Neighbourhood Modelling for Urban Sustainability Assessment
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper proposed a generic approach for a simple neighborhood model developed from building physical parameters and validated the model by real data on energy consumption. I’ve arranged my comments by the order in which they were motivated while reading the manuscript:
Abstract
(Line 12-13) “Since cities are responsible for 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities) is key for Climate Action (SDG 13)”. -> This sentence is confusing.
Introduction
This article made extensive uses of abbreviations while providing no information of the full names. For example,
(Line 52-53) “Dominant labels (BREEAM and LEED) are tracking building life cycle through energy (LCA) and cost (LCC) which require a detailed track of the building through BIM” -> What are the abbreviations BREEAM, LEED, LCA, LCC and BIM for?
There is a lack of motivation statement in the introduction. That is, what does the present study add to the existing body of knowledge and how is a generic approach for a simple neighborhood model developed in this paper important?
Moreover, there has been some concern of the “one-size-fits-all” view in applications of neighborhood sustainability assessment tools (Luke Boyle, Kathy Michell and François Viruly, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041005). Therefore, the following emphasis of the strengths of the model proposed need further underpinning:
(Line 74-75) “The findings can be exported easily to most cities for facilitating decision-makers the identification of key areas for sustainable construction policies.”
(Line 79-81) “The associated model presented can be easily exported for assessing sustainable construction strategies for urban renewal at neighbourhood level and are the basis for a future research proposal.”
Results
(Line 230-231) “As can be seen on table 1 the average error is smaller than 10% which is very reasonable for a digital model…”. How did the authors calculate this “average error”? What’s the standard/rules of thumbs used to conclude that an average error smaller than 10% is reasonable?
(Line 242-243) “…incorporates their maximum value to the corresponding category oh LEED and BREEAM.” -> typo
(244-245) “The maximum scores obtained from the selected indicators are aggregated on figure 6 allowing a comparative performance assessment…” -> What’s the logic in terms of making a comparison using the maximum scores?
Discussion
(Line 250) “The methodology presented on this paper has demonstrated an efficient procedure…” -> What is this “efficient procedure” conclusion grounded on?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Abstract
POINT 1
(Line 12-13) “Since cities are responsible for 70 percent of greenhouse gas emissions SDG 11 (Sustainable cities and communities) is key for Climate Action (SDG 13)”. -> This sentence is confusing.
Response 1: The sentence has been rephrased for connecting clearly the relevance of the paper towards climate action within the context of United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
Introduction
POINT 2
This article made extensive uses of abbreviations while providing no information of the full names. For example,
(Line 52-53) “Dominant labels (BREEAM and LEED) are tracking building life cycle through energy (LCA) and cost (LCC) which require a detailed track of the building through BIM” -> What are the abbreviations BREEAM, LEED, LCA, LCC and BIM for?
Response 2: All abbreviations clarified on lines 57 to 66.
POINT 3
There is a lack of motivation statement in the introduction. That is, what does the present study add to the existing body of knowledge and how is a generic approach for a simple neighbourhood model developed in this paper important?. Moreover, there has been some concern of the “one-size-fits-all” view in applications of neighbourhood sustainability assessment tools (Luke Boyle, Kathy Michell and François Viruly, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10041005).
Response 3: The motivation statement including limitations to the proposed methodology is developed on lines 85-91 providing a clear understanding on which can not be assessed through the model proposed on the paper.
POINT 4
Therefore, the following emphasis of the strengths of the model proposed need further underpinning: (Line 74-75) “The findings can be exported easily to most cities for facilitating decision-makers the identification of key areas for sustainable construction policies.”
Response 4: Rephrased on lines 74 to 84 for clarifying limitations.
POINT 5
(Line 79-81) “The associated model presented can be easily exported for assessing sustainable construction strategies for urban renewal at neighbourhood level and are the basis for a future research proposal.”
Response 5: The original lines (now 93-96) have been modified to clarify the limitations.
Results
POINT 6
(Line 230-231) “As can be seen on table 1 the average error is smaller than 10% which is very reasonable for a digital model…”.How did the authors calculate this “average error”? What’s the standard/rules of thumbs used to conclude that an average error smaller than 10% is reasonable?
Response 6: On lines 288 to 294 an explanation based on scientific references explains the situation. For further clarification table 1 has been modified adding a column with the error obtained on different building typologies simulations
POINT 7
(Line 242-243) “…incorporates their maximum value to the corresponding category oh LEED and BREEAM.” -> typo
Response 7: Corrected (now on line 317).
POINT 8
(244-245) “The maximum scores obtained from the selected indicators are aggregated on figure 6 allowing a comparative performance assessment…” -> What’s the logic in terms of making a comparison using the maximum scores?
Response 8: The term “maximum” should not have been used. It is an incorrect way of explaining that all indicators not appearing on the ISO 14040 evaluation are not added to the LEED or BREEAM evaluations. Consequently, the word “maximum” has been eliminated on lines 83 and 93.
Discussion
POINT 9
(Line 250) “The methodology presented on this paper has demonstrated an efficient procedure…” -> What is this “efficient procedure” conclusion grounded on?
Response 9: Efficiency on this context applies to the use of resources. The paragraph (now on line 324) has been reformulated using “resource-efficient”.
Reviewer 2 Report
Interesting subject with relevant case study. Please check format and English.
Please check specific comments directly on the uploaded review document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Abstract
POINT 1
Rewrite sentence lines 20-23
Response 1: Done in lines 18 to 21.
Background literature review
POINT 2
What does HVCA (line 100) stand for?
Response 2: Sorry, it should read HVAC: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning. Now explained the first time HVAC and updated in all positions.
Materials and methods
POINT 3
HVCA? (line 170)
Response 3: Changed to HVAC
POINT 4
Image size (fig.1)
Response 4: Adjusted
POINT 5
Description building typologies (line 205). This figure presents the building construction epoch distribution and not exactly, even if it can be associated with, the building constructive typology. Please clarify this issue and also describe in detail how you related the epoch with the CO2 footprint. Also clarify how you considered the refurbished buildings, with the CO2 footprint of the original construction or of the last refurbishment.
Response 5: All explained on a new paragraph from line 246 to 256.
Rewrite sentence (lines 213-216)
Rephrased (now lines 278-280)
Results
POINT 6
Units table I “Tn/CO2” (line 233)
Response 6: Corrected to Tn CO2/year
POINT 7
Typo line 243 (of)
Response 7: Now line 317 rephrased
Discussion
POINT 8
Typo line 254 (seresearch veral = several)
Response 8: Corrected, now line 331
Conclusions
POINT 9
Typo (line 264)
Response 9: Corrected, to fine-tuned (now line 344)
Reviewer 3 Report
General comments
The research question is coherent with actual general issues about the development of urban policy impact assessment to face climate change and is well defined.
In particular, the results provide a very interesting elaboration of a Neighbourhood Modelling for Urban Sustainability Assessment supported both by a theoretical background and a very clear analysis of existent evaluation models and tools.
The paper presents a clear and specific methodology to demonstrate the thesis.
The article is written using a simple language and the use of the English language is very appropriate and understandable.
The issues addressed in the paper are of great interest to readers from different scientific fields and represents a very interesting starting point for a sustainability assessment through developing a digital model.
The research opens up interesting prospects for its implementation in other cities and for other scientific goals.
Specific comments
Pay attention in line 246: the figure 6b) overlaps the text.
Lines 253-254: there is an error “have seresearch veral” instead of “have research several”
Discussions and conclusions can be improved with more critical considerations aboout limits and opportunities of the proposed model.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
POINT 1
Pay attention in line 246: the figure 6b) overlaps the text.
Response 1: Reformatted.
POINT 2
Lines 253-254: there is an error “have seresearch veral” instead of “have research several”
Response 2: Corrected, now line 331.
POINT 3
Discussions and conclusions can be improved with more critical considerations about limits and opportunities of the proposed model.
Response 3: New paragraphs added to the Discussion and Conclusions chapters including main drawbacks identified during the research, as well as possible new applications.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors responded to all my comments in the first-round review. I don’t have any further comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your review.
Best,
Reviewer 2 Report
Regarding Table 1, the SI (BIPM - Bureau International des Poids et Mesures) symbol for the tonne is "t", not "Tn".
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thanks for your review. The units abreviations on table I (line 267) has been updated.
Best,
Javier Orozco
