Trends, Costs, and Benefits of Green Certification of Office Buildings: A Polish Perspective
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a research work related to “Trends, costs and benefits of green certification of office buildings – Polish perspective” which illustrates an analysis and a brief discussion of trends related to the certification of office buildings in Poland. In order to compare the costs and benefits of certified buildings, the costs of a non-certified and a certified office building were simulated.
Remarks to the authors:
1. Please insert references:
-line 16-17: At the end of 2017, almost 9.7 million m2 of modern office space was available in Poland, of which 62% is a certified area.
- line 30-31: According to commonly available analyses and estimates, buildings are responsible for about 40% of global CO2 emissions, and in the European Union for around 36% of CO2 emissions.
- line 127-131: The main factors stimulating future activities in the field of green building in Poland include: lower costs in 10 years (32% of respondents), market changes (35%), customer requirements (28%), healthier construction (28%), market requirements (19%), awareness that this is the right thing to do (19%), environmental regulations (12%), high value of buildings (2%) and internal corporate commitment (6%).
2. Please review the numbers at line 304-305: For comparison, there are 65 accredited LEED consultants, 38 of whom are accredited professionals, and only 32 are active. (38+32=70)
3. Please use the same size for figures (Example: Fig. 1 and 2a).
4. Moderate changes required:
- line 48: varoius -> various
- line 49: for instance . BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, WELL, HQE, CASBEE, Green Star NZ and ITACA. -> erase point
- line 137: The number of certified buildings the years 2016 to 2018... -> between the years
- line 158: accordingly 13%, 22% and 32%. (Figure 3). -> erase point
- line 306: Table 2 the indicates costs of obtaining the LEED certificate.
- line 389 Summary -> Conclusions
Author Response
The author wish to thank the Reviewer for all comments that helped to enrich and improve the paper. The reviewer’s remarks and requests have been considered carefully by the authors. All the requested revisions have been addressed. All the improvements and changes in the manuscript are marked with red colour, proof reading with yellow colour. The author’ answers are presented in the questions that follow.
Remarks to the authors:
1. Please insert references:
-line 16-17: At the end of 2017, almost 9.7 million m2 of modern office space was available in Poland, of which 62% is a certified area.
- the corresponding references have been added
- line 30-31: According to commonly available analyses and estimates, buildings are responsible for about 40% of global CO2 emissions, and in the European Union for around 36% of CO2 emissions.
- the corresponding references have been added
- line 127-131: The main factors stimulating future activities in the field of green building in Poland include: lower costs in 10 years (32% of respondents), market changes (35%), customer requirements (28%), healthier construction (28%), market requirements (19%), awareness that this is the right thing to do (19%), environmental regulations (12%), high value of buildings (2%) and internal corporate commitment (6%).
- the corresponding references have been added
2. Please review the numbers at line 304-305: For comparison, there are 65 accredited LEED consultants, 38 of whom are accredited professionals, and only 32 are active. (38+32=70)
- the numbers have been corrected
3. Please use the same size for figures (Example: Fig. 1 and 2a).
- the size of drawings has been corrected
4. Moderate changes required:
- line 48: varoius -> various
- line 49: for instance . BREEAM, LEED, DGNB, WELL, HQE, CASBEE, Green Star NZ and ITACA. -> erase point
- line 137: The number of certified buildings the years 2016 to 2018... -> between the years
- line 158: accordingly 13%, 22% and 32%. (Figure 3). -> erase point
- line 306: Table 2 the indicates costs of obtaining the LEED certificate.
- line 389 Summary -> Conclusions
- all comments mentioned by the reviewer in point 4 have been entere
Reviewer 2 Report
- Abbreviations should be avoided in the abstract
- The paper lacks proper referencing to the literature. For instance, in the Introduction section several statements have been made that need citation. The same issue persists across the paper. This is a major shortcoming and must be addressed.
- More smooth and logical transition between paragraphs is needed. For instance, it is not clear how Lines 63-65 are connected to the preceding and following paragraphs. The same issue applies to many other paragraphs and I have just mentioned this as an example. Please pay enough attention to this issue.
- Lines 77-78. The authors should also acknowledge that to consider health, well being and other issues related to the society, tool developers are also relying on certification systems that go beyond the building level. For instance, there is a reasonably vast research on “Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment” that can be cited here along with this acknowledgment. The audience needs to know that dealing with issues at the society level requires tools with focus beyond the building scale.
- Line 96. Urban certification (beyond the building level, including neighborhoods and city level) is not a novelty. Again, a vast research has been published on this topic over the past 10 years that the authors need to acknowledge. For instance, works on Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment that cover tools such as LEED_ND, BREEAM Communities, CASBEE-UD… and works on urban sustainability that covers tools such as CASBEE City…
- Line 115, BREAM should be BREEAM. In Line 117, Breeam should be BREEAM. Please be consistent and do another round of copy editing
- Lines 127-131. Another glaring example of need for citation. Again, this is just an example and the issue persists across the paper.
- The authors mention Life Cycle Costs. However, no discussion on costs in terms of embodied energy has been made. This is mainly related to the type of materials that will be used for construction. Material-related life cycle costs may be different for certified buildings. Seems like cradle to grave approach has not been adopted and only post-construction and certification costs have been considered. The scope should be clarified. If a selective approach has been adopted, it should be acknowledged.
- Results in Section 6 should be presented in a more clear manner. Make it clear what equations/formula have been used for calculating the costs, why a 50 years time horizon has been considered?, have all life cycle costs been considered or just some….
- In the final section the authors mention issues related to sickness and comfort for the first time in the paper. You should only discuss issues that have been addressed in the main body of the paper. Health-related costs have not been considered in the paper.
- The final section is not well-written. The authors mentions some new concepts which is not accepted. There should be more focus on the implication of the results. What would the authors suggest based on the results. What are policy implications of the paper, what should be the next steps, …
- Overall, the paper could make a good contribution, but major revisions are needed.
Author Response
The author wish to thank the Reviewer for all comments that helped to enrich and improve the paper. The reviewer’s remarks and requests have been considered carefully by the authors. All the requested revisions have been addressed. All the improvements and changes in the manuscript are marked with red colour, proof reading with yellow colour. The author’ answers are presented in the questions that follow.
Abbreviations should be avoided in the abstract
- complete terms and names have been used instead of abbreviations
- The paper lacks proper referencing to the literature. For instance, in the Introduction section several statements have been made that need citation. The same issue persists across the paper. This is a major shortcoming and must be addressed.
- eight items of literature have been added altogether, as well as missing references
- More smooth and logical transition between paragraphs is needed. For instance, it is not clear how Lines 63-65 are connected to the preceding and following paragraphs. The same issue applies to many other paragraphs and I have just mentioned this as an example. Please pay enough attention to this issue.
- the correction have been made
- Lines 77-78. The authors should also acknowledge that to consider health, well being and other issues related to the society, tool developers are also relying on certification systems that go beyond the building level. For instance, there is a reasonably vast research on “Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment” that can be cited here along with this acknowledgment. The audience needs to know that dealing with issues at the society level requires tools with focus beyond the building scale.
- Line 96. Urban certification (beyond the building level, including neighborhoods and city level) is not a novelty. Again, a vast research has been published on this topic over the past 10 years that the authors need to acknowledge. For instance, works on Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment that cover tools such as LEED_ND, BREEAM Communities, CASBEE-UD… and works on urban sustainability that covers tools such as CASBEE City…
- the paragraph on Neighborhood Sustainability Assessment has been added (lines 80-103)
- Line 115, BREAM should be BREEAM. In Line 117, Breeam should be BREEAM. Please be consistent and do another round of copy editing
- errors mentioned in lines 115 and 117 have been corrected
- Lines 127-131. Another glaring example of need for citation. Again, this is just an example and the issue persists across the paper.
- a reference to the literature has been added
- The authors mention Life Cycle Costs. However, no discussion on costs in terms of embodied energy has been made. This is mainly related to the type of materials that will be used for construction. Material-related life cycle costs may be different for certified buildings. Seems like cradle to grave approach has not been adopted and only post-construction and certification costs have been considered. The scope should be clarified. If a selective approach has been adopted, it should be acknowledged.
- the explanation has been added (lines 397-401)
- Results in Section 6 should be presented in a more clear manner. Make it clear what equations/formula have been used for calculating the costs, why a 50 years time horizon has been considered?, have all life cycle costs been considered or just some….
- the explanation has been added (line 408 – 410)
- In the final section the authors mention issues related to sickness and comfort for the first time in the paper. You should only discuss issues that have been addressed in the main body of the paper. Health-related costs have not been considered in the paper.
- the paragraph related to sickness has been deleted
- The final section is not well-written. The authors mentions some new concepts which is not accepted. There should be more focus on the implication of the results. What would the authors suggest based on the results. What are policy implications of the paper, what should be the next steps, …
- the Conclusion has been corrected (line 471- 477)
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper undertakes a theoretical study between a "green" and business as usual building.
In Section 5, a table and explanation of the total costs for a building would be valuable to be included.
In Section 6, while describing the building, the lower area of 372 m2 refers to the footprint of the building or the floor plan. This needs to be clarified as the usable area is 1716 m2.
Why was 8% used as additional cost of the building (and lower operating cost). What is the rationale for this?
There are studies to show that not all benefits in a green building may be tangible. For instance, how can you place value on health and well being? What about studies that show that employees are more productive and happier in green buildings. While WELL has been mentioned in the paper, and since this was a theoretical study, I understand that this could not be measured in this case. However, such concerns by developers and owners/tenants of green buildings should be considered in the debate.
While I understand that english is not the first language for the authors, the paper needs a really good edit. Sentences such as "own study based on (xx)" and "growth in the commercial sector was faint" needs to be restructured. Please also check spelling in the text and for all tables, diagrams and figures.
Use of acronmys such as PLN also need to be explained.
Author Response
The author wish to thank the Reviewer for all comments that helped to enrich and improve the paper. The reviewer’s remarks and requests have been considered carefully by the authors. All the requested revisions have been addressed. All the improvements and changes in the manuscript are marked with red colour, proof reading with yellow colour. The author’ answers are presented in the questions that follow.
In Section 5, a table and explanation of the total costs for a building would be valuable to be included.
- the table No. 6 and the explanation has been added
In Section 6, while describing the building, the lower area of 372 m2 refers to the footprint of the building or the floor plan. This needs to be clarified as the usable area is 1716 m2.
- an appropriate justification has been added (lines 384-385)
Why was 8% used as additional cost of the building (and lower operating cost). What is the rationale for this?
- an appropriate justification has been added (lines 397-401)
There are studies to show that not all benefits in a green building may be tangible. For instance, how can you place value on health and well being? What about studies that show that employees are more productive and happier in green buildings. While WELL has been mentioned in the paper, and since this was a theoretical study, I understand that this could not be measured in this case. However, such concerns by developers and owners/tenants of green buildings should be considered in the debate.
- an appropriate justification has been added (lines 375-377)
While I understand that english is not the first language for the authors, the paper needs a really good edit. Sentences such as "own study based on (xx)" and "growth in the commercial sector was faint" needs to be restructured. Please also check spelling in the text and for all tables, diagrams and figures.
- the correction have been made
Use of acronmys such as PLN also need to be explained.
- the acronyms have been explained (line 288)
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Please take more time to fully address all the comments in a satisfactory manner. For instance, my comment about the conclusions section has not been well addressed (also the comment on life cycle costs). A more thorough conclusion based on the results is needed. More elaboration on policy implications is needed..., improvements in terms of logical flow are needed. All spelling and grammar issues must be resolved. Such issues are not acceptable in the R1 version. For instance, Line 476, Analyzes...
Author Response
The author wish to thank the Reviewer for all comments that helped to enrich and improve the paper.
The reviewer’s remarks and requests have been considered carefully by the authors. All the improvements and changes in the manuscript are marked with red colour. The author’ answers are presented in the questions that follow.
Please take more time to fully address all the comments in a satisfactory manner. For instance, my comment about the conclusions section has not been well addressed (also the comment on life cycle costs). A more thorough conclusion based on the results is needed. More elaboration on policy implications is needed..., improvements in terms of logical flow are needed. All spelling and grammar issues must be resolved. Such issues are not acceptable in the R1 version. For instance, Line 476, Analyzes...
We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and tried to fully address all the comments. The new material is marked in red in the revised paper. We have corrected spelling and grammar.
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper needs a good edit.
Author Response
We have gone through the entire manuscript carefully and we have corrected spelling and grammar.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper can be accepted for publication.
