Parametric Assessment of Building Heating Demand for Different Levels of Details and User Comfort Levels: A Case Study in London, UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I think your paper is really good and informative. I enjoyed reading it. I will probably reference it once it is published.

I only have a couple of comments:

First, I think the case studies/ case study areas should be described in more detail. Also, they should have at least their own paragraph, if not their own subsection.

So far, the case studies are explained briefly in subsection 3.1.3, and then when you get to the results, you see maps and information on the case studies that have not been presented in previous sections.

It could also be interesting to present the conclusions in bullet points. But this is not that important, and I would completely accept the paper even if you don't add the bullet points.

Author Response

We added part from line 384 to 436 includes detailed text and illustrative description of the case study areas.

We kept the conclusion part structure and choose not to present with bullet points.

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper represents useful research on energy use of urban buildings in the City of London.  Supporting studies have been researched and clearly presented.  Figure/ground and 3-D diagrams illustrating energy use support findings and offer visual analogues for implications of building forms and scales.

More information on how this and other studies may be applied by city planners as predictive tools for energy use would be helpful.  Conclusions could be expanded to summarize research and present modeling tools that would enable planners and designers to calculate energy use and apply data to retrofitting existing buildings and design of new buildings.

The study could clarify the benefits of infill high-density residential buildings with shared party walls and high-rise, high density buildings with small foot prints but high window wall ratio.

Author Response

Added part from line 384 to 436 includes detailed text and illustrative description of the case study areas.

The conclusion part has been updated and expanded.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for your effort in extracting this article. In general, the article looks interesting. However, the following may raise the quality of the article.

1. I would suggest adding the title "London" because, as you mentioned in the abstract, it is only limited to estimating the annual residential heat demand in London. Also, you should mention that the article reflects the view of the buildings in the London region only in the conclusion/limitation section.

2. The first two paragraphs in the introduction should be combined into one paragraph; or expand more in first paragraph.

 

3. I would suggest adding the paper's organization in the introduction section.

4. Check the references format in lines 124, 125, 186, 215 and 226. Please check the whole article.

5. Lines 146 to 148 are not necessary unless you believe are contain important content.

6. Add space between the content and the citation. For example. lines 190, 192, 195. Please check the whole article.

7. Make sure the font size in the tables is consist.

8. Please add more details about the reporting of Figures and Tables. For example, it is not logical that three lines are only for Figures 16 and 17 and Table 3.

9. What are the implications of your article?

Hope that the above helps you to raise the quality of the paper.

 

Author Response

1. The article title and the section 5 ‘Conclusion’ are modified.
2. The first two paragraphs are combined.
3. It is added from Line 86 to 93.
4. All corrected.
5. It has been deleted
6. All has been corrected
7. All has been corrected
8. All has been corrected
9. The conclusion part has been updated and expanded.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article deals with a model for energy demand assessment in buildings. The article deals with a topic of current interest that concerns the journal scope.

The article is well structured, with sufficient background and adequate methodology. The development is correct and the results are clearly discussed.

In summary I recommend the publication of the article as is.

As a complement to my comments, I invite the authors to consult the following publication in case it is of interest to them: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13225970

Author Response

Thanks for your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you for your effort in revising the papers. Therefore, the paper is ready for publication.

 

Warm regards,

Reviewer