Influence of Arbor on the Cooling Load Characteristics of Rural Houses—A Case Study in the Region of Hangzhou

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The Abstract part should be revised with clear objectives and novelty.

The introduction part should include recent studies in the field and study gap to highlight the need for the current study.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Your ideas have enabled us to improve the quality of research work and make our article more scientific and clear. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in blue.

• (1) The Abstract part should be revised with clear objectives and novelty.
• Thank you very much for your constructive comments, according to your comments on the article summary section has been revised. But the modified version relative to the requirements beyond some characters. (Page 1, line 13-24)
• (2) The introduction part should include recent studies in the field and study gap to highlight the need for the current study.
• According to your suggestion, the introduction part is modified. In the last paragraph of the introduction, the gap between the research description mentioned above and this study highlights the necessity of energy-saving renovation of rural residential buildings and the reasons that cannot be ignored. The modified part is Page 1, line 114-128.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is special case study with commonly used method, though it has less novelty, while, it can be accepted for databank. 

1:line 76-78, how to reduce the energy consumption of heating in winter?

2:line 79, the meaning of HVAC, full expression 

3: line 122-125, too long sentence, try to make is readable. 

4: table 1, why choose mm as unit? two digitals seem over precise

5: figure 3, can such map be presentative or not?

6: table 2, is it sure all trees have the same height and diameter?

7: table 6, such data may have less presentative meaning.  in general, the data for special case have less presentative feature, as input, it looks too simple. 

8: line 306-307, may be not temperature difference, the maximum is 41

9: figure 8, it is better to list the location of each room? as mentioned in text. 

10: figure 18, please give more explanation of figure 14, for example, how compare Dw-t=1 and Dw-t-1,why it has dark blue color? also, Dw-t=3 and LAD=1.42 is dark than  Dw-t=3 and LAD=3.45, if larger LSD is better as mentioned in text?

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Your ideas have enabled us to improve the quality of research work and make our article more scientific and clear. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in blue.

Please refer to the attachment for detailed reply information. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

In the manuscript " Research on the Influence of Arbor on the Cooling Load of Rural houses— Taking Hangzhou Rural Region as a Case "Qi et al. proposes a method to accurately quantify the relationship between trees and energy consumption of rural houses, and provides some suggestions for selecting tree species and orientations configuration design around rural houses. This paper is innovative and practical as a whole. It can be accepted after minor revision. The comments are presented as follows: 

1.      In section 1.3.1, it is mentioned that a sample of 20 villages was selected for modeling rural houses. Please provide more details, for example, a table about how these villages were selected, and also please explain the reason why this particular kind of rural house was selected. 

2.      In section 2.2.1, it is unclear whether the wall temperature maps of rural houses were directly exported from ENVI-met. Also, the maps appear to differ from the normal ENVI-met output images. Please explain whether any additional software was used for post-processing. 

3.      Several figures and tables in the Results section are presented in black and white, with repetitive type labeling making it difficult to distinguish between them. The authors are advised to revise these figures and tables to be in color, and ensure that type labeling is varied to enhance visual clarity.

 4.      Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

5.      What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Your ideas have enabled us to improve the quality of research work and make our article more scientific and clear. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in blue.

Please refer to the attachment for detailed reply information. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Please refer attached file. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Your ideas have enabled us to improve the quality of research work and make our article more scientific and clear. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in blue.

Please refer to the attachment for detailed reply information. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This version is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your responsible work and all reviewers' thoughtful comments and suggestions. Your ideas have enabled us to improve the quality of research work and make our article more scientific and clearer. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in a point-by-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in blue.

• English language and style are fine/minor spell check required.
  
  

• Thank you for your valuable feedback. In order to improve the fluency and clarity of the manuscript, we carefully reviewed the language used in the entire text, paying particular attention to the abstract and conclusion. We have revised many unclear expressions and have also unified the use of certain words throughout the manuscript. The updated version with these revisions can be found in the new manuscript. We appreciate your guidance and hope that the revised version meets your expectations.

Reviewer 4 Report

Refer attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your responsible work and all reviewers' thoughtful comments and suggestions. Your ideas have enabled us to improve the quality of research work and make our article more scientific and clearer. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly.

Please read the attachment for detailed modification

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf