A Stakeholder-Centric Approach to Advancing the Circular Economy in the Building Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comment 1: The geographical focus on Italy and Türkiye, along with the limited sample size, undermines the global applicability of the findings. To increase the impact and relevance of your work, expand the study to include more diverse and representative regions. Incorporating perspectives from underrepresented areas or countries with contrasting socio-economic contexts could provide more comprehensive insights and bolster the paper's global significance.

 

Comment 2: The paper identifies barriers and challenges but falls short of providing actionable, evidence-based solutions to overcome them. For the manuscript to resonate with a broad audience, particularly in a journal like MDPI, it should propose practical, scalable, and innovative strategies that stakeholders and policymakers can implement to drive the circular economy transition.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language in the manuscript is generally clear and comprehensible.

Author Response

1# Reviewer 
Revision 1: The geographical focus on Italy and Türkiye, along with the limited sample size, undermines the global applicability of the findings. To increase the impact and relevance of your work, expand the study to include more diverse and representative regions. Incorporating perspectives from underrepresented areas or countries with contrasting socio-economic contexts could provide more comprehensive insights and bolster the paper’s global significance.
Response 1: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the conclusion section as a limitation of the article, in lines between 700-734, highlighted as yellow. 
Revision 2: The paper identifies barriers and challenges but falls short of providing actionable, evidence-based solutions to overcome them. For the manuscript to resonate with a broad audience, particularly in a journal like MDPI, it should propose practical, scalable, and innovative strategies that stakeholders and policymakers can implement to drive the circular economy transition.
Response 2: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the conclusion section as a limitation of the article, in lines between 695-699, highlighted as yellow.
•    The revisions requested by the other reviewers have been highlighted in yellow. They can be found in the revised version of the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs an online questionnaire to evaluate the current status of the building sector in the transition to a circular economy. It assesses stakeholders' awareness and knowledge while identifying the key stakeholders driving this transition for climate change mitigation. The topic is timely, interesting, and worth exploring. Below are some suggestions for improvement, which may be considered before acceptance:

1. Consider conducting additional quantitative analyses. For instance, exploring correlations between respondents' demographic factors and their answers could provide deeper insights into the influential factors shaping their responses.

2. In Line 131, the manuscript mentions that the questionnaire is included as Appendix 1. However, at the end of the manuscript, there is no section titled "Appendix 1." Instead, the questionnaire appears to be pasted directly. It would be helpful to properly format and label it as Appendix 1 for clarity.

Author Response

2# Reviewer 
This study employs an online questionnaire to evaluate the current status of the building sector in the transition to a circular economy. It assesses stakeholders’ awareness and knowledge while identifying the key stakeholders driving this transition for climate change mitigation. The topic is timely, interesting, and worth exploring. Below are some suggestions for improvement, which may be considered before acceptance:
Revision 1: Consider conducting additional quantitative analyses. For instance, exploring correlations between respondents’ demographic factors and their answers could provide deeper insights into the influential factors shaping their responses.
Response 1: Unfortunately, the requested revision has not been performed due to sample size limitations, but it is a useful suggestion for future research. Thus, correlation analyses were not feasible but could be conducted in future studies with a larger sample. The requested revision has been mentioned as a limitation in the conclusion section in lines 700-734. 
Revision 2: In Line 131, the manuscript mentions that the questionnaire is included as Appendix 1. However, at the end of the manuscript, there is no section titled “Appendix 1.” Instead, the questionnaire appears to be pasted directly. It would be helpful to properly format and label it as Appendix 1 for clarity.
Response 2: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the line 759. 
•    The revisions requested by the other reviewers have been highlighted in yellow. They can be found in the revised version of the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the chance to review your work. I think that with further planning and coordination, you could potentially find similar results via a few interviews with professionals. It would be helpful to obtain a larger sample, such as through a briefer survey, perhaps obtained through attendance at conferences or distributed on work listservs. So, while I think the information gathered can be useful for you in your work as a student, further study might help to contribute novel knowledge to the field in other ways. I have attached some line item reactions in case these details might help.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

3# Reviewer 
Thank you for the chance to review your work. I think that with further planning and coordination, you could potentially find similar results via a few interviews with professionals. It would be helpful to obtain a larger sample, such as through a briefer survey, perhaps obtained through attendance at conferences or distributed on work listservs. So, while I think the information gathered can be useful for you in your work as a student, further study might help to contribute novel knowledge to the field in other ways. I have attached some line item reactions in case these details might help.
Revision 1: (210-212) The limited availability of the survey might have contributed to the low response rate. It is not clear that much can be said from this low sample size.
Response 1: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the conclusion section as a limitation of the article, in lines between 700-734, highlighted as yellow. 
Revision 2: (218-225) This portion seems like against conjecture. Consider removing. Basing conclusions on characteristics of who completed (or did not) seems inappropriate. In order to make such claims, I would think that you would have to distribute the survey to equal amounts of people from these age groups, to gauge reply rates, but also to evaluate their conservativeness within the survey or as they are choosing or declining to take the survey.
Response 2: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed thus, it has been removed. It could be found in lines between 282 and 283, highlighted in yellow. 
Revision 3: (288) The 3D nature of the graph makes it more difficult to compare bars
Response 3: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed, thus, the graphs have been adjusted to 2D format to facilitate the comparison between coloured bars. Figures 5, 6, and 8-17 can be found in the revised article. 
Revision 4: (314-317) Further reducing the sample size increases the suspicion about the merit of conclusions.
Response 4: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the conclusion section as a limitation of the article, in lines between 700-734, highlighted as yellow. 
Revision 5: (337) Consider maintaining the same maximum in graphs for comparability across graphs.
Response 5: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed; thus, the graphs have been adjusted with the same maximum (45) to facilitate the comparison between coloured bars. Figures 5, 6, and 8-17 can be found in the revised article.
Revision 6: (374) Perhaps a table showing a weighted calculated score would be easier to understand than a graph?
Response 6: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed; thus, the graphs have been adjusted to 2D format with the same maximum (45) to facilitate the comparison between coloured bars. Figures 5, 6, and 8-17 can be found in the revised article. The author believes that the graphs are clear and understandable. Unfortunately, it was not possible to show a weighted calculated score. 
Revision 7: (672-675) Consider a nonbinary option.
Response 7: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding the questionnaire. However, it has already been conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that no questions regarding the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have been received from the participants. 
Revision 8: (682-690) These categories are not entirely clear to me.
Response 8: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding the questionnaire. However, it has already been conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that no questions regarding the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have been received from the participants. 
Revision 9: (692-694) Q6-Q8 are odd in stating a fact and asking someone whether they know it, especially on a scale. Are you asking whether they knew the statistics before reading them? Are you asking whether they believe the statistics you have written?
Response 9: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding the questionnaire. However, it has already been conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that no questions regarding the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have been received from the participants.
Revision 10: (700-701) Q14-Q15 are odd for asking some level of belief about a state of affairs. An agree-disagree style of question should be used with a judgment or evaluation.
Response 10: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding the questionnaire. However, it has already been conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that no questions regarding the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have been received from the participants.
Revision 11: (704-705) Q16-Q25 appear to be factors that you have found potentially important, and you are essentially asking them to confirm or refute that importance. The results mostly confirm that the factors are important, which is unsurprising, though complexity is not as well supported, which makes sense since it is a reality that is different from the other factors in its ability to be controlled.
Response 11: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding to the questionnaire. However, it has been already conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For the future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that any question regarding to the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have not been received from the participants.
Revision 12: (707-708) Q26-Q30 ask judgmental questions and fit a scale better than other questions had. They seem to gauge the professional environment as if to ask whether respondents are seeing progress. Yet, Q30 seems strange to ask, as it would seem to me to be highly unlikely to be answered affirmatively since the progress is not yet remarkable.
Response 12: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding to the questionnaire. However, it has been already conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For the future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that any question regarding to the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have not been received from the participants.
Revision 13: (714-715) Q31-Q91 I can understand why you are asking these questions, but I wonder if it could fatigue respondents to have so many questions. Plus, they tended to answer that everyone was important, though placed some easy-to-guess options ahead of the pack at times.
Response 13: The author thanks the reviewer for their comments regarding to the questionnaire. However, it has been already conducted and concluded. Therefore, it was not possible to change a particular question’s content. For the future research, the reviewer’s comments will be utilised to achieve better results. However, the author acknowledges that any question regarding to the clarity or difficulty of the questionnaire’s questions have not been received from the participants.
•    The revisions requested by the other reviewers have been highlighted in yellow. They can be found in the revised version of the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Comment
The manuscript presents a valuable and timely investigation into the role of stakeholders in advancing the circular economy within the building sector, an area critical for mitigating climate change. Below are specific technical comments for improving the manuscript:

Technical Comments

1. The abstract should follow the structure: background → objective → methodology → results → contribution. For example, authors should provide a concise background of the study in the abstract.
2. The first paragraph of the introduction contains statements that require proper referencing to support the claims made.
3. While the introduction effectively sets the stage, it would benefit from a sharper articulation of the research gap. For instance, clarify how this study advances knowledge compared to existing stakeholder-centric approaches.
4. A separate literature review section should be included to discuss key studies on circular economy transitions and stakeholder engagement.
5. The methodology section should be divided into subsections for better readability (e.g., 2.1 Data Collection, 2.2 Data Analysis). Additionally, a figure illustrating the research framework would enhance the reader’s understanding.
6. Provide more details about the questionnaire design, including how the questions were developed, response validation, and the techniques used for data analysis.
7. In the results section, demographic data under 3.1 could be presented in a table for a more comprehensive overview.
8. Some figures lack y-axis labels. Ensure all axes are appropriately labeled for clarity.
9. Although the stakeholder analysis is comprehensive, it is unclear how the findings translate into actionable strategies. Specific recommendations for each stakeholder group should be included to enhance the study’s practical implications.
10. In the conclusion, address the sample size limitation by discussing potential biases and suggesting strategies for future research to mitigate them.

Author Response

4# Reviewer 
The manuscript presents a valuable and timely investigation into the role of stakeholders in advancing the circular economy within the building sector, an area critical for mitigating climate change. Below are specific technical comments for improving the manuscript:
Revision 1: The abstract should follow the structure: background → objective → methodology → results → contribution. For example, authors should provide a concise background of the study in the abstract.
Response 1: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 8 and 24. 
Revision 2: The first paragraph of the introduction contains statements that require proper referencing to support the claims made
Response 2: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 28 and 36.
Revision 3: While the introduction effectively sets the stage, it would benefit from a sharper articulation of the research gap. For instance, clarify how this study advances knowledge compared to existing stakeholder-centric approaches.
Response 3: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 52 and 72.
Revision 4: A separate literature review section should be included to discuss key studies on circular economy transitions and stakeholder engagement.
Response 4: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 73 and 134.
Revision 5: The methodology section should be divided into subsections for better readability (e.g., 2.1 Data Collection, 2.2 Data Analysis). Additionally, a figure illustrating the research framework would enhance the reader’s understanding.
Response 5: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 135 and 270. 
Revision 6: Provide more details about the questionnaire design, including how the questions were developed, response validation, and the techniques used for data analysis.
Response 6: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 135 and 270. 
Revision 7: In the results section, demographic data under 3.1 could be presented in a table for a more comprehensive overview.
Response 7: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed. It can be found in lines 276 and 278.
Revision 8: Some figures lack y-axis labels. Ensure all axes are appropriately labeled for clarity.
Response 8: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed; thus, the graphs have been labelled appropriately and adjusted to 2D format with the same maximum (45) to facilitate the comparison between coloured bars. Figures 5, 6, and 8-17 can be found in the revised article.
Revision 9: Although the stakeholder analysis is comprehensive, it is unclear how the findings translate into actionable strategies. Specific recommendations for each stakeholder group should be included to enhance the study’s practical implications.
Response 9: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the conclusion section as a limitation of the article, in lines between 695-699, highlighted as yellow.
Revision 10: In the conclusion, address the sample size limitation by discussing potential biases and suggesting strategies for future research to mitigate them.
Response 10: According to the reviewers’ comments, the revision has been addressed in the conclusion section, lines 700-734, highlighted in yellow.
•    The revisions requested by the other reviewers have been highlighted in yellow. They can be found in the revised version of the article. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I really appreciate that you improve your paper. Great work, I accepted the present form.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have addressed all the comments.