Evaluating Carbon-Emission Efficiency in China’s Construction Industry: An SBM-Model Analysis of Interprovincial Building Heating
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPaper comments and suggestions
The study evaluates carbon emission efficiency in China's construction industry, specifically focusing on building heating-related emissions. It utilizes the Super-Slacks-Based Measure (SBM) model to analyze carbon emissions across China, considering factors such as urban population density, electricity usage, and building energy consumption.
The research reveals significant provincial disparities in carbon emission efficiency, closely aligning with economic development levels. It emphasizes the importance of renewable energy utilization, refining energy consumption structures, and implementing green strategies to enhance carbon emission efficiency in building heating. Below are main suggestions and concerns in this manuscript:
1. The abstract is generally clear and concise, effectively summarizing the study's main focus and findings. Consider restructuring sentences for smoother flow and readability.
2. The opening effectively introduces the context of the study, mentioning China's “30·60” carbon neutrality goals. However, it could be beneficial to explicitly state the specific objectives of the research within the abstract. The abstract mentions the necessity of fostering renewable energy and implementing green strategies, which is good.
Consider briefly stating potential implications of the findings for policymakers or practitioners in the construction sector.
3. The projection for the expansion of building areas in northern towns and cities by 2030 adds a forward-looking dimension to the introduction.
Consider briefly mentioning why maintaining the current heating energy intensity is a concern and its potential impact. Conclude the introduction by explicitly stating the significance of conducting research on carbon emissions from building heating in China.
4. While the literature review presents a comprehensive overview, there could be a more explicit identification of the specific gap or need that the current study aims to address. Consider explicitly stating how the current study contributes to or extends the existing body of knowledge.
The literature review is informative, but some sentences are lengthy. Consider breaking down complex ideas into smaller sentences for improved clarity and readability. Consider concluding the literature review section with a brief summary that reinforces the need for the current study and highlights the gap it aims to fill.
5. In Materials and methods section, consider adding a brief statement on why DEA is particularly suitable for assessing building carbon emissions efficiency. Mentioning the conventional DEA models (CCR and BCC) provides a basis for understanding the DEA approach. However, it would be beneficial to briefly explain their differences and when one might be preferred over the other.
6. In result and discussion part, the study emphasizes regional differences in carbon emission efficiency. It would be beneficial to discuss the potential factors contributing to these differences, such as economic conditions, energy sources, or climate variations.
In order to support your key findings, please provide other studies and findings that are consistent with your results and add them in result and discussion part. Ensure consistency in the use of tense and improve the clarity of some sentences for a smoother reading experience
7. In the conclusion part, the explanation of regional differences is valuable. To strengthen this aspect, consider providing insights into the potential factors contributing to the observed disparities. Are there policy differences, climatic variations, or other regional characteristics influencing carbon emission efficiency? The conclusion is concise but could be strengthened by summarizing the key findings and their implications for policymakers or practitioners. Ensure consistency in tense and improve sentence structures for better flow and clarity.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageStrengthen the improvement of grammar, logic and terminology
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors• This is an interesting investigation but disordered in its objectives and description.
• I consider that both point 1-Introduction and point 2-Literature should be a single section, organizing the ideas and based on the information (proposed contribution):
1-Describe “30-60” objective, its context
2-General emissions and consumption data are provided, but the research is going to focus on heating, then consumption and emissions data due to heating should be given with respect to the total. The objective is to demonstrate that by reducing this data the objectives described above are achieved or approached “(30-60”).
3-Once the discourse has focused on heating, define the types of heating to indicate which we are focusing on and why, in addition to indicating whether the study is of all buildings (residential and non-residential) or only one typology.
4-Introduce the methodology that will be used in the research and what its advantages and disadvantages are.
• On line 107 the acronym DMU is introduced but what they refer to is not indicated.
• There is no criterion in references to documents. Reports are named, documents that are sometimes referenced in the bibliography and text and other times are not. It is requested to review the text and correct where there is no reference, such as in lines 138-140 (in the latter no quotation marks have been closed), 156, 218-224
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study uses the Super-SBM model to investigate carbon emissions from the construction sector in China. I think the paper fits well the scope of the journal and addresses an important subject. However, a number of revisions are required before the paper can be considered for publication. There are some weak points that have to be strengthened. Below please find more specific comments:
1. Highlights: The highlights seem to be adequate.
2. Abstract: The abstract seems to be acceptable.
3. Keywords: Please add one or two other representative keywords.
4. Introduction: I suggest to provide some statistical information to highlight the importance of the subject at hand. Please also use supporting references for the statistical information provided.
5. The literature review coverage seems to be acceptable. Just please check for the most recent and relevant studies that have been published over the last years (i.e., the last 2-3 years).
6. In Table 1, the carbon emissions indicator for non-expected outputs and the construction area indicator for expected outputs are both O2.
7. The conclusions section could expand on limitations of this study and future research needs.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments and suggestions on the revised manuscript
There are some aspects that could benefit from further elaboration - the alignment of your findings with other studies in the construction field.
There is no data in the abstract that provides the necessary results. The introduction does not mention the problems, objectives, significance, etc. that need to be addressed in this study. The logic of literature review is not good. The materials and methods in the third part are too concise, not detailed enough, and not comprehensive enough. Can they support the research results of this article? The results and discussion section needs to be further strengthened, with logical coherence between paragraphs and results. Overall, it appears that the workload is insufficient.
In addition, for the benefit of the readers, it would be advantageous if you could provide a more detailed comparison of your results with those of previous studies (Results and discussions, Line 78-Line 87 ). This could include discussing similarities and differences and explaining any discrepancies. For instance, you might say, “Our findings align with those reported by Shi et al. [45]. In their evaluation of the construction sector’s potential for energy savings and pollution abatement in China, they stated in their analysis that the overall factor technical efficiency of the building sector in various locations was low.”
In short, the authors have made a commendable effort in revising the manuscript and addressing the comments. The additional request for aligning the findings with other studies in the construction field will further enhance the paper’s contribution to the literature.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageNeed to be improved
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsData are not reflected in the abstract of the paper.
The introduction does not indicate the research ideas of this paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
