276. "In this present review these energy studies have been the fifth group of tools used, which the authors explain because this review focused on sustainability but not on energy and no search word covered this field because it was not the scope". The formulation of the sentence is required.

• The authors agree with the reviewer that this issue should be solved. A professional English language reviewer has also revised the text to improve it.

 

1. Title, results, conclusions. "restauration". Was the wording intended to use the term "restoration"? If so, the terminology should be corrected throughout the review sections.

• The authors intended to use restoration. Thus, they have corrected it throughout the review sections.

1. All data should be substantially examined in accordance with the terminology relating to "restoration" in the search results.

• The authors have done so

2. Specific comments

2.1. Abstract

The title of the review refers to the sustainability of architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration. However, in the description of the purpose of the review the reference is to "sustainable architecture" only. It is required to explain the separation between the concepts in the title compared to the generalization proposed by the authors in the description of the review and its purpose.

• The authors agree with the reviewer that this issue should be solved. Some changes have been made in the abstract to solve it although we have been limited by the editorial constrains

2.2. Introduction – Section 1

In presenting the definition of sustainability it is important to refer to culture, which is its fourth pillar, as a reference base. The concept of culture is of particular importance to this review in view of the fact that it is intended to present data in relation to restoration. It is possible that a lack of reference to the culture may lead to a distortion in the search results. If there is no intention to refer to all concepts, this must be explained.

• The authors agree with the reviewer that this issue should be solved. Some changes have been made in the introduction to solve it. Culture has been included as an extra pillar for some studies. Also, the culture pillar has been analyzed in the results and in the discussion.

2.3. Preparation – Section 3.1

It is required to explain explicitly why construction, refurbishment and restoration were presented separately from architecture in the title of the review and yet are also presented as part of architecture in examining the data.

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer that this issue should be improved. The authors have kept the separation of these issues from the previous sections to the following.

2.4. Detailed results – Section 3.5

Against the background of the objectives of the review, it would have been worthwhile to present a division of the results according to the pillars of sustainability with regard to architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration.

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer and have added figure 5.

2.5. Analysis – Section 4

It is not clear what the practical significance of the findings is in terms of the different types of sustainability in relation to the selected topics. Against the background of the objectives of the review, it would have been worthwhile to present a discussion of the results according to the pillars of sustainability, with reference to architecture, construction, refurbishment and restoration.

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer and have added a discussion in this sense.

2.6. Conclusions – Section 5

The concluding reference in this review is to the articles while it was noted that it was also based on additional sources. It was also noted that this review included "the most important articles". It is not explained by what criteria this definition was determined. Formulation and explanation are required.

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer and have further explained this part that has been moved to the analysis part.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accepted manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

 

The authors addressed the comments and presented an improved version. However, some revisions are required.

1. Distribution of the data according to all the pillars of sustainability and in relation to the topics of the report

(a) Since the authors chose to address the four pillars of sustainability and even discussed them in the detailed results section, it is worthwhile to present also the cultural aspect in Figure 4, which distributes the data according to the pillars of sustainability in the report.

(b) It is worthwhile to present the cultural aspect in Figure 5, which divides the data according to the pillars of sustainability, and in relation to the topics of the report.

2. Details of BIM combination results in the report

Since the authors chose to address BIM in the report, it is important to present it in the context of the topics of discussion and their objectives.

(a) BIM has become a very important method in the context of each of the topics the authors have chosen to present, so it is worthwhile to detail in the report the distribution of references to BIM by each of the topics: design, construction, refurbishment, and restoration.

(b) Moreover, the BIM combination trend has gained popularity in relation to sustainability, with reference to its environmental, economic, social and cultural aspect in green building. Hence, it is therefore worthwhile to address them in the report.

(c) A discussion of the BIM combination trend, against the background of presenting references to it in the detailed results, may help in associating BIM with the promotion of each of the topics selected in the report.

 

Author Response

We would like to thank you for giving us constructive suggestions which helped us to improve the quality of the paper. It has been reworked following the recommendations and suggestions made.

Please find attached the new version of the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Design, Construction, Refurbishment and Restoration of Architecture: a Review" as well as the answers to each comment and indications of the modifications carried out on the manuscript. All changes in the main text are highlighted in orange. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper and are expected to fulfill the reviewers’ suggestions.

- First comment: “1. Distribution of the data according to all the pillars of sustainability and in relation to the topics of the report

(a) Since the authors chose to address the four pillars of sustainability and even discussed them in the detailed results section, it is worthwhile to present also the cultural aspect in Figure 4, which distributes the data according to the pillars of sustainability in the report.”

• We suppose there is a misunderstanding with this issue. The authors and this review is based on the “current holistic definition of sustainability, provided by the Brundtland Commission report [6] and following studies [7] that have included economic, social and environmental areas” lines 34-5. The authors also take into consideration that later studies have considered other sustainability branches “Some later research projects have addressed technical [8], governance [9] or cultural factors, among others [10]” lines 36-7. Nevertheless, we also suppose that this issue needed further clarification and this is why we have added in line 224 “- according to its current holistic definition [6,7] -”. This definition does consider cultural aspects as well as other issues such as governance, technical… but within the social branch among others. Furthermore, adding the cultural branch in Figure 4 would bring, from our point of view, more confusion than any information, because the number of studies focusing on this issue is less than 5% and distributed irregularly over most of the years. Instead we think that it is better to explain it and we have done so in lines 230-232. In order to have the information about the distribution of studies focusing on cultural issues over the years we have added in lines 232-234 “These cultural-focused studies were published from 1994 to 2020, irregularly distributed over the years, with a slight increase in the last two years.”.

- Second comment: “(b) It is worthwhile to present the cultural aspect in Figure 5, which divides the data according to the pillars of sustainability, and in relation to the topics of the report.”

• Following the previous response to the reviewer, we have not added the cultural branch in Figure 5 either. We have not added further information either because, from our point of view, lines 231-232 already present in words the distribution of studies focusing on cultural issues “in relation to the topics of the report.”

 

- Third comment: “2.Details of BIM combination results in the report

Since the authors chose to address BIM in the report, it is important to present it in the context of the topics of discussion and their objectives.

(a) BIM has become a very important method in the context of each of the topics the authors have chosen to present, so it is worthwhile to detail in the report the distribution of references to BIM by each of the topics: design, construction, refurbishment, and restoration.”

• The authors totally agree with the reviewer and have added in lines 266-267 “from which nine focused on design topic, four on construction, two on refurbishment and one on restoration [131].”.

- Fourth comment: “(b) Moreover, the BIM combination trend has gained popularity in relation to sustainability, with reference to its environmental, economic, social and cultural aspect in green building. Hence, it is therefore worthwhile to address them in the report.”

• We agree with the reviewer and we have added the previously mentioned in lines 267-269 “Only four BIM-combined articles had a holistic approach to sustainability, eight focused on environmental issues and five on environmental and economic issues.”.

 (c) A discussion of the BIM combination trend, against the background of presenting references to it in the detailed results, may help in associating BIM with the promotion of each of the topics selected in the report.

• We agree with the reviewer and we have added at the end of the analysis “To the best of the authors’ knowledge, these new tendencies have not focused on cultural issues, apart from one article integrating heritage BIM tools for the sustainability assessment [131]. Since 2013 sustainability assessment models combined with BIM have been applied to design [130], construction [149], refurbishment [132] and restoration [131]. These models have been developed in theoretical articles [138], applied to case studies [150] and studied in reviews [107]. Therefore, the authors foresee that this BIM combination will continue the previously mentioned current increasing tendency in the upcoming years.”. And in the conclusions “Based on the analysis of the BIM-combined tools, the authors foresee the publication of related studies in the future.”.