Improving the Decision-Making for Sustainable Demolition Waste Management by Combining a Building Information Modelling-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework and Hybrid Multi-Criteria Decision-Aiding Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The core content of this article is about how to improve the decision-making of sustainable demolition waste management (DWM) by combining the lifecycle sustainability assessment framework based on Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Hybrid Multi Criteria Decision Assist (MCDA) method, providing an innovative decision support tool for the sustainable management of construction and demolition waste, emphasizing the importance of BIM technology in promoting environmental, economic, and social sustainability.

(1) The research mainly focuses on environmental and economic aspects, and the assessment of social impact may not be comprehensive enough. Further expansion of SLCA's data and methods is needed to consider the impact in this regard.

(2) The research relies on universal LCA data and lacks EPD for the end of material lifecycle stage, which may affect the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results. It is recommended to increase analysis.

(3) The research mainly focuses on limited material types (such as concrete, aluminum, steel, brick, glass, wood, and gypsum), which limits the applicability of the framework in a wider range of material applications and whether the model can be applied to a wider range of models.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The core content of this article is about how to improve the decision-making of sustainable demolition waste management (DWM) by combining the lifecycle sustainability assessment framework based on Building Information Modeling (BIM) and the Hybrid Multi Criteria Decision Assist (MCDA) method, providing an innovative decision support tool for the sustainable management of construction and demolition waste, emphasizing the importance of BIM technology in promoting environmental, economic, and social sustainability.

(1) The research mainly focuses on environmental and economic aspects, and the assessment of social impact may not be comprehensive enough. Further expansion of SLCA's data and methods is needed to consider the impact in this regard.

(2) The research relies on universal LCA data and lacks EPD for the end of material lifecycle stage, which may affect the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results. It is recommended to increase analysis.

(3) The research mainly focuses on limited material types (such as concrete, aluminum, steel, brick, glass, wood, and gypsum), which limits the applicability of the framework in a wider range of material applications and whether the model can be applied to a wider range of models.

Author Response

Comment 1: The research mainly focuses on environmental and economic aspects, and the assessment of social impact may not be comprehensive enough. Further expansion of SLCA's data and methods is needed to consider the impact in this regard.

Author response 1:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the recognition of the depth of our environmental and economic analysis. However, we would like to address the concern regarding the comprehensiveness of the social impact assessment. Our study acknowledges the importance of social impacts and has taken initial steps to incorporate SLCA, wherein the social dimension was covered by the most prevalent and important criteria—human toxicity (see page 3, lines 128-132).

We acknowledge the need for further expansion of SLCA data. We are in the process of collaborating with relevant stakeholders to enhance our social data collection and analysis. Future iterations of this research will incorporate these improvements (see page 17, lines 627-634).

The research presented is part of an ongoing project. We aim to progressively refine and expand our SLCA methodologies in subsequent phases, ensuring a more holistic approach to sustainability assessment that balances environmental, economic, and social dimensions. We have been engaged with local communities and stakeholders via interviews and surveys to gather qualitative data on social impacts, which will help capture diverse social perspectives and enhance our assessment's comprehensiveness.

Comment 2: The research relies on universal LCA data and lacks EPD for the end of material lifecycle stage, which may affect the accuracy and reliability of the evaluation results. It is recommended to increase analysis.

Author response 2:

Thank you for the suggestion. We appreciate your insights and would like to address your concerns as follows:

Use of Universal LCA Data: We used generic LCA data due to its broad availability and standardization, which ensures consistency across our analysis. While this provides a solid foundation, we acknowledge that it may not capture all the nuances of specific material end-of-life scenarios. However, etoolLCD databases provide standardised material environmental profiles for comprehensive LCA assessment.

EPD Integration: We recognize the importance of EPDs in providing detailed and specific data. Currently, the availability of EPDs for some materials is limited, but we are actively working to incorporate more specific EPD data into the BIM libraries as it becomes available. This will enhance the accuracy, efficiency, and reliability of our BIM-based life cycle impact assessment.

Accuracy and Reliability: To mitigate the impact of using generic LCA data, we limit the scope of the analysis by adopting principle building components and materials (see page 16, lines 595-608), whose environmental profiles are readily available in LCA databases, and the assumptions of its economic data are relatively easy to make and justify.

Future Enhancements: We are committed to improving the accuracy of our research by increasing the granularity of our data. This includes ongoing efforts to gather more comprehensive EPD data and collaborate with manufacturers and industry partners to access and document detailed end-of-life information (see page 17, lines 638-648).

Comment 3: The research mainly focuses on limited material types (such as concrete, aluminum, steel, brick, glass, wood, and gypsum), which limits the applicability of the framework in a wider range of material applications and whether the model can be applied to a wider range of models.

Author response 3:

Thank you for your insightful feedback regarding the scope of material types in our research. We appreciate your concern and would like to address it by incorporating the discussion of limitations and future directions of the study. See page 16, lines 595-604, and page 17, lines 638-644)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled "Improving the decision-making for sustainable demolition waste management by combining a BIM-based life cycle sustainability assessment framework and hybrid MCDA approach" based on the provided file.

The abstract briefly mentions the integration of BIM-based life cycle sustainability assessment with a hybrid MCDA approach. However, the specific MCDA methods used are not clearly defined. More detailed explanations and justifications for choosing these methods should be provided to enhance the clarity of the methodology.

The paper mentions a pilot study but lacks detailed information about its execution, results, and implications. Providing comprehensive details on the case study, including the specific scenarios tested, data collected, analysis performed, and results obtained, would strengthen the paper's practical relevance and demonstrate the framework's effectiveness.

While the paper discusses the convergence of BIM with LCA/LCC, it does not delve deeply into the technical challenges of achieving data interoperability. Providing specific examples of interoperability issues encountered and how they were resolved would offer valuable insights and practical guidance to other researchers and practitioners.

The lack of recycling data in Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs) is noted as a challenge. The paper should discuss the potential impacts of these data gaps on the overall assessment accuracy and propose possible solutions or ongoing efforts to address these issues.

The paper mentions the use of MCDA methods for interpreting assessment results but lacks detailed explanations of these methods. Providing a brief overview of the chosen MCDA methods, such as AHP, and explaining their advantages and application in this context would make the methodology more comprehensible and robust.

The discussion and conclusion sections could benefit from more explicit practical implications and recommendations based on the study's findings. Highlighting how the proposed framework can be applied in real-world scenarios, and what specific benefits it offers to stakeholders in demolition waste management, would enhance the paper's impact.

The paper mentions the integration of LCA and LCC but does not deeply explore the potential trade-offs between environmental and economic sustainability. Discussing these trade-offs and how the proposed framework helps navigate them would add significant value to the paper.

Specific comments

1. Line 14-17: "This study develops a BIM-based DWM sustainability assessment approach..." - The methodology and the integration of hybrid MCDA methods using Dynamo visual scripting could be elaborated more clearly. Consider specifying the type of hybrid MCDA methods used.

2. Line 21-23: "It is worth noting that the ‘growth curve’ of the sustainability score..." - This statement about the growth curve flattening could benefit from a brief explanation of its implications for practical decision-making in DWM.

3. Line 30-32: "Rapid urbanisation escalates the human population in urban areas..." - Consider providing recent statistics or references to support the claim about urban population growth by 2050.

4. Line 47-48: "stakeholders with different initiatives and knowledge backgrounds..." - The article could benefit from examples of such stakeholders and the specific challenges their diversity introduces into DWM planning.

5. Line 103-108: "LCA is universally perceived as a comprehensive assessment methodology..." - Clarify how combining LCA with LCC captures a broader spectrum of sustainability impacts. An example or a brief case study might be useful.

6. Line 112-113: "lack of recycling data in the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)..." - Consider discussing potential solutions or ongoing efforts to bridge this data gap.

7. Line 135-138: "The convergence of BIM with LCA/LCC is opening new avenues..." - More details on how BIM enhances data processing and management capacity in LCA/LCC integration would strengthen this section.

8. Line 148-150: "The second approach hinges on establishing a permanent bidirectional link..." - Elaborate on the technical challenges and solutions associated with maintaining this bidirectional link.

9. Line 188-190: "The interpretation of the assessment results is a pivotal step..." - The role of MCDA methods in resolving trade-offs between conflicting criteria could be expanded with specific examples or case studies.

10. Line 205-207: "the relative weights of a set of criteria are obtained by pairwise comparisons..." - A brief explanation of the AHP method and its advantages in this context would be beneficial.

11. Throughout the article, the challenge of data interoperability between BIM and other systems is frequently mentioned. Proposing concrete examples of successful interoperability cases or potential technological advancements would provide practical insights.

12. The pilot study mentioned in the abstract and later sections could be more detailed, with specific examples of how the proposed framework improved decision-making in real-world scenarios.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Few suggestions are given to make the manuscript in good shape.

Author Response

Comment 1: Line 14-17: "This study develops a BIM-based DWM sustainability assessment approach..." - The methodology and the integration of hybrid MCDA methods using Dynamo visual scripting could be elaborated more clearly. Consider specifying the type of hybrid MCDA methods used.

Author response 1:

We appreciate your feedback regarding the clarity of the hybrid MCDA methods adopted in this study. Accordingly, we have extensively elucidated the hybrid MCDA methods adopted in this study, specifying the types, decision-making mechanisms, applicable fields, and suitability for this particular research. Please refer to page 3, lines 106-119, and page 6, lines 263-268.

Comment 2: Line 21-23: "It is worth noting that the ‘growth curve’ of the sustainability score..." - This statement about the growth curve flattening could benefit from a brief explanation of its implications for practical decision-making in DWM.

Author response 2:

We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Therefore, we provide a brief explanation of the implications of the research finding for practical decision-making in DWM and future directions for resolving the limitation of the result interpretation. Please refer to page 14, lines 558-564, page 16, lines 604-608, page 17, lines 645-648, and pages 17-18, lines 675-680.

Comment 3: Line 30-32: "Rapid urbanisation escalates the human population in urban areas..." - Consider providing recent statistics or references to support the claim about urban population growth by 2050.

Author response 3:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a more recent reference to detail the expected urban population growth by 2050. Please refer to page 1 lines 35-36.

Comment 4: Line 47-48: "stakeholders with different initiatives and knowledge backgrounds..." - The article could benefit from examples of such stakeholders and the specific challenges their diversity introduces into DWM planning.

Author response 4:

Thanks for the great suggestion. Therefore, we have exemplified the challenges of stakeholder’s diversity to the DWM decision-making (see page 2, lines 52-55, and page 17, lines 627-634).

Comment 5: Line 103-108: "LCA is universally perceived as a comprehensive assessment methodology..." - Clarify how combining LCA with LCC captures a broader spectrum of sustainability impacts. An example or a brief case study might be useful.

Author response 5:

Thank you for your feedback on the section discussing the combination of Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) with Life Cycle Costing (LCC). We believe our current explanation adequately addresses how combining these methodologies captures a broader spectrum of sustainability impacts. However, we appreciate the opportunity to further elaborate on this point.

By integrating LCA, LCC, and social-LCA, our approach ensures that all three dimensions of sustainability are considered simultaneously, facilitating a more holistic view of sustainability. The integrated assessment framework helps identify DWM schemes that are not only environmentally sustainable but also economically feasible, and socially acceptable, thus supporting more balanced and pragmatic sustainability-oriented DWM strategies (see page 3, lines 124-132) .

While providing an example or brief case study could enhance understanding, our manuscript's primary focus is on the methodology and framework development. Including extensive case studies or examples may divert from this focus. However, we have incorporated a reference to a prior example in the text (see pages 3-4, lines 144-160) to explain the trade-offs between extending the scope of the framework and maintaining the robustness and feasibility of the assessment.

Comment 6: Line 112-113: "lack of recycling data in the Environmental Product Declarations (EPDs)..." - Consider discussing potential solutions or ongoing efforts to bridge this data gap.

Author response 6:

Thank you for your comments regarding the lack of EPDs and the potential solutions in future research endeavours to bridge this data gap. Accordingly, we addressed this comment by adding more discussion regarding this data gap and future solutions on page 17, lines 638-644.

Comment 7: Line 135-138: "The convergence of BIM with LCA/LCC is opening new avenues..." - More details on how BIM enhances data processing and management capacity in LCA/LCC integration would strengthen this section.

Author response 7:

Thank you for the suggestion. We have provided more details on how BIM data processing and management capacity facilitate LCA/LCC/SLCA integration (see page 4, lines 162-170).

Comment 8: Line 148-150: "The second approach hinges on establishing a permanent bidirectional link..." - Elaborate on the technical challenges and solutions associated with maintaining this bidirectional link.

Author response 8:

Thanks for the valuable suggestion. Thus, we elaborate on the technical challenges and potential solutions to developing and maintaining this bidirectional link (see page 5, lines 194-200).

Comment 9: Line 188-190: "The interpretation of the assessment results is a pivotal step..." - The role of MCDA methods in resolving trade-offs between conflicting criteria could be expanded with specific examples or case studies.

Author response 9:

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to expand on the role of MCDA methods with specific examples or case studies. However, we believe that the current discussion sufficiently covers the fundamental aspects of how MCDA methods facilitate resolving trade-offs between conflicting criteria. see page 5, lines 231-234, and pages 5-6, lines 249-253.

Comment 10: Line 205-207: "the relative weights of a set of criteria are obtained by pairwise comparisons..." - A brief explanation of the AHP method and its advantages in this context would be beneficial.

Author response 10:

Thank you for the suggestion. Accordingly, we provide a brief expiation of the AHP method and its advantages. Please refer to page 5, lines 249-253

Comment 11: Throughout the article, the challenge of data interoperability between BIM and other systems is frequently mentioned. Proposing concrete examples of successful interoperability cases or potential technological advancements would provide practical insights.

Author response 11:

Thank you for pointing this out. Therefore, we summarize the potential technological advancements and practical insights of this study (see page 18, lines 681-688).

Comment 12: The pilot study mentioned in the abstract and later sections could be more detailed, with specific examples of how the proposed framework improved decision-making in real-world scenarios.

Author response 12:

We appreciate the valuable feedback. As such, we explain how this proposed framework can improve decision-making in real-world scenarios (see page 17, lines 665-669).

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled “Improving the Decision-Making for Sustainable Demolition Waste Management by Combining a BIM-Based Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Framework and Hybrid MCDA Approach” aligns with the current research trend in exploring possibilities and methods for managing demolition waste materials. The following elements require improvement and modification:

- The objectives and novelty of the study aren't clearly and coherently formulated. This requires improvement and revision to ensure clarity.

- The methodology and the developed process should be supported with diagrams and illustrations for each of the described elements. The current presentation is insufficient for clearly conveying the authors intentions.

- The MCDA process introduces subjectivity into decision-making due to the need to weigh various sustainability criteria. Can the framework be improved, for instance, by integrating more objective data for criteria weighting? Has this been considered?

- The discussion is inadequate. There is a lack of references to other approaches and comparisons with existing methods. This section should be expanded to better understand the context and significance of the study.

- To better understand the results, the article should explain the origin of the numerical values presented in the “Results” section. It should include the formulas used and examples of calculations, which will help to better understand the discussed approach.

Overall, the entire article should be revised in terms of the presentation of the topic and the approaches contained within. In my opinion, applying the above suggestions will help to improve the scientific soundness of the article.

Author Response

Comment 1: The objectives and novelty of the study aren't clearly and coherently formulated. This requires improvement and revision to ensure clarity.

Author’s response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the assessment. Therefore, we reemphasize the objectives and novelty of the study in the abstract (see page 1, lines 12-23), introduction (see pages 2-3, lines 94-119), methodology (see page 6, lines 270-279), discussion (see page 16, lines 619-625), and conclusion (see page 18, lines 681-688) sections.

Comment 2: The methodology and the developed process should be supported with diagrams and illustrations for each of the described elements. The current presentation is insufficient for clearly conveying the author’s intentions.

Author’s response:

We appreciate your valuable suggestions. Therefore, we have inserted a diagram depicting the methodology and the developed process in Figure 1 (see page 6, line 281), in which the elements, corresponding functions, and correlations are illustrated in this flowchart to clearly convey the research intentions.

Comment 3: The MCDA process introduces subjectivity into decision-making due to the need to weigh various sustainability criteria. Can the framework be improved, for instance, by integrating more objective data for criteria weighting? Has this been considered?

Author’s response:

Thank you for pointing this out. We acknowledge that AHP introduces subjectivity when it comes to criteria weighting. However, this work is founded on the author’s previous study, wherein the sustainability indicators are selected and weighed using a Dephi-AHP method. Hence, the sustainability assessment framework inherits the selected indicators and their corresponding weights derived from the AHP method, wherein the AHP results were subject to several statistical analyses to validate the consistency and reliability of the criteria weighting.  In the discussion section, the authors acknowledge this limitation and propose future research directions (see page 16, lines 587-592, and page 17, lines 627-638). In regards to integrating more objective data for criteria weighting, we did consider utilizing historical data collected from previous projects and machine learning techniques to determine the weights of sustainability indicators. However, the large volume of training data required for developing an objective approach for criteria weighting significantly increases the difficulty of implementation.  We believe that the methodology could be improved further as the awareness and engagement from the DWM stakeholders advance in future.

Comment 4: The discussion is inadequate. There is a lack of references to other approaches and comparisons with existing methods. This section should be expanded to better understand the context and significance of the study.

Author’s response:

Thank you for the valuable advice. In response to the comment, we added references to other approaches to expand the discussion section to comprehensively discuss the implications and significance of our study. (See page 13, lines 538-544; page 14, lines 558-564; and page 17, lines 635-648)

Comment 5: To better understand the results, the article should explain the origin of the numerical values presented in the “Results” section. It should include the formulas used and examples of calculations, which will help to better understand the discussed approach.

Author’s response:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate the suggestion to include more detailed explanations of the numerical values and calculations in the "Results" section. However, we would like to clarify that the eToolLCD software used in this study contains all the necessary formulas and methodologies for conducting Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA).

eToolLCD is a comprehensive tool that automates the calculation of environmental impacts based on established LCA standards. It ensures accuracy and consistency in the results by utilizing pre-defined, validated formulas and data sets. As such, the need to elaborate on these formulas within the manuscript is minimized, as they are inherently part of the software’s functionality.

Moreover, including detailed formulas and calculation steps may unnecessarily complicate the manuscript and divert attention from the primary focus of our study. Instead, we have provided a high-level overview of the methodology and highlighted key results to ensure clarity and readability.

To assist readers in understanding the origin of the numerical values, we have included references to the relevant standards and methodologies implemented within eToolLCD. This approach maintains the manuscript's focus while ensuring transparency about the source and reliability of the data.

We believe this method strikes a balance between providing sufficient context for the results and maintaining a clear, concise presentation of our findings. However, we are open to adding specific details or examples as supplementary materials if deemed essential for the manuscript’s comprehensiveness and readability.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been carefully revised and can be published and accepted accordingly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The article has been carefully revised and can be published and accepted accordingly.

Author Response

Comment 1: The article has been carefully revised and can be published and accepted accordingly.

Author's response: Thank you for the recognition. We appreciate your effort and suggestions during the review process.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the responses and the revisions that have been implemented. In the event that the authors are reluctant to provide specific formulas within the text, it would be greatly appreciated if they could at least describe the standards that the eToolLCD tool employs. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to indicate any specific publications or standards that could be referenced. 

Author Response

Comment 1: Thank you for the responses and the revisions that have been implemented. In the event that the authors are reluctant to provide specific formulas within the text, it would be greatly appreciated if they could at least describe the standards that the eToolLCD tool employs. Furthermore, it would be beneficial to indicate any specific publications or standards that could be referenced. 

Author's response: We sincerely appreciate your effort and feedback on the manuscript. Accordingly, we have further elucidated the standards employed by the LCA tools and added supporting references. Please refer to page 7, lines 300-302, and page 9, lines 407-410. Further, we have scrutinised the English errors, including grammatical and formatting errors. We believe that the quality of the manuscript has improved significantly after the revision.