Dual Transition of Net Zero Carbon and Digital Transformation: Case Study of UK Transportation Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper explores integrating Building Information Modelling (BIM) with transportation infrastructure projects in the UK to achieve the dual goals of net-zero carbon emissions and digital transformation. The study focuses on the current usage of BIM, its benefits, the challenges within the UK’s transportation sector, and the role of digital twins and carbon calculator tools in achieving sustainability targets.

Strengths:

1. The paper addresses a crucial topic, given the UK’s commitment to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. It aligns well with current environmental and technological goals.

2. The study provides a thorough literature review on BIM, its applications, benefits, and challenges in the transportation sector. It covers various sources and integrates findings from different studies, offering a broad understanding of the subject.

3. The discussion on integrating BIM with digital twins and carbon calculator tools highlights the potential for advanced technological applications to improve sustainability in infrastructure projects.

Drawbacks:

1. The study relies heavily on a literature review and lacks substantial empirical data from actual projects. The conclusions drawn would be stronger with more primary data or case studies demonstrating BIM’s impact on carbon reduction in real-world projects.

2. Several key studies referenced are dated before the 2016 UK BIM Mandate, which might not reflect the current state of BIM adoption and its impacts.

3. The paper discusses using a CCT but indicates that it is complex and not fully integrated with BIM tools, which could be a significant barrier to its practical implementation.

4. While the study focuses on the UK, it occasionally references studies from other countries without addressing potential differences in regulations, practices, or infrastructure, which could affect the applicability of the findings.

Recommendations:

1. To improve the validity of survey-based findings, efforts should be made to increase the sample size and include a more diverse range of participants, especially from small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

2. Include more recent studies and data post-2016 to reflect the current state of BIM adoption and its impact on carbon reduction in the UK transportation sector.

3. Emphasis should be placed on developing user-friendly and fully integrated CCTs with BIM software to facilitate easier adoption and accurate carbon assessments.

4. When referencing international studies, explicitly discuss how differing regulations and practices might influence the findings and their applicability to the UK context.

5. The paper should highlight the need for policy initiatives to mandate BIM usage and provide training programs to improve BIM and CCT adoption across all sizes of enterprises in the transportation sector.

Author Response

Include more recent studies and data post-2016 to reflect the current state of BIM adoption and its impact on carbon reduction in the UK transportation sector.	Included recent citations
When referencing international studies, explicitly discuss how differing regulations and practices might influence the findings and their applicability to the UK context.	Amended
The paper should highlight the need for policy initiatives to mandate BIM usage and provide training programs to improve BIM and CCT adoption across all sizes of enterprises in the transportation sector.	Included in the conclusion section

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is detailed and well-structured, providing a comprehensive study on applying Building Information Modelling (BIM) in the UK Transportation Sector. However, there is room for improvement in language clarity and logical coherence. Additionally, some sections could be more concise to enhance readability.

Specific Suggestions:

The title is clear, but consider making it more concise and impactful. For example, "BIM and Net Zero Carbon: Transforming the UK Transportation Sector."

The abstract effectively summarizes the study but could be more concise. Remove repetitive information and ensure all key findings are briefly mentioned.

In the introduction, a more focused overview of the current state of the UK transportation sector and the importance of BIM in achieving net carbon zero will be provided. This will set a clearer context for the reader.

In the literature review, ensure that each study mentioned directly supports your research objectives. Some descriptions could be shorter and more to the point.

The methodology section is thorough, but the explanation of the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process could be more concise. Emphasize the key steps and criteria used without overly detailed descriptions.

Results are well-presented, but ensure that tables and figures are clearly labeled and referenced in the text. Summarize key findings in a few sentences to enhance readability.

The discussion section should more clearly connect the results to the research questions and the broader context of BIM and Net Carbon Zero. Highlight the implications of your findings and suggest practical applications.

Consider the following references:

"The Critical Role of Energy Transition in Addressing Climate Change at COP28"

"Harvesting the Sky: A new horizon in photocatalytic hydrogen production"

The conclusion should succinctly summarize the main findings, their implications, and recommendations for future research. Avoid introducing new information here.

Overall, aim for a more concise and coherent narrative throughout the manuscript. Ensure that each section flows logically into the next, maintaining a clear focus on the research objectives and outcomes.

Author Response

The title is clear, but consider making it more concise and impactful. For example, "BIM and Net Zero Carbon: Transforming the UK Transportation Sector."	The author feels the title is still relevant to the content of the paper but appreciates the reviewers comment.
The abstract effectively summarizes the study but could be more concise. Remove repetitive information and ensure all key findings are briefly mentioned.	Amended
In the introduction, a more focused overview of the current state of the UK transportation sector and the importance of BIM in achieving net carbon zero will be provided. This will set a clearer context for the reader.	Amended
In the literature review, ensure that each study mentioned directly supports your research objectives. Some descriptions could be shorter and more to the point.	Amended
The methodology section is thorough, but the explanation of the Systematic Literature Review (SLR) process could be more concise. Emphasize the key steps and criteria used without overly detailed descriptions.	Amended
Results are well-presented, but ensure that tables and figures are clearly labelled and referenced in the text. Summarize key findings in a few sentences to enhance readability.	Amended
The discussion section should more clearly connect the results to the research questions and the broader context of BIM and Net Carbon Zero. Highlight the implications of your findings and suggest practical applications.: Provided in the last section	Added in the conclusion section

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the paper is certainly of high relevance for the journal, as both carbon reduction and digital transformation are among the most important goals of the current period. As such, the literature review implemented in the paper in relation to the mentioned areas is highly valuable both for the academic and the practitional field. The number and quality of the cited literature is also clearly appropriate. 

The structure of the paper is generally clear and well followable, with a few exceptions that will be mentioned later.  The extent of the publication is also quite significant, though one of the reasons for that is the extensive use of large diagrams and pictures (it could be considered to put more of these into an appendix, but this is just a proposal, not a necessary requirement). The practical results of the study are also clearly presented in chapters 5 and 6, which can clearly be helpful for the practitioners in the field of highway design.

Besides all the previously mentioned merits of the paper, there is still some room for improvement however. Firts, while the use of the English language in the paper is generally excellent, there are still some minor mistakes which require a minor editing in this regard. For example, the sentence in the lines 158 and 159 starts with "Tables 3", but there is obivously a single Table 3 after the sentence. Besides, the use of a first person singular verb in that sentence is also strange, as there are multiple authors of the study. Another problem can be found in line 433, where the sentence starts with "and Error! Reference source not found." and after that, continues with a lower case letter. This is clearly both a grammatical and an editing error, as some originally intended material is missing here.

Besides the few grammatical and editing errors, one issue with the content is that while the authors mention the use of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) in the beginning, yet it is very hard to see how the resutls of this influenced the practical study presented mainly in chapter 5. For this reason, I think that at the end of chapter 4, the results of the implemented SLR and its effect on the latter part of the study should be elaborated in detail, perhaps in a separate sub-chapter.

After the implementation of the previously described recommendations, I would propose the publication of the paper without additional requirements from my part.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

While the use of the English language in the paper is generally excellent, there are still some minor mistakes which require a minor editing in this regard. For example, the sentence in the lines 158 and 159 starts with "Tables 3", but there is obivously a single Table 3 after the sentence. Besides, the use of a first person singular verb in that sentence is also strange, as there are multiple authors of the study. Another problem can be found in line 433, where the sentence starts with "and Error! Reference source not found." and after that, continues with a lower case letter. This is clearly both a grammatical and an editing error, as some originally intended material is missing here.

 

Author Response

Besides the few grammatical and editing errors, one issue with the content is that while the authors mention the use of a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) in the beginning, yet it is very hard to see how the resutls of this influenced the practical study presented mainly in chapter 5. For this reason, I think that at the end of chapter 4, the results of the implemented SLR and its effect on the latter part of the study should be elaborated in detail, perhaps in a separate sub-chapter.

Added

First, while the use of the English language in the paper is generally excellent, there are still some minor mistakes which require a minor editing in this regard. For example, the sentence in the lines 158 and 159 starts with "Tables 3", but there is obivously a single Table 3 after the sentence. Besides, the use of a first person singular verb in that sentence is also strange, as there are multiple authors of the study. Another problem can be found in line 433, where the sentence starts with "and Error! Reference source not found." and after that, continues with a lower case letter. This is clearly both a grammatical and an editing error, as some originally intended material is missing here.

Amended “Tables 3” to “Table 3”     1st person usage has been amended   Removed “and error!”  and amended editing errors