Vertical Greenery as Natural Tool for Improving Energy Efficiency of Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Well structured paper, compactly written and to the point. The methodology is clear presented as are the results and the discussion. The overall content of the paper is interesting.

Notes:

- English can be improved (for example 206 -> instead of downer I would write lower + in general some spelling mistakes noticed)

- The resolution of Fig. 1 (c & d) is not satisfying, please replace them 

- Some links of the references don't work and one is duplicated (6), please check them

 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors study how a green façade can reduce the radiation incidence in the building and how it can affect its energy consumption. However, authors only consider a single structure built over a South-east oriented wall, although the energy inside the building is affected by all faces, including the roof. Maybe, they should work with an isolated part of the building and compared between them. I also see an absence of experimental design, so they cannot talk about experimental treatments or statistical results. On the contrary, found correlations are of interest in this study. In this sense, it is suggested to the authors to relate the two possible case studies (bare wall and vegetated wall). Furthermore, I see unnecessary the ANOVA analysis and means separations since they didn’t have replicates. The ubication and distance of the structure to the building seemed to projected shadows over itself and thus could affect the solar radiation incidence and data acquired by sensors. Additionally, the installation points of the sensors are not the most appropriate to measure climatic variables. The vegetation growth and green cover is not presented in the study, despite the authors suggest in the photos and the text that there was a completely cover by plants. It is known that the growth of plants (green cover) has a significant effect on microclimatic conditions and results.

 

Specific comments:

1.       Authors refer to the green façade with different terms that could create a little confusion regarding the system used in their study. In the literature, there are different systems, and the authors should write the proper terms throughout the manuscript. Please, to clarify this point check Fernández-Cañero et al. (2018); https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-812150-4.00004-5.

2.       Authors should explain how they irrigated and fertilized the green façade during the whole period of the observations (2019, 2020 and 2021).

3.       The position of the sensors doesn’t represent the weather of the surroundings of the building, so the authors should refer to this data only as microclimatic data.

4.       The paper needs additional discussion on how the green façade reduces the energy consumption by different ways besides blocking the Solar Radiation. Air convection in the gap and evapotranspiration of plants contribute also to the reduction of heat transfer to the building. Data on irrigation scheme are needed. Please, revise some papers regarding the thermal and energy performance of these vertical greenery systems.

Please, revise the comments in the attached document.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

In the "Vertical greenery as natural tool for improving energy efficiency of building", an analysis of the green wall was carried out, taking into account thermal conditions and reduction of heat flux entering the building and reduction of CO₂. A new, interesting element in the work is the developed kv greening index.

I have some comments, including to the research methodology.

In my opinion, it is necessary to answer the question whether the location of the measurement sensors is correct - visible in the photo. They were installed on a metal structure. Does the metal structure heated during the day due to solar radiation affect the installed sensors due to heat conduction?

Is the actual measurement period 2019-2021?

For what purpose was photosynthetic radiation (PAR sensor) measured, in what analysis or calculation were the results used?

The calculations of CO2 reduction in terms of the impact of the discussed green structure should be detailed.

Chapter 5 of the summary seems very modest, can be improved.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is well-written. However, the following comments need to be addressed first:

1. The abstract section needs to be re-written. The problem statement, results and benefits of the developed model should be added to it.
2. The introduction section needs to be separated from the literature review section. The problem statement and research objectives should be included in the introduction section.
3. More recent studies need to be added in the literature review section.

- Dauletbek, A., & Zhou, P. (2022). BIM-based LCA as a comprehensive method for the refurbishment of existing dwellings considering environmental compatibility, energy efficiency, and profitability: A case study in China. Journal of Building Engineering, 46, 103852.

- Al-Sakkaf, A., Mohammed Abdelkader, E., Mahmoud, S., & Bagchi, A. (2021). Studying Energy Performance and Thermal Comfort Conditions in Heritage Buildings: A Case Study of Murabba Palace. Sustainability, 13(21), 12250.

4. Limitations of previous studies should be added to the manuscript.
5. A research framework figure and section should be present to show the steps of the developed model.
6. Model validation and results need to be collected in a separate section towards the end of the manuscript.
7. The conclusion section should be strengthened. More insight into the result should be added.
8. Limitations of the present research study should be added at the end of the conclusion section.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

 

The authors have satisfactory solved all required suggestions and corrections.

Author Response

Respectable Reviewer 2,

We again desire to thank you very much for your valuable suggestions and also for your second feedback,

Best regards,

The authors