Assessment of Social Housing Energy and Thermal Performance in Relation to Occupants’ Behaviour and COVID-19 Influence—A Case Study in the Basque Country, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presented an interesting study about energy consumption in Spanish social housing during COVID-19 era. The manuscript is well written and supported by a clear structure. The research novelty is evident but requires further improvements to enhance the quality of this research. The reviewer finds this paper suitable for the journal of Sustainability, however, there are several comments that should be considered to make this paper robust and acceptable.  

- The study should conduct a further review to assess the latest research in the area of occupants’ behaviour and COVID-19 influence.

- The study would benefit from illustrating floor plans of houses in Section 3. Materials and Methods. 

- Section 4.1 and 4.2 are suitable in Section 3. Materials and Methods, please move these sections. while Section 4.2.1. Indoor hygrothermal comfort should stay in Section 4. 

- The number in Figure 4 (DHW daily mean consumption [m3/day]) should be corrected from 0,05 to 0.05, similar in Figure 5 Heating mean consumption [kWh] and Table A. 1.

- The discussion section needs further improvements to discuss the main findings of different household profiles.

- Correct the reference in line 568 (Error! Reference source not found.)

- Some of the content in the conclusions section should be moved into the discussion and clear and specific conclusions by bullet points should be presented in the conclusions section.  

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presented an interesting study about energy consumption in Spanish social housing during COVID-19 era. The manuscript is well written and supported by a clear structure. The research novelty is evident but requires further improvements to enhance the quality of this research. The reviewer finds this paper suitable for the journal of Sustainability, however, there are several comments that should be considered to make this paper robust and acceptable.  

Comment 1 -  The study should conduct a further review to assess the latest research in the area of occupants’ behaviour and COVID-19 influence.

Response 1– The authors appreciate the comments. From line 187 in section “2.2 Occupant behaviour and built environment”, corresponding to the literature review, has been added an analysis of different previous literature where is studied the lock-down impact in several countries. Focusing on the behaviour change and energy consumption change, where also different variables such as heating, domestic hot water, temperature and relative humidity were studied.

Line 187: “In this respect, the pandemic brought new challenges and, as has been found in pre-vious literature, there was an impact on the relationship between occupants and their housing, with changes in behaviour and habits having a negative impact on some aspects such as mental health [17].”

In addition, this change in housing behaviour was reflected in an increase in energy consumption and a change in usage patterns. Different studies [18-20], have analysed the increase in different consumptions: electricity, DHW, heating, and water. The results of the variation in consumption vary according to the study, some studies such as the one car-ried out by J. Rouleau and L. Gosselin in social housing in Canada have found that DHW and electricity consumption varied during the period of confinement while heating con-sumption was almost unchanged [20]. In the same study, the change in the timing of heating demand was also reflected, with peak demand shifting from late afternoon to midday. In contrast, in the study by Cvetković et al. [19] an increase in heating was found. In general, all those who have analysed the consumption of DHW and electricity have seen an increase in their consumption.”

Comment 2 - The study would benefit from illustrating floor plans of houses in Section 3. Materials and Methods.

Response 2– A characteristic floor plan of the building has been added, Figure 2. Floor plan of the case study indicating the typology of the dwellings under study in Line 372 in the "3.1.4. Case study selection" section.

Comment 3 - Section 4.1 and 4.2 are suitable in Section 3. Materials and Methods, please move these sections. while Section 4.2.1. Indoor hygrothermal comfort should stay in Section 4. 

Response 3– The authors’ appreciate the comment and have followed the recommendation. The before sections 4.1 and 4.2 have been moved and adapted to section “3. Materials and Methods” as a single section named “3.1.4 Case study selection” (lines 318-372) in order to make it clearer and more organised.

Comment 4 - The number in Figure 4 (DHW daily mean consumption [m3/day]) should be corrected from 0,05 to 0.05, similar in Figure 5 Heating mean consumption [kWh] and Table A. 1.

Response 4– The error has been corrected throughout the text and Figures 5 (line 540) and 6 (line 548).

Comment 5 - The discussion section needs further improvements to discuss the main findings of different household profiles.

Response 5– The authors agree with the comment. The structure and content of the discussion section have been modified in order to be more clear and more organized. Moreover, a comparison with other studies with similar investigations has been made, highlighting the main conclusions reached.

Considering this firstly is presented the aim of the study and the variables to achieve the objective. Then, the main results achieved are presented in an orderly manner, accompanied by previous literature where similar results were obtained. Finally, the main limitations of the study and proposals for future research have been presented, extending this study to other periods of the year or including other indoor Environmental Quality variables.

Comment 6 - Correct the reference in line 568 (Error! Reference source not found.)

Response 6– The author appreciate the remark and have changed the reference as followed:

Line 649: “This limitation is also reflected in Table 1, which shows the lack of knowledge of which social profile inhabits 81 of the 126 dwellings that make up the building under study” 

Comment 7 - Some of the content in the conclusions section should be moved into the discussion and clear and specific conclusions by bullet points should be presented in the conclusions section.  

Response 7– The authors agree with the comment. Considering this suggestion, some content of conclusions, where the main results achieved were commented, has been moved to the discussion section.

Regarding the suggestion to present the conclusions in bullet point format, the authors are grateful for this comment but has been opted to maintain the narrative format, as we believe that some of the content would otherwise be lost. Likewise, we agree with the reviewer's comment and an effort has been made to present the main conclusions reached in a clearer way (lines 672 – 695)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting topic; however it require major revision. I have the following comments:

-I recommend the authors to reduce paper, and avoid repetitions and redundancies; especially between the methodology section and the case study;

• Abstract and introduction should be improved; why reader should wait till page 8 to understand that there is a real case study in the Basque region; it should be mentioned in abstract ;
• Paper structure should be presented in the introduction
• Reviewer does not understand why a RH condition above 50% is non comfortable....in literature studies indicate that accpetable RH  values vary from 30 to 70%; The recommended level of indoor humidity is in the range of 30-60% in air conditioned buildings; what is the purpose of your literature review if recommendations are not respected?
• Authors compare heating consumption for 4 months in 2020 to conditions in same period in 2021; The main factor impacting results is outdoor climatic conditions which are not presented in the paper; 2020 was one of the hottest years and winter was soft whereas January and April 2021 were much colder in west Europe ; perhaps authors should also discuss this ;

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper deals with an interesting topic; however it require major revision. I have the following comments:

Comment 1 - I recommend the authors to reduce paper, and avoid repetitions and redundancies; especially between the methodology section and the case study;

Response 1– The content has been revised and repetitions have been eliminated, with special focus on sections “3. Materials and methods”, as well as section “4. Results”. Both sections have been restructured to make them clearer and more orderly. The section Case study selection has been included in section “3.1.4 Case study selection” of Material and methods, Lines 319-372.

Comment 2 - Abstract and introduction should be improved; why reader should wait till page 8 to understand that there is a real case study in the Basque region; it should be mentioned in abstract ;

Response 2– The authors truly appreciate this comment. Therefore, it has already been specified in the abstract that this is a case study:

Line 17: “This study aims to analyse the socio-demographic influence in social rental housing concerning hygrothermal comfort and energy consumption in a case study located in Vitoria, Spain during the first four-month period of 2020 and 2021 (during and after COVID-19 lockdown)”

Also in the introduction section, when mentioning the objective of the study, it has been made clear that it is a case study and where it is located.

Line 78: “This study has been carried out in a case study located in Vitoria, in the region of the Basque Country, in northern Spain. The constructed stock of public social rental housing has been categorised and a representative building has been selected, where a representative number of its dwellings have been classified by socio-demographic profiles and analysed their patterns and differences in their behaviour related to energy consumption and hygrothermal comfort in the dwelling.”

Comment 3 - Paper structure should be presented in the introduction

Response 3– The authors thanks for the remark, and in the introduction section at the end, after presenting the objective of the study a brief structure of the study has been presented.

Line 97: “To this end, in order to achieve the objective of this study, has been analysed the most relevant previous literature on thermal comfort, occupant behaviour and built environment and different methodologies for data collection. Then, a methodology has been proposed to select the most representative dwellings of the selected building stock based on a study of the construction and social profile. It is in these dwellings where the analysis of hygrothermal comfort, DHW and heating consumption and different patterns of use for each profile is carried out.”

Comment 4 - Reviewer does not understand why a RH condition above 50% is non comfortable....in literature studies indicate that accpetable RH  values vary from 30 to 70%; The recommended level of indoor humidity is in the range of 30-60% in air conditioned buildings; what is the purpose of your literature review if recommendations are not respected?

Response 4– Concerning this issue, the authors have expanded in the literature review the criteria used as a comfort standard, as it is true that previously it was only mentioned in the methodology. To this end, the comfort ranges of the different standards and recommendations cited have been added.

Following the chosen criterion, as we are in dwellings with a more vulnerable profile, the range of temperatures recommended by the WHO are lower than in other standards, as it is a recommendation especially for dwellings, while the other standards are of a more general scope for "air-conditioned spaces". The WHO recommendation for humidity also follows not only climatic but also health criteria, since 50% is the percentage above which the concentration of biological pollutants increases considerably.

In addition, it has been decided to follow the same criteria for both variables of hygrothermal comfort, so that both temperature and humidity have followed WHO recommendations, with the understanding that humidity is more restrictive than other standards.

This variation in the humidity value is recognised by the authors as shown in the results section (line 498) and discussion (line 659), as it is highly sensitive and varies the percentage of comfort in all the dwellings.

Comment 5 - Authors compare heating consumption for 4 months in 2020 to conditions in same period in 2021; The main factor impacting results is outdoor climatic conditions which are not presented in the paper; 2020 was one of the hottest years and winter was soft whereas January and April 2021 were much colder in west Europe ; perhaps authors should also discuss this ;

Response 5– Outdoor temperatures and relative humidity between January and April 2020 and 2021 have been added to the analysis. The outdoor temperature and relative humidity data have been included in Table 2 in Line 505. In the results, reference is made in section 4.1 Indoor hygrothermal comfort and in section 4.2. Energy consumption: heating and DHW:

Line 486: “Another factor that has influenced the results is the outdoor climatic conditions. Table 2 shows that the months in 2020 were warmer than in 2021. For the four months analysed, the average temperature in 2021 was almost 1°C lower than in 2020. In particular, the average April temperature in 2020 was 12.35°C compared to 9.78°C in 2021.”

Line 530: “This increase in heating consumption is also a consequence of the difference in outdoor temperatures year to year. As shown in Figure 5, the heating increases are in line with the lower average temperature in 2021 compared to 2020 shown in Table 2.”

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The proposed paper is very well organised and the motivation to perform the research is well justified. The hygrothermal conditions of dwellings are a well-known issue, whose prevalence was highlighted by the changes imposed on inhabitants during the COVID-19 pandemic, not only by the lockdowns, but also by the rise of home education or remote working, or simply by people being afraid or uncomfortable leaving the house. Those factors also vary according to governmental directives, laws and the effectiveness of both.

The author’s research implied the combination of several efforts to put in place a monitoring model considering a good number of aspects, and this reviewer congratulates them for that.

General comments:

The discussion section could be improved by comparing the authors’ results with other studies, even those using different methodologies, typologies, time periods and geographical contexts. That could help highlight the importance of the authors’ research.

Additionally, also concerning the discussion section, in this reviewers’ opinion, the authors could highlight a bit more the fact that they are analysing 15 dwellings, nevertheless. It is admirable, considering the amount of data and the logistics, but still, it is a sample composed of 15 observations, 5 per profile. Some statistics may be biased by that limitation, although the study is still valid.

Specific comments/suggestions:

Lines 83-84: use “(…) where an innovative system was used for managing (…)” instead.

Line 112: the authors should cite Fanger’s work or some work where Fanger’s primary factors are listed, even if they are commonly known in the field of the research.

Line 236: cite the EPISCOPE database.

Line 251: cite de TABULA database.

Line 278: use “(…) methodology, the authors selected a representative (…)” instead.

Lines 279-280: use “The influence of the residents on the building performance was analysed.” instead.

Lines 280, 281, 326, 328, 402, 461: avoid referring to the research team as “we”, “us” or “our”. If possible, adapt the sentences and use “the authors” or simply use the passive voice.

Line 287: use “Within the first period, the interval from March to April 2020 is strongly influenced (…)” instead.

Line 294: is the word “under” correctly used in this sentence?

Lines 306, 427, 429, 436: revise the use of the degree symbol (°, not º) before the Celsius unit.

Line 344: use “(…) and window properties and the type (…)”.

Lines 360-361: cite the climatic classification of the Spanish TBC.

Line 363-364: cite the classification according to Köppen.

Line 378: is the “AuGe system” something that should be mentioned like the brand and model of a camera, or can you cite the research that led to its development or cite it as software?

Line 384: remove “the following”.

Line 389: revise the title of section 4.2 according to the methodology stated previously in the paper (not “Case study selection”).

Line 412: use “(…) and a series of R300 (…)” instead.

Lines 450-451, 465: The caption of the chart should be revised, referring to RH (not HR) and maybe “Tª” (also in Table 1) is not adequate for an English paper.

Lines 568-569: check the Word cross-referencing system.

Lines 620, 624-636: the acknowledgements section should be revised to fit the journal’s criterion of acknowledging funding separately.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The proposed paper is very well organised and the motivation to perform the research is well justified. The hygrothermal conditions of dwellings are a well-known issue, whose prevalence was highlighted by the changes imposed on inhabitants during the COVID-19 pandemic, not only by the lockdowns, but also by the rise of home education or remote working, or simply by people being afraid or uncomfortable leaving the house. Those factors also vary according to governmental directives, laws and the effectiveness of both.

The author’s research implied the combination of several efforts to put in place a monitoring model considering a good number of aspects, and this reviewer congratulates them for that.

General comments:

Comment 1 - The discussion section could be improved by comparing the authors’ results with other studies, even those using different methodologies, typologies, time periods and geographical contexts. That could help highlight the importance of the authors’ research.

Response 1– The authors appreciate the comment. Therefore, following this comment, we have added in the discussion section references to previous literature where the results are similar and relate to those reached in this article (lines 601-638).

Comment 2 - Additionally, also concerning the discussion section, in this reviewers’ opinion, the authors could highlight a bit more the fact that they are analysing 15 dwellings, nevertheless. It is admirable, considering the amount of data and the logistics, but still, it is a sample composed of 15 observations, 5 per profile. Some statistics may be biased by that limitation, although the study is still valid.

Response 2– The authors really appreciate this comment. The authors have added an introduction of the study at the beginning of the discussion section, where is highlighted again the number of dwellings analysed,

Line 593: “In total, this analysis was carried out in fifteen dwellings, monitoring data on temperature, relative humidity, domestic hot water consumption and heating.”

In addition, regarding the reviewer comment, it has been added the limitation carried out based on the strong influence some of the dwellings have due to its different behaviour to other in similar socio-demographic profile that affects the average of the profile.

Line 654: “Thirdly, the strong influence found that each dwelling has on each profile, since the study has been carried out by profiles through the average of the five dwellings for each profile. Some dwellings have been found with a behaviour quite different from the others, such as very low temperatures or almost zero heating consumption, that have influenced the final result of the profile.”

Specific comments/suggestions:

Comment 3 - Lines 83-84: use “(…) where an innovative system was used for managing (…)” instead.

Response 3– The authors appreciate all the following remarks and they have changed as follow.

Line 87: “(…) where an innovative system was used for managing and recording temperature and consumption data in each of the dwellings.”

Comment 4 - Line 112: the authors should cite Fanger’s work or some work where Fanger’s primary factors are listed, even if they are commonly known in the field of the research.

Response 4- The original work developed by Fanger has been cited as follows:

Line 121: “The six primary factors that affect thermal comfort according to Fanger [24] are air temperature, mean radiant temperature, air velocity, humidity, metabolic rate and clothing.”

Comment 5 - Line 236: cite the EPISCOPE database.

Response 5– The citation has been added as follows

Line 272:  “Databases such as EPISCOPE [51] reflect the need to define certain characteristics or pa-rameters when describing the performance or properties of a building or dwelling [52]

Comment 6 - Line 251: cite de TABULA database.

Response 6– The authors thank you for the remark. The citation was missing by error and it has been added as follows

Line 285: “Performance and energy source of the energy generation system for heating, cooling and domestic hot water: based on the date of construction and building typology, databases such as TABULA [52] provide similar information.”

Comment 7 - Line 278: use “(…) methodology, the authors selected a representative (…)” instead.

Response 7– The sentence has been modified as it follows:

Line 311: “For the application of the methodology, the authors selected a representative number of dwellings which were also representative of the family social profiles.”

Comment 8 - Lines 279-280: use “The influence of the residents on the building performance was analysed.” instead.

Response 8– The sentence has been modified as it follows:

Line 312: “The influence of the residents on the building performance was analysed.”

Comment 9 - Lines 280, 281, 326, 328, 402, 461: avoid referring to the research team as “we”, “us” or “our”. If possible, adapt the sentences and use “the authors” or simply use the passive voice.

Response 9– The authors appreciate the comment. The text has been revised and modified omitting words as “us”, “we” or “our”.

Comment 10 - Line 287: use “Within the first period, the interval from March to April 2020 is strongly influenced (…)” instead.

Response 10– The text has been modified as:

Line 375: “Within the first period, the interval from March to April 2020 is strongly influenced by the lock-down caused by COVID-19 (Spanish dates).”

Comment 11 - Line 294: is the word “under” correctly used in this sentence?

Response 11– The authors thank you for the remark. The sentence has been corrected as it follows:

Line 381: “Short-term monitoring is generally used to support surveys to verify the environmental conditions under study(…).”

Comment 12 - Lines 306, 427, 429, 436: revise the use of the degree symbol (°, not º) before the Celsius unit.

Response 12– The authors appreciate the comment. The text has been revised and modified the use of the degree symbol.

Comment 13 - Line 344: use “(…) and window properties and the type (…)”.

Response 13– The sentence has been modified as it follows:

Line 326: “(…) thermal performance of the building such as thermal transmittances and window properties and the type of DHW and heating generation.”

Comment 14 - Lines 360-361: cite the climatic classification of the Spanish TBC.

Response 14– The citation has been added as follows:

Line 340:  "Considering the climatic classification of the Spanish TBC [50], (…)”

Comment 15 - Line 363-364: cite the classification according to Köppen.

Response 15– The citation has been added as follows:

Line 342:  “As for the classification according to Köppen [49], (…)”

Comment 16 - Line 378: is the “AuGe system” something that should be mentioned like the brand and model of a camera, or can you cite the research that led to its development or cite it as software?

Response 16– The authors appreciate the comments. The AuGe system is an energy self-management system carried out by STECHome withing the AuGe project. The following information has been added to clarify and explain the functioning of the AuGe System.

Lines 385: “The method was performed in a building with a long-term monitoring (energy consumption for heating and DHW, indoor temperature and relative humidity) and energy self-management AuGe system carried out by STECHome within the AUGE project [70]. This energy self-management system is aimed to control and measure occupants’ interaction with the building for achieving energy savings combined with the social purpose of reducing inequalities and fuel poverty situations. It provides real-time information on the dwelling performance, temperature and relative humidity. Both the users and the building managers have a free web platform from which all the variables and situations of the tenants and the system are managed.”

Comment 17- Line 384: remove “the following”.

Response 17– The text has been modified as shown:

Line 356: “The building location, construction properties, social classification and occupant-based control is summarised in Table 1.”

Comment 18 - Line 389: revise the title of section 4.2 according to the methodology stated previously in the paper (not “Case study selection”).

Response 18– The content of section “4. Results” has been modified. The content of the case study has been moved to a new section “3.1.4. Case study selection” of the methodology, lines 319-372. Also, the results now consist of the following sections:

Line 458: “4.1. Indoor hygrothermal confort”

Line 507: “4.2. Energy consumption: heating and DHW”

Line 549: “4.3. Occupant energy-use pattern”

Comment 19 - Line 412: use “(…) and a series of R300 (…)” instead.

Response 19– The text has been corrected as shown:

Lines 406: “Regarding the communication system, it was deployed a gateway C300 and a series of R300 repeaters of Usanca manufacturer to establish the Wireless M-Bus communication protocol inside the building”.

Comment 20 - Lines 450-451, 465: The caption of the chart should be revised, referring to RH (not HR) and maybe “Tª” (also in Table 1) is not adequate for an English paper.

Response 20– The text has been checked and corrected. Figure 4 in line 491 and Table 2 in line 505 have been modified referring to Relative Humidity (RH) and Temperature (T).

Comment 21 - Lines 568-569: check the Word cross-referencing system.

Response 21– The authors appreciate the remark and have changed the reference as followed:

Line 558: “However, the profiles of two adults and one adult activate the heating a greater number of hours per month in 2020, as shown in Table 3.”

Comment 22 - Lines 620, 624-636: the acknowledgements section should be revised to fit the journal’s criterion of acknowledging funding separately.

Response 22– The authors have revised this section and have added in the funding section as also indicated in the acknowledgment section the external funding for the research.

Line 701: “The work presented in this paper belongs to the research project PIBA-PUE 2020 (PUE_2020_1_0013) funded by the Department of Education of the Basque Government”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Thanks authors for this topic.
This work aims to discuss the influence of the current pandemic on energy consumption and thermal comfort in a case study. It’s an interesting job. Few recommendations should be taken into account to see better work. 
Change the title to present the building as a case study.
Improve the Abstract to be more presentable based on the journal instruction (introduction, background, methodology, etc.)
The method of work, monitoring the case study, was not well described. Categorize it based on DHW, SH, and thermal comfort.
Results and discussion should be complete each other. In this case, might be better to merge them to elaborate understanding easier. 
In the end, what are the main results and conclusions? What can be suggested from the technical point of view? 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks authors for this topic. This work aims to discuss the influence of the current pandemic on energy consumption and thermal comfort in a case study. It’s an interesting job. Few recommendations should be taken into account to see better work.

The authors would like to note that it has been rechecked all the grammar, language and small mistakes detected during the correction. They have also queried to a third party to check it.

Comment 1- Change the title to present the building as a case study.

Response 1– The authors truly appreciate this comment. Therefore, it has been specified in the title that this is a case study:

Assessment of social housing energy and thermal performance in relation to occupants’ behaviour and COVID-19 influence. A case study in the Basque Country, Spain.

Comment 2 - Improve the Abstract to be more presentable based on the journal instruction (introduction, background, methodology, etc.)

Response 2- The abstract has been revised and an attempt has been made to present each of the sections in a clearer way. For this reason, the outline is as follows:

Introduction and starting point considering previous literature:

Line 15: “The evidence shows that people have a major impact on building performance. Occupants’ im-pact is especially important in social housing, where their occupants may present greater vul-nerabilities, and their needs are not always considered.”

Objective and presentation of the study:

Line 17: “This study aims to analyse the socio-demographic influence in social rental housing concerning hygrothermal comfort and energy consumption in a case study located in Vitoria, Spain during the first four-month period of 2020 and 2021 (during and after COVID-19 lockdown).”

Methodology:

Line 20: “An innovative data management system is included, where the users and administration can see in real-time the temperature and consumption in the dwellings. A two-phase method has been applied; phase 1, associated with outdoor climate conditions, building properties and social profile. Moreover, phase 2, which determined the results in energy consumption, indoor hygrothermal comfort and occupant energy-use pattern.”

Main results:

Line 24: “The results show that the comfort levels and energy consumption vary according to the analysed social profiles, as well as the heating activation periods and domestic hot water system usage.”

Main conclusion:

Line 26: “In conclusion, there is an influence of the socio-demographic characteristics of social housing households in relation to the hygrothermal comfort of their dwellings, occupants’ behaviour and heating and domestic hot water energy consumption.”

Comment 3- The method of work, monitoring the case study, was not well described. Categorize it based on DHW, SH, and thermal comfort.

Response 3– The information related to the sensors has been included in section 3.2 Phase 2: Monitoring of the sample, where the information related to each variable of temperature, relative humidity, heating and DHW consumption is specified:

Line 396: “The technical equipment used includes, among others, temperature and humidity sensors located in the living rooms of the dwellings, actuators on shut-off valves, consumption data control units (heating, DHW) and Wi-Fi connections. Additionally, tablets or mobile apps, see Figure 3, are included for user/occupant access, which is linked to banking gateways and an online viewing platform.

The sensors used for temperature and relative humidity are the model RFM-AMB, of the Bmeters manufacturer [71] with a typical accuracy of ± 0.4°C and ± 3% respectively.

Heating and DHW consumption were measured with the Sontex Superstatic 789 [72]. This model measures the flow rate in individual heat exchanger tubes with a measure-ment accuracy of ±0.0005 m³/h.

Regarding the communication system, it was deployed a gateway C300 and a series of R300 repeaters of Usanca manufacturer to establish the Wireless M-Bus communication protocol inside the building. The result is that the heating system can be remotely con-trolled and self-managed by the users and the public administration. Both of them can check total energy consumption.”

En los apartados “3.2.1. Indoor hygrothermal confort” y “3.2.2. Energy consumption: heating and DHW” se han especificado las variables que se analizan:

Line 426: “The monitored data are dwellings temperature (°C) and the Relative Humidity (%).”

Line 433: “During this work, the information on the energy consumption of heating (kWh), and domestic hot water (m³) was based on the information obtained through the monitoring systems installed in each case study.”

Comment 4 - Results and discussion should be complete each other. In this case, might be better to merge them to elaborate understanding easier. 

Response 4– Following recommendations from other reviewers, we have expanded the discussion section, following a more clarified structure. First an introduction and the aim of the study is presented again (lines 584-600), then the main results achieved are explained and related to previous literature where the results where similar (lines 601-638). Finally, the main limitations (lines 639-664) and future research of this study (lines 665-670) are described.

Comment 5 - In the end, what are the main results and conclusions? What can be suggested from the technical point of view? 

Response 5– The discussion and conclusions section has been modified, presenting the main results and conclusions reached in a clearer way according to the authors' vision.

With regard to the reviewer's comment of suggestion from a technological point of view, the advantage of using this self-managemenbt system that allows a live visualisation of the different agents involved has been added:

Line 692: "Moreover, verified the advantage of using the self-management system that allows the user to make decisions based on the thermal comfort, energy consumption and the related expenditure. At the same time, it allows the administration to provide energy assistance to the users, detecting their needs and generating adapted solutions."

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors replied adequately to reviewer comments

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the proposed paper according to this reviewer's suggestions, as well as considering other reviewers’ comments. This reviewer considers that the changes implemented resulted in an improved article that should be published.

Reviewer 4 Report

Still, the manuscript could have been improved better to be more informative, seeable etc.