Prioritization of Factors Affecting Sustainability Property Improvement by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Important-Satisfaction Model: The Case of TAIPEI 101 Tower

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript proposed by Lin et al. “Prioritization of Factors Affecting Sustainability Property Improvement by Using Analytical Hierarchy Process and Important-Satisfaction Model: The Case of TAIPEI 101 Tower. Proposed a decision-making methodology to categorize all the factor affecting tenants’ willingness to lease office buildings. The work is of course interesting, but the English phrasing need to be revised in some part to make sentences clearer.  

Abstract need to be re-written: it needs to incorporate the problematic, how do you want to face it and the main results, highlighting the innovation and possible replicability. Revise it accordingly.

Introduction: In the introduction there is a lack of information about other possible methodology that could be and are applied in the whole world. Moreover, it is mandatory to state why the proposed methodology (a combination of decision-making tools) is better than others available. Please state better the aim and the novelty of the work.

I would like to see a general localization map with a picture of the investigated tower to better understand also the socio-economical background.

Can you please provide an explanation of all the questions asked in the interview (also in SM if necessary)

It is not clear to me how the preliminary ranking for AHP application has been conducted.

Please offer some example of other application around the world if available.

The result paragraph contains info more suitable for the introduction and somehow redundant. Please rewrite and state all the main finding (if necessary use bullet point).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper reports on the analysis conducted to assess the willingness to lease to office tenants, using a landmark building - Taipei 101 - as a case study.

The paper is interesting and well written in the first part, especially in the literature analysis. I would have perhaps expected a more extensive comment on the findings of the IPA methodology applied.

The results of the questionnaire in fact show that the case study building (Taipei 101) is doing extremely well in all the parameters being monitored by the study. In fact, despite some parameters falling below and left of the "mean lines" of figure 2, they still reflect high levels of satisfaction of the interviewees. They indeed seem to "fall short" just because the mean lines are extremely "demanding", as a result of the good performances of the building. Commenting on this is not only necessary, but it actually provides information on the perceived excellent performance of Taipei 101.

Other IPA analysis found in the literature call the IV quadrant "risk to overkill", implying that parameters in this region are not felt important by the interviewees, and consequently don't deserve too much attention. On the contrary here, all the points in the IV area (actually, all the 16 parameters being considered) are close to 4 out of 5 in terms of importance, meaning that they are all quite important to the interviewees. Consequently there is no "risk to overkill" in this section.

Further considerations on the results obtained will greatly improve the paper.

Specific and editorial notes:

• Bainbridge, 1989 is cited at line 65, but the reference would better be placed at line 60
• Sentences on line 97-98 and 101 seem incomplete.
• Table 3 "Leasing agencies" Valid copies can not be higher than distributed and returned copies

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx