Establishment of a Sustainability Assessment System for Bridges
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript presents the establishment of a sustainability assessment system for bridges. The authors propose ten key indicators for sustainability evaluation. Questionnaire-based expert interviews were used to compute the weights of each indicator. The project lifecycle stages of design, construction, operation and maintenance, and demolition were considered. An example of a real bridge is presented to illustrate the application of the proposed approach for sustainability assessment.
The manuscript addresses an interesting topic. It is generally well organized and well written. However, the reviewer considers that the manuscript should be entirely reviewed to improve the reading and the ideas presented. The reviewer does not suggest publishing this manuscript in the present format. It can be stated that it represents a valuable contribution concerning the sustainability assessment of bridge projects, but it needs a major revision. Some clarifications, revisions and improvements should be made before the manuscript is ready to publish in this journal.
General comments:
The overall quality of the manuscript will greatly benefit from reorganizing of some content, improving the presentation and enhancing the English. Therefore, the authors should carefully review the entire manuscript addressing these issues.
Please avoid the excessive use of the terms “the authors” and “in this paper”.
Abstract – It is suggested to review the abstract aiming to improve the reading, therefore, to avoid discouraging readers to advance reading the full manuscript.
Introduction – Please remove the first paragraph.
Introduction, last paragraph – Please rephrase to state clearly the aim and scope of the work reported in the manuscript.
The authors should clarify how the 10 key indicators were selected.
Lines 134 to 142 – Please rephrase in order to clarify the adopted approach.
The reviewer suggests removing Section 2.3. It is too short and do not provide relevant information. The use of Microsoft Excel for analysis of results can be referred in other part of the manuscript, for example in Section 2.2.
Please remove the term “The” at the beginning of the Figures and Tables captions’.
Section 3.2.1 should be reorganized. The “background of experts” can be considered as “results”. The information presented from Line 194 to 208 does not belong to “background of experts” and can be considered as “methodology”.
Section 3 – Please remove “Note:” when describing the parameters involved in each equation. Please avoid repeating the meaning of parameters. For example, in Line 214 the authors refer “(k=1 to 4)” and in Line 217 they refer “k ranges from 1 to 4”. In Lines 226 and 227, n and k were defined previously. In Lines 236 to 238 nx and x were defined previously.
Figures 5, 6, 7 and 9 – Please remove the graph header because it duplicates the information presented in the corresponding Figure caption.
In Line 480, the authors refer that “After a detailed discussion among the evaluation members”. The authors should clarify who are the evaluation member and how they were selected.
Specific comments:
Please use “life cycle” instead of “lifecycle” or “lifecycles”.
Lines 12 and 13 – Please correct “we selected ten key indicators” by “ten key indicators were selected”.
Lines 14 and 15 – Please remove “(ER&CER)” and “(H&C)”.
Line 44 – Please correct “The Key Assessment Indicators” by “Key assessment indicators”.
Line 46 – Please replace “our” by “the”.
Lines 52 to 54 – Please rephrase.
Line 76 – Please remove “method”.
Line 82 – Please correct “of the bridges” by “of bridges”.
Line 96 – Please rephrase. The reviewer suggests “After the authors providing a detailed description, the experts …”
Line 110 – Please remove [21-24] and place these references in Line 108 after (TTBT).
Line 122 – Please remove [20] and place this reference in Line 108 after (MAVT).
Line 109 – Please replace “are” by “is”.
Line 115 – The paragraph between Lines 115 and 116 is not needed.
Line 134 – AHP is not defined.
Lines 135 and 137 – Please correct “suiTable”.
Line 139 – The paragraph between Lines 139 and 140 is not needed.
Line 161 – Please correct “By performing the discussion in-depth with the experts” by “By performing an in-depth discussion with the experts”.
Line 162 – Please add “key” before “indicators”.
Line 163 – The bullet point is missing before “Risk mitigation …”
Line 178 – Please correct “contains” by “contain”.
Line 181 – Please correct “for the establishment of the” by “for establishing the”.
Lines 204 and 205 – Please rephrase the sentence.
Line 217 – Please correct “experts participated” by “experts that participated”.
Line 219 – Please use only the abbreviation “TTBT”.
Line 231 – Please correct “project types” by “project stages”.
Line 266 – Please correct “This section presents an example…”
Lines 280 and 281 – Please rephrase the sentence because it repeats the same information presented in Table 2.
Lines 371 and 372 – Please remove. These abbreviations were already defined in the bulleted list presented in Page 5.
Line 407 – Please correct the formatting.
Section 4.2 – The authors use the terms “total score” but in the previous section they use “final score”. Perhaps they are the same and the term “final score” should be used.
Lines 524 to 526 – Please rephrase the sentence.
Line 535 – Please avoid repeating the exact same last sentence of the Abstract.
Author Response
General comments:
The overall quality of the manuscript will greatly benefit from reorganizing of some content, improving the presentation and enhancing the English. Therefore, the authors should carefully review the entire manuscript addressing these issues.
Response:
The authors do appreciate the recommendations provided by the reviewer. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the authors revised the manuscript and described the revision parts in this report's following responses.
Please avoid the excessive use of the terms “the authors” and “in this paper”.
Response:
Some of the “the authors” are revised as “the researchers”, and some of the “in this paper” had been deleted in this manuscript.
Abstract – It is suggested to review the abstract aiming to improve the reading, therefore, to avoid discouraging readers to advance reading the full manuscript.
Response:
We have rewritten the abstract section to improve the reading and avoid discouraging readers to advance reading the full manuscript, as follows: [Line 12-26]
In this paper, with the motivation of “green” and “sustainability” for bridge projects, we selected ten key indicators to establish a reliable and applicable sustainability assessment system. It is also expecting the civil infrastructure could be developed more ecologically, environmentally, and friendly by application of the proposed assessment system. The data collection method in this research is questionnaire-based expert interviews. By adopting the Top Two Boxes Theory (TTBT) and Multiple Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), the questionnaire results were well analyzed and calculated for the weights of the key indicators. Consequently, the Sustainability Assessment System for Green Civil Infrastructure (SASGCI) was established to evaluate the sustainability achievements of infrastructure projects. In this study, the authors conclude the weights of ten key indicators for bridges as follows: risk mitigation & reliability: 15.3%, durability:15.1%, landscape:11.5%, ecology:10.6%, benefit & function:9.7%, environmental protection & carbon emissions reduction: 9.5%, waste reduction: 8.5%, energy-saving: 7.1%, creativity: 7.0%, and humanities & culture reservation: 5.6%. To demonstrate the applicability of using the established SASGCI for the evaluation of sustainability, the authors present a case of a scenic bridge in Taiwan. The result indicates that the evaluation system to be successful.
Introduction – Please remove the first paragraph.
Response:
It is an uncareful mistake. The authors had removed the first paragraph.
Introduction, last paragraph – Please rephrase to state clearly the aim and scope of the work reported in the manuscript.
Response:
The authors enhanced the statements for this study's aim and scope in the last paragraph of the Introduction section. [Line 65-68]
The authors should clarify how the 10 key indicators were selected.
Response:
The authors added a paragraph and Figure 1 to state the selection of these ten key indicators. [Line 75-83]
Lines 134 to 142 – Please rephrase in order to clarify the adopted approach.
Response:
This paragraph is rewritten for more clarity of the adopted approaches MAVT and TTBT. [Line 141-145]
The reviewer suggests removing Section 2.3. It is too short and do not provide relevant information. The use of Microsoft Excel for analysis of results can be referred in other part of the manuscript, for example in Section 2.2.
Response:
The heading of section 2.3 is removed, and the paragraph is merged into end of section 2.2. [Line 146-149]
Please remove the term “The” at the beginning of the Figures and Tables captions’.
Response:
The authors removed all “The” at the beginning of the Figures and Tables.
Section 3.2.1 should be reorganized. The “background of experts” can be considered as “results”. The information presented from Line 194 to 208 does not belong to “background of experts” and can be considered as “methodology”.
Response:
The authors replaced the heading of Secttion 3.2.1 by “Expertise and Education of the Experts”. Also, the line 194 to 208 are moved to 2.2.3. “Definition of each level’s weight”. [Line 150-162]
Section 3 – Please remove “Note:” when describing the parameters involved in each equation. Please avoid repeating the meaning of parameters. For example, in Line 214 the authors refer “(k=1 to 4)” and in Line 217 they refer “k ranges from 1 to 4”. In Lines 226 and 227, n and k were defined previously. In Lines 236 to 238 nx and x were defined previously.
Response:
The authors removed all repeated description in each “Note”.
Figures 5, 6, 7 and 9 – Please remove the graph header because it duplicates the information presented in the corresponding Figure caption.
Response:
The authors removed the header of Figures 5, 6, 7 and 9. The new numbers in the revised manuscript are Figures 7, 8, 9 and 10)
In Line 480, the authors refer that “After a detailed discussion among the evaluation members”. The authors should clarify who are the evaluation member and how they were selected.
Response:
The authors describe the selection of the evaluation committee members in the revised manuscript. [Line 483-487]
Specific comments:
- Please use “life cycle” instead of “lifecycle” or “lifecycles”.
Response:
The authors use “life cycle” instead of all “lifecycle” or “lifecycles”.
- Lines 12 and 13 – Please correct “we selected ten key indicators” by “ten key indicators were selected”.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence. [Line 12-13]
- Lines 14 and 15 – Please remove “(ER&CER)” and “(H&C)”.
Response:
The authors had rewritten the abstract. No “(ER&CER)” and “(H&C)” in the new abstract.
- Line 44 – Please correct “The Key Assessment Indicators” by “Key assessment indicators”.
Response:
The authors removed “The” from this sentence. [Line 37]
- Line 46 – Please replace “our” by “the”.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence. [Line 39]
- Lines 52 to 54 – Please rephrase.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence as” Some infra-45 structure projects performed sustainability practices during the development and the life 46 cycle [9-11].” [Line 45-47]
- Line 76 – Please remove “method”.
Response:
The authors removed the “method” from this sentence. [Line 73]
- Line 82 – Please correct “of the bridges” by “of bridges”.
Response:
The authors removed “the” from this sentence. [Line 88]
- Line 96 – Please rephrase. The reviewer suggests “After the authors providing a detailed description, the experts …”
Response:
The authors revised this sentence following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 102]
- Line 110 – Please remove [21-24] and place these references in Line 108 after (TTBT).
Response:
The authors moved the citation mark [21-24] following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 114, 117]
- Line 122 – Please remove [20] and place this reference in Line 108 after (MAVT).
Response:
The authors moved the citation mark [20] following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 114, 129]
- Line 109 – Please replace “are” by “is”.
Response:
The authors replaced “are” by “is” in this sentence. [Line 115]
- Line 115 – The paragraph between Lines 115 and 116 is not needed.
Response:
The authors deleted the paragraph between Lines 115 and 116.
- Line 134 – AHP is not defined.
Response:
The authors added the “analytic hierarchy process” before (AHP). [Line 141]
- Lines 135 and 137 – Please correct “suiTable”.
Response:
The authors had rewritten this sentence and no “suitable” in it.
- Line 139 – The paragraph between Lines 139 and 140 is not needed.
Response:
The authors deleted the paragraph between Lines 115 and 116.
- Line 161 – Please correct “By performing the discussion in-depth with the experts” by “By performing an in-depth discussion with the experts”.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 178]
- Line 162 – Please add “key” before “indicators”.
Response:
The authors added “key” in this sentence. [Line 179]
- Line 163 – The bullet point is missing before “Risk mitigation …”
Response:
The authors added the bullet point to this sentence. [Line 180]
- Line 178 – Please correct “contains” by “contain”.
Response:
The authors corrected this mistake. [Line 195]
- Line 181 – Please correct “for the establishment of the” by “for establishing the”.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 198]
- Lines 204 and 205 – Please rephrase the sentence.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence as “We can simulate the weights of the SASGCI as a 3-D matrix, and the Wijk is located in the corresponding location of this matrix.”. Please note this sentence is moved to section 2.2.3. [Line 160-161]
- Line 217 – Please correct “experts participated” by “experts that participated”.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 221]
- Line 219 – Please use only the abbreviation “TTBT”.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 223]
- Line 231 – Please correct “project types” by “project stages”.
Response:
The authors corrected the “project types” by “project stages”. [Line 222]
- Line 266 – Please correct “This section presents an example…”
Response:
The authors revised this sentence following reviewer’s suggestion. [Line 261]
- Lines 280 and 281 – Please rephrase the sentence because it repeats the same information presented in Table 2.
Response:
The authors removed the percentage mark from this sentence. [Line 275-276]
- Lines 371 and 372 – Please remove. These abbreviations were already defined in the bulleted list presented in Page 5.
Response:
The authors removed these abbreviations.
- Line 407 – Please correct the formatting.
Response:
The authors corrected the formatting. [Line 412]
- Section 4.2 – The authors use the terms “total score” but in the previous section they use “final score”. Perhaps they are the same and the term “final score” should be used.
Response:
The authors revised the “”total score”” as “final score”. [Line 417-421]
- Lines 524 to 526 – Please rephrase the sentence.
Response:
The authors revised this sentence as “By performing the face-to-face interviews with 47 experts, the authors gather the data to determine the weight.” [Line 531-532]
- Line 535 – Please avoid repeating the exact same last sentence of the Abstract.
Response
The authors revised this sentence as “The evaluation results of the BSB, which indicate that the SASGCI is a practical and functional tool to determine the sustainability achievement of civil infrastructures.” [Line 541-543]
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In the paper entitled “Establishment of a Sustainability Assessment System for Bridges”, ten key indicators (risk mitigation and reliability, ecology, environmental protection and carbon emissions reduction (ER&CER), energy saving, waste reduction, durability, benefits and functions, landscape, humanities and culture preservation (H&C), and creativity) were selected to establish an assessment system for bridges. By adopting the Top Two Boxes Theory (TTBT) and Multiple Attribute Value Theory (MAVT), the questionnaire results were well analyzed and calculated for the weights of the key indicators. The Sustainability Assessment System for Green Civil Infrastructure (SASGCI) was established to evaluate the sustainability achievements of bridge projects.
COMMENTS
The paper could be made shorter and more comprehensive, and concise. Some parts are very analytical, and it looks like reading a Master Thesis than a research Article.
The results presented in some tables could also be shown in graphs to look more attractive to the reader.
Figures 11 and 12 (Photos of the BSB (1), (2) [19]) are similar, so Figure 12 could be deleted, and Figure 11 to become: Photo of the BSB [19].
Author Response
The paper could be made shorter and more comprehensive, and concise. Some parts are very analytical, and it looks like reading a Master Thesis than a research Article.
Response:
The authors do appreciate the recommendations provided by the reviewer. The authors aim to detailed introduce the SASGCI for readers’ understanding. The calculation steps are significantly complicated due to the weights for each layer contain a massive quantity. In this research, the authors only highlight an example for the calculation of each layer. To remove or shorten any part of the calculation step may cause misunderstanding to the readers. The authors hope to keep the needed contents of this manuscript for the overall realization of the readers.
Figures 11 and 12 (Photos of the BSB (1), (2) [19]) are similar, so Figure 12 could be deleted, and Figure 11 to become: Photo of the BSB [19].
Response:
The authors deleted Figure 11 from the manuscript. The Figure had been revised as Figure 14.
The results presented in some tables could also be shown in graphs to look more attractive to the reader.
Response:
The authors do appreciate the recommendations provided by the reviewer.
All tables in the manuscript are a summary of the calculation steps. The most important one is Table 7, To look more attractive to the reader, the authors added the Figure 11 and 12 to show the statistic information of different groups of experts in this research. [Line 366-379]
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed all the reviewer’s comments and the quality of the manuscript was improved. However, the authors should make an additional revision to correct some issues and improve the answer to some reviewer’s comments that were not properly addressed.
#1 – In the previous revision, the reviewer referred that: “The overall quality of the manuscript will greatly benefit from reorganizing of some content, improving the presentation and enhancing the English. Therefore, the authors should carefully review the entire manuscript addressing these issues”. The authors’ response was “The authors do appreciate the recommendations provided by the reviewer. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the authors revised the manuscript and described the revision parts in this report's following responses”. This comment was not properly addressed because the answer does not provide relevant information and a thoroughly revision of the manuscript's English is recommended.
#2 – In the previous revision, the reviewer recommended, “Please avoid the excessive use of the terms “the authors” and “in this paper”. The authors answered: “Some of the “the authors” are revised as “the researchers”, and some of the “in this paper” had been deleted in this manuscript”. In the current version, the authors use the terms “we understood” (Line 141) and “we can simulate” (Line 160). This comment was not adequately addressed. Impersonal language should be used when writing a scientific journal article.
#3 – Although the Abstract was revised, its English still needs an improvement. For example, in Lines 24 and 25 it is suggested: “An example of a scenic bridge in Taiwan is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the established SASGCI for sustainability evaluation”.
#4 – The reviewer referred in the previous revision “Please remove the term “The” at the beginning of the Figures and Tables captions’”. This was done for all the Figures and Tables of the previous version. However, in the current version Figures 11 and 12 were added and the same comment applies again. This is a careless mistake.
#5 – The reviewer referred in the previous revision “Section 3 – Please remove “Note:” when describing the parameters involved in each equation”. This comment was not addressed and should be corrected. The use of “Note:” is not a common way for describing the parameters involved in each equation.
#6 – Line 223 – Please remove “top two boxes theory” and use only the abbreviation “TTBT”.
#7 – Line 4 – Please remove “life cycle”.
#8 – Line 72 – Please remove “method”.
#9 – Line 73 – Please add “methods” after “[21-24]”.
#10 – Line 129 – Please remove “[20]”.
#11 – Line 132 – Please replace “Multiple Attribute Value Theory (MAVT)” by “MAVT”.
#12 – Line 179 – Please replace “bridge” by “bridges”.
#13 – Figure 3 - Point A is missing.
#14 – Line 223 – Please correct “top two boxes theory TTBT” by “TTBT”.
#15 – Line 485 – “ROC” is not defined.
#16 – Line 541 – Please correct “The evaluation results of the BSB indicate that the SASGCI is…”
Author Response
#1 - In the previous revision, the reviewer referred that: “The overall quality of the manuscript will greatly benefit from reorganizing of some content, improving the presentation and enhancing the English. Therefore, the authors should carefully review the entire manuscript addressing these issues”. The authors’ response was “The authors do appreciate the recommendations provided by the reviewer. Based on the reviewer’s comments, the authors revised the manuscript and described the revision parts in this report's following responses”. This comment was not properly addressed because the answer does not provide relevant information and a thoroughly revision of the manuscript's English is recommended.
Response:
The authors reorganized some contents, such as moving the 3.2.1 contents to the methodology section to be more understandable for the readers.
In, addition, the authors added Figure 1 along with the description to provide the reason for ten key indicators’ selection. Also, the authors added Figures 11, 12, and some corresponding statements to provide more experts’ interview results, and it could be more attractive to readers’ attention.
An editing service had edited this manuscript before the first submission. It was edited for proper English language, grammar, spelling, and overall style by one or more of the highly qualified native English-speaking editors. In this R2 version, a thoroughly minor revision of the manuscript's English was performed. The authors hope that it can meet the English quality requirement for publication.
#2 – In the previous revision, the reviewer recommended, “Please avoid the excessive use of the terms “the authors” and “in this paper”. The authors answered: “Some of the “the authors” are revised as “the researchers”, and some of the “in this paper” had been deleted in this manuscript”. In the current version, the authors use the terms “we understood” (Line 141) and “we can simulate” (Line 160). This comment was not adequately addressed. Impersonal language should be used when writing a scientific journal article.
Response:
All “we” in the manuscript have been replaced by some other subject terms. Please refer to the line 141 and 160.
#3 – Although the Abstract was revised, its English still needs an improvement. For example, in Lines 24 and 25 it is suggested: “An example of a scenic bridge in Taiwan is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the established SASGCI for sustainability evaluation”.
Response:
The sentence in Line 24 and 25 has be revised to “An example of a scenic bridge in Taiwan is presented to demonstrate the applicability of the established SASGCI for sustainability evaluation.”
#4 – The reviewer referred in the previous revision “Please remove the term “The” at the beginning of the Figures and Tables captions’”. This was done for all the Figures and Tables of the previous version. However, in the current version Figures 11 and 12 were added and the same comment applies again. This is a careless mistake.
Response:
The authors do apologize for this careless mistake. It has been revised in R2 version.
#5 – The reviewer referred in the previous revision “Section 3 – Please remove “Note:” when describing the parameters involved in each equation”. This comment was not addressed and should be corrected. The use of “Note:” is not a common way for describing the parameters involved in each equation.
Response:
The authors remove all “Note:” from the contents.
#6 – Line 223 – Please remove “top two boxes theory” and use only the abbreviation “TTBT”.
Response:
The authors remove “top two boxes theory” and use only the abbreviation “TTBT”.
#7 – Line 4 – Please remove “life cycle”.
Response:
The authors remove “life cycle” from Line 4.
#8 – Line 72 – Please remove “method”.
Response:
The authors remove “method”from Line 72.
#9 – Line 73 – Please add “methods” after “[21-24]”.
Response:
The authors add “methods” after “[21-24]” in Line 73.
#10 – Line 129 – Please remove “[20]”.
Response:
The authors remove “[20]”from Line 129.
#11 – Line 132 – Please replace “Multiple Attribute Value Theory (MAVT)” by “MAVT”.
Response:
The authors use only the abbreviation MAVT in Line 132.
#12 – Line 179 – Please replace “bridge” by “bridges”.
Response:
The authors replace “bridge” by “bridges” in Line 179.
#13 – Figure 3 - Point A is missing.
Response:
The authors revise Figure 3 and add the mark of point (A).
#14 – Line 223 – Please correct “top two boxes theory TTBT” by “TTBT”.
Response:
The authors use only the abbreviation TTBT in Line 223.
#15 – Line 485 – “ROC” is not defined.
Response:
The authors define the ROC to be “Republic of China” in Line 485.
#16 – Line 541 – Please correct “The evaluation results of the BSB indicate that the SASGCI is…”
Response:
The authors correct the sentence in Line 541 to be “The evaluation results of the BSB indicate that the SASGCI is a practical and functional tool to determine the sustainability achievement of civil infrastructures.”.
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised paper can now be accepted for publication.
Author Response
The revised paper can now be accepted for publication.
Response:
Thank you very much.
