Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan: An input-output analysis

Tomohumi Huzita; Ryu Noda

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0316153

Peer Review History

Original SubmissionApril 29, 2024
19 Aug 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-17173Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan, using input–output analysisPLOS ONE Dear Dr. Huzita, Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by Oct 03 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file. Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript: A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'. A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'. An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'. If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter. If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols. We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript. Kind regards, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE Journal Requirements: When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements. 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf 2. We note that [Figure 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright. We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission: a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license. We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text: “I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.” Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission. In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].” b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only. The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful: USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/ The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/ Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/ Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/ USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/# Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/ Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Partly Reviewer #2: Partly ******** 2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: No ****** 4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: This review pertains to the article titled “Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan, using input–output analysis”. The article is technically acceptable; however, it requires significant revision due to its writing and presentation. Abstract: The abstract states, “However, engineers and contractors are reluctant to select timber as a construction material because of its high construction cost”. However, this is not the sole reason for the limited use of Mass Timber in check dams. Other factors include suitability for only a limited drainage area, potential to harm grass linings in channels, reduction of hydraulic capacity, creation of turbulence which can erode channel banks, and clogging issues, particularly with leaves in the fall. The abstract states, “However, due to the recent reduction in GHG emissions associated with cement and ready-mixed concrete, the difference between the GHG emissions associated with the construction of timber and concrete check dams may not be significant”. This point would be more appropriately addressed within the limitations section of the work, rather than in the abstract. Introduction: Please check the first statement in the introduction “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, which was released in October 2018, recommended that net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be reduced to zero by the early 2050s or early 2070s to limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C”. I think it is proposed that the goal should be to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C by the end of 2050 and achieve net zero emissions by 2070. Results and Discussion The article's format and writing quality are inadequate, giving the impression that analyzed data has been indiscriminately inserted into the text. To enhance comprehension and visual appeal, please incorporate diagrams and present data in supplementary materials. Comparisons with previously published work should be approached with caution, check if prior studies have employed similar assumptions or different. The utility of this method is questionable when more precise techniques, like process flow diagram analysis, are accessible. Reviewer #2: It is an excellent topic, comparing structures from an environmental point of view, increases knowledge and allows other researchers to understand the benefits of materials in applications. To improve the methodology, it is necessary to include a flow chart of the inputs and outputs of the three alternatives. (Example Fig. 1 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030311) It is necessary to add a contribution analysis in each alternative, I recommend improving Fig. 3, adding this contribution analysis (Example Fig. 14a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25056). Introduction and discussion need to be improved, seeking more references for individual materials (cement, concrete, steel, wood). Here are some references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7811-5_8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.078 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25056 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285 ****** 6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: No ******** [NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.] While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316153.r001
Revision 1
21 Oct 2024 Author Response Response to Reviewer Comments We appreciate the reviewers’ valuable comments on our paper, “Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan, using input-output analysis.” 1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. We have verified that the PLOS ONE's style requirements have been met. 2. We note that [Figure 1] in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. There is no problem because the map is from the Geospatial Information Authority of Japan (GSI). However, in accordance with PlosOne's policy, the original Fig. 1 has been removed. 3. Review Comments to the Author This review pertains to the article titled “Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan, using input–output analysis”. The article is technically acceptable; however, it requires significant revision due to its writing and presentation. Comment 1 Abstract: The abstract states, “However, engineers and contractors are reluctant to select timber as a construction material because of its high construction cost”. However, this is not the sole reason for the limited use of Mass Timber in check dams. Other factors include suitability for only a limited drainage area, potential to harm grass linings in channels, reduction of hydraulic capacity, creation of turbulence which can erode channel banks, and clogging issues, particularly with leaves in the fall. Response 1 You have pointed out a major reason why Mass Timber cannot be used for a check dam. In this revision, we have considered your comment and included what the Japanese Forestry Agency considers as a condition for installation (Manuscript.docx line 21 -23). Comment 2 The abstract states, “However, due to the recent reduction in GHG emissions associated with cement and ready-mixed concrete, the difference between the GHG emissions associated with the construction of timber and concrete check dams may not be significant”. This point would be more appropriately addressed within the limitations section of the work, rather than in the abstract. Response 2 The information has been removed from the abstract. In addition, a subsection on the limitations of the study has been prepared and added after the discussion section (Manuscript.docx line 459 - 465). Comment 3 Introduction: Please check the first statement in the introduction “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC’s) Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, which was released in October 2018, recommended that net greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be reduced to zero by the early 2050s or early 2070s to limit global warming to 1.5 °C or 2 °C”. I think it is proposed that the goal should be to limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C by the end of 2050 and achieve net zero emissions by 2070. Response 3 As you have pointed out, the wording was inappropriate. We have double-checked and corrected the content (Manuscript.docx line 38 - 42). Comment 4 Results and Discussion The article's format and writing quality are inadequate, giving the impression that analyzed data has been indiscriminately inserted into the text. To enhance comprehension and visual appeal, please incorporate diagrams and present data in supplementary materials. Response 4 The discussion has been improved by citing new references (References 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59). Furthermore, we have visually presented the results using Figs. 3-5 and added supplementary material (Tables S1-S9). Comment 5 Comparisons with previously published work should be approached with caution, check if prior studies have employed similar assumptions or different. Response 5 In comparison with previous studies, we have again identified similarities and differences between the present and previous studies. We have summarized our findings in Table 5 so that they can be conveyed clearly to the reader. Comment 6 The utility of this method is questionable when more precise techniques, like process flow diagram analysis, are accessible. Response 6 We believe that the strengths of this study lie in the fact that the methods are easy to execute for local governments and businesses, including the fact that it does not use an expensive database, making GHG emissions data more accessible to the public. The content has been revised with new wording (Manuscript.docx line 446-457). 4. Review Comments to the Author It is an excellent topic, comparing structures from an environmental point of view, increases knowledge and allows other researchers to understand the benefits of materials in applications. Comment 1 To improve the methodology, it is necessary to include a flow chart of the inputs and outputs of the three alternatives. (Example Fig. 1 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030311) Response 1 A flow chart has been created for the three dams based on the references provided (Fig. 1). Comment 2 It is necessary to add a contribution analysis in each alternative, I recommend improving Fig. 3, adding this contribution analysis (Example Fig. 14a https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25056). Response 2 With the help of the references we received, we have modified the Original Fig. 3 to show the contribution analysis (Fig. 4). We have also modified the discussion to show each industry's contribution (Manuscript.docx line 341-344). Comment 3 Introduction and discussion need to be improved, seeking more references for individual materials (cement, concrete, steel, wood). Here are some references: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2014.04.025 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7811-5_8 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.11.078 https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12030311 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e25056 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2021.108285 Response 3 We have added references for materials and discussion (References 5, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 48, 49, 52, 53, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59) and improved the introduction and discussion. Thank you again for your insightful comments on our paper. We hope we have sufficiently addressed your comments and we are eager to move this revised manuscript closer to publication. Attachments Attachment Submitted filename: ResponsetoReviewers02.docx https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316153.r002
8 Dec 2024 Decision Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan, using input–output analysis PONE-D-24-17173R1 Dear Dr. Huzita, We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements. Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication. An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org. If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. Kind regards, Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Ph.D., FHEA, FIEB Academic Editor PLOS ONE Additional Editor Comments: The title of the paper can be slightly amended as follows: Comparison of greenhouse gas emissions associated with the construction of timber, concrete, and steel check dams in Akita, Japan: an input–output analysis Reviewers' comments: Reviewer's Responses to Questions Comments to the Author 1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation. Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed ******** 2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available? The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified. Reviewer #1: Yes Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English? PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here. Reviewer #1: No Reviewer #2: Yes ****** 6. Review Comments to the Author Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters) Reviewer #1: The authors have updated the manuscript based on the recommendations. The manuscript can be accepted for publication. Reviewer #2: The manuscript has been improved according to the reviewers comments. With these new adds, readers could understand better the LCA scope and results. ****** 7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files. If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public. Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy. Reviewer #1: Yes: Vaibhav Kumar Reviewer #2: No ******** https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316153.r003
Formally Accepted
3 Jan 2025 Acceptance Letter - Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury, Editor PONE-D-24-17173R1 PLOS ONE Dear Dr. Huzita, I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team. At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following: * All references, tables, and figures are properly cited * All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission, * There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset If revisions are needed, the production department will contact you directly to resolve them. If no revisions are needed, you will receive an email when the publication date has been set. At this time, we do not offer pre-publication proofs to authors during production of the accepted work. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few weeks to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps. Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org. If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org. Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access. Kind regards, PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff on behalf of Dr. Ashfaque Ahmed Chowdhury Academic Editor PLOS ONE https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0316153.r004

Open letter on the publication of peer review reports

PLOS recognizes the benefits of transparency in the peer review process. Therefore, we enable the publication of all of the content of peer review and author responses alongside final, published articles. Reviewers remain anonymous, unless they choose to reveal their names.

We encourage other journals to join us in this initiative. We hope that our action inspires the community, including researchers, research funders, and research institutions, to recognize the benefits of published peer review reports for all parts of the research system.

Learn more at ASAPbio .