Next Article in Journal
Analysis of Food Supply Chain Digitalization Opportunities in the Function of Sustainability of Food Placement in the Western Balkans Region
Previous Article in Journal
Exploring the Resilience of Public Transport Trips in the Face of Urban Violence from a Gender Perspective
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

AHP and GCA Combined Approach to Green Design Evaluation of Kindergarten Furniture

Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010001
by Xiaojie Xie 1,2, Jiangang Zhu 1,2,*, Sheng Ding 3 and Jingjing Chen 4
Sustainability 2024, 16(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16010001
Submission received: 11 October 2023 / Revised: 1 December 2023 / Accepted: 15 December 2023 / Published: 19 December 2023 / Corrected: 1 November 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I upload it.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language


Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While sustainable choice of materials becomes upmost important it is necessary to use a well established matrix and values. While this methods are pure showcase of technical possibilities of some decision making tools, the paper lacks some fundamental basics.

The use of eco-friendly cannot be  a "non comprehensible" quantity but must be associated with eC02 or other measurable or comparable values which can be conducted by LCA or different quantification methods.

We do not know anything about the materials used in this study (for example the use of wood is FSC or harvested in unethical and non sustainable forestry actions?

The basic for the comparison of two methods is a subjective input of "expert panel" which is not transparent way  - further explanations are needed of the methodology.

The represented methods needs to be linked to existing metrics so that we quantify their real usefulness.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language style could be improved a little, as the some part of the text is lacking clarity and engagement. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors the effort to include some of the suggestions, but I still miss the link between the real values of an LCA study and the impact factors for the "ecofriendliness of the materials and adhesive", which is a vague term - the LCA mentioned in the introduction is no comprehended in the Conclusion and also the Conclusion is missing the statement of the limitation of the expert panels for a metric that can be calculated regarding tree type, processing energy and other components.

The authors can use the open sourced tool (for non experts) from Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-based tools for the eco-design of wooden furniture - ScienceDirect

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editoral check will solve the issues.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop