Evaluation of Family Houses in Slovakia Using a Building Environmental Assessment System
, Iveta Selecká 1, Silvia Vilčeková 1,*, Dušan Burák 2 and Anna Sedláková 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The abstract seems more like the results. It needs to be rewritten showing the research problem and the broader impact.
The first and second sentences of the intro start with “there are many”.
The intro is not precise. It's just a bunch of definitions after each other and there’s no connection between them. The intro needs to be rewritten.
This sentence in the intro needs to be expanded with references “Ultimately, the environmental certification of buildings is significant for sustainability, and therefore it is important to promote it also in the Slovak market.”
In the Materials section, this sentence is vague and needs to be better explained: “They were chosen for analysis in terms of their location, architecture and construction design, and their use of renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, and water and waste management.“
The description of each house can be better organized and presented. It’s difficult to compare between them currently. It would be interesting to know how they are different or how they are similar.
A discussion of the results is missing. What do the results specifically mean (each table/graph), and what impact will have on future research?
Author Response
The abstract seems more like the results. It needs to be rewritten showing the research problem and the broader impact.
Response: Lines 15-21 - abstract is rewritten
The first and second sentences of the intro start with “there are many”.
The intro is not precise. It's just a bunch of definitions after each other and there’s no connection between them. The intro needs to be rewritten.
Response: Lines 28-43 - introduction is rewritten
This sentence in the intro needs to be expanded with references “Ultimately, the environmental certification of buildings is significant for sustainability, and therefore it is important to promote it also in the Slovak market.”
Response: Line 74 - reference is added
In the Materials section, this sentence is vague and needs to be better explained: “They were chosen for analysis in terms of their location, architecture and construction design, and their use of renewable energy systems, energy efficiency, and water and waste management.“
Response: Lines 118-123 - sentence is rewritten
The description of each house can be better organized and presented. It’s difficult to compare between them currently. It would be interesting to know how they are different or how they are similar.
Response: Lines 158- 74 - table is changed, description of the houses are better presented
A discussion of the results is missing. What do the results specifically mean (each table/graph), and what impact will have on future research?
Response: Discussion is added.
We would like to thank for the valuable advice and suggestions.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors have selected interesting topic for their research, it could be interesting to the readers, however, in my opinion the manuscript cannot be published in present form, recommendations are as follows:
- Title of the manuscript could be more concise and specific, authors should avoid redundant words. For instance, “Evaluation of family houses in Slovakia by using Building Environmental Assessment System”.
- The abstract should be an objective representation of the article. Present version presents mostly numerical conclusions; therefore the content of the article is not clear to the reader. The authors could provide a structured abstract, that covers the following aspects: the background (in which the authors should place the issue that the manuscript addresses in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study), the methods used to solve the identified issue (that should be briefly described), a summary of the article’s main findings followed by the main conclusions. It must be noted that research was performed in Slovakia and the specific sustainability assessment system was used.
- In the Introduction the current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Authors have discussed main definitions and significance of various sustainability assessment systems, however no results from previous studies that could be compared to findings of present research discussed. The purpose of the literature survey is to highlight exactly, for each of the involved referenced papers the main contribution that the authors of the referenced papers have brought to the current state of knowledge. The authors should perform a critical survey of what has been done up to this point in the scientific literature.
Abbreviations should be defined in parentheses the first time they appear in the abstract, i.e. WGBC (line 38), EPA (line 40).
- Materials and Methods. Authors have to revise the text, because information is repeating: lines 116-127 and 156-167.
- Results. Table 15 - it is not clear how total score was calculated. It is written in Methodology that “For each field, the evaluation method of all the indicators, allocation of points and calculation based on the percentage weight of significance of each indicator is processed in each sheet” (lines 179-181). My suggestion is to demonstrate these calculations in the manuscript.
- The Discussion is missing. Authors should discuss how results can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies of other authors. There are a lot of valuable studies in the scientific literature related to the subject of the manuscript to which the authors can compare to and this comparison will highlight even more the novel aspects that their paper brought in contrast to the existing studies. Limitations of the work could be highlighted and future research directions may also be mentioned.
- References should follow journal style, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references.
Author Response
- Title of the manuscript could be more concise and specific, authors should avoid redundant words. For instance, “Evaluation of family houses in Slovakia by using Building Environmental Assessment System”.
Response: Lines 2-3 - Title is changed.
- The abstract should be an objective representation of the article. Present version presents mostly numerical conclusions; therefore the content of the article is not clear to the reader. The authors could provide a structured abstract, that covers the following aspects: the background (in which the authors should place the issue that the manuscript addresses in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the study), the methods used to solve the identified issue (that should be briefly described), a summary of the article’s main findings followed by the main conclusions. It must be noted that research was performed in Slovakia and the specific sustainability assessment system was used.
Response: Lines 15-21 - abstract is rewritten
- In the Introduction the current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Authors have discussed main definitions and significance of various sustainability assessment systems, however no results from previous studies that could be compared to findings of present research discussed. The purpose of the literature survey is to highlight exactly, for each of the involved referenced papers the main contribution that the authors of the referenced papers have brought to the current state of knowledge. The authors should perform a critical survey of what has been done up to this point in the scientific literature.
Response: Lines 15-21 - introduction is improved.
Abbreviations should be defined in parentheses the first time they appear in the abstract, i.e. WGBC (line 38), EPA (line 40).
- Materials and Methods. Authors have to revise the text, because information is repeating: lines 116-127 and 156-167.
Response: Materials and methods are improved, information is not repeated
- Results. Table 15 - it is not clear how total score was calculated. It is written in Methodology that “For each field, the evaluation method of all the indicators, allocation of points and calculation based on the percentage weight of significance of each indicator is processed in each sheet” (lines 179-181). My suggestion is to demonstrate these calculations in the manuscript.
Response: Lines 532-548 - calculation method resulting in certification of the houses is explained and the table with one indicator is added
- The Discussion is missing. Authors should discuss how results can be interpreted in perspective of previous studies of other authors. There are a lot of valuable studies in the scientific literature related to the subject of the manuscript to which the authors can compare to and this comparison will highlight even more the novel aspects that their paper brought in contrast to the existing studies. Limitations of the work could be highlighted and future research directions may also be mentioned.
Response: Discussion is added. Limitation of the study is added (Lines 573-574)
- References should follow journal style, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/authors/references.
Response: References are corrected according to journal style.
We would like to thank for the valuable advice and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This study analyzes the sustainability features of the selected 13 family houses in Slovakia, with the Building Environmental Assessment System (BEAS). Based on the evaluation, the authors conclude waste management, energy performance, and building construction are the three fields that should be more emphasized in the future development of sustainable, or green, buildings in the country, particularly in the residential sector. I suggest the authors revise the paper as described below to increase the completeness of the study.
- The authors mention that they select 13 sample houses located in the north-western part of Kosice and the centre of Rozhanovce, but still need to provide more information on these regions, such as the size of the population, income level, median housing prices, etc., for readers to understand the geographic and demographic context of the regions.
- The sample size of 13 is too small to generalize the research outcomes. However, the authors still can defend their sample selection by providing detailed information on the housing market of the selected areas. For example, the authors should mention how many family houses exist in the study areas, how many houses were built within the past three years, which is one of the main characteristics of the selected sustainable house samples in the study. Also, it should be helpful if the authors can provide information on how many buildings have been certified by BEAS (by level, preferably). This way, the authors can show how their samples well represent the housing market.
- The overall results show that the weakest fields of sustainable houses are waste management, energy performance, and building construction. Can the authors explain why the three fields have been less emphasized in the Slovak sustainable housing market? Are there any policy- or industry-related reasons and specific solutions & suggestions?
- Minor comment: There are some repetitions of the same information/same phrases throughout the paper: (1) lines 113-115 and 139-142, (2) lines 121-125 and 161-164.
Author Response
- The authors mention that they select 13 sample houses located in the north-western part of Kosice and the centre of Rozhanovce, but still need to provide more information on these regions, such as the size of the population, income level, median housing prices, etc., for readers to understand the geographic and demographic context of the regions.
Response: Information is added.
- The sample size of 13 is too small to generalize the research outcomes. However, the authors still can defend their sample selection by providing detailed information on the housing market of the selected areas. For example, the authors should mention how many family houses exist in the study areas, how many houses were built within the past three years, which is one of the main characteristics of the selected sustainable house samples in the study. Also, it should be helpful if the authors can provide information on how many buildings have been certified by BEAS (by level, preferably). This way, the authors can show how their samples well represent the housing market.
Response: In the near future, we will evaluate other family houses, built in the last two or three years, but also older. Then we will be happy to present and compare these houses, discuss how the situation in Slovakia has changed, what level of certification has been achieved (for sufficient number of houses). If it is possible, we would like to omit this comment now. Thank you for understanding.
- The overall results show that the weakest fields of sustainable houses are waste management, energy performance, and building construction. Can the authors explain why the three fields have been less emphasized in the Slovak sustainable housing market? Are there any policy- or industry-related reasons and specific solutions & suggestions?
Response: Lines 612-621 - information is added.
- Minor comment: There are some repetitions of the same information/same phrases throughout the paper: (1) lines 113-115 and 139-142, (2) lines 121-125 and 161-164.
Response: Information are corrected. They are not repeated.
We would like to thank for the valuable advice and suggestions.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your efforts and significant improvements. One minor recommendation remains – to rethink the title of the publication. New title is still confusing because research covers not only design but also construction phase. In my opinion the title must reflect the essence of research as much as possible.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your suggestions.
Response: Title is changed.
Vilcekova
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for revising the paper and for providing the revision notes. I have two last comments.
1. I would like to ask the authors to add the below message in the paper as a future research plan:
"In the near future, we will evaluate other family houses, built in the last two or three years, but also older. Then we will be happy to present and compare these houses, discuss how the situation in Slovakia has changed, what level of certification has been achieved (for a sufficient number of houses)."
2. The new title of the paper should be revised again. It can be more concise.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you very much for your suggestions.
Recommended message is added to conclusion. Title is changed.
Vilcekova
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
