Energy-Saving and Ecological Renovation of Existing Urban Buildings in Severe Cold Areas: A Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript assesses the energy and emissions savings associated with building retrofitting in a cold region in China. This is a relevant topic due to the high share of building energy consumption and the urgency to deal with climate change. The authors manage to evaluate different dimensions e.g. wind exposure, lighting and thermal performance, energy consumption. Moreover, the authors conducted a literature review on the topic. These are the main strengths of the paper.
There are however several weaknesses in the manuscript, which I consider at least as important as the perceived strengths. My main concern is about the robustness of the model (and the outcomes). The authors use software packages to evaluate the benefits of different building retrofit strategies. Besides colorful charts, results are briefly shown in Table 2. It is difficult to assess the assumptions, simplifications, etc. considered in the modeling process. As a merely example, the strategy includes PV panels, solar collectors, etc., but no details are provided with the exception of the sketch in Figure 8. These choices as well as e.g. the electricity mix considered have direct implications in the energy consumption and associated GHG emissions. The authors should provide a thorough discussion on these and other topics that makes the model more transparent and reproducible.
A list of additional weaknesses follows:
1) The manuscript needs revision of the English language by a native speaker. Some inconsistencies throughout the manuscript detract from the easiness of reading;
2) Line 30: Five references to support this sentence seems excessive;
3) Although the authors conducted a literature review, they could elaborate more on the innovative contribution of their own research, e.g. with respect to references [16-18] and others available in the literature;
4) Lines 88,93,176: Project implementation of the Tree Garden Community is confusing: “Chennengxi Tree Garden Community was built in 2002” (line 88); “The reconstructed building No.4” (line 93); “The No.4 building of Chennengxi Tree Garden Community was built in the past 20 years” (line 176). What is the “standard building”?; what is the “actual building”?
5) Lines 95-98: Provision of a 2D floor plan would facilitate the interpretation;
6) Line 106: DF, DA, etc. should be defined in their first appearance;
7) Lines 106,108,111: This is not a literature review. I would suggest removing these references and include references to the software used (publisher, version); in particular, I was wondering the suitability of ref [32] to this manuscript;
8) Figure 2: I would suggest using subfigure captions (including explanatory text in the legend), for the sake of clarity; some comment for Figs. 3 and 5;
9) Figure 6: Without subfigure captions, Fig. 6 is not intelligible;
10) Line 219: “Figure 6” or “Figure 7”?
11) Lines 270-272: How were energy consumption and GHG emissions calculated? Using EnergyPlus?
The manuscript needs revision of the English language by a native speaker. Some inconsistencies throughout the manuscript detract from the easiness of reading.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review and comments on our manuscript.
1) We consulted native speakers for language modifications. Check and correct inconsistencies;
2) Line 30: These five references correspond to two different sentences in the previous text, which have been distinguished when revised;
3) An explanation of the innovative contribution of my research is added, and a comparison with existing references is made to highlight the uniqueness of this research;
4) Line 88, 93, 176: The narrative of time has been revised more accurately.
5) Lines 95-98: The language provides a complete description of structural patterns;
6) Line 106: The abbreviation has been supplemented with parentheses for explanation;
7) Line 106108111: Redundant references have been deleted.
8) Figure 2: Outstanding sub-figure titles;
9) Figure 6: Add sub-figure title;
10) Line 219: Figure 6
11) Lines 270-272: Calculation formulas for energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions are automatically loaded in the software. The specific format can be added in the appendix below
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for offering me the fascinating manuscript on “Energy-Saving and Ecological Renovation of Existing Urban Buildings in Severe Cold Areas a Case Study” I feel some inconsistencies must be improved before the final decision.
1-The start of the given abstract is not well written. I think you have to introduce the problem and then move to the scarcity of land
2-What type of method have you applied to evaluate such results?
3-Lines 6-9 describes the results for window and the indoor illumination, clarified it
4-Similarly, the start of the introduction is not well; please try to re-write it, such as global issues and their causes, and then move to specific factors
5-So it is not clear, what measured values are used for the later, analytical part, which is only calculated. Are the used equations supported by some experimental measurements by the other authors? Maybe I missed it in text, but it was not very clear.
6-The significance of the study is missing; it should be brief.
7-The research gap is not well-written; try to add a gap with logic
8-The overall discussion section is well written under the outcomes, but the author should try to cite their results and compare them with other studies
9-Also, provide the limitations of the study.
Author Response
1. Rewrite the beginning of the given abstract, first introducing the problem, and then turning to the problem of this study.
2- These results are predictive and require more samples or measurement data from actual cases to assist in verifying the predictions of this model. This point has been discussed in the introduction and conclusion sections.
Lines 6-9 describe the results of window and indoor lighting.
4- Rewrite the beginning of the introduction section, global issues and their causes, and then turn to specific factors
The measurement values used in the 5-analysis section are discussed in detail in the empirical results analysis section. Although this section only performs calculations, the equations used are standard formulas embedded in software tools, which have universal applicability for the calculation of indicators in this field.
The significance of the research has been discussed in the article.
7- Added thinking on gap research.
The results cited in the results section were compared with other studies
9- Provided limitations of the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
While the work you've submitted establishes an important correlation between outdoor and indoor environments and urban ecology, as a reviewer, I believe the study could greatly benefit from a few key revisions to improve its overall impact, novelty, and comprehensibility.
-
Novelty and Innovation: Currently, the research appears somewhat predictable and a restatement of known facts. It would greatly enhance the paper's value if more effort is made to articulate the novelty and innovation introduced by your study. This could involve discussing how your methods, data, or interpretations differ from or build upon previous studies. Please also highlight what unique insights or findings your study has uncovered.
-
Sample Size: The quantity of samples used in your experiment seems to be relatively small. This might limit the statistical power of your findings and increase the risk of bias. If possible, it would be beneficial to extend your study with more samples. If this is not feasible, discussing this limitation in the paper would provide transparency and help readers to accurately interpret your results.
-
Scientific Importance: The paper currently lacks an adequate discussion on the broader scientific importance of your research. I recommend that you elaborate on how your findings advance our understanding of urban ecology, or how they could potentially be used to improve environmental or urban planning policies. A more in-depth analysis of the implications of your results would significantly enhance the scientific relevance of your paper.
-
Language Quality: Lastly, there are areas in the manuscript where the English language quality could be improved for better clarity and understanding. A professional proofreading service, or native English-speaking colleague could be beneficial in addressing this issue.
In conclusion, with a greater emphasis on novelty, a larger sample size, an in-depth analysis of the scientific importance, and better language quality, I believe this paper could offer a significant contribution to the urban ecology literature.
should be imprioved
Author Response
1. The novelty and innovation of the research are elaborated. Explained how it differs from previous research. The introduction and the end of the article emphasize the findings of this study.
2. The sample size is relatively small. This is due to the existence of gap research. These results are predictive and require more samples or measurement data from actual cases to assist in verifying the predictions of the model in this paper. This point has been discussed in the introduction and conclusion sections.
3. Added sufficient discussion on the broader scientific importance of this research. The study can provide reference for the ecological transformation of high-rise buildings in similar cold regions.
4. We have consulted native speakers to make language modifications.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed some of the reviewers’ comments and the overall quality of the manuscript has improved. Nevertheless, a few questions still remain unanswered:
1) I ask the authors to fully address my previous general comment:
“The authors use software packages to evaluate the benefits of different building retrofit strategies. Besides colorful charts, results are briefly shown in Table 2. It is difficult to assess the assumptions, simplifications, etc. considered in the modeling process. As a merely example, the strategy includes PV panels, solar collectors, etc., but no details are provided with the exception of the sketch in Figure 8. These choices as well as e.g. the electricity mix considered have direct implications in the energy consumption and associated GHG emissions. The authors should provide a thorough discussion on these and other topics that makes the model more transparent and reproducible”;
2) Figs. 3 and 5: I would suggest using subfigure captions (including explanatory text in the legend), for the sake of clarity, as indicated in my previous report (comment #8);
3) Please address my previous comment #9: “Figure 6: Without subfigure captions, Fig. 6 is not intelligible”;
4) I insist with my previous comment #10 (now line 252 of the revised manuscript): “Line 219: “Figure 6” or “Figure 7”?
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Point 1: The authors use software packages to evaluate the benefits of different building retrofit strategies. Besides colorful charts, results are briefly shown in Table 2. It is difficult to assess the assumptions, simplifications, etc. considered in the modeling process. As a merely example, the strategy includes PV panels, solar collectors, etc., but no details are provided with the exception of the sketch in Figure 8. These choices as well as e.g. the electricity mix considered have direct implications in the energy consumption and associated GHG emissions. The authors should provide a thorough discussion on these and other topics that makes the model more transparent and reproducible
Response 1: I had provided a thorough discussion on these and other topics that makes the model more transparent and reproducible (in red).
Point 2: Figs. 3 and 5: I would suggest using subfigure captions (including explanatory text in the legend), for the sake of clarity, as indicated in my previous report (comment #8).
Response 2: Figure3 and Figure5 was revised. (in red)
Point 3: Please address my previous comment #9: “Figure 6: Without.
Response 3: Figure6 was revised. (in red)
Reviewer 2 Report
Congratulations; author has made significant change and revised the overall manuscript according to given suggestions. Therefore, I want to accept this manuscript in the current form.
Author Response
Point 1: Congratulations; author has made significant change and revised the overall manuscript according to given suggestions. Therefore, I want to accept this manuscript in the current form.
Response 1: Thank you for your recognition. I will continue to work hard to improve themanuscript。
Reviewer 3 Report
Authors have fulfilled my concern, paper can be published
The English quality is good
Author Response
Point 1: Authors have fulfilled my concern, paper can be published
Response 1: Thank you for your recognition. I will continue to work hard to improve themanuscript。
