Towards a LCA Database for the Planning and Design of Zero-Emissions Neighborhoods
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article "Towards an LCA database for the planning and design of zero emissions neighbourhoods" shows an interesting issue.
It is undoubtedly a valuable research material.
The strengths of the work:
- Good literature review, most of the articles are from the last 5 years;
- Detailed presentation of the proposed solution.
The weaknesses of the article:
- Introduction section could be better prepared;
- Graphical presentation of the article could be better prepared.
Several improvements are required for the manuscript to be published. Below, the authors will find my remarks and comments on the work:
- The authors' affiliations are not complete, there are no e-mails, there is no country for the second affiliation.
Affiliate number 2 does not have the correct format. - Abstract exceeds the 200-word limit.
Moreover, it lacks the results and conclusions of the study. - Lines 69-72
Bullets should be used. - Introduction section
It can be improved. You can describe the subject and purpose of the work in more detail.
The introduction is supported by a small number of references to the literature. - Figures 2-4 should be enlarged to make it more legible.
- Table 1
"Expressed in kg of CO2-eq."
It should be written: Expressed in kg of CO2-eq. - Lines 423 - 429
There are 13 references to literature in 3 sentences. I propose to describe this fragment in more detail. - Literature should be prepared in accordance with the journal's guidelines.
Author Response
Please see attached file for our response.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is well written and many of the suggested integrations were implemented.
Still, it is not clear what are the next steps of the research and what is the objective of laying down these requirements for LCA Database (is it the base for the database? is it for other database designers?). Also, it is not clear whether this approach can be used in other countries since it is so Norway-centered. You are submitting to an open-access international journal.
Author Response
Please see attached file for our response.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
I wish to thank the authors for succesfully addressing the comments given in the 1st round of reviews. Inserted Figure 4 and re-written conclusions largely contribute to strenghtening this paper. Minor editing that has been done also improved the style and efficiency in communication. Congratulations!
Author Response
Please see attached file for our response.
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
The paper focus is on the features of a LCA database that can support the needs of different stakeholders involved in designing and planning neighbourhoods aiming at zero-emissions; such LCA database is studied specifically to serve the Norwegian research centre on ZENs (Zero-Emissions Neighbourhoods).
Thought the focus of the paper can be of interest, the paper itself is of very little interest for the readers of an international journal because it is too much geographically related to Norway. Even the methodological aspects (Section 6), which usually are the exportable part of a case-study based research, are weakly presented for they are exclusively described for (Norwegian) ZEN.
For this reason, I think the manuscript is not suitable for publication in an international journal.
I suggest the authors to consider it a preliminary paper to submit for publication in a local journal or maybe in an international publication collecting case-studies on LCA. Then, continuing the research, improving the LCA database construction, and most of all theorising the methodological aspects of the local application (ZEN) showing exportability of the method, could be the basis for proposing a new manuscript in the future to be published in an international journal.
In case of publication somewhere else, I recommend some typo corrections:
- Supply references for authors 3 and 4
- Do not cite all names of authors if they are more than two when referred in the text (see, for example, caption of Table 1 and lines 112-113)
- Use either English or American spelling (for example, regionalisation/regionalization) but not both
- Refer to Table 2 in line 324
- Correct Ecopsold (must be Ecospold) in line 329
- The second ‘is’ must become ‘it’ in line 353
- The sentence between lines 364-367 is not clear; perhaps a ‘not’ must be added after ‘but’ in line 365
- Correct double blank spaces between words in single blank space, when present through the text.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
this paper presents an overview of the requirements and needs for an LCA Database for Zero-Energy Neighbourhoods.
The impacts of such database and its audience are clearly highlighted; however, some methodology aspects are not clearly enough explained. Also, I would suggest better highlighting the objectives of the paper and related future developments.
The ZEN toolbox seems a rather important part of the approach: however, it is only very quickly introduced in the beginning, whereas a more detailed description would be helpful for readers to grasp it better. Also, Figure 1 at page 5 (actually it is Figure 2) has some icons that are not clearly referenced in the text: maybe a legend or a clear link would also be of help.
In my view, the title can be misleading: the Database is not exactly the center of this paper, which is focused on providing a foundation for its development. It is unclear whether the next step, for the authors, would be the development of such a database.
Another unclear aspect is related to the pilot projects: why are they introduced? How have they been used in the paper and for its scopes?
The geographical focus for this database, including the references, is clearly Scandinavian/Norwegian. I would highlight this in the text, along with the reasons for such a specific approach. Is this approach extendible to other Regions?
The paper lacks a final summary (maybe in a table) that puts together all the considerations detailed in the middle sections. This would help evidence all findings. Extend conclusions.
Check the references (e.g. some are incomplete as for the date of access, etc.).
Only minor style changes and corrections are required in terms of the English language.
Finally, also check that the titles of sections or subsections are not left "alone" at the end of a page and that their formatting is homogeneous across the paper.
Regards
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors of this study are outlining the need for the development of the project-specific LCA database in order to enable the calculation of carbon footprint for all ZEN (Zero Emmission Neibourhoods). While it was a pleasure reading this paper (well written, well supported by sound references), I do have few comments predominantly regarding to how the paper is organized.
For example: it would be great if authors could add a summary of "missing links" / gaps of existing tools and databases that they reviewed in order to clearly present what motivates the development of yet another LCA database. This summary could be presented in diagramatical ot tabular manner, simply to more strongly express existing knowledge gaps. This could also potentially help broader community and extend the potential benefiits of this database beyond ZEN project.
Another important point that is, in my opinion, not described sufficiently enough is how the authors envision keeping this LCA database sufficiently comprehensive and current. This is/ has been a weak point in many existing LCA tools around the world, as new construction materials, assemblies and/or performance criteria emerge daily and LCA tools have difficult times in keeping up and become obsolete relatively quickly. Adding some explanation about this would definitelly improve this paper.
