Systematic Review of Green Building Trends in South Korea from 2001 to 2023 Using Research Topic Words

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper consists of a Systematic Literature Review of the Green Buildings Trends in South Korea, in a timeframe from 2001-2023. The aim of the paper is to examine future opportunities and barriers in the development of Green Buildings and Sustainability Goals in Construction in South Korea, in the wake of the adoption of the Green New Deal and the goal of carbon neutrality by 2050.

The paper continues the work started with a previous work, focused on Green Buildings trend in China, and is part of a broader research that, to interpret the intentions of the Authors, is aimed at analyzing future trends in Green Buildings in Asian countries.

The paper is well structured, the methodology is clearly described and the results are sound and coherent with the declared aim of the research.

Nonetheless, is opinion of this Reviewer that some changes should be done in order to make the paper clearer and more consistent.

These suggestions are here listed:

1) In the abstract, it should be mentioned that the areas of interest of the analysis are R&D and Green Building Management, which is something explained only further in the paper;

2) The starting term for the timeframe of the analysis is set on 2021, but it is not clear the reason why. Since Green Building Certification System was introduced in 2002 (L.28), this could be a better term;

3) The keywords should be improved for better help future systematic literature review through web databases, e.g. including "Systematic Review", "Green Buildings Trends", "Green New Deal", etc. Please take this word just as an example;

4) At l. 56 it is stated that "Korean Citation Index level" was used. Does this mean that other international databased (e.g. WoS, Scopus, etc.) were not included in the analysis? Does this limitation affect the soundness of the results?

5) At ll. 57-58 it is stated that 3 keywords have been used ("green buildings", "eco-friendly buildings", energy-efficient buildings"). Please explain why you chose these keywords. Also, are they sufficient for a systematic review?

6) At l.104 it is stated that 8 sub dimensions were analyzed, but in the abstract and in the results, 5 sub dimensions are mentioned. Please correct and verify any other inconsistence between paragraphs in the paper (or see Figure 1);

7) Keywords in Table1 captions are different from the 3 keywords outlined in the abstract. Please verify or make clear if a selection occurred;

8) Is the timeframe split due to some specific reason? Otherwise, time frame should be linked to specific events (e.g. new regulations, new policies, new buildings, etc.);

9) More critical reflections on the results should be outlines. A "Discussion" paragraph should be added in that sense.

 

 

 

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. In the abstract, it should be mentioned that the areas of interest of the analysis are R&D and Green Building Management, which is something explained only further in the paper;
> In the Abstract section, “research and” has been added to indicate “research and development”. “Economic aspects should be studied from the perspective of consumers” is also added to emphasize “green building management”. 

2. The starting term for the timeframe of the analysis is set on 2021, but it is not clear the reason why. Since Green Building Certification System was introduced in 2002 (L.28), this could be a better term;
> Because the previous research on green buildings in China started in 2001, for the purpose of subsequent comparative research, the starting period was set as 2001. 

3. The keywords should be improved for better help future systematic literature review through web databases, e.g. including "Systematic Review", "Green Buildings Trends", "Green New Deal", etc. Please take this word just as an example;
> The keywords have been modified. Thank you for your advice. 

4. At l. 56 it is stated that "Korean Citation Index level" was used. Does this mean that other international databased (e.g. WoS, Scopus, etc.) were not included in the analysis? Does this limitation affect the soundness of the results?
> In this study, we only use the “Korea Citation Index (KCI) level” as our data source, excluding other international databases such as Web of Science or Scopus. We believe this does not compromise the reliability of our findings. The exclusive use of KCI is more targeted, providing the most relevant literature resources for our specific context. Moreover, KCI is an authoritative database in South Korea, ensuring the quality and credibility of the included documents. In addition, if necessary, we will supplement our research with literature from other international databases in subsequent comparative studies.

5. At l. 57-58 it is stated that 3 keywords have been used ("green buildings", "eco-friendly buildings", "energy-efficient buildings"). Please explain why you chose these keywords. Also, are they sufficient for a systematic review?
> We believe that using 'green building', 'eco-friendly building', and 'energy-efficient buildings' as keywords for our study is appropriate. 'Green building' is the most widely used term, though 'eco-friendly building' is also frequently used by some researchers. Additionally, energy conservation was a key feature of early green buildings and was commonly used in the early days.

6. At l.104 it is stated that 8 sub dimensions were analyzed, but in the abstract and in the results, 5 sub dimensions are mentioned. Please correct and verify any other inconsistence between paragraphs in the paper (or see Figure 1);
>  Based on the reviewer's opinion, it has been changed to “main areas”.

7. Keywords in Table1 captions are different from the 3 keywords outlined in the abstract. Please verify or make clear if a selection occurred;
> Similar to the previous response, Table 1 lists the main areas, while sub-dimensions are used in the abstract.

8. Is the timeframe split due to some specific reason? Otherwise, time frame should be linked to specific events (e.g. new regulations, new policies, new buildings, etc.);
> Because the previous research on China's green buildings was based on a period of 5 years. For the purpose of subsequent comparative research, it was also divided into 5 years as a period. 

9. More critical reflections on the results should be outlines. A "Discussion" paragraph should be added in that sense.
> Regarding the discussion section, we would appreciate it if you could understand that after much consideration, we have added more in-depth discussion to the conclusion section.

Thanks again for your time and help.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article does not make any reference to climatic conditions I suggest adding to the sentence in point 3: "as well as differences in climatic conditions". And this sentence would be:

Owing to differences in cultural, political, social, and economic characteristics among countries, as well as differences in climatic conditions [a, b], there is no consensus on the definition of green buildings. However, resource...

Point 3 would be more interesting if you linked the indicated countries with climatic conditions. Particular attention should be paid to the outside air temperature, but also to others that may be important in a given country, e.g. air humidity, amount of rain, snow and snow cover thickness, wind speed and direction. These factors determine the building's energy consumption [c] and determine the difficulty of achieving a green building standard [d, e, f].

 

[a] https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/koppen-climate-classification-system/

[b] Beck, H.E., McVicar, T.R., Vergopolan, N. et al. High-resolution (1 km) Köppen-Geiger maps for 1901–2099 based on constrained CMIP6 projections. Sci Data 10, 724 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-023-02549-6
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41597-023-02549-6#Fig1

[c] Kapalo, P., Adamski, M. (2021). The Analysis of Heat Consumption in the Selected City. In: Blikharskyy, Z. (eds) Proceedings of EcoComfort 2020. EcoComfort 2020. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 100. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-57340-9_20

[d] Ulewicz M., Zhelykh V., Furdas Y., Kozak K. Assessment of the Economic Feasibility of Using Alternative Energy Sources in Ukraine (2021), 100 LNCE, pp. 482 - 489 DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-57340-9_59

[e] Shapoval S., Zhelykh V., Venhryn I., Kozak K., Krygul R. Theoretical and experimental analysis of solar enclosure as part of energy-efficient house (2019) Eastern-European Journal of Enterprise Technologies, 2 (8-98), pp. 38 - 45 DOI: 10.15587/1729-4061.2019.160882

[f] Zhelykh V., Ulewicz V., Furdas Y., Shepitchak V., Investigation of thermal and air efficiency in trombe wall of modular building,  Archives of Civil Engineering, Vol. LXIX, ISSUE 4, 2023,  pp. 663 –678; DOI: 10.24425/ace.2023.147682

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It is ok.

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. 

In accordance with your advice, the section '3. Theoretical Background' has been revised, and all references have been added accordingly.

Thanks again for your time and help.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This article studies the development trend of green buildings in South Korea, summarizes and predicts its trajectory, and effectively promotes the development of green buildings in South Korea. To further improve the article, here are some suggested references: 1. This article mentions "green buildings," "environmentally friendly buildings," and "energy-saving buildings," Page 2 of 57. What is the difference between these three terms? 2.Page 3 The name of Table 1 is too long. Is it possible to reorganize the contents in () and write it at the bottom of the table? 3. There is a mismatch between the size of the figure and the size of the content in Figure 1 on page 12, and it is recommended that the author make changes. 4. Page 13, Figure 2, the vertical coordinate of the unit is unclear and ambiguous. It is recommended that the author add the unit. 5. This article mentions the slow development of green building management in the South and South Korea does not mention its countermeasures. It is recommended that articles on building energy management be referred to, for example: DOI：10.17775/CSEEJPES.2021.04510. Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

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. This article mentions "green buildings," "environmentally friendly buildings," and "energy-saving buildings," Page 2 of 57. What is the difference between these three terms?
> We believe that using 'green building', 'eco-friendly building', and 'energy-efficient buildings' as keywords for our study is appropriate. 'Green building' is the most widely used term, though 'eco-friendly building' is also frequently used by some researchers. Additionally, energy conservation was a key feature of early green buildings and was commonly used in the early days.

2. Page 3 The name of Table 1 is too long. Is it possible to reorganize the contents in () and write it at the bottom of the table? 
> We considered placing it at the bottom of the table; however, given that the table extends over two pages, we think it would be more convenient for readers if it remains with the table caption. We kindly request your understanding in this matter.

3. There is a mismatch between the size of the figure and the size of the content in Figure 1 on page 12, and it is recommended that the author make changes. 
> Based on the reviewer's opinion, we have redrawn Figure 1, which is now presented as Figure 2. Thank you for your advice.

4. Page 13, Figure 2, the vertical coordinate of the unit is unclear and ambiguous. It is recommended that the author add the unit. 
> Based on the reviewer's opinion, the unit is added in Figure 2, which is now presented as Figure 3. 

5. This article mentions the slow development of green building management in the South and South Korea does not mention its countermeasures. It is recommended that articles on building energy management be referred to, for example: DOI：10.17775/CSEEJPES.2021.04510.
> Based on the reviewer's suggestion, the 'Conclusion' section has been expanded to include additional analysis, and the relevant reference has been cited accordingly.

Thanks again for your time and help.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-The review is present in a good way, still some of the concern the authors can look at.

-Define the Green building concept properly.

-What are the aspect related to Green building, how they are constructed etc. should be discussed.

-What are the advantages, disadvantages and what are the suitable conditions for developing a green building should be added.

-You could have used some major indexing databases such as google scholar, scopus, Web of science to get more results. Justify of choosing your approach.

-You can use PRISMA flow diagram to refine and evaluate your articles.

-Redraw the fig 1 properly. It should be big and clear.

-Article count are overlapping in the bar graph of fig 2. label them properly.

-Convergence of your study should be presented with previous research.

-State some innovative approach in developing green buildings.

-Future scope should contain the direction in which you studies can be implemented. 

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. Define the Green building concept properly.
> Due to the differences in cultural, political, social, economic characteristics and climatic conditions between countries, there is no consensus on the definition of green building. In the “3. Theoretical Background” section, the difficulties in unifying green building standards are added. In addition, the three core elements of green buildings recognized globally are also pointed out.

2. What are the aspect related to Green building, how they are constructed etc. should be discussed.
> Following the reviewer's recommendations, content pertaining to general aspects of green buildings has been incorporated into both the introduction and conclusion sections. 

3. What are the advantages, disadvantages and what are the suitable conditions for developing a green building should be added.
> The introduction section now includes the advantages and disadvantages of green building, while the conclusion section details the suitable conditions for their implementation.

4. You could have used some major indexing databases such as google scholar, scopus, Web of science to get more results. Justify of choosing your approach.
> In this study, we only use the “Korea Citation Index (KCI) level” as our data source, excluding other international databases such as Web of Science or Scopus. We believe this does not compromise the reliability of our findings. The exclusive use of KCI is more targeted, providing the most relevant literature resources for our specific context. Moreover, KCI is an authoritative database in South Korea, ensuring the quality and credibility of the included documents. In addition, if necessary, we will supplement our research with literature from other international databases in subsequent comparative studies.

5. You can use PRISMA flow diagram to refine and evaluate your articles.
> Following the reviewer's opinion, 'Figure 1: Flow chart for the paper selection process' has been added. 

6. Redraw the fig 1 properly. It should be big and clear.
> Based on the reviewer's opinion, we have redrawn Figure 1, which is now presented as Figure 2. Thank you for your advice.

7. Article count are overlapping in the bar graph of fig 2. label them properly.
> Based on the reviewer's opinion, we have redrawn Figure 2, which is now presented as Figure 3. 

8. State some innovative approach in developing green buildings.
> Following the reviewer's opinion, we have supplemented the conclusion section with discussions on innovative approaches, including tax reduction, legal institutionalization, marketing strategies, and personalized management strategies.

9. Convergence of your study should be presented with previous research.
> At the beginning of each section 4 and 5, the relationship to the previous research is explained.

10. Future scope should contain the direction in which you studies can be implemented.
> Based on the reviewer's opinion, the conclusion section now discusses future directions in terms of policy, market environment, and socio-cultural involvement.

Thanks again for your time and help.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Table 1 is rare. Maybe you can find a better way to improve it. Consider and take into account the following comments:

1. You can specify the "Researcher (Year)" column as "Researcher" because you do not specify the year

2. In each "Main subject keywords of research papers by period" group, add up the number of publications

3. Enter the overall totals in the last row of the table.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your detailed review and valuable suggestions for our paper. In accordance with your recommendations, we have updated Table 1: the title of one column header has been modified to more accurately reflect its content, the number of papers categorized by research subject keywords is now indicated for each period, and the total sum for all periods has been included at the end.

Thank you once again for your time and assistance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the revisions are fine

Author Response

Thank you once again for your time and assistance.