A Study on the Green Building Trend in China—From 2001 to 2022, Focusing on Research Topic Words
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have carefully reviewed the manuscript entitled " A Study on the Green Building Trend in China — From 2001–2022, Focusing on Research Topic Words —" submitted for publication in Sustainability. I appreciate the opportunity to review this work. I believe the authors have made an exciting and valuable contribution to summarizing and predicting the trajectory of green building development in China. This study attempts to review the focus of green building development in different stages in China and comprehensively analyzes it through reasonable research methods. Overall, the paper is well-written, the methodology is sound, and the results are presented. However, I have provided my comments and suggestions to help improve the clarity and impact of the paper, and thus the acceptance quality in Sustainability.
Minor Comments:
1. The author in the drawing of the table, should use three lines.
2. The definition of Table 1 is not clear enough, it is recommended to redraw.
3. The color matching of the picture in the full text can unify the tone, which will make the article look more coordinated.
4. There are some minor language errors throughout the manuscript.
There are some minor language errors throughout the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your careful review, thoughtful comments, and encouragement on this manuscript. Please note that changes made to reflect the opinions of you and other reviewers are highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript. The changes made to reflect your opinion are as follows.
1. All tables have been modified to have the three-line format.
2. Table 1 has been redrawn to clarify the definitions.
3. Figure 1 has been modified to have a similar color pattern to the other figures.
4. Several parts of the paper have been revised, and we will continue to correct any errors until the final submission.
Thanks again for your time and help.
Reviewer 2 Report
The article describes a scientific review study on Green Building in the Chinese context. The study intends to correlate the Chinese government's five-year technical policy with the evolution of scientific research trends, with the dual purpose of analyzing the state of the art of studies on the topic of Green Building, highlighting its main lines of development and possible gaps and deficiencies, and hypothesizing possible developments of scientific insights.
The subject matter is of potential interest to the Chinese and, to a lesser extent, the international scientific community.
Nevertheless, it is the reviewer's opinion that the article has substantial critical issues that need attention from the authors.
In general, it is advisable to reformulate the structure of the article following the guidelines proposed by the journal Sustainability. This would allow for greater clarity in the statement of objectives, definition of the state of the art, description of methodology, and restitution and commentary on research outcomes.
It is also recommended that the state of the art and background of the research be enriched, for example, by reporting more fully on the definition of Green Building that underlies the research.
The methodology adopted does not appear to be clearly described. In particular, the reason behind the choice of the time interval adopted for the study is not explicitly explained. The search and selection methodology of the analyzed articles is not clearly described.
In addition, no disciplinary distinction is made with respect to the contributions analyzed (architecture, economics, physics,engineering, etc.).
The conclusions, contrary to what is stated in the abstract, do not return predictions about future research trends on Green Building in China.
Below is a detailed analysis of the contribution, hoping to do something useful to the authors in the review process.
Abstract
The title refers to research topic words on which the study focuses, but they are not mentioned.
The reason behind the choice of the terms of the chronological range of selection and analysis for scientific review is not explained.
The database used to search for the papers for analysis is not specified, nor are the critieria for selecting the articles.
The rationale behind the definition of the 4 in-depth sub-dimensions is not explained.
1. Introduction
Section 1.2 would find a more effective place within a section devoted to "materials and methods," as already suggested by the editorial lines of the journal Sustainability.
L. 50-51 states that the study analyzes research keywords, but L.53 says that a qualitative study is carried out based on content analysis of literature, without explaining the criteria for selection and analysis of literature.
2. Theoretical background
Green building definitions can certainly be expanded (e.g., GBC?). Only some American and Chinese definitions are given. Perhaps it would be interesting to see if there are differences in the definition of Green Building between international contexts.
The paragraph on Green Economy appears unclear with respect to the themes and objectives of the article. Likewise, the very general reference to LCC and LCA methodologies remains obscure.
3. The relationship between Green Buildings and the economy
The paragraph does not seem of any use to the objectives of the study. The reported correlation between GDP (Chinese?) and quantity of Green Building studies does not seem to be supported by anything other than insufficient coincidence. The thesis reported by the authors seems questionable, but mostly out of context to the topic of the study.
4. Green Building changing trend and related research topics
This is the first time China's 5-year technical policy cycles are mentioned. Neither why 69 papers were selected nor why the term a quo of the survey is 2001 is explained.
L. 136 only 3 sub-dimensions are mentioned instead of 4.
The rationale behind the definition of the 7 study categories is not clear, nor why a number of additional categories (of a very heterogeneous nature) were generically placed as "other," actually being first included and then excluded from the study.
L. 195 there is one point too many at the end of the sentence.
The case studies are only mentioned superficially, without details or photographs. Perhaps it would be helpful to return a summary via a table, diagram, or chart?
It would be helpful for the reader to have the legislative documents in the references, perhaps in English (if available).
The brief summary does not seem very effective. Perhaps a table, diagram, or chart would be better?
5. In-depth analysis of Green Buildings trends by period.
The analyses are based on very schematic and simplistic breakdowns, which leave room for some puzzlement.
As an example: is it possible to establish that energy saving belongs only to the economic dimension, and not also to the technical and policy dimensions?
6. Conclusions and recommendations
There is essentially a repetition of things that have been described before, with no further reflection or summary. Predictions of future trends, as stated in the abstract, are absent.
Beyond the time lag of publications, a comprehensive description of the study's limitations is absent
Aknowledgements are missing.
It might be an element of interest to address in more detail the topic mentioned by the authors of the relationship between Green Buildings and needs, policies, trends in developing countries.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your careful review and thoughtful comments on this manuscript. Please note that changes made to reflect the opinions of you and other reviewers are highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript. The changes made to reflect your opinion are as follows.
1. Abstract:
The title refers to research topic words on which the study focuses, but they are not mentioned.
=> In the Abstract, "their topic words" has been added.
2. Abstract:
The reason behind the choice of the terms of the chronological range of selection and analysis for scientific review is not explained.
The database used to search for the papers for analysis is not specified, nor are the critieria for selecting the articles.
The rationale behind the definition of the 4 in-depth sub-dimensions is not explained.
=> Although the reviewer’s opinion is appropriate, due to the limit of 200 words in the abstract, the issues are explained in the newly added chapter 2, Research Scope and Methods.
3. Introduction：
Section 1.2 would find a more effective place within a section devoted to "materials and methods," as already suggested by the editorial lines of the journal Sustainability.
=> To reflect the review’s opinion, section 1.2 has been moved to newly added chapter 2 and more explanation are supplemented to clarify research scope and method of this study.
4. Research Scope and Methods：
L. 50-51 states that the study analyzes research keywords, but L.53 says that a qualitative study is carried out based on content analysis of literature, without explaining the criteria for selection and analysis of literature.
=> Newly added chapter 2 is supplemented with a detailed introduction to the selection of database and literature, and the analysis standard.
5. Theoretical background:
Only some American and Chinese definitions are given. Perhaps it would be interesting to see if there are differences in the definition of Green Building between international contexts.
=> According to the reviewer’s opinion, green building definitions in Germany, Japan, and South Korea have been added to chapter 3, theoretical background.
6. Theoretical background:
The paragraph on Green Economy appears unclear with respect to the themes and objectives of the article. Likewise, the very general reference to LCC and LCA methodologies remains obscure.
=> Based on the reviewer’s opinion, the arguable parts of green economy, and LCC and LCA have been deleted. The relationship between green economy and green building in China is briefly explained after introducing the concept of green building in China.
7. The relationship between Green Buildings and the economy：
The paragraph does not seem of any use to the objectives of the study. The reported correlation between GDP (Chinese?) and quantity of Green Building studies does not seem to be supported by anything other than insufficient coincidence. The thesis reported by the authors seems questionable, but mostly out of context to the topic of the study.
=> Based on the reviewer’s opinion, the arguable chapter of “The relationship between Green Buildings and the economy” has been deleted.
8. Green Building changing trend and related research topics:
This is the first time China's 5-year technical policy cycles are mentioned. Neither why 69 papers were selected nor why the term a quo of the survey is 2001 is explained.
=> These are explained in detail in the newly added chapter 2, Research Scope and Methods.
9. Green Building changing trend and related research topics:
L. 136(L. 122) only 3 sub-dimensions are mentioned instead of 4.
=> In chapter 4, the changing trends of green buildings are analyzed from the technical, economic, and policy perspective by 5-year cycle. Please understand that this is different from the 4 sub dimensions in chapter 5.
10. Green Building changing trend and related research topics:
The rationale behind the definition of the 7 study categories is not clear, nor why a number of additional categories (of a very heterogeneous nature) were generically placed as "other," actually being first included and then excluded from the study.
=> Additional explanations have been provided in chapter 4 regarding the determination of the "7 study categories" and "other categories".
11. Green Building changing trend and related research topics:
L. 195 there is one point too many at the end of the sentence.
=> The redundant period has been removed. Thank you for your careful review.
12. Green Building changing trend and related research topics:
The case studies are only mentioned superficially, without details or photographs. Perhaps it would be helpful to return a summary via a table, diagram, or chart?
=> According to the reviewer’s opinion, table 2 (Main research content by period) is added at the end of chapter 4.
13. Green Building changing trend and related research topics:
The brief summary does not seem very effective. Perhaps a table, diagram, or chart would be better?
=> According to the reviewer’s opinion, table 2 (Main research content by period) is added at the end of chapter 4.
14. In-depth analysis of Green Buildings trends by period:
The analyses are based on very schematic and simplistic breakdowns, which leave room for some puzzlement.
As an example: is it possible to establish that energy saving belongs only to the economic dimension, and not also to the technical and policy dimensions?
=> Please understand that energy saving does not belong to any specific field. Thus, in the research on green buildings at the economic level, the differences and focuses of different periods are explained.
15. Conclusions and recommendations:
There is essentially a repetition of things that have been described before, with no further reflection or summary. Predictions of future trends, as stated in the abstract, are absent.
Beyond the time lag of publications, a comprehensive description of the study's limitations is absent.
=> Based on the reviewer’s opinion, the limitations and practical applications of this study and its extension and future scope have been added in the last two paragraphs of the conclusion chapter.
16. Aknowledgements are missing:
=> Other than what is presented in Funding, there is no additional support to mention separately.
Thanks again for your time and help.
Reviewer 3 Report
-Do a proper literature survey based on green building.
-Accordingly state the literature gaps and define the objectives.
-All the tables and figures should be bigger and clearer.
-On what criteria did you select 69 articles?
-You could have done Bibliometric or scientometric analysis.
-It was noted that there is a decline in research trends. What can be the causes?
-What are the limitations of your study?
-Provide practical application of the study.
-How your study be extended? Add some future scope.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to thank you for your careful review and thoughtful comments on this manuscript. Please note that changes made to reflect the opinions of you and other reviewers are highlighted in red font in the revised manuscript. The changes made to reflect your opinion are as follows.
1. Green building definitions in Germany, Japan, and South Korea have been added to chapter 3, theoretical background.
2. Figure 1 and all tables that were unclear have been modified.
3. Chapter 2, Research Scope and Methods, has been newly added, and the process of selecting 69 articles are explained.
4. Based on the reviewer’s opinion, the arguable chapter of “The relationship between Green Buildings and the economy” has been deleted.
5. The limitations and practical applications of this study and its extension and future scope have been added in the last two paragraphs of the conclusion chapter.
Thanks again for your time and help.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Following the revisions, the authors improved the contribution and adopted most of the reviewer's suggestions.
Author Response
Thanks again for your review and comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
Figures should be more bigger and clear.
Rest comments are addressed properly.
Author Response
Based on the reviewer’s comments, all figures have been clearly redrawn.
Thanks again for your review and comments.
