Revamping Sustainability Efforts Post-Disaster by Adopting Circular Economy Resilience Practices

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is mainly committed to describe the negative impact of natural disasters on human life and environment, did not highlight the post-disaster repair measures, put forward the "circular economy" has certain innovation, but due to lack of practical experience, lead to operability is not strong, and few studies show that the possibility of circular economy can be realized. The method used in this paper is not easy to use. The investigation of buildings will consume a lot of resources, which does not conform to the economy. The qualitative data obtained through interviews is not targeted and comprehensive, and the applicable results of practical application are not obtained.

Suggestions and improvements:

1.Reducing the length of the negative effects of natural disasters;

2.The "circular economy" into practice, for practice, looking for real cases to give evidence support to this paper;

3.Interviews can expand the scope of visitors, not limited to professionals;

4.Scheme to increase operability for post-disaster repair;

5.This paper can use more quantitative analysis methods to ensure the authenticity and reliability of this paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is relatively good.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.  We have considered all your comments and suggestions and hope the changes listed below make the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your response.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is rather confused the idea is not accurate and the novelty is not cover well. Furthermore, I missed the statistical serious analysis, the background of the theory, how authors construct Fig. 4. Is it only the opinion of authors or confirmed links. Furthermore, the recovery after disasters depends on a lot of factors to the frequency of disasters, income level, help from abroad and etc., how authors controled it. These aspects are very serious, because it can determined not correct conclusions.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.  We have considered all your comments and suggestions and hope the changes listed below make the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your response.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

more in-depth explanation is needed in (framework) Figure 4, especially on how each element is interrelated

how Figure 3 is read based on the given importance value, what is the meaning of the value if scores 0.1 or 0.4?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

no comment on English

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the reviewer for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.  We have considered all your comments and suggestions and hope the changes listed below make the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your response.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Abstract part:  Suggest deleting the following section“However, studies have seldom investigated the feasibility of adopting circular economy practices such as material recovery and reusability from buildings during post-disaster reconnaissance. ”Overall, the abstract section needs further refinement.

2.Introduction part is the first part，labeled as "1"

3.Table 1 requires further refinement of effective information；Table 2 suggests adding MSE and MAE calculation results；The data display in Table 3 should be consistent with the text, maintaining three decimal places after the decimal point.

4. What is the calculation method of the importance of each feature,line 368-371.

5.Suggest adding a pie chart to the distribution of 109 stakeholders 

6.The conclusion section is quite complicated, it is recommended to write it in sections。

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Overall, it is somewhat colloquial, and it is recommended to use the language of academic papers as much as possible

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.  We hope the changes listed below make the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your response. Our response and changes in the manuscript are as given below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the revised article has been improved, and the content meets the requirements of Sustainability, so it is recommended to adopt it.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.  We hope the changes listed below make the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your response. Our response and changes in the manuscript are as given below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have not change my mind.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the editors and reviewers for their time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.  We hope the changes listed below make the manuscript suitable for publication, and we look forward to your response. Our response and changes in the manuscript are as given below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My decision was to reject this paper due to the wrong idea.