An Energy-Saving-Oriented Approach to Urban Design—Application in the Local Conditions of Poznań Metropolitan Area (Poland)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Dear Authors,

Many thanks for the improvement made in your inital text. Some figures and tables need to be formaiting to the template of the journal.

I agree with the publish of your final text.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We have corrected the formatting of tables 4-6 according the requirements of the journal and improved their readability.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We are glad that our paper meet your requirements.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Overall, I found the topic of this manuscript to be very interesting. Here are my comments on this manuscript:

The title of this paper is too long and it contains two sentences. I suggest that you remove the second sentence to make the title more appropriate.

The structure of this paper needs to be improved. In section 1, they have presented the scientific problem in section 1.1, literature review in section 1.2, and method review in section 1.3. However, the method review should be part of the literature review. Therefore, these two sections should be combined.

In section 1.1, the description of "the basic strategies of a sustainable urban approach" is not very concise. Please summarize this part of the content in the scientific paper's manner and explain the relationship between the strategies and energy-saving urban design methods.

In the review part, while the author provides an evaluation of the current research, they did not clearly point out the shortcomings or limitations of the existing research in energy-saving urban design methods. This is why the academic contribution of the paper is not clear. The author should have stated the academic contribution of the paper in relation to existing research.

Table 4's formatting is quite cluttered.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We would like to respond to individual remarks below:

• The title of this paper is too long and it contains two sentences. I suggest that you remove the second sentence to make the title more appropriate.

The second sentence of the title has been removed (line 3).

• The structure of this paper needs to be improved. In section 1,they have presented the scientific problem in section 1.1,literature review in section 1.2, and method review in section 1.3.However, the method review should be part of the literature review. Therefore, these two sections should be combined.

Sections 1.2 and 1.3 have been combined into one section: 1.2. State of the art – review of the literature and methodologies (lines 113-189).

• In section 1.1, the description of "the basic strategies of a sustainable urban approach" is not very concise. Please summarize this part of the content in the scientific paper's manner and explain the relationship between the strategies and energy-saving urban design methods.

The strategies of a sustainable urban approach have been presented as reflected in energy-saving urban design methods, being taken into consideration in certification standards or algorithms of calculating energy performance of buildings. In particular, the dependency between urban layout and passive solar heat gains as a significant component of building energy balance has been presented (lines 92-100).

• In the review part, while the author provides an evaluation of the current research, they did not clearly point out the shortcomings or limitations of the existing research in energy-saving urban design methods. This is why the academic contribution of the paper is not clear. The author should have stated the academic contribution of the paper in relation to existing research.

The scientific gaps to fill and scientific questions of this paper have been pointed out at the end of section 1.2. State of the art – review of the literature and methodologies in lines 169-189.

• Table 4's formatting is quite cluttered.

Table 4 formatting has been corrected for better readability, as well as tables 5, 6 and 7.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Corrections made have improved the article. Even so, some references should be added that portray the importance of this theme for comfort in urban spaces. Please see the work carried out in the Porto Metropolitan Area (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101264) or the investigations into how urban layout impacts on the energy performance of residential buildings (https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2015.03.007).

Good luck.

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We are glad that our paper meet your requirements. The following recommended references have been added:

• Zhao, M.; Künzel, H. M.; Antretter, F. Parameters influencing the energy performance of residential buildings in different Chinese climate zones. Energy and Buildings 2015, 96, 64-75 – reference no. [27], mentioned d in the text in line 132.
• Lopes, H. S.; Remoaldo, P. C.; Ribeiro, V.; Martín-Vide, J. A comprehensive methodology for assessing outdoor thermal comfort in touristic city of Porto (Portugal). Urban Climate 2022, 45, 101264 – reference no. [63], mentioned in the text in line 468.

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

Check the citation on page 4, "[3937-42]". 

Check formatting on pages 12-14.

The overall study is clearly presented and well-documented. However, the introduction needs improvement. The introduction did a comprehensive review of the literature. However, an introduction is different from a literature review. An introduction should use literature to build a narrative to frame the research question. The literature should be used to map out the field and identify the gap or a problem in this field. Then the introduction should state clearly how this study either closes the gap, improves our understanding of the problem, or poses new questions. What is the question of the study? What problem does this study address? The paper has the content, but the introduction should frame and state them clearly.

No major revision is needed, but only some reorganization is needed. For example, on page 3, "The aim of the presented research is to explore the possibility of improving energy performance by making the right decisions at the initial stages of an urban development project." On page 5. "The objective of the research is to identify the possibilities to improve the energy performance of buildings by changing their spatial arrangement only." Or on page 21, "Our study is about adapting these computational models to specific local conditions." These are good sentences that authors can build the narratives around. Then the introduction should revolve around these statements. In summary, an introduction should go like this -- there is this issue X, and these are what people have studied in the past, x, y and z (citation), but one aspect is overlooked, and this paper will address this gap by using methods a, b, or c. Or, the paper proposes a new method/workflow to address the issue. 

The writing style needs to be improved. Writing can be more concise and efficient. Avoid sentences like "It should be noted that..." or "It is worth noting..." or "Attention should be paid to..." These phrases can weaken the argument. 

Author Response

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you very much for your thorough review. We would like to respond to individual remarks below:

• Check the citation on page 4, "[3937-42]".

The citation has been corrected. After section 1. Introduction has been re-arranged, now this references are [13-17] (line 110).

• Check formatting on pages 12-14.

The formatting of the tables no. 4, 5, 6 and 7 on pages 12-15 has been corrected for better readability.

• The overall study is clearly presented and well-documented. However, the introduction needs improvement. The introduction did a comprehensive review of the literature. However, an introduction is different from a literature review. An introduction should use literature to build a narrative to frame the research question. The literature should be used to map out the field and identify the gap or a problem in this field. Then the introduction should state clearly how this study either closes the gap, improves our understanding of the problem, or poses new questions. What is the question of the study? What problem does this study address? The paper has the content, but the introduction should frame and state them clearly.

The scientific gaps to fill and scientific questions of this paper have been pointed out at the end of section 1.2. State of the art – review of the literature and methodologies in lines 169-189.

• No major revision is needed, but only some reorganization is needed. For example, on page 3, "The aim of the presented research is to explore the possibility of improving energy performance by making the right decisions at the initial stages of an urban development project." On page 5. "The objective of the research is to identify the possibilities to improve the energy performance of buildings by changing their spatial arrangement only." Or on page 21, "Our study is about adapting these computational models to specific local conditions." These are good sentences that authors can build the narratives around. Then the introduction should revolve around these statements. In summary, an introduction should go like this -- there is this issue X, and these are what people have studied in the past, x, y and z (citation), but one aspect is overlooked, and this paper will address this gap by using methods a, b, or c. Or, the paper proposes a new method/workflow to address the issue.

Section 1. Introduction has been re-arranged in order to build the narrative leading to the conclusion which gap the paper will address. The order of several paragraphs has been changed following the suggested scheme.

• The writing style needs to be improved. Writing can be more concise and efficient. Avoid sentences like "It should be noted that..." or "It is worth noting..." or "Attention should be paid to..."These phrases can weaken the argument.

Phrases mentioned above have been either removed from the text or replaced by more distinct ones (lines 139, 411, 456, 461).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The author has made substantial revisions to the paper and has addressed all my concerns

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper describes the problems of energy-saving-oriented approach to urban design.

The significance of the paper. An important and well-defined research problem, unique research area - the impact of the research performed on the existing state of arts are poor.

Paper form. Clear and precise language, correct terminology, the accuracy of references,, articles from reputable journals - used in the paper are poor.

Detailed review:

- Abstract: “The abstract should be …………………………. 3) Results: Summarize the article's main findings; and 4) Conclusion: Indicate the main conclusions or interpretations”. Points 3 and 4 should be corrected. The description of the results and conclusions too trivial, do not comply with the requirements of the MDPI publishing house.  The abstract should present much better the research methodology and the main results obtained.

- Misapplication of footnotes. Footnotes used contrary to MDPI rules. See: In the text, reference numbers should be placed in square brackets [ ], and placed before the punctuation; for example [1], [1–3] or [1,3]. For embedded citations in the text with pagination, use both parentheses and brackets to indicate the reference number and page numbers; for example [5] (p. 10). or [6] (pp. 101–105). There are errors in the article, e.g. line 65 [8][9][10]??

How do you position your research and the results obtained in relation to another international research? I think a discussion section is needed.

Moreover, no comparison sufficiently with other similar studies is described. The authors need to describe the unique contribution of their work compared with state-of-the-art approaches.

More critical analysis and established evidence (not own source) is needed to support the claims in this study.

Conclusions: The conclusions are quite trivial.

The research methodology is very poor in the article. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is titled “Energy-saving-oriented approach to urban design. A comparative analysis of different building layouts residential plot located in the city of Poznan (Poland)” discusses the impact of urban layout on the energy performance of residential buildings.

A comparative analysis of multiple variants of land development differing in building layout only, with all other features being the same, including the building envelope properties and technical equipment, was carried out.

The authors have conducted a comparative analysis of different building layouts while keeping some features constant. The study is done with respect to a city in Poland. The results discussed in the manuscript show the importance of choosing the appropriate urban layout in realizing significant energy savings.

The abstract is well written and conveys the importance of the proposed work.

Authors have reviewed the latest publications from 2022, 2021 and 2020.

Authors have summarized the need for their work from lines 64-98 on Page 2 and Page 3.

In the manuscript authors explore energy savings opportunities by making judicious decisions during the early stage of an urban development project.

Authors have discussed the research objective and purpose in Sec 2.1 and shown pictorially “Methodological scheme of the study”, which is self-explanatory.

In the results section authors have compared their findings with prior published works. They have also justified their approach by comparing their work with similar studies.

Authors propose the spatial arrangement is an important factor which affects the energy performance of a building in the presence of passive solar heat gains.

The self-explanatory figures add value to the paper and help the reader comprehend the matter discussed with ease.

The manuscript is a very good case study and well presented with comprehensive discussion on objectives, methods, and results.

Reviewer 3 Report

It is very important to consider energy efficiency planning in urban planning.

In particular, solar and solar energy are important considerations in planning the energy efficiency of a building.

However, since the space is organized according to the taste of the person who uses the building when planning a house, presenting a consistent guideline can harm the functional value of the building from the point of view of the building user.

It is difficult to apply this study as a guideline because the change of the surrounding block plane cannot be predicted because the scope of the study as a spatial scope targeted in this paper is narrow. It is also necessary to check whether the buildings planned in this area can be applied to other urban plans in Poznan in the future.

It would be nice to expand the scope of the study, and Figures 2 and 3 are missing directions.

The building plan presented in Figure 4 is missing data on whether the total floor area, building area, floor area ratio, and building-to-land ratio match.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

The topic addressed in your manuscript is relevant but current. Since the beginning of the 2000s, the theme has been investigated with approaches in different contexts and variants.

The text has flaws that need revision:

1 - The summary should be more objective and the findings indicated.

2 - The introduction and review of the literature cannot be replaced by a presentation of the problem, especially since the problem is poorly framed given the absence of an in-depth literature review.

3 - The problem presented is poorly structured because solar urban planning has theory and methods that are well known and that should inform the contextualization of the problem.

4 - The listed parameters must be reassessed for the purpose of the presented evaluation, which is more focused on the construction system than on the positioning of the block in the urban context.

5 - The presentation of the results requires a deeper discussion that allows confrontation and comparison with other research already published.

6 - Conclusions should be more focused on findings.

7 - The references are very limited in a theme that is very wide ranging from planning, to the morphology of the city, its built environment and the constructive systems adopted for the climate.

8 - In terms of maps and figures, it is always necessary to indicate the geographical orientation and scale.

9 - The depth of the building block must be related to the size of the glazed spaces so that the entry of sunlight and the potential for energy retention to reduce operating consumption can be assessed.