Green Systems Integrated to the Building Envelope: Strategies and Technical Solution for the Italian Case

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study considers various greenery systems : integrated (GSI), green roofs (GR) and green and living walls (GW-LW) as a possible retrofit technique for the envelope of heritage buildings. Especially it evaluates their applications in the case of historic cities in Italy pointing out both their positive and negative aspects.

The article is interesting but requires some corrections.

The abstract should be improved as to summarize the article's main findings as well as indicate the main conclusions.

As the article is about ongoing research, it should be clearly marked what is the result of the research and what results from general knowledge.

Inscriptions in the figures are illegible.

The first part of conclusions sounds like introduction.

Line 28 is orizontal perhaps, it should be horizontal.

Line 32 is on both on, it should be on both.

Line 138 is the of age, it should be the age.

Line 177 is may have been subject, it should be subjected.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions for improving the paper.

we reply below to what he has shown us:

• The abstract should be improved as to summarize the article's main findings as well as indicate the main conclusions.

Thank you, we also proceeded following what was reported by the other reviewer

• As the article is about ongoing research, it should be clearly marked what is the result of the research and what results from general knowledge.

We have modified the structure of the paper, highlighting what has been requested.
However, it remains important, as we have put several times in the text, that the state of the art, for technical and technological problems, is not developed.
This article develops a topic not yet covered.

• Inscriptions in the figures are illegible.

Done

• The first part of conclusions sounds like introduction.

Thanks we accepted the suggestion and made the changes

• Line 28 is orizontal perhaps, it should be horizontal.

Line 32 is on both on, it should be on both.

Line 138 is the of age, it should be the age.

Line 177 is may have been subject, it should be subjected.

DONE

Thanks again,

best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a current topic and of great interest in the field of sustainable constructions.
I recommend publishing the paper, after minor corrections about the form of the manuscript. The suggested corrections are listed below:

• make the figures 5,6,7 larger;
• translate figures 8 and 14 into english;
• change sqm with m² in the whole text;
• standardize the format of the references and check references #10, which looks more like a text than a real reference.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for their valuable suggestions for improving the paper.

we reply below to what he has shown us:

• make the figures 5,6,7 larger;

done

• translate figures 8 and 14 into english;

done

• change sqm with m² in the whole text;

done

• standardize the format of the references and check references #10, which looks more like a text than a real reference.

we agree that the note is long, but we would prefer to leave it as an external reference and do not put it in the text.

Thanks again,

Best regards

Reviewer 3 Report

The article, in accordance with the title, addresses the problem of modernisation of old Italian cities using building envelope technology. However, it is not a problematic article. It presents the application of technology. The title of the article seems quite general, which indicates a review of the problem. And indeed, there is a broader context in the introduction, but it is not specified what is the purpose of writing this article (?) From the title and the introduction it is not clear whether the authors are concerned with assessing the technology or the technical conditions that allow its application or reviewing how often the technology is used in historical Italian cities.  In the introduction, the purpose of the article should be clearly defined.

The authors are based on a case study. And here are the doubts. The case study should be presented by means of parameter lists. In the materials and methods the authors did not describe the method of comparison. The material and methods are written too vaguely. Please specify the scope of the study in more detail. There is no specification of the scope of the study and no justification for selecting specific objects for the case study.

In the chapter "case study" the parameters of the case studies are hidden in the text.  Even the presence of figures does not significantly improve the readability of the text. Please compare the technology used with the building parameters in tabular form - this will improve readability. Chapters 3.1 - 3.4 should be redrafted to better show the relationship between the technology used and the building parameters.

There is no discussion in the "discussion" chapter. In fact, the discussion is used by the authors to present some of their own results, so it should be entitled "results". In the discussion there is a place for comparing the effects of the technology used. It seems that the authors could try to outline the advantages or limitations of the applied solutions, but it should be compared to the results of other authors' research. This chapter should therefore serve to compare the parameters used in the case studies with those described in the literature or resulting from "good practice".

Conclusions should result from the previous chapters. Quite specific statements may remain in the form of recommendations related to the use of the technology. However, in order for these statements to be linked to the rest of the text, it is worthwhile to better display them in the earlier sections: case study and discussion.  

Author Response

Many thanks to the reviewer for the important contribution that made it possible to improve the paper.

We respond to what has been reported, we also recall some notes that also followed what was reported by the other reviewers:

"....The title of the article seems quite general, which indicates a review of the problem. And indeed, there is a broader context in the introduction, but it is not specified what is the purpose of writing this article (?) From the title and the introduction it is not clear whether the authors are concerned with assessing the technology or the technical conditions that allow its application or reviewing how often the technology is used in historical Italian cities. In the introduction, the purpose of the article should be clearly defined."

We reformulated the title by accepting the suggestions. Before it did not emerge that the article deals with strategies and technical solutions for the implementation of green systems.The abstract and introduction have been expanded.

"The authors are based on a case study. And here are the doubts. The case study should be presented by means of parameter lists. In the materials and methods the authors did not describe the method of comparison. The material and methods are written too vaguely. Please specify the scope of the study in more detail. There is no specification of the scope of the study and no justification for selecting specific objects for the case study."

The goal is to identify technological solutions: on the one hand to achieve the performance objectives (construction solutions) on the other to favor the setting in the Italian historical context (architectural solutions). This is explained in the text. As we have reported, this article proposes a topic that has not yet been studied, as the state of the art does not develop technological problems but only acoustic and environmental energy problems. So there are no benchmarks.

"In the chapter "case study" the parameters of the case studies are hidden in the text. Even the presence of figures does not significantly improve the readability of the text. Please compare the technology used with the building parameters in tabular form - this will improve readability. Chapters 3.1 - 3.4 should be redrafted to better show the relationship between the technology used and the building parameters."

The case studies are opportunities to experiment with the construction solutions, since the tested facades and roofs have the recurring construction characteristics and materials in Italian construction.

"There is no discussion in the "discussion" chapter. In fact, the discussion is used by the authors to present some of their own results, so it should be entitled "results". In the discussion there is a place for comparing the effects of the technology used. It seems that the authors could try to outline the advantages or limitations of the applied solutions, but it should be compared to the results of other authors' research. This chapter should therefore serve to compare the parameters used in the case studies with those described in the literature or resulting from "good practice".

We thank for the important comment; the next step will be the quantitative verification in relation to other solutions, but we remember that at the moment there are no studies on the subject for which this study is the beginning of a new research path.

Conclusions should result from the previous chapters. Quite specific statements may remain in the form of recommendations related to the use of the technology. However, in order for these statements to be linked to the rest of the text, it is worthwhile to better display them in the earlier sections: case study and discussion.

we thank you for pointing out that we have highlighted the intervention criteria and guidelines for the application of these GSI systems to the Italian context (materials and construction techniques) in relation also to the setting.

We thank again for the precious time given us.

Best regards

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

If the article was supposed to have a more technical context, this assumption was fulfilled. The introduced changes have significantly improved the readability of the article. The changes allow better understanding of the authors' reference to the regional context. In my opinion, the change seems to be sufficient.