The Impact of Passive Strategies on the Overall Energy Performance of Traditional Houses in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors present a study on the impact of four passive energy-saving strategies on the traditional buildings from two Saudi Arabian cities.
There are some problems in the paper, which should be improved:
The research field is addressed in the literature, new results being permanently obtained with application for different regions. The reference list contains only 19 titles, one of them being from the last 4 years. The reference list should be completed (i.e. articles with a similar approach, for regions with similar weather etc.).
The critical analysis of the research results should be detailed.
The conclusions section should highlight and detail the research results. The section should be extended.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. The response file is attached.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper explores the impact of four passive strategies on the energy performance of traditional houses in KSA. The results have certain significance for guiding the local housing design. Some specific comments are as follows:
1. The analysis of existing research status in the section of “1. Introduction” is not in-depth enough, so it is suggested to supplement relevant content.
2. Figures 3 and 4 lack the names and units for the horizontal and vertical coordinates.
3. In the section of“2. Materials and Methods”, relevant parameter settings of energy consumption simulation should be given in detail, such as the starting and ending date of heating and cooling, equipment operation time, personnel, equipment parameters, etc.
4. Figures 1, 6, and 11 are not clear enough to see the text.
5. The section of 4.1.1 discusses the investigation of the impact of green area on vernacular architecture. It is suggested to give the site plan of case 2 and case 3 to clarify the specific green area, plant type and arrangement.
6. Line 328，Figure 14 should be changed to figure 12.
7. In the section of 3.2.1, three types of opening types are mentioned. Which is the corresponding one in the result analysis in 4.2? or including three types?
8. The WWR of traditional houses are listed in Table1 and Table2. "Modifying the WWR to adapt the contemporary house characteristics" is mentioned in figure 4 and 5. It is recommended to give the value of changed window-wall ratio.
9. The analysis of section 4 is not in-depth enough. At present, it is only for the two working conditions of "base" and "no", and it is suggested to add more working conditions for comparative analysis. For example, when considering the influence of green area, the various layout modes can be compared, also when analyzing the influence of WWR on energy consumption, multiple sets of parameters can be set et al.
10. The conclusion is too simple and should be modified.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. The response file is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article discuss the topic of The Impact of Passive Strategies on the Overall Energy Performance of Traditional Houses in KSA.
In my opinion, the authors have provided interesting research work. Unfortunately, quality of current version of paper is low.
I suggest that article should be significantly improved before further processing.
Suggestions as follows:
1.Please determine 'KSA' in the title. Title should not contain any shortcut in title.
2. Please rewrite first 2 sentences in abstract part. In current version it is hard to understand the sense in these sentences.
3. It is recommended to add additional 1-2 keywords.
4. Figure 1 is not clear. Please improve size and quality ot this element. Please add a scale.
5. Please determine WWR.
6. Please use capital letter at the beginning of each description of the figure/graph etc. (ex. in case figure 1 and 2).
7. Figure 3 and 4 - please add axex and name of axes.
8. I suggest to add separated point - Research significance - Please describe here the main essence of the research. What was the inspiration for such an analysis? Why presented studies are so important?
9. Please change Kg into 'kg' in table 1 (and in another places where you use similar units).
10. Table 1 - what is a "Concert block"?
11. Lines 170-171 - please rewrite.
12. Figures 5 are very poor and should be described (in figure and in the text). Each presented phenomena must be explained.
Especially text in figure 5b is not clear.
13. Figures 6a and 6b should be described clearly in the text. Moreover, quality of figures should be improved.
14. Figure 11 is not legible.
15. Table 3 - please change 'cas3' into case 3.
16. Analysis of the results should be improved.
17. It is recommended to indicate potential application of research results in civil engineering.
18. The conclusion part must be rewritten. I suggest that conclusions should be concise and presented point by point.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. The response file is attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author explained and revised the issues raised.
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Reviewer 3 Report
The majority of remarks have been considered by authors. Errors have been eliminated. The authors responded to comments of the reviewer thoroughly.
The current version is more satisfactory for reviewer.
I suggested that you should improve quality of figures 6a, 6b and 11 (this one is unacceptable ant must be improved). Please use some major explanations in figures (using additional text IN THESE FIGURES).
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the time and effort in reviewing our manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
