External Shading Devices: Should the Energy Standard Be Supplemented with a Production Stage?

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors should  consider the following points:

The background of the research needs to be supplemented.

The novelty of the research needs to be supplemented.

The methodology needs to be elaborated.

I recommend Major revision.

Author Response

Q1. The background of the research needs to be supplemented.

A1. The background of the research was supplemented (please see line 71-75; 87-114).

Q2. The novelty of the research needs to be supplemented.

A2. The novelty of the research was supplemented (please see line 144-150).

Q3. The methodology needs to be elaborated.

A3. The methodology was elaborated (please see line 253-258).

English was edited (please see the attached certificate).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

§  The paper an appropriate length.

§  The key messages short, accurate and clear.

§  The text’s meaning is clear.

§  A well-written the introduction.

§  Sets out the argument ....

§  Summarizes recent research related to the topic ...

§  Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge .

§  Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area.

§  Original and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research.

Author Response

• The paper an appropriate length.
• The key messages short, accurate and clear.
• The text’s meaning is clear.
• A well-written the introduction.
• Sets out the argument ....

Answer: The argument was presented (please see line 545-559).

• Summarizes recent research related to the topic ...

Answer: The summarizes of the recent research related to the topic were added (please see line 71-75; 87-107).

• Highlights gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge .

Answer: Gaps in current understanding or conflicts in current knowledge was highlighted (please see line 108-110). 

• Establishes the originality of the research aims by demonstrating the need for investigations in the topic area. 

Answer: The need for investigations in the topic area was outlined (please see line 111-114).

• Original and topicality can only be established in the light of recent authoritative research.

Answer: Original and topicality was established (please see line 144-150).

English was edited (please see the attached certificate).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This interesting study aimed to examine external shading devices and the need to supplement the Energy Standard with a production stage. The Israeli Standard SI5282 rates buildings according to the operational energy used to support their heating, cooling, and lighting needs. The authors of this study evaluated the environmental damage and environmental benefit stages of five external shading devices with equivalently high energy rates, installed in a typical office building using cleaner sources for environmental benefit.

The authors of this study aimed to examine the five similarly rated shading devices. They rated the possibility to consider them as equivalent sustainable alternatives to environmental impacts.

The present study tried to explore the five shading devices of the assessed building and their impact on environmental damage. The results showed that shading device alternatives lead to significantly different degrees of environmental damage, thus reducing their environmental benefits related to the environmental benefit stage. Besides that, the results show that it is needed to supplement the energy rating with an environmental damage stage environmental evaluation.

The authors used to evaluate the five shading devices' environmental impacts the ReCiPe2016 method. They focused on life-cycle assessments of external shading devices applied to a representative office placed in a hot Mediterranean climate, in Israel.  The authors of the study aimed at the southwest (SW) façade, as this direction is typically exposed to high solar radiation in Israel. According to local Israeli technologies, concrete was selected for the horizontal overhang and vertical fin components, while aluminium was selected for the light shelf.

The authors stated that selected concrete and aluminium, for evaluating environmental impacts. Why were these materials selected for evaluation? Which materials can also be used to shade the building?

The measurements and instruments used by the authors seem to be valid. The results are processed in detail with statistical confirmation of results.

The discussion is a reasonable extent and includes the essential findings of the study. More literature can be added to the discussion, enriching the authors' arguments.

The paper missing the limitations of the results reported by the authors. I think it would be beneficial to supplement them with the article.

Do the authors plan further research to evaluate environmental damage and environmental benefit with the use of other materials for shading devices´?

The paper I evaluate positively because the study evaluates the environmental damage related to the production stage and the environmental benefit of the operational energy stage for five alternative shading devices recommended by the Israeli Standard SI5282. The results of the study are that the alternative shading devices recommended by Standard SI5282, as well as alternatives with similar energy rates, should be considered with caution, further taking into account their relevant production stage environmental assessments for correct production + operational energy evaluations. For this reason, findings can help practitioners to evaluate the buildings from point of view of environmental damage and environmental benefit in their life-cycle assessments.

Author Response

This interesting study aimed to examine external shading devices and the need to supplement the Energy Standard with a production stage. The Israeli Standard SI5282 rates buildings according to the operational energy used to support their heating, cooling, and lighting needs. The authors of this study evaluated the environmental damage and environmental benefit stages of five external shading devices with equivalently high energy rates, installed in a typical office building using cleaner sources for environmental benefit.

The authors of this study aimed to examine the five similarly rated shading devices. They rated the possibility to consider them as equivalent sustainable alternatives to environmental impacts.

The present study tried to explore the five shading devices of the assessed building and their impact on environmental damage. The results showed that shading device alternatives lead to significantly different degrees of environmental damage, thus reducing their environmental benefits related to the environmental benefit stage. Besides that, the results show that it is needed to supplement the energy rating with an environmental damage stage environmental evaluation.

The authors used to evaluate the five shading devices' environmental impacts the ReCiPe2016 method. They focused on life-cycle assessments of external shading devices applied to a representative office placed in a hot Mediterranean climate, in Israel.  The authors of the study aimed at the southwest (SW) façade, as this direction is typically exposed to high solar radiation in Israel. According to local Israeli technologies, concrete was selected for the horizontal overhang and vertical fin components, while aluminium was selected for the light shelf.

Q1. The authors stated that selected concrete and aluminium, for evaluating environmental impacts. Why were these materials selected for evaluation? Which materials can also be used to shade the building?

A1. Please see the answer in line 108-114; 132-137.

The measurements and instruments used by the authors seem to be valid. The results are processed in detail with statistical confirmation of results.

Q2. The discussion is a reasonable extent and includes the essential findings of the study. More literature can be added to the discussion, enriching the authors' arguments.

A2. The literature was added to the discussion (please see line 545-559).

Q3. The paper missing the limitations of the results reported by the authors. I think it would be beneficial to supplement them with the article. Do the authors plan further research to evaluate environmental damage and environmental benefit with the use of other materials for shading devices´?

A3. The limitation that explains the necessary of use of other materials for shading devices was added to the article (please see line 605-611).

The paper I evaluate positively because the study evaluates the environmental damage related to the production stage and the environmental benefit of the operational energy stage for five alternative shading devices recommended by the Israeli Standard SI5282. The results of the study are that the alternative shading devices recommended by Standard SI5282, as well as alternatives with similar energy rates, should be considered with caution, further taking into account their relevant production stage environmental assessments for correct production + operational energy evaluations. For this reason, findings can help practitioners to evaluate the buildings from point of view of environmental damage and environmental benefit in their life-cycle assessments.

English was edited (please see the attached certificate).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper can be accepted in the current form.