A Holistic Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the Nigerian Construction Projects
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
this research topic is very interesting. I appreciate that the Authors did a lot of background work on the surveys, and I especially appreciate that the role of BIM was also included in the surveys. I consider exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to be a good idea. This paper is written logically. The Authors summarizes many professional literatures. However, the Authors did not really review much of the recent literature. The “Conclusions” chapter would need to be rewritten by the Authors. It can provide an effective opportunity for researchers working in the field of Waste Management, Life Cycle Assessment (especially in End-of-Life stage of demolition and construction waste) and building industry.
Keywords: I would rethink the Keywords! Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), demolition and construction waste, and Pattern matrix. Mentioning these keywords would be more important, sustainable development and waste management instead of words.
Figures and tables: The figures are very blurry; tables are out of margin. I think a change in size is needed. It is important that Authors review the formal requirements of the journal, and this finding of mine also applies to the full text.
- Figures are blurry! In addition to Figure 1, it would be advisable to indicate a literature in brackets and a statistical year in the caption of this figure.
- In Figure 2, it would be important to be able to see the location and number of landfills, but it is not visible at all. Map of Nigeria from the left and I do not think it is important to include it.
- I suggest the Authors to divide Figure 3 into 4 different (but at least two) figures, because this figure is completely opaque. The figure is very blurry.
- Tables are out of margin! Table 2 contains not only formal but also scientific errors (numerically).
References: The Authors have reviewed a lot of literature on the research topic; however, they did not really review much of the recent literature. It is necessary to review the formal style of the references. For example: DOI numbers are missing in several places.
Major professional deficiencies:
- I miss the presentation of the EPD modules in this article (life cycle stages from raw material extraction to building use and demolition to waste generation). Without this, the analysis cannot be considered a holistic analysis.
- I miss the relevant national and international standards, legislation, and guidelines.
- In a separate section or in a few sentences I would describe the procedures suitable for the treatment of demolition and construction waste and applied treatment technologies in practice.
This paper may be accepted after a major revision.
Author Response
Point 1: This research topic is very interesting. I appreciate that the Authors did a lot of background work on the surveys, and I especially appreciate that the role of BIM was also included in the surveys. I consider exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to be a good idea. This paper is written logically. The Authors summarizes many professional literatures. However, the Authors did not really review much of the recent literature.
Response 1: The review conducted in area of study (Nigeria) indicates that no recent work has been done on the research topic. Only literatures (between 2000-2019) were reviewed. Also, cross-checking the references, it was discovered recent literatures reviewed in the study is sufficient enough (see the references in line 455-535).
Point 2: The “Conclusions” chapter would need to be rewritten by the Authors. It can provide an effective opportunity for researchers working in the field of Waste Management, Life Cycle Assessment (especially in End-of-Life stage of demolition and construction waste) and building industry.
Response 2: The conclusion has been rewritten and consideration is given to reviewers’ suggestion. (See line 400-430).
Point 3: Keywords: I would rethink the Keywords! Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), demolition and construction waste, and Pattern matrix. Mentioning these keywords would be more important, sustainable development and waste management instead of words.
Response 3: The keywords has been addressed, the suggested keywords by the reviewers has been considered and added to the keywords in the manuscripts. (See the keywords in line 25-27).
Point 4: Figures and tables: The figures are very blurry; tables are out of margin. I think a change in size is needed. It is important that Authors review the formal requirements of the journal, and this finding of mine also applies to the full text. Figures are blurry! In addition to Figure 1, it would be advisable to indicate a literature in brackets and a statistical year in the caption of this figure. In Figure 2, it would be important to be able to see the location and number of landfills, but it is not visible at all. Map of Nigeria from the left and I do not think it is important to include it. I suggest the Authors to divide Figure 3 into 4 different (but at least two) figures, because this figure is completely opaque. The figure is very blurry. Tables are out of margin! Table 2 contains not only formal but also scientific errors (numerically).
Response 4: The blurry figures has been replaced with a clearer coloured figure. While the margin for the tables is adjusted to suit the prescribed margin. The figures replaced for figure is now clearer and numbers of landfills can be visible while map of Nigeria is now unnecessary and has been removed. Also, figure 3 has been replaced with a table to show clearly the demographic information which was formally presented by a figure (See line 227).
Point 5: References: The Authors have reviewed a lot of literature on the research topic; however, they did not really review much of the recent literature. It is necessary to review the formal style of the references. For example: DOI numbers are missing in several places.
Response 5: The references has been corrected. Doi is now been provided. (See in references line 455-535).
Point 6: Major professional deficiencies: I miss the presentation of the EPD modules in this article (life cycle stages from raw material extraction to building use and demolition to waste generation). Without this, the analysis cannot be considered a holistic analysis. I miss the relevant national and international standards, legislation, and guidelines. In a separate section or in a few sentences I would describe the procedures suitable for the treatment of demolition and construction waste and applied treatment technologies in practice.
Response 6: The research only considered evaluating the waste management strategies in construction projects in Nigeria using the professionals and stakeholders to provide a status quo indication and define whether the practices are sustainable. The selected variables are sustainable waste management strategies and the level of its implementation in Nigeria shows the status quo of waste management in the country. Relevant standards, legislation and guidelines is now included in the manuscript (see line 118-120).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript entitled “A holistic assessment of construction and demolition waste management in the Nigerian construction projects” evaluated the current C&DW management strategies via through survey questionnaires and literature review. The exploratory factor analysis clarified management strategies into three (3) clusters. The authors made comprehensive analysis and clearly explained the current situation of waste management in Nigeria. However, some small issues need to be addressed be it can be accepted for publication.
- The abstract I incompleted, especially the last part of it.
- Line 283, there is no Table 7.13. Author should correct it.
- Authors should give some suggestions to improve the sustainability of waste management based on the findings in this research.
Author Response
- The abstract has been completed.
- The line 283 has been checked and the figure is corrected as figure 3.
- Suggestion to improve the sustainability has being given as indicated in line 396-402.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
the quality and formal structure of the figures and tables, and the entire text of this article have greatly improved.
