Review Reports - Built Environment and Wellbeing—Standards, Multi-Criteria Evaluation Methods, Certifications

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The author focus on IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality) in view of the need for a transition from a "Green" approach to architecture, toward a "Human Centered" approach with a user-centered design. Generally, the research topic is relevant and the author’s objective is to verify the presence and possible weight of the indicators that define a quality living space according to the user's perception.

Firstly, author propose appropriate scientifically sound solutions based on comparing the most common methodologies (LEED, BREEAM) with WELL, a tool designed to verify the level of users’ health and well-being. It should be noted that weakness and methodological inaccuracies are not detected.

Secondly, reviewed manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section (p. 3-4). The figure and tables are appropriate, they properly show the data. Thus, they easy to interpret and understand.

Finally, there are remarks regarding the list of references. Every standard or official document mentioned in the text also must be present in the reference list. It must be checked: UNI EN 16790-1:2019 (line 32), EN16798 (line 192), ASHRAE 55:2013 (line 197), ISO 7730:2005 (line 197), EN 15251:2007 (line 197), IES Lighting Handbook (line 198), EN 12464-1:2011 (line 198), ISO 8995-1:2002 (line 198), GB50034-2013 (line 198) and others (p. 6, 7, 12, 14).

I hope that these suggestions can help to improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Point 1: The author focus on IEQ (Indoor Environmental Quality) in view of the need for a transition from a "Green" approach to architecture, toward a "Human Centered" approach with a user-centered design. Generally, the research topic is relevant and the author’s objective is to verify the presence and possible weight of the indicators that define a quality living space according to the user's perception.

Response 1: Thank you very much and I am very happy that the objective of the paper is clear.

Point 2: Firstly, author propose appropriate scientifically sound solutions based on comparing the most common methodologies (LEED, BREEAM) with WELL, a tool designed to verify the level of users’ health and well-being. It should be noted that weakness and methodological inaccuracies are not detected.

Response 2: Thanks, I have worked to ensure that the method was rigorous.

Point 3: Secondly, reviewed manuscript is clear, relevant for the field and presented in a well-structured manner. The manuscript is scientifically sound and the manuscript’s results are reproducible based on the details given in the methods section (p. 3-4). The figure and tables are appropriate, they properly show the data. Thus, they easy to interpret and understand.

Response 3: Thank you, in fact the results were a natural consequence of the analysis.

Point 4: Finally, there are remarks regarding the list of references. Every standard or official document mentioned in the text also must be present in the reference list. It must be checked: UNI EN 16790-1:2019 (line 32), EN16798 (line 192), ASHRAE 55:2013 (line 197), ISO 7730:2005 (line 197), EN 15251:2007 (line 197), IES Lighting Handbook (line 198), EN 12464-1:2011 (line 198), ISO 8995-1:2002 (line 198), GB50034-2013 (line 198) and others (p. 6, 7, 12, 14).

Response 4: Of course, it will be my care to look at the bibliography and add any references not cited.

Reviewer 2 Report

Reviewing Manuscript sustainability-1650892:

Built environment and wellbeing. Standards, multi-criteria evaluation methods, certifications

Referee Comments:

The manuscript presents valuable information addressing the issue of in-use residential buildings. The comparison between the LEED, WELL, and BREEAM results is very useful. This work pointed out the WELL protocol, which is related to social and human aspects.

Minor corrections are explicitly indicated below, and I am considering the subject and current version of the manuscript suitable for being published in Sustainability.

There is an error in the abstract “Covd19”

The Tables can be easier to analyze if the size of the letters is smaller, the text is brought into line (justified).

Is there any reason for choosing that order? Air, water, nourishment, light, movement, …

In the three protocols, where is the factor “time spent in the building”?

In the Abstract, the Covid-19’s “quarantine” is emphasized, and that is connected to “time of confinement”. There are some cultures that use housing only for sleeping and some that live most of the year inside the buildings. Which factors in the tables are related to such factors depending on weather, traditions, and customs?

It could result useful to establish that there is an interrelation between some of the analyzed factors in each protocol. For example, the light, in part, is connected to external and internal shading, which is connected to temperature, humidity, and sound (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4).
“in situ” should be in italics (row344) as well as “vs”, which should have a dot (row 442).
The use of graphs such as Figure 1 could improve the article. Figure 1 gave a disadvantageous view of the protocols. At least one more figure should equilibrate such perception showing those factors that the protocols are evaluating. In the text, there is an excellent description of them.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point 1: There is an error in the abstract “Covd19”

The Tables can be easier to analyze if the size of the letters is smaller, the text is brought into line (justified). Is there any reason for choosing that order? Air, water, nourishment, light, movement, …

Response 1: Thank you for reporting the error in the abstract, I will modify it.

I totally agree to reduce the font and justify, thanks.

The order of the arguments corresponds exactly to that followed by the certification protocols.

Point 2: In the three protocols, where is the factor “time spent in the building”?

Response 2: Unfortunately none, but it is an interesting starting point that I can explain in the conclusions, as none of the certification protocols is explicitly stated on this. It can be an interesting topic for future research.

Point 3: It could result useful to establish that there is an interrelation between some of the analyzed factors in each protocol. For example, the light, in part, is connected to external and internal shading, which is connected to temperature, humidity, and sound (Tables 1, 2, 3, 4).

Response 3: This is also an interesting topic and there is no correlation in the procolli. As for the previous point, I could make it explicit in the concluding remarks and be a starting point for future research.

Point 4: “in situ” should be in italics (row344) as well as “vs”, which should have a dot (row 442).

Response 4: Thanks, I edit immediately.

Point 4: The use of graphs such as Figure 1 could improve the article. Figure 1 gave a disadvantageous view of the protocols. At least one more figure should equilibrate such perception showing those factors that the protocols are evaluating. In the text, there is an excellent description of them.

Response 4: Thanks for the suggestion, i will reflect on how to add another graph that can be explanatory.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents a review on indoor environmental quality and human comfort in green rating systems. In the introduction the focus is on indoor environmental quality, while the green rating system are briefly introduced. Here, a more detailed explication of these protocols, and a specific methodology fort their selection can help to improve the scientific soundness of the paper. The selection could follow a similar methodology of the study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112324 that refer to urban protocols, but explicated also building protocols. Same description in the methodology are very general and inappropriate (see rows 108-128). Explicate better the selection of these three protocols. In the core of the paper it is not clear the comparison among the protocols. The tables of each protocol are not useful, as this material can be found directly on the protocols itself. The novelty of the paper must be in their comparison. Thus, a unique table that compares credits and indicators and scores mus be inserted instead tables 1-4. table 5 is not understandable, because is too much synthetical. The part in section 4 seems not well integrated with other parts. In the actual state the article should be considered “review paper” not “scientific article”. Ti be a scientific article the comparison i among the protocols must be improved significantly. Also the novelty the paper must be added.

Author Response

Point 1: The paper presents a review on indoor environmental quality and human comfort in green rating systems. In the introduction the focus is on indoor environmental quality, while the green rating system are briefly introduced. Here, a more detailed explication of these protocols, and a specific methodology fort their selection can help to improve the scientific soundness of the paper. Response 1: As you have well understood, the focus is on the IEQ and therefore more space is given to the topic in the introduction, also because the protocols are widely described in the rest of the text of the paper.

Point 2: The selection could follow a similar methodology of the study https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2022.112324 that refer to urban protocols, but explicated also building protocols. Same description in the methodology are very general and inappropriate (see rows 108-128). Explicate better the selection of these three protocols. In the core of the paper it is not clear the comparison among the protocols.

Response 2: Your review is starkly at odds with the other two which argue that the method is very clear and rigorous. WELL was chosen as clearly written as it presents 97% of indicators relating to social aspects and the others for the crosswalk initiative that allows you to achieve two certifications together and therefore have a greater impact on the real estate market.

The comparison between the protocols is explained both in the method which is the central topic of paragraph 4. In addition to always recalling the differences between the three protocols also in the description of each protocol.

Point 3: The tables of each protocol are not useful, as this material can be found directly on the protocols itself. The novelty of the paper must be in their comparison. Thus, a unique table that compares credits and indicators and scores mus be inserted instead tables 1-4. table 5 is not understandable, because is too much synthetical.

Response 3: Tables are the heart of the paper, eliminating them would totally upset the paper. It is not true that information is readable by the protocols because the protocols are very long and the tables summarize the parameters only relating to the social question, so there is a work of study, selection and synthesis. Furthermore, the question of user perception that you do not find in any publication is addressed in the tables.

Point 4: The part in section 4 seems not well integrated with other parts. In the actual state the article should be considered “review paper” not “scientific article”. Ti be a scientific article the comparison i among the protocols must be improved significantly. Also the novelty the paper must be added. Response 4: Part 4 is recalled both in the introduction and in the method and is a consequence of the entire description of the individual protocols. The table in paragraph 4 recalls the abbreviations present in the previous tables and this allows it to be more concise. Also for this reason the previous tables are important in their structure. Your opinion is clearly in contrast with the other two reviews that define the paper as a rigorous and interesting.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

All the comments are not considered. Thus the paper is in the same state of the first version (just few references on standard have been added).

Author Response

Thanks for your comments in revised review. As this reviewer's comments are quite different with the other two in first round review, I addressed some comments from this reviewer accordingly and provided detailed replies to other comments.

In other words, his comments are completely in contrast with those of the other two reviewers and his suggestions would lead me to substantially modify the paper which, on the other hand, is perfectly fine for the other two reviewers.

Not only the bibliography was changed but I followed the targeted suggestions of the other reviewers.