Relationship between Cooling Methods and Energy Consumption for the Development of Low-Carbon Collective Housing in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract:

  All abbreviations must be written their full names the first time they are mentioned, both in the abstract and the body of the manuscript even if they are widely known. (AC)   Introduction: Same comment as above, (ASEAN). Rusunawa is an Indonesian word, therefore should be written in italic.  Line 48: Rusunawa is misspelled.    Between Results and Conclusion, a discussion section is required. In the discussion session, the following should exist:  

• How the results compared to other studies with similar focus.
• Recommendation / solutions based on results of other studies

  In the conclusion section, new ideas should not appear. It should summarize the findings and recommendations made in the previous sections. Recommendations should also be made for each relevant stakeholders (policy makers, practictioners, end-users, etc.). Finally, the limitation, future study, and larger implication of this study should be presented here.

 

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for giving very useful comments. Here, we would like to describe how we addressed each of the comments with reference to the changes that we made in the revised manuscript.

1. Abstract: All abbreviations must be written their full names the first time they are mentioned, both in the abstract and the body of the manuscript even if they are widely known. (AC) Introduction: Same comment as above, (ASEAN).

Response:

Thank you very much for carefully reviewing our manuscript. As suggested, we added the full names of the abbreviations in their first appearance (Line 17, 32).

 

2. Rusunawa is an Indonesian word, therefore should be written in italic.

Response:

As advised, we have changed all of the font of Rusunawa and Rusunami to italic.

 

3. Line 48: Rusunawa is missepelled.

Response:

We have fixed the spelling of Rusunawa in line 48 as pointed out.

 

4. Between Results and Conclusion, a discussion section is required. In the discussion session, the following should exist: How the results compared to other studies with similar focus; and Recommendation / solutions based on results of other studies

Response:

Thank you for your comment, we have created the discussion section between the results and conclusion (Line 322-372). The discussion section includes the comparison of our results with existing studies and recommendation to relevant stake holders based on the results.

 

5. In the conclusion section, new ideas should not appear. It should summarize the findings and recommendations made in the previous sections. Recommendations should also be made for each relevant stakeholders (policy makers, practitioners, end-users, etc.). Finally, the limitation, future study, and larger implication of this study should be presented here.

Response:

Thank you very much for your comment. We have extracted unnecessary content from the conclusion and added our study’s limitation and implications to future studies (Line 374-420).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study analyzed the simulation analysis of the impact of multiple factors on household electricity consumption in Indonesia，The good fitting degree and energy consumption analysis ability of the model demonstrate the excellent innovation of this investigation. However， The shortcomings of the article still need to be addressed and revised by the author.

1：in Part 141， How are MECH, UC, PPJ, and SC data obtained, and what are the differences in results between MECH in Formula 1 and Formula 2？

2：In Table 8， Which one of Rusunawa, Rusunami, and Condominium does 1570 in Mori et al. 2020 represent? This is very unclear and incomprehensible.

3：In Figure 8， What is the meaning of the missing Living room display in Figure C1?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for giving very useful comments. Here, we would like to describe how we addressed each of the comments with reference to the changes that we made in the revised manuscript.

 

1. This study analyzed the simulation analysis of the impact of multiple factors on household electricity consumption in Indonesia. The good fitting degree and energy consumption analysis ability of the model demonstrate the excellent innovation of this investigation. However, the shortcomings of the article still need to be addressed and revised by the author.

Response:

Thank you very much for carefully reviewing our manuscript. We have added our study’s limitation to the conclusion section (Line 408-413).

 

2. in Part 141, How are MECH, UC, PPJ, and SC data obtained, and what are the differences in results between MECH in Formula 1 and Formula 2？

Response:

Information regarding electricity usage cost (UC), Street light tax rate (PPJ), and stamp cost (SC) are obtained from Reference [34]. This is an article published by the government-owned state electricity company (PLN) in Indonesia, in which there are descriptions regarding the structure and cost of the electric fee at the time of publication.

As mentioned in line 142-144. Both MECH in Formula 1 and 2 are monthly energy consumption of a household. However, the electricity consumption of respondent who post-pay their electric bill is calculated using Formula 1. On the other hand, Formula 2 is for calculating the electricity consumption of respondents who pre-pay their electric bill.

 

3. In Table 8, Which one of Rusunawa, Rusunami, and Condominium does 1570 in Mori et al. 2020 represent? This is very unclear and incomprehensible.

Response:

Thank you for the comment. The 1570 in Mori et al. includes samples of Rusunawa, Rusunami in Indonesia, and landed houses in Malaysia. As suggested, we have limited the information regarding respondent information only to Rusunawa samples for better comparison with our findings (Table 8).

 

4. In Figure 8, What is the meaning of the missing Living room display in Figure C1?

Response:

Apologies for the confusing expression. Due to the similar trajectory of living room and bed room AC use, the living room display is hidden under the bed room display.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is devoted to the analysis of the relationship between
cooling methods, energy consumption and thermal comfort in Indonesian collective housing. In the paper the energy consumption per household is investigated and classification of effetcs of the existing cooling patterns of air conditioners, fans, and window openings is realized. As the results of data analysis It is demonstrated, that the use of conditioners increases household energy consumption and the implementation of natural ventilation showed significantly lower energy consumption. And other interesting results are obtained.

From the reviewer's point of view, the paper is devoted to the applied data analysis and can be accepted after the minor revision.

Comments:

1. Please discuss the used method of clusterization. It is mentioned, that method k-means is used. Why you use this method? k is equal to ...? What about other methods (e.g., DBSCAN)?

2. What about the used software? Please mention this aspect of investigation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The additional proof-reading is recommended.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer for giving very useful comments. Here, we would like to describe how we addressed each of the comments with reference to the changes that we made in the revised manuscript.

 

1. Please discuss the used method of clusterization. It is mentioned, that method k-means is used. Why you use this method? k is equal to ...? What about other methods (e.g., DBSCAN)?

Response:

We have revised the according to your suggestion (Line 170-175). Regarding the matter we have decided to use k-means method mostly for its scalability. The data set used contains more than 2000 samples with high dimension of 15 minutes increments for 24 hours on three cooling methods (AC, fan and window opening). Therefore, we decided that k-means method was best suited than hierarchical or DBSCAN.

As mentioned in Line 173-175, we performed the cluster analysis with k set to 3 until 8. The final number of clusters was decided to be the highest silhouette width as the best fit model.

 

2. What about the used software? Please mention this aspect of investigation.

Response:

As suggested, we have added information pertaining to the methodology of this investigation (Line 170, 173). In this study, R Studio is used to conduct cluster analysis.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article can be accepted and published