Assessment of Modular Construction System Made with Low Environmental Impact Construction Materials for Achieving Sustainable Housing Projects

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work based on the WikiHouse Skylark 250 model, and uses blowing technology to apply wheat straw as insulation material to building structures, which improved assembly efficiency, reduced energy consumption and housing construction costs, is expected to become a competitive alternative in the construction market. However, some minor modifications should be made before accepted.

1.  In the introduction section, the novelty of the article is not described very clearly. Wikihouse and wheat straw have been used in the construction industry for many years, so the uniqueness and novelty of this work should be described in more detail at the end of the introduction.

2. Due to the lightness of wheat straw, there are significant changes between 0.15, 0.175, and 0.2, at least as shown in Figure 5. Therefore, it is not appropriate to write 'Despite the small variation in the amount of wheat straw in the mixtures' in line 342 of page 10.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study examined the environmental and economic impacts of modular construction system using materials with low environmental impact. The paper is well written but require some improvements before it can be accepted for publication.

1. The topic is about environmental impact but the content of the paper (especially the findings and discussion) is about both environmental and economic impact. The author should consider revising the topic accordingly.

2. The introduction section should include problem relating to economic issues of modular construction and not just on environmental issues

3. There is a need to have a section on general review of basic aspects of the paper and this should be separated from the method section. Such topics as modular construction, modular construction system, economic impact environmental impact, construction materials and sustainable housing projects should be reviewed.

4. For the method, there is a need to explain various methods and techniques available for measuring the economic and environmental impacts. This will help to justify the choice of the adopted method.

5. The justification for the choice of the 4 phases in section B of section 2.3 is missing. There are more than these phases for a typical construction but the authors need to explain the rationale for adoption just these 4 phases

6. The discussion section should be improved to include robust discussion and not paragraphs of just 5 lines. More so, there is a need to explain the practical, theoretical and methodological implications of the findings.

7. The conclusion should be improved to include limitations of the study and areas for further study. The recommendations should also be restructured to include highlighting stakeholders that will eventually benefit from the study and how the findings of the study will benefit them.

8. The references should be improved to include publications in 2023.

The quality of English language is okay

Author Response

Agradecemos su tiempo y esfuerzo en la revisión de este manuscrito. Hemos abordado todos los problemas indicados.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The study is quite imperative in the present world we live in considering the need for eco-friendly buildings. The following are my comments to be addressed by the authors:

The organisation of the manuscript is quite poor consisting of numerous disjointed paragraphs and statements. The authors should consider engaging a senior faculty member to help in this regard or a professional English language editor.

The method section of the manuscript is also quite scanty and little making it difficult for the replicability of the study. The authors should succinctly highlight in details the methodology employed for carrying out the study.

Also, the authors need to understand that the readers are the target of the manuscript. Hence, the steps and stages undertaken in the study should be relatable and easy to follow and comprehend.

Tables and Figures in the manuscript should also be linked, complimentary and necessary for the comprehension of the content of the study.

Lastly, the conclusion is quite scanty and not a detailed representation of the whole study. The authors should provide more input for the conclusion. Also, the authors should provide a section for recommendation.

There are few syntax and grammatical issues associated with the manuscript. The organisation of the manuscript is quite poor consisting of numerous disjointed paragraphs and statements. The authors should consider engaging a senior faculty member to help in this regard or a professional English language editor.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

It was interesting to quantify the actual eco-friendliness by performing LCA for each eco-friendly material of modular construction. However, rather than being seen as an article, it felt like an analysis report. To be an article, the following items must be supplemented.

- The purpose of this study was not clearly presented. The purpose of the study must be clearly presented in the introduction.

- literature review has not been conducted to present the differentiation and originality of this study. After analyzing the analysis method, analysis target, and experimental method of previous studies, any limitations are presented. And among the limitations of previous studies, it is necessary to present what limitations this study was trying to solve and what differences exist from previous studies.

- Discussion only summarizes the analysis results, and no in-depth implications are presented.

- The conclusion is also poor. It is necessary to present the utilization plan, limitations, and expected effects of this study.

- The reference format is not appropriate. Please check the journal format rules again.

Author Response

We appreciate your time and efforts in reviewing this manuscript. We have addressed all issues indicated.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I have no further comments