Energy-Saving Potential in Planning Urban Functional Areas: The Case of Bialystok (Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. More analysis and discussion should be provided in case studies;

2. The main limitation/challenges of this work should be explained in details;

3. Contribution and novelty of this work should be further justified;

4. Future studies should be given;

5. More state-of-the-art literature review should be undertaken;

6. Numerical results should be provided in abstract and conclusion;

7. The major challenges and perspectives of this work must be provided in details. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your remarks Below we attach the explanation of improvements we introduced:

New title: Energy saving potential in planning urban functional areas. The case of Bialystok (Poland)

Reviewer 1

1. More discussion/explanation added together with two additional sources and one quotation at the beginning of the chapter 3.
2. The main limitations/challenges wider explained in the new final part of the Chapter 4 Discussion renamed to Discussion and Conclusions.
3. Contribution and novelty of the work were explained in the beginning of added final part of the Chapter 4.
4. Future studies possibilities were added in the final part of the Chapter 4.
5. The addition to the state –of-the-art were added to the end of the first part of the Chapter 1: Introduction.
6. Numerical results according to zones of gravity were added to Introduction final part (1.3 The main findings). We didn’t decided to introduce numerical data to Abstract.
7. Challenges and perspectives were much more detailed, as above in points 2 and 4.

Additionally: new references were added – new positions 3-5, 16 and 17, many of typos fixed and new keywords added: functional area and modeling.

With kind regards,

Bartosz Czarnecki,

Corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides a quite original point of view about the effects of functional areas location on urban energy saving.

I have some general comments and point to point suggestions that I reported here in order to improve the paper.

I propose a new version of the title: “Energy saving potential in planning urban functional areas. The case of Bialystok (Poland)”, I think is more immediate and it is more focused on method than on case (as the paper wants to show).

The abstract is too general in its first part. Please, detail better all the contents of the paper in the abstract that is not an overview if past experiences in the sector but a sorte of summary of assumptions and achievements. 

The introduction is quite scarse as references and too brief (final statements are not articulated). I understand that the angle proposed by the paper is not so common, but this part has to be enriched. From 

Please, check the English editing quality (sometimes plurals lack, also sentences are loops)

I propose a re-articulation of sessions throughout the paper, too:

• Pag 3, 1.3 First evidences (not 1.2. Principal conclusions, it should not be a title with the word conclusion now!)
• Pag. 7, 3. Results “of the validation process”
• Pag. 15, 4. “Discussion and conclusions”

About this final session, a serious reflection must to be added around the consequences of the proposed reasoning. Is it feasible to order/orient the functional areas’ planning? Is it adequate/appropriate nowadays? Please, consider the overcoming of the rationalistic approach to planning, more oriented now towards the s.c. mixité (functional and performative, overcoming the conformative approach)

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for usable remarks. Below we attach the explanation of improvements we introduced:

New title: Energy saving potential in planning urban functional areas. The case of Bialystok (Poland)

1. We agree to modify the title. The suggested one, more precisely reflects the content of the article.
2. We agree of the too general content of the abstract, so we decided to remove probably the most general sentence: the 4^th one, and in its place two other sentences, to add content more precisely describing assumptions and to add 2 another sentences in the end about real achievements of the article.
3. Introduction Part 1.2: Study objectives were improved. Specially objectives 2 and 3 were wider described. Additional short explanation of mathematical graph approach in final general part of the chapter were added. New references were added: positions 3, 4, 5, 16 and 17. Numerical results according to zones of gravity were added.
4. Rearticulation of article sessions were made:

Pag. 3: 1.3 Principal conclusions to 1.3 Main findings

Pag. 15: 4. Discussion to Discussion and conclusions

We didn’t decided to change 3. Results, because it consists both of validation results and of final results.

We added wide final reflection to the session 4. Discussion and conclusions

5. English language quality were improved.

Additionally: New keywords added: functional area and modeling.

With kind regards,

Bartosz Czarnecki,

Corresponding author

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

AUTHORS CONSIDERED MAIN SUGGESTIONS AND PROVIDED AN IMPROVED VERSION OF THE PAPER