Investigation of Indoor Thermal Environment and Heat-Using Behavior for Heat-Metering Households in Northern China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with investigation of indoor thermal environmental and heat using behavior for heat metering households in China.
Well, the paper has good potential in terms of the results presented. However, the paper needs extensive modifications. First, the paper needs extensive English edit. For example, in the Abstract, "a large impact on in" and another example, to start the sentence with "To" and this has been occurred many times.
The study used two different methods (Survey and Field measurement). It was not clear why these methods were used and if the authors have conducted any validation?
Table 1 should begin with the latest publication not the other way around.
Figure 2, it is not clear the use of the tool for temperature record, accuracy, and validation.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General Comments:
The paper titled "Investigation of Indoor Thermal Environment and Heat Using Behavior for Heat Metering Households in Northern China" presents a study on the indoor thermal environment and heat usage behavior in residential buildings in northern China. While the paper provides some valuable insights, there are several areas that require improvement. The scientific problem is not well defined, the sample size is small, and there are issues with the writing style, particularly in the presentation of equations and the precision of results.
Specific Comments
Define the scientific problem:
The scientific problem addressed in the paper is not clearly defined. The authors mention the need for a better understanding of heat usage behaviour to reduce energy consumption, but the specific research question or objective is not explicitly stated. It would be beneficial to clearly define the scientific problem and research objectives to provide a more focused study.
Comment on the small sample size:
The sample size of only 30 buildings is that it may limit the statistical significance and the ability to draw general conclusions about the indoor thermal environment and heat usage behaviour in northern China. A sample size of 30 households may not be representative enough to capture the diversity and variability of indoor thermal conditions and heat usage behaviour in the entire region. Therefore, the findings and conclusions drawn from this study should be interpreted with caution and may not be applicable to all residential buildings in northern China. To obtain more robust and generalizable results, a larger sample size would be recommended for future research.
Change the precision used to report the results:
The small sample size of 30 buildings does result in low precision. However, presenting the figures as percentages with two decimals (precision 1/10000) may not accurately reflect the precision of the data. It is important to ensure that the level of precision in presenting the results aligns with the sample size and the statistical significance of the findings.
To address this discrepancy and improve the presentation of the results, it would be advisable to consider the following adjustments:
- Adjust the precision of the figures: Since the sample size is small, it would be more appropriate to present the figures with a lower level of precision. For example, presenting the percentages with tenths (precision 1/10) would be more suitable in this case.
- Provide confidence intervals: Including confidence intervals in the presentation of the results would give a better understanding of the range of possible values and the level of uncertainty associated with the findings. This would help to account for the small sample size and provide a more accurate representation of the precision of the data.
- Consider additional statistical analysis: Conducting additional statistical analysis, such as hypothesis testing or calculating effect sizes, can provide further insights into the significance and practical importance of the findings.
Generally, English is good.
Minor comments on writing
- the phrase "et al." needs to be checked all over the text,
- the equations need to be part of the text,
- some figures with pie-chart are so simple that a text would be enough (e.g., Fig 11)
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors addressed all comments and paper can be accepted
Author Response
Thanks!
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper presents some small changes which do not correspond to a “major” revision.
1. The phrase et al. is still used unconsistely, e.g.,
page 2/17, line 54: Rathouse H.et al. (with initial for given name)
page 2/17, line 67: Anderson et al. (without initial for given name)
2. The equations are not part of the text, e.g.,
Page 9/17, line 260, equation (1).
3. This point concerning very simple pie-chart was addressed.
4. The scientific problem is not better defined in the revised paper. The added text:
“In order to understand the current situation of heat using behavior, including adjusting heating end valves and operating windows, and establish the behavior models for heat metering households in northern China”
is very vague. The research hypothesis seems to be that regression models could be considered models for behaviour. This hypothesis is not tested properly. For example, how the models behave for another set of data (other buildings, other time of the year, etc.).
5. The small sample size (30 households) and the short time for measurements (15 days) do not give statistical significance to the results.
The paper is generally well written. The equations need to be included in the text. Some spaces are missing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
A major revision of the paper was suggested. Minor changes were done that partly respond to the suggestions.
Minor issues
The equations are not all part of the text. For example, equation (1), line 200, is part of the text, while equation (5), line 362, is not.
Major issues
The issue 4 and 5
“4. The scientific problem is not better defined in the revised paper. The added text:
“In order to understand the current situation of heat using behavior, including adjusting heating end valves and operating windows, and establish the behavior models for heat metering households in northern China”
is very vague. The research hypothesis seems to be that regression models could be considered models for behaviour. This hypothesis is not tested properly. For example, how the models behave for another set of data (other buildings, other time of the year, etc.).
5. The small sample size (30 households) and the short time for measurements (15 days) do not give statistical significance to the results.”
are still not properly addressed. The paper claims that monitoring 30 households for 15 days would be representative for a region. It needs to be emphasized that the aim of scientific paper is the scientific method proposed, not the specific model obtained for a region. The scientific question is if the method is scientifically sound, the results are replicable, the method is generalizable. The paper does not deal with these questions. The obtained model is a regression. It is not tested on another set of data and/or for a different period. Therefore, the paper does not show a validation (or invalidation) of the method.
This is in line with Reviewer 1 comment expressed in the initial review: “It was not clear why these methods were used and if the authors have conducted any validation”.
The revised manuscript includes minor corrections in the text. This makes the text unclear.
