Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Title: The current title is misleading in comparison to the overall contents. The current title seems to focusing on the educational system of the vocational study, not the institutional building. However, the contents of the research seem to focus on the energy usage by the vocational building. Hence, it is suggested the title to be: Increasing Sustainability in Vocational Education Buildings:  Latvia Case Study

Abstract: The results mentioned in the abstract are quite general. Please include a more specific finding.

Introduction: It is suggested to briefly describe the vocational education building in Latvia, whether they have standard design or not. In some countries, the government schools have standard design. This information is important as it relates to the energy usage of the building when comparison is made.

Methodology: Section 2.2: “a survey [21] was given”. What is the number [21] referring to?  

Overall: to relook the usage of the word system in “Vocational Education System”, whether the focus of the research is the education system or the education building. In the methodology section, it is mentioned: “data set included 118 information from 167 buildings across all 23 educational institutions”. Hence, it seems that the research focus on the building, instead of education system.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for the valuable comments. The authors have revised the paper accordingly. 

Title: The current title is misleading in comparison to the overall contents. The current title seems to focusing on the educational system of the vocational study, not the institutional building. However, the contents of the research seem to focus on the energy usage by the vocational building. Hence, it is suggested the title to be: Increasing Sustainability in Vocational Education Buildings:  Latvia Case Study

Authors: The title have been changed according to reviewers suggestions

Abstract: The results mentioned in the abstract are quite general. Please include a more specific finding.

Authors: The abstract have been revised to provide more specific results of the research

Introduction: It is suggested to briefly describe the vocational education building in Latvia, whether they have standard design or not. In some countries, the government schools have standard design. This information is important as it relates to the energy usage of the building when comparison is made.

Authors: Authors have added an overall building description in Section 2. Each institution consists of several buildings, e.g. study buildings with classrooms, kitchens, workshops, dormitories, sports halls, and administration buildings. Each building has a unique construction project with a different area, location, enclosing structures, and engineering communication systems used. Most of the buildings are renovated, but four are newly built. The building area ranges from less than 200 m2 to 12 555 m2 for large educational buildings. Therefore, individual energy efficiency as-sessment is necessary to identify the potential sustainability measures.

Methodology: Section 2.2: “a survey [21] was given”. What is the number [21] referring to?  

Authors: The survey was prepared based on the methodology described by Groves et al. (2009). (Reference [21]). The text in the article is revised to show the reference more clearly.

Overall: to relook the usage of the word system in “Vocational Education System”, whether the focus of the research is the education system or the education building. In the methodology section, it is mentioned: “data set included 118 information from 167 buildings across all 23 educational institutions”. Hence, it seems that the research focus on the building, instead of education system.

Authors: Thank you for the comment. The article is revised with a major focus on buildings but including the sustainability aspect of the overall educational system trough energy and environmental policy analyses.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The aim of the article was to assess the educational institutions by the use of a composite indicator with a specific focus on reducing energy consumption in buildings. The topic of the article is interesting but it refers to one type of objects - educational institutions. In my opinion, both the subject of the article and its scope are of great scientific value.

My only reservation concerns the clarification of the term "primary energy" used in the article. Authors should clearly state whether they refer to total primary energy (renewable and non-renewable) or only to non-renewable primary energy.

In my opinion, the article with minor corrections can be accepted for publication.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the positive rating. The primary energy consumption in the article is attributed to the total primary energy (both renewable and non-renewable). This is also clarified within the article, Section 2. Additional proofreading has been done to improve the overall quality of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx