Research on Low-Carbon Design and Energy Efficiency by Harnessing Indigenous Resources through BIM-Ecotect Analysis in Hot Climates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is very actual. Case study is a very good example to investigate the principles of sustainable developement in practice. However, in my opinion BIM should be only the first step in serious investigation or research. The results should be verified and compared with energy simulation Sw (ESP-r, DesignBuilder etc.). It would be useful to investigate several options of the structure. It would be interesting to continue the research during building operation. Pictures are of poor quality.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3032632

Title: Research on Low-Carbon Design and Energy Efficiency by Harnessing Indigenous Resources through BIM-Ecotect Analysis in Hot Climates.

Journal: sustainability

 

To Editor and Reviewers:

We’d like to express our great appreciations to all the valuable works done by the reviewers to help improve our work. We revised the manuscript in response to the valuable comments of reviewers, which we believe highly improved the quality of manuscript.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer: 1:

Point 1:

The topic is very actual. Case study is a very good example to investigate the principles of sustainable development in practice.

We appreciate your constructive feedback. When designing the house in harsh climatic conditions, our focus was on meeting the clients' needs for energy efficiency and resilience. We prioritized indigenous, sustainable, and durable materials for construction, along with a robust structural system. Importantly, we analyzed the design using energy-efficient software to ensure its environmental performance. As authors and designers, conducting building energy analysis in Ecotect guided us to use local construction materials and techniques that are both green and sustainable.

Point 2:

However, in my opinion BIM should be only the first step in serious investigation or research. The results should be verified and compared with energy simulation Sw (ESP-r, DesignBuilder etc.).

Thank you for your comment. The manuscript originated from the idea of integrating building design in harsh climatic conditions with energy analysis. The aim was to design a low-carbon building, calculate its energy requirements, and address climate challenges using local materials and construction techniques. Hence, we chose to analyze the building's energy needs using Ecotect software, given its access to regional climatic data. In our future work, we plan to assess the building's energy performance during operation using software recommended by reviewers.

Point 3:

It would be useful to investigate several options of the structure.

Thank you for the valuable comment. Currently, the building's roof system and exterior walls have been designed specifically to withstand the harsh climatic conditions, as these elements are most affected by heat gain and loss. These features are optimized to address the environmental and climatic challenges of the region. Additionally, the single-story house is constructed with stone masonry, meeting the necessary structural requirements. We will further investigate and emphasize the structural system in our ongoing and future work.

Point 4:

It would be interesting to continue the research during building operation.

Thank you for your valuable comment. The simulation and analysis were conducted concurrently with the design and development of the house due to the harsh climatic conditions of the region. The client's requirement was to design a house capable of withstanding these conditions. Therefore, during the design stage, the architects selected Ecotect software to perform the building energy analysis in parallel with the design process, ensuring energy-efficient results.

We appreciate the reviewer's suggestion to include building energy analysis during the operation phase. This insightful feedback provides us with a valuable direction for our future studies.

Point 5:

Pictures are of poor quality.

Thank you for your valuable comment. Most of the images are in Section 5, Results in Analysis, which are crucial illustrations for the manuscript. We have replaced the low-quality images with new, high-resolution ones to enhance the overall quality of the manuscript.

 

We appreciate your suggestions.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Whilst appreciating the authors' attempt to contribute to the sustainability discourse, the work submitted is not yet of a level appropriate to be scholarly appraised. There is no real introduction to the problem addressed and the methods chosen to do so, no real intellectual argument behind the description of the work carried out, no critical reflection about the validity of the design proposal as shown or the systems selected, no explanation of the figures provided, no scientific conclusions, and no discussion about the software allegedly employed and contained in the title. 

The referee's goodwill notwithstanding, this makes it impossible to provide constructive comments about the paper. More basic training is required before rewriting it.     

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is low and contains numerous typos. It would require some significant editing. The problem, however, is not so much the language level as the underlying lack of content. Entire pages in the text say absolutely nothing of note. Refer to introduction and literature review as examples.      

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3032632

Title: Research on Low-Carbon Design and Energy Efficiency by Harnessing Indigenous Resources through BIM-Ecotect Analysis in Hot Climates.

Journal: sustainability

 

To Editor and Reviewers:

We’d like to express our great appreciations to all the valuable works done by the reviewers to help improve our work. We revised the manuscript in response to the valuable comments of reviewers, which we believe highly improved the quality of manuscript.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer: 2

Point 1:

Whilst appreciating the authors' attempt to contribute to the sustainability discourse, the work submitted is not yet of a level appropriate to be scholarly appraised.

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript multiple times and diligently addressed the feedback provided by all three reviewers. We are striving to ensure that the manuscript meets the highest standards.

Point 2:

There is no real introduction to the problem addressed and the methods chosen to do so,

Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the authenticity of the introduction and methodology sections. We have thoroughly reviewed these sections based on the reviewer's suggestions, made significant improvements, and revised them accordingly. The updated content has been included in the manuscript.

Point 3:

No real intellectual argument behind the description of the work carried out, no critical reflection about the validity of the design proposal as shown or the systems selected, no explanation of the figures provided,

We are grateful for your insightful comments. After carefully reviewing the article, we have addressed the valuable feedback provided by the reviewer. All figures have been redrafted and illustrated with high quality and resolution, with detailed explanations included.

Point 4:

No scientific conclusions, and no discussion about the software allegedly employed and contained in the title. 

Thank you for your comment. We have revised the conclusions to enhance their technical and scientific accuracy.

Point 5:

The referee's goodwill notwithstanding, this makes it impossible to provide constructive comments about the paper. More basic training is required before rewriting it.

We appreciate your feedback. After carefully reviewing your comments, we have made significant improvements to the manuscript to ensure it meets the journal's standards and requirements.

Point 6:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The level of English is low and contains numerous typos. It would require some significant editing. The problem, however, is not so much the language level as the underlying lack of content. Entire pages in the text say absolutely nothing of note. Refer to introduction and literature review as examples.   

Thank you for your comments and positive assessment of our work. We are fully committed to addressing the points you highlighted for improvement. The text has been thoroughly proofread to ensure grammatical accuracy and readability, meeting the standards required for academic papers and publication excellence.

 

We appreciate your suggestions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

This is an interesting topic for combine the traditional architecture design with the energy conservation technologies. However, as a paper, the description should be improved including the English. For example:

l   The project is a case study, the introduction may come after the Literature Review

l   For “1.1. Project Overview”, you should give some ·explanation for the content in the table, and 1.1.1—1.1.4 can also be summarized in the table

l   For literature review, you should choose the one that is related to your research and give a review for what is the difference or what can be referenced in your research. For example, 2.3.2 international rating tool seems no relationship with this study.

l   The design development process in Figure5 should not be a sketch. Please use other figure to show the process.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is no problem for English, but academic paper editing is suggested 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3032632

Title: Research on Low-Carbon Design and Energy Efficiency by Harnessing Indigenous Resources through BIM-Ecotect Analysis in Hot Climates.

Journal: sustainability

 

To Editor and Reviewers:

We’d like to express our great appreciations to all the valuable works done by the reviewers to help improve our work. We revised the manuscript in response to the valuable comments of reviewers, which we believe highly improved the quality of manuscript.

Response to the reviewer’s comments:

Reviewer: 3:

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Point 1:

This is an interesting topic for combine the traditional architecture design with the energy conservation technologies. However, as a paper, the description should be improved including the English. For example:

Thank you for your valuable feedback. This manuscript explores integrating

building design in harsh, hot climates with energy analysis, focusing on low-carbon buildings. We aimed to calculate energy requirements and address issues using energy simulation software. The results are crucial for tackling climatic conditions using indigenous materials and local construction techniques. Ecotect software was chosen for its comprehensive climatic and weather data for the specific region, facilitating accurate energy requirement analysis.

 

l   The project is a case study, the introduction may come after the Literature Review

Thank you for your valuable comment. After carefully considering the reviewer's perspective, I have relocated Sections 1.1 to 1.3 to Section 4. You can find this change in the revised manuscript.

 

l   For “1.1. Project Overview”, you should give some ·explanation for the content in the table, and 1.1.1—1.1.4 can also be summarized in the table

Thank you for your valuable feedback. The project overview in Section 1.1 has been elaborated to align with the table of contents. Additionally, Sections 1.1.1 through 1.1.4 have been added and summarized in the table, which has been revised and updated in the manuscript.

 

l   For literature review, you should choose the one that is related to your research and give a review for what is the difference or what can be referenced in your research. For example, 2.3.2 international rating tool seems no relationship with this study.

We appreciate your feedback. After carefully reviewing your comments, we have made significant improvements by removing irrelevant content, such as Section 2.3.2 on the international rating tool, as suggested by the reviewer. These changes are reflected in the revised manuscript.

 

l   The design development process in Figure5 should not be a sketch. Please use other figure to show the process.

Thank you for your comments. We agree with the reviewer's feedback, and as suggested, we have removed Figure 5 along with the accompanying sketches depicting the design process. Instead, we have included other figures to enhance the presentation.

 

Point 2:

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There is no problem for English, but academic paper editing is suggested 

Thank you for your comments and positive assessment of our work. We are fully committed to addressing the points you highlighted for improvement. The text has been thoroughly proofread to ensure grammatical accuracy and readability, meeting the standards required for academic papers and publication excellence.

We appreciate your suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study on the use of BIM simulation and advanced digital strategies in sustainable design can contribute to the expansion of awerness of sustainable building design. I appreciate your effort to reflect the principles of regional architecture in sustainable design, to avoid "universal sustainable architecture" without region specific architectural features.