Environmental and Economic Assessment of Energy Renovation in Buildings, a Case Study in Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, 

The paper aims to provide a techno-economic analysis of the proposed renovation strategy of a pilot case study: a typical student house within a European research project (H2020 ProGETonE) to enhance energy efficiency and seismic performance. The experiment is novel and updated and addresses the critical issue of the energy transition by providing on-ground building renovation interventions, not only in Greece and the EU, but it may also give a trajectory to the southern Mediterranean context.  However, the manuscript misses the accuracy in presenting the data, linking it with the relevant references, and juxtaposing it with previous literature, besides some points related to the research structure. 

Here are my recommendations:


a) The Abstract: please highlight numerical results, both economic and environmental, due to the renovation strategy to provide an overview for the readers.

b) Section 2.3, 1st paragraph: "The software integrates several database of EPDs, providing information on the environmental impacts of building materials. [14]" It seems that Ref.14 does not include this statement; kindly check. 

c) Section 3.1: Please add a proper reference that includes the different aspects of ProGETonE. Reference [17] after the "social and economic sustainability" statement refers to One Click LCA® software.

d) Section 3.2: The data collection method of energy consumption patterns pre-renovation is missing. Is the data formerly collected through energy bills or available online? Please elaborate. 
Also, the reference (Ruggiero et al., 2021) needs to fit with the Building's standards. Also, references [20,21] are missing from the reference list.

e) Section 3.3. GET structure needs to be defined, as it seems that it is not a commonly used system. Does it mean integrated Efficient Technologies (GETs), as mentioned in reference [3], or something else? 

f) The results section can be enhanced. A methodology section should be added to summarize the obtained method to address the research aim and answer any research questions. A visual summary might be beneficial. 


g) The enumeration style for all numbers (commas and decimal points) needs to be received and unified. 

h) In conclusion, the obtained results should be synthesized and critically analyzed with the results of reference [3], as in both studies, the impact of applying "GET solutions" on energy saving occurred in the same context and with similar building typology. In addition to support 
The section can be improved, and the limitations should be clearly indicated. 


i) Please add a quotation mark quote to the quoted sentences:.
* In the introduction, on page 1, in the latest paragraph, Please add a quotation mark quote to the sentence ."In these areas, recent seismic events have shown ......etc." Because it has been quoted, as it is,  from a previous reference by the authors. 

*Section 2.2 "show excessive payback times, creating a strong and generalized lack of confidence by investors and final users." The indicated reference was number [13], but the quote has been quoted from reference [3] (please see ref. [3] introduction: doi:10.1088/1757-899X/609/4/042047)

* The same comment for the first three lines under section 2.1 (ref. [6])
* The same before reference [8], under section 2.1. It seems that the
 reference [8] is missing: https://doi.org/10.1115/DETC2014-34882 
* Paragraph before reference 18 and Ruggiero et.al., 2021.   

* Section 3.1 Please update references; for example, ref.17 is missing; it seems that the referenced is missing: https://www.progetone.eu/project/ 

* It seems that the following reference is missing: https://doi.org/10.3390/su14137605 
Please check the text under section 3.3. "Finally, in each zone, a decentralized mechanical ventilation system, equipped with heat recovery and air filtration, can provide five different fresh air flows based on five different fan speeds."

Thank you very much. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author conducted a case study of lifecycle assessment of energy renovation in buildings in Greece. The topic is interesting. However, several improvements need to be well addressed before the manuscript can be considered for publication. I hope authors appreciate that my intention is to provide useful feedback to improve the paper. These concerns are detailed below:

Q1. The paper looks good, but there lacks a clear path to the final conclusions. Abstract should be written by a coherent and fluent language due to some essential points such as research purposes, research methods, research contents and research effects, otherwise the innovation and necessity of the manuscript will not be reflected effectively. The abstract needs to be rewritten to provide a more precise description, rather than a general statement.

Q2. The introduction: The challenges and knowledge gaps that this research needs to conquer are not clearly stated. The last few paragraphs in the introduction part should be re-written. The overarching goal, main objectives and novelties should be clearly listed.

Q3. A literature review is essential to discern the distinctions and parallels between this study and preceding ones. Proper referencing is lacking. The following recent articles can be used as a reference:

* Tan, X., Mahjoubi, S., Zhang, Q., Dong, D., & Bao, Y. (2022). A framework for improving bridge resilience and sustainability through optimizing high-performance fiber-reinforced cementitious composites. Journal of Infrastructure Preservation and Resilience, 3(1), 18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43065-022-00067-0

Q4. The manuscript should have detailed descriptions in the section 2.3 for BIM Autodesk Revit., and the manuscript provides very poor descriptions. Can the authors provide more details on the parameters used in your BIM models? How did the authors determine and optimize these values? Please add more relevant details for how to build the BIM model.

Q5. In the results and discussion section, a more deeper discussion should be added based on the results of the simulations above, rather than discussing many things that are not relevant to this study. I highly recommend mentioning the accuracy analysis.

Q6. Some figures are low in quality. For example, Font size in all figures are too small to recognize. Please try to follow the same Figure style, if possible. Please improve the quality and font size of all figures to reach publishable quality level. Moreover, there are some figures seem just copy from other places.

Q7: The specific problem or challenge addressed by this research needs clearer articulation in both the abstract and before conclusion. A discussion section needs to be added. The novelty of the application, as claimed by the authors, needs substantiation. An explicit elucidation of the prevailing gap in current research, how the study addresses this gap, and the unique contributions of the work would significantly enhance the paper's quality, assisting readers in comprehending its relevance and potential impact.

Q8. No new knowledge was found in the conclusion section. Please clearly state the innovation, practical significance, and limitations of this study in the conclusion. Can you provide further research directions for subsequent researchers to expand on the content based on this study?

Q9. Minor grammar and syntax issues need correction to improve readability. Please proofread the manuscript to avoid typos and grammatical mistakes.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All recommendations have been considered. Tha paper can be accepted.

Thank you.

Author Response

Thank you

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your answers. I still have questions about your BIM model and case study.

Q1. In Section 3.3. One Click LCA and Integration with BIM: At least a flow chart or a graph of your program interface should be provided to convince reviewers and readers.

Q2. In Section 4.2. The Student House: A photo of Student House and a detailed table should be provided to clarify the energy cost rather than general statement. Even if these values have been obtained through energy simulation in EnergyPlus. The author should provide your simulation model or your program interface to convince reviewers and readers

Q3. In Section 4.3. The deep renovation and GET project: I do not understand the paragraphs. Do authors mean the Student House is further seismic retrofitted with steel frames and bracing elements? Then the author should provide the photo of Student House after renovation. Also a detailed table should be provided to clarify the energy cost of renovation rather than general statement. If you also use simulation software, you should at least provide your updated model or your program interface to convince reviewers and readers. I think that the appurtenant discussion/verification is insufficient.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 Accept in present form

Author Response

Thank you