Household Challenges in Solar Retrofitting to Optimize Energy Usage in Subtropical Climates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the work,  the authors analyze the architectural design factors, to retrofit the older residential buildings by eco-friendly solar energy technologie in Australia. Before the publication, it should be revised, as the following:

1. The concise and scientific English is required;
2. The cost-effectiveness is the core factor. Other factors should be classified based on the investment and the profit.
3. The inconsistencies with the original architectural style should be discussed and the solution should be provided.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

See attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a well-structured and comprehensive case study on solar retrofitting for a pre-war household in a subtropical climate. The research is timely, methodologically sound, and offers practical insights for homeowners, designers, and policymakers. The integration of feasibility and detailed technical analyses, along with the consideration of both passive and active systems, adds significant value. However, the paper would benefit from improved clarity in methodology description, more consistent terminology, better integration of figures and tables, and a stronger articulation of its original contribution relative to existing literature. The writing is generally clear but occasionally repetitive, and some sections could be condensed for conciseness.

1. The abstract mixes quantitative and qualitative aims without clearly distinguishing between research objectives, methods, and key findings. Restructure the abstract to clearly state: research problem, methodology, key findings, implications, originality.
2. The description of the research design is somewhat vague and could be better aligned with standard research methodologies. Clearly define the research paradigm (e.g., mixed-methods, case study research) and justify the use of “research by design” with references to established literature.
3. Inconsistent use of terms such as “light retrofitting” vs. “partial retrofitting,” “solar electric” vs. “PV,” “self-consumption” vs. “self-sufficiency.” Standardize terminology throughout the paper. Consider adding a glossary or definitions section early in the paper.
4. Figures and tables are referenced but not well integrated into the narrative. Some are missing from the text. Ensure all figures and tables are explicitly referred to in the text and that their relevance is clearly explained.
5. While Brisbane’s climate is described, more could be done to link climatic data directly to system performance and design recommendations. Include a table or graph summarizing key climatic variables (e.g., solar irradiance, temperature, humidity) and their implications for system design.
6. The economic analysis is based on nominal payback periods rather than discounted cash flow, which limits its robustness. Include a sensitivity analysis or discounted cash flow model to strengthen the economic evaluation.
7. The limitations of the study are underemphasized, particularly regarding generalizability beyond the single case study. Expand the “Research limitations” subsection to address sample size, geographic specificity, and assumptions made in the analysis.
8. Some references are incomplete or inconsistently formatted (e.g., missing URLs, inconsistent use of italics).

Author Response

See  attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript can be published.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the question raised from my side have been well explained, and corresponding revisions have made in the revised manuscript. I agree to accept the manuscript.