Leveraging Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for Optimized Decision Making in Adobe Construction Materials
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors proposed research to introduce the life cycle cost analysis to optimize the decision-making process in the context of Adobe construction materials in South America. Some aspects need to be clarified:
1. The study aims to optimize the decision-making process described only in the abstract. At the end of the research, the authors fail to clarify how they recommend substantiating decisions based on the analyses performed. I recommend filling in the Conclusions section.
2. Abstract – lines 20-21. This sentence does not reflect anything relevant to the abstract: …Additionally, Ecuador is the only country in South America that uses the US dollar as its official currency.
3. Introduction. At the end of this section, I recommend a description of the structure of the paper.
4. I recommend one Section to describe the Literature review between the Introduction and Methodology Sections. Elements specific to these sections can be found in Sections 2 and 3. Collecting them in a single section is necessary. The following aspects can be included: How LCCA contributes to the optimization of decision-making; what is the previous research in which adobe construction was analyzed, or what is the research in which LCCA was associated with the field of constructions.
5. Data analysis. The results obtained from the tables are not sufficiently explained. It mentioned the obtaining of results without ascertaining whether the value is small or large compared to other reference values ​​and what is the impact on decision-making.
6. For all figures and graphs, I recommend indicating the source, even if it is the author's own contribution.
7. Conclusion. The explanation is necessary for the foundation of further studies related to this research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript entitled “Leveraging Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) for Optimized Decision-Making in Adobe Construction Materials” proposes an investigation on the LCCA for adobe constructions. The purpose of the work is clear, and the paper is properly structured. In general, the topic is worthy of investigation due to the relevance of sustainability issues, especially for a so widespread building material such as adobe. However, some aspects need to be better discussed, for example the transportation costs which are neglected.
General comments
1. Introduction: it could be useful, to demonstrate the relevance of the topic, to include some literature referring to the application of LCCA to masonry buildings, such as:
L. Giresini, S. Paone, M. Sassu (2020) Integrated Cost-Analysis Approach for Seismic and Thermal Improvement of Masonry Building Façades, Buildings, 10(8) 143.
L. Giresini, C. Casapulla, P. Croce (2021) Environmental and Economic Impact of Retrofitting Techniques to Prevent Out-of-Plane Failure Modes of Unreinforced Masonry Buildings, Sustainability, 13(20), 11383; https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011383.
J. Korentz, B. Nowogońska (2018), Assessment of the life cycle of masonry walls in residential buildings, MATEC Web of Conferences 174(5):01025
2. Section 2: “in certain regions”. Please specify again what are the main regions in which adobe is used.
3. Section 2.1: why transportation is not included in the initial costs?
4. Section 2.3: cite at least 2 or 3 works of the literature review you mention.
5. Last sentence of the conclusions: there is already a huge interest in the environmental impact of the building sector.
Editorial comments
1. Everywhere please use max 1 decimal after comma. For example change 50.51% into 50.5%, or as an alternative do not use decimals at all.
2. If you can, please improve the quality of figure 1. If possible, please increase the fontsize because it is not so readable. Also, correct “level ground”, “first” and others. In some squares, periods are used, in other not. Please uniform the use of periods.
3. After Figure 1, I would not use “esteemed” (kind of self-citation).
4. If you can, please improve the quality of figure 2.
5. Figure 3 caption: add a reference
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article presents a life-cycle cost analysis of Adobe construction materials in Ecuador, South America. Adobe materials are widely used in various countries in South America due to their good performance. The study aims to assess the costs associated with the entire life cycle of Adobe materials, including material acquisition, construction, maintenance, and repair. By considering these factors, the research provides valuable insights for optimizing decision-making processes related to Adobe construction in the region.
The cost analysis of Adobe construction materials in different application scenarios has been conducted. However, there is a lack of comparative analysis regarding the actual application costs of architectural cases. The current analysis is insufficient, and it requires the author to supplement this aspect of the content.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study emphasizes the significance of considering the life-cycle costs associated with Adobe construction materials and their impact on decision-making processes. A comprehensive case study was conducted in South America to examine the various adobe construction scenarios. It is suggested that the manuscript is reconsidered after major revision.
The paper lacks overall originality. The current study mainly relies on existing data for analysis, without incorporating original research data from the authors, which may limit the depth and impact of the research. To enhance the originality and depth of the paper, it is suggested that the authors consider incorporating their own experimental or data collection work, or present new insights and perspectives based on the existing data.
Furthermore, in terms of methodology, while Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) is used, the paper does not propose any new methods or models. In the current research field, the application of innovative methods and models is often a key indicator of the quality of research. Therefore, it is recommended that the authors explore possible new methods or improve existing ones to increase the innovation and practical value of the research.
In the introduction of the paper, the literature review seems to be insufficient, which might affect the reader's understanding of the research background and its significance. It is recommended that the authors expand the literature review, detailing existing studies in the related field and how these studies relate to your work. Moreover, the statement of the scientific research question is not clear enough. A clear and specific research question is essential for guiding the entire study. It is suggested to clearly articulate the specific problem or hypothesis that the research aims to address, so that readers can better understand the purpose and scope of the study.
- It is recommended that the authors revisit and refine the scientific question of the paper. A clear and challenging scientific question is central to any research. Redefining the research question can help clarify the direction and focus of the study and may reveal new research opportunities.
At the same time, the authors should clearly articulate the research findings. In describing these findings, the focus should be on their uniqueness and their contribution to the existing field of research. If possible, emphasize how the findings advance the development of the field or propose new directions for research.
Lastly, the paper needs to more clearly highlight its novelty. Whether in terms of theoretical framework, research methodology, or data analysis, the differences between this paper and existing research should be pointed out. Clearly expressing these innovative aspects can not only enhance the academic value of the paper but also better engage the interest of readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have considered the reviewers' comments and present a more developed form of the manuscript. Some aspects still need checking:
1. Line 133 - Figure 3. I don't know if this is the request of another reviewer, but I don't consider it relevant. The authors can use national statistics to argue the number of houses with adobe walls.
2. Line 162 - Figure 4 (c). For the Catholic temple of La Merced in Quito in 2024, I recommend a single photo, trying to take the same angle as in b) of Figure 4.
3. Line 199 - Figure 6. The same situation. I don't know if this is the request of another reviewer, but I don't consider it relevant.
4. Line 253 – Table 1 needs a source of data. Otherwise, check the sources for all the figures and tables, even if it is your own contribution.
5. Line 334 - Figure 8. The same situation. I don't know if this is the request of another reviewer, but I don't consider it relevant. Anyway, this figure is not mentioned in the text of the paper.
6. Line 356 - 3.1. Analysis factors. Please review this section. The form of presentation creates the idea of using some AI tools.
7. Line 385 - 4.3. Functional unit (FU). Must be 3.3. Functional unit (FU).
8. Line 459 – Table 4 is mentioned twice.
9. Line 537 – Table 6 is mentioned twice.
10. Lines 568-569 - The sentence must be reformulated. Likewise, the reference to Table 7 can be made after the presentation of Table 6.
11. Line 571 – This sentence can be after Table 9.
12. Line 655 – Need text between two figures (use lines 659-662).
13. All subtitles from the Section 5- Results and discussion, must be with 5.x
14. Check the placement of the tables on the page to avoid their interruption.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter the author's revisions, the current version of the manuscript is now suitable for publication and can be accepted!
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
We performed the minor editing of English on the document.
We are truly grateful for the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable for improving the quality of our work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has responded to all questions and revised the manuscript, which can now be accepted.
Author Response
We are truly grateful for the time you dedicated to reviewing our manuscript. Your insightful feedback has been invaluable for improving the quality of our work.
