Integrated Benefits of Sustainable Utilization of Construction and Demolition Waste in a Pressure-State-Response Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe innovation of this manuscript should be better illustrated, and please give more details and examples to demonstrate the warranty of this research.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor spell check should be made and grammatical errors should be corrected.
Author Response
Please refer to the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccording to your manuscript, there are some recommendations to improve it as folllows:
1. Proofreading is recommended.
2. It is suggested that some long sentences in the paper should be simplified to improve readability.
Thank you very much for the invitation to review the revised manuscript sustainability-3188416 entitled “Integrated benefits of sustainable utilization of construction and demolition waste in a Pressure-State-Response Framework.”I appreciate the author's efforts in revising the manuscript. I am satisfied with this revision and have no further questions or misgivings.
Good luck！
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI am still not satisfied with the paper, even after modification. There is no novel contribution from the old paper beyond the addition of 6 year of data and the paper is not easy to follow. Also, the numbers in the abstract are now changed from the similar published Chinese paper without much justification (see Abstract: 0.06& 0.14 vs 0.13&0.17, 0.1&0.25 vs 0.11&.21, 0.16&0.35 vs0.32&0.39). The Reviewer has doubt about the validity and correctness of the new numbers? Such a significant mistake is not possible by authors of research. There is also some doubt about the contribution of the authors towards the final work. In the opinion of the Reviewer, the extension of the data can be suitable for a conference paper, but not a Scopus Q1 journal.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English is OK, with room for improvement.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study conducts an integrated examination from both the social and environmental aspects. However, it examines waste reduction in landfills. In the social aspect, it involves hiring people. Nevertheless, it does not make visible the job losses from traditional employment. The coherence between the methodology and the results is not entirely clear, and the discussion of the results is scant. For this reason, I do not recommend its publication in the current state. I recommend considering these suggestions and conducting an exhaustive study of the state of the art.
Line 106 - reference source error,
Line 110, for the following information, a broader theoretical framework is required. There are studies on the environmental and social assessment of CDW recycling. What difference does this article show? Mesa, J.A.; Fúquene-Retamoso, C.; Maury-Ramírez, A. Life Cycle Assessment on Construction and Demolition Waste: A Systematic Literature Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 7676. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13147676 Bayram, B., Greiff, K. Life cycle assessment on construction and demolition waste recycling: a systematic review analyzing three important quality aspects. Int J Life Cycle Assess 28, 967–989 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-023-02145-1
M.D. Bovea, J.C. Powell, Developments in life cycle assessment applied to evaluate the environmental performance of construction and demolition wastes, Waste Management, Volume 50, 2016, Pages 151-172, ISSN 0956-053X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2016.01.036.
Line 173, same as the previous comment.
Methodology. A stronger methodology needs to be developed. It is not explained how it is developed and how or from where these data are obtained. For example, line 289, how will the emissions of CO2, SO2, Waj be calculated? How is section 3.4.1 obtained?
Where do the data for obtaining the results come from?
Section 4.1, is it more a method than a result?
There is no coherence between the results and methodology.
The conclusion is too long.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe document you provided is generally well-written in English, but there are several areas where the language could be improved for clarity, conciseness, and accuracy.
Some sentences are long and complex, which may hinder readability
There are minor grammatical issues, such as incorrect use of articles (e.g., "the investment decision of CDW" should be "the investment decisions regarding CDW").
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on our articles. We have made corresponding modifications carefully. Please check the attachment for the modification. I hope the article can be accepted by your journal under your guidance. Thank you again for your careful guidance.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presented an assessment of the economic and social benefits brought by the sustainable utilization of Construction and Demolition Waste (CDW) within a Pressure-State-Response (PSR) Framework. Some drawbacks should be pointed out before the manuscript can be recommended for publication.
1. The introduction should state clearly why the PSR is used.
2. Some referencing is in error, e.g., ln 106, ln 361, the reference number should be linked to the pointed reference correctly.
3. The authors used a lot of semicolons, e.g., in Sect. 2 (ln 127-148), Sect. 3.3.2 (ln 239-251), which are not necessary in English writing.
4. Ln 144, ‘three basic questions’, the authors only gave two.
5. The subscripts are not typed correctly, e.g., CO2, SO2, m2, m3. There are so many in the manuscript, please correct.
6. Eq. (1) and ln 235, the Qwj, the subscripts j and J are different, please correct.
7. Definition of strength C30 should be given to avoid confusion.
8. Ln 253-255, what is yuan? Maybe CNY?
9. Figure 4, please use lines with different colors and legends.
10. Figure 5, some legends are missing!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is generally okay, but a number of linguistic mistakes were found. A thorough and comprehensive proofread is quite necessary.
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on our articles. We have made corresponding modifications carefully. Please check the attachment for the modification. I hope the article can be accepted by your journal under your guidance. Thank you again for your careful guidance.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccording to your manuscript, there are some recommendations to improve it as folllows:
1.Abstract : Edit your abstract with this stucture ( Purpose/aim, Methodology/design/ method used, Findings, Originality/ value, Implication policy);
2. Introduction :
* laws, regulations, and policy analysis [Error! Reference source not found.], correct it !
* Ding et al. [Error! Reference source not found.], correct it !
3. The introduction is more focused on the research problem and the gap is not explained in theoretical terms. Research objectives should be added
4. Literature Review
* authors should provide recent cited references ( 2021-2023). To help your literature review, authors can ckeck these databases: ( Sustainbaility, economies MDPI, Springer Nature, ScienceDirect Scopus, WoS).
5. I don't understand what the PSR extension form is, please add an explanation in the article to explain what the PSR pattern is.
6.Research Design :
* Please explain why the PSR model is used; what are the advantages of using this model in the article.
7. Results and Analysis :
* Table 1. The state of CDW management. (Source + statistical saftware used)
* Table 2. The evaluation results of comprehensive benefits. (Source + statistical saftware used)
* Figure 3. The environmental benefits of CDW management in the context of the modern con-struction industry. (Source + statistical saftware used)
* Figure 4. The impact on the SDr and B/C from the CDW technological innovation. (Source + statistical saftware used)
* Figure 5. The influence on the CDW recycling market SDr from the demand side. (Source + statistical saftware used)
*All figues and tables : ( provide corresponding Sources + statistical saftware used)
8. The discussion and theoretical contributions should be improved
9.Reference : Provide the DOI for all references.
10. Proofreading is recommended, especially the professionalism of English translation.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on our articles. We have made corresponding modifications carefully. Please check the attachment for the modification. I hope the article can be accepted by your journal under your guidance. Thank you again for your careful guidance.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper under review has a lot of similarities with the following paper, that could be a translation of an old paper from Chinese to English with some added data to cover the years 2016-2022 (although the conclusions remain the same!):
Shiying Shi, Mingming Hu and Jianshe Zhang. “Evaluating Comprehensive Benefits of Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling in Pressure-State-Response Framework,” JOURNAL OF ENGINEERING STUDIES 09(06), December 2017. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1224.2017.00616
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323277250_Evaluating_Comprehensive_Benefits_of_Construction_and_Demolition_Waste_Recycling_in_Pressure-State-Response_Framework
The authors are requested to provide an explanation about the difference between the two studies, the new contribution, and why only two authors from the current study (SHI & HU) are on the old one. Also, why the old paper is not cited in the new paper sent for review!
I can see the abstracts of the two papers have the same conclusions, almost word-by-word!!! Many of the figures are the same in both papers (although the current paper have extra data from updated years 2016-2022).
1- OLD STUDY by Shiying Shi, Mingming Hu and Jianshe Zhang.
From the Abstract: “These findings suggest that 1) the CDW recycling rate changed between 0.06 and 0.14, which indicated that construction and demolition waste are mostly in landfill; 2) the supply-demand ratio of CDW recycled products fluctuates between 0.1 and 0.25, which suggests that the supply-demand of recycled products is a serious mismatch, and then this mismatch is the pressure and driving force of CDW recycling development; 3) the benefit-cost ratio of CDW management varies between 0.16 and 0.35, which suggests that the input-output of CDW management is a significant disproportion, and the disproportion not only conforms to the economic man of the investor who do not participate in CDW recycling, but also reflects the stakeholders’ response to CDW management.”
2- CURRENT STUDY by Han Zhang, Shiying Shi, Fangfang Zhao, Ming Hu and Xiao Fu
From the Abstract: The study showed that: 1) The CDW recycling rate fluctuates between 0.06 and 0.14 and is still dominated by improvised landfills; 2) The supply-demand ratio of recycled products for CDW resourcing fluctuates between 0.1 and 0.25, and there is a more significant mismatch between supply and demand, which is the pressure and impetus for the development of CDW resourcing; 3) The benefit-cost ratio of CDW management fluctuates between 0.16 and 0.35, indicating that there is an imbalance between the inputs and outputs of CDW management, which is both the reason for the negative participation of investors with the characteristics of "economic man" in the CDW program and a portrayal of the response of the subject of interest to CDW management.
Specific comments about the current paper are provided below:
1- Page 1, Lines 17-23: “This study combines…” Very long sentence that does not specify what the study combines? What is being combined?
2- Page 1, Lines 23-30: very long sentence. Break it down.
3- Page 1, Lines 39-41: provide a reference to support the claim that “CDW threatens the human living environment and health.”
4- Page 2, Lines 46-51, Lines 54-60, Lines 78-82, Lines 82-88, Lines 88-92: Very long sentences that need shortening.
5- Page 2, Lines 95-103 and Lines 103-110: Very long sentences that need shortening.
6- Page 2, Lines 106-107: Error message “[Error! Reference source not 106 found.],”
7- Page 2, Lines 132, 137….: sentences must finish with a full stop “.”, not semicolon “;”
8- Page 2, Lines 144-145: "What is the cause?" and "How to solve it? "What is the cause" and "How to solve" are the three fundamental problems that are …” Repetition!!!
9- Page 2, Lines 147-149: “…and R (Response) denotes the solution to the problem. Response) denotes the response to solve the problem[24].” Something not right in this sentence.
10- Page 3, Lines 155-162: long sentence that does not end with a full stop!!!
11- Page 5, Lines 187-196: Very very long sentence.
12- Page 6, Lines 231-232: “Define CDW recycling status. Denote the utilization of construction and demolition waste resources in year j. Then”. Need to merge these three sentences together.
13- Page6, line 233: equation number should be on far right side
14- Page 6, Lines 240-241: You need to include “for example” before discussing Hong Kong.
15- Page 7, Lines 276-281: long sentence, please shorten.
16- Pages 6-10: The paper is not easy to follow. Equations are provided one after another, without clear idea as to what they are needed for and how they are linked together. May be the authors are assuming that the readers are well versed in PSR, but I am not sure this is the case for most. The background information should be presented in a better way with the view of the lack of background of readers in the subject tool. being possible
17- Pages 1-20: The authors need to specify who is the proper audience for the paper? Is it the civil engineering community? Environmental science policy makers? Economists?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Adequate English, minor editing is needed
Author Response
Thank you for your suggestions on our articles. We have made corresponding modifications carefully. Please check the attachment for the modification. I hope the article can be accepted by your journal under your guidance. Thank you again for your careful guidance.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
