One-Stop-Shops for Energy Renovation of Dwellings in Europe—Approach to the Factors That Determine Success and Future Lines of Action

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall the article is well presented and clear. The subject of research is interesting and an up to date topic. Some revision is required though.

Line 140: mention which previous research (even as a reference)

Regarding the methodology section more description of the procedure is needed.

From line 146-154 it is suggested or to further describe the projects mentioned or just add them as reference. It is not written very clear. i.e There are references for the research projects but for the research articles not. In general point 1) in this section should be revised.

Line 186: Is there a database for the seventy projects from previous research or literature?

Section 4: Explain better how the OSS model respond to the pre-mentioned barriers in section 3. 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

here we attach an Excel file where the observations of each of the reviewers and the modifications made to the text are indicated in detail, point by point. This Excel is considered as a cover letter.

All the best.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article does not describe the research methodology. The authors did not present research methods, tools or techniques.They did not specify the research period, subject and subject of the research. The research methodology is not understood. What did the authors study, and what was the purpose of this research? It was also not explained when the study was conducted. A scientific article must describe the methodology (as in the cited Salom et a. 2018) , and in my opinion, a relevant section of the article should be separated for this purpose.The lack of description of the methodology is a significant shortcoming of the researcher's workshop.

Regarding to the review on methodology, please find the following suggestion that may help in the definition: Lucienne Krosse, Mikel Monclus, Arno Nijrolder (2021). Building Refurbishment Initiatives and Business Models. A Global Benchmark)

The article does not directly bring new knowledge to science. In my opinion the article presented for review is of low value. The individual parts are not a coherent theoretical concept. In the article, the empirical researches are not presented. If this article is to be published, it needs to be thoroughly refined.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

here we attach an Excel file where the observations of each of the reviewers and the modifications made to the text are indicated in detail, point by point. This Excel is considered as a cover letter.

All the best.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper presents the status of One-Stop-Shops  (OSS) promoted by European Directives on energy renovation of buildings in Europe. Main barriers for its implementation and the indicators of success are explored, and  future strategies are proposed to strengthen OSS operation in the long term.

The work is related to an important theme and presented a up-to-date review on OSS and provides useful information for the scientific community and policy makers.

Paper is well structured and well written.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

here we attach an Excel file where the observations of each of the reviewers and the modifications made to the text are indicated in detail, point by point. This Excel is considered as a cover letter.

All the best.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Strengths

• The article concerns an important and relatively little-known area of comprehensive energy renovation of existing buildings
• Coherent and interesting discussion on One-Stop-Shops
• Identification of barriers to energy renovation

Weaknesses

• No energy performance or similar characteristics of renovated dwellings
• No quantitative comparison of the achieved energy effects during traditional proceedings and the analyzed One-Stop-Shops method
• No quantitative comparison of the economic effects achieved during traditional proceedings and the analyzed One-Stop-Shops method

Comments

• Perhaps there is no reliable data to compare the "traditional retrofit procedure" and the analyzed One-Stop-Shops method, but it is necessary to conclude whether the assumed energy and environmental targets have been achieved. It is necessary to comment on the current possibilities of performing a quantitative assessment, e.g. on the basis of final reports on implemented projects.
• I suggest softening the sentence about “Families do not have factual resources that enable them to easily identify technicians who can advise them on the process” (lines 110 and 111). I believe that, for example, due to the universal obligation to prepare energy performance of buildings, the knowledge of dwellings owners is much better than it results from the manuscript under review.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

here we attach an Excel file where the observations of each of the reviewers and the modifications made to the text are indicated in detail, point by point. This Excel is considered as a cover letter.

All the best.

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The overall article is now well presented and more clear.

Improved methodology and research section with more details.