Occupants’ Perceptions of Comfort, Control, and Adaptation in Colonial Revival Style Residences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Although it is a useful topic and the paper is well written, I have two main concerns regarding this paper. Firstly, one of the objectives of the research was to recommend appropriate strategies or interventions to improve comfort, control, and adaptation of occupants of the case studies. I do not believe this is achieved. But most importantly, this study has significant similarities of another paper published by the author. There are some additional findings, but I would suggest that the added outcomes would be published in a conference paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #1 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks to the reviewer for the encouraging words, as well as critical and constructive comments on this manuscript. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. The comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript in many folds. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are highlighted in red. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:
Reviewer #1:
- Although it is a useful topic and the paper is well written, I have two main concerns regarding this paper.
Response to Comment #1
Thank you to the reviewer for finding the topic useful and kind words about the paper.
- Firstly, one of the objectives of the research was to recommend appropriate strategies or interventions to improve comfort, control, and adaptation of occupants of the case studies. I do not believe this is achieved. But most importantly, this study has significant similarities of another paper published by the author. There are some additional findings, but I would suggest that the added outcomes would be published in a conference paper.
Response to Comment #2
Firstly, the main objectives of the paper have been revised to reflect the focus of the study. The objective noted in the reviewer’s comments has been removed. The comment on the significant similarities found in this manuscript and another paper published by the author has been addressed. The author has checked the manuscript thoroughly to address this concern and remove the similarities. Additionally, additional results have been added to the manuscript to strengthen the quality of the manuscript. The author is optimistic that the quality and contribution of this manuscript exceeds a conference paper. The outcomes of this study will add to the body of knowledge in the field.
Bottom of Form
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper represents a nice complement to the 'mainstream' papers, which are focused on advances of various technical solutions in the fields of energy, sustainability and/or intelligent buildings. The aspect of occupants' perception of comfort, control, and adaptation is very important for anyone researching and designing these new solutions. But at the same time it is difficult to anticipate how the new solution will be accepted by the home or building occupants. This paper provides useful insights that should be used as a guidance for on-going research.
A couple of questions and recommendations to the authors:
- One of the key outcomes of the study is a statement that “occupants that are thermally comfortable are also satisfied with the level of control” – this seems to be in line with a common sense, however it would be good to understand the opposite view: if the perception of comfort improves with the increased level of control? Is there any causality between these aspects? This would be a useful direction for teams developing home automation solutions.
- I understand the focus of this study was on summer time only but it would be nice to add some thoughts on generalization of the results: what is the anticipated outcome for the winter period? Would the relation of comfort to other aspects be likely the same? Are there at least some studies (done by others), which are focused on winter?
- The last 4th recommendation in the conclusions suggest to use “transitional smart devices” – can this please be elaborated? Does this go in the direction of remotely controlled (smart) thermostats? Please give some specific examples.
- The length of the paper might be seen too long – my recommendation would be to reduce sections 1 and 2. In particular, section 2 provides details, which are less critical for the readers.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #2 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks to the reviewer for the encouraging words, as well as critical and constructive comments on this manuscript. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. The comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript in many folds. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are highlighted in red. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:
Reviewer #2:
- This paper represents a nice complement to the 'mainstream' papers, which are focused on advances of various technical solutions in the fields of energy, sustainability and/or intelligent buildings. The aspect of occupants' perception of comfort, control, and adaptation is very important for anyone researching and designing these new solutions. But at the same time it is difficult to anticipate how the new solution will be accepted by the home or building occupants. This paper provides useful insights that should be used as a guidance for on-going research.
Response to Comment #1
Thank you to the reviewers for the comments and kind words. The author also appreciates the reviewer for the recommendation.
A couple of questions and recommendations to the authors:
- One of the key outcomes of the study is a statement that “occupants that are thermally comfortable are also satisfied with the level of control” – this seems to be in line with a common sense, however it would be good to understand the opposite view: if the perception of comfort improves with the increased level of control? Is there any causality between these aspects? This would be a useful direction for teams developing home automation solutions.
Response to Comment #2
As noted, the generalized statements have been deleted. To address the reviewer’s comment, the study found that the residents that spent longer hours indoors perceived to be more satisfied with the level of control than those that spent fewer hours in the buildings. Also, there are more frequent complaints from the occupants that spent fewer hours in the buildings than those that spent longer hours in the residences. Comments on transitional smart devices were also noted more than once by the residents that spent fewer hours in the buildings.
- I understand the focus of this study was on summer time only but it would be nice to add some thoughts on generalization of the results: what is the anticipated outcome for the winter period? Would the relation of comfort to other aspects be likely the same? Are there at least some studies (done by others), which are focused on winter?
Response to Comment #3
The manuscript has been revised to address the reviewer’s comment. In section 4.4, additional statements have been added to the manuscript to discuss possible outcomes in winter. Please see the statements below.
The study only captured field investigations in summertime. Different outcomes may be obtained if the residents’ perceptions of the thermal environment in winter were considered. A winter survey was conducted in one of the Colonial Revival residences in the study location prior to this investigation. The outcomes cannot be used for comparison in this study since questionnaires were not administered during the survey. Moreover, the timelines of the monitoring during the winter survey and the current study were not the same. In future work, seasonal changes of occupants’ perceptions within the thermal environment can be further assessed.
- The last 4th recommendation in the conclusions suggest to use “transitional smart devices” – can this please be elaborated? Does this go in the direction of remotely controlled (smart) thermostats? Please give some specific examples.
Response to Comment #4
In the context of transitional smart devices, the study found out some residents would prefer remotely controlled thermostats that would give them opportunity to adjust the thermal environment of the residences even when they are not physically present in the buildings. The study also noted other smart devices such as smart plugs, or electrical outlets. However, the initial cost of installation, maintenance, and payback time need to be fully assessed in this type of building.
- The length of the paper might be seen too long – my recommendation would be to reduce sections 1 and 2. In particular, section 2 provides details which are less critical for the readers.
Response to Comment #5
As suggested the manuscript has been revised accordingly. Sections 1 and 2 have been reduced as mentioned.
Bottom of Form
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
It is well written and structured, its reading is agile, the state of the art is well documented, the methodology is detailed and the results are consistent with the methodology followed.
Some suggestion are:
In point 3.1. Environmental monitoring of the thermal environment it would be nice to have some more information regarding temperature values, a graph would de interesting.
Line 462: Figure 8 is difficult to follow, please explain it further and explain explain what is the meaning of the initials of the legend DWLTFR...........
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #3 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks to the reviewer for the encouraging words, as well as critical and constructive comments on this manuscript. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. The comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript in many folds. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are highlighted in red. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:
Reviewer #3:
- It is well written and structured, its reading is agile, the state of the art is well documented, the methodology is detailed and the results are consistent with the methodology followed.
Response to Comment #1
Thank you to the reviewer for the comments and kind words. The author also appreciates your time in reviewing this manuscript and the recommendation.
Some suggestion are:
- In point 3.1. Environmental monitoring of the thermal environment it would be nice to have some more information regarding temperature values, a graph would be interesting.
Response to Comment #2
As suggested, Figure 5 has been added to the manuscript to provide insight about the average temperature (weekly) versus a selected timeline during the survey.
- Line 462: Figure 8 is difficult to follow, please explain it further and explain what is the meaning of the initials of the legend DWLTFR...........
Response to Comment #3
The legends have been revised accordingly. The meaning of the initials of the legends has been added to the caption of the figures (Figure 5 and Figure 8). Please see the initials of the legends below.
MFRBA stands for multi-family residential building A; MFRBB stands for multi-family residential building B; MFRBC stands for multi-family residential building C; MFRBD stands for multi-family residential building D.
Bottom of Form
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear author, the results appear rather obvious and do not seem to give new indications with respect to the theme. The results of an adaptive approach to the perception of hygro-thermal well-being have been known for some time. It is not clear what the specificity of Colonial Revival style residences is, why should the attitude of the inhabitants with respect to microclimate control be different than in other types of buildings? what characteristics do they have? and why measure the microclimatic values at a height of 1.1m? I don't understand the objectives of a work of this type, perhaps because much information is missing that defines its specificity
Author Response
Response to Reviewer #4 Comments
Dear Reviewer,
Many thanks to the reviewer for the encouraging words, as well as critical and constructive comments on this manuscript. The comments have been very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. The comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript in many folds. The responses to the reviewer’s comments are highlighted in red. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:
Reviewer #4:
- Abstract: remove line 16 from abstract.
Dear author, the results appear rather obvious and do not seem to give new indications with respect to the theme. The results of an adaptive approach to the perception of hygro-thermal well-being have been known for some time. It is not clear what the specificity of Colonial Revival style residences is, why should the attitude of the inhabitants with respect to microclimate control be different than in other types of buildings? what characteristics do they have? and why measure the microclimatic values at a height of 1.1m? I don't understand the objectives of a work of this type, perhaps because much information is missing that defines its specificity
Response to the reviewer’s comments
Once again, thank you for the comments. As advised, the abstract has been revised accordingly. The objectives of the study have also been revised. Some portions of the manuscript have been deleted to make the intent of the study clearer to the reviewer than they were presented in the previous version of the manuscript. The goal of the study is to examine occupants’ perceptions of the thermal environment in Colonial Revival style residences. The topic of the manuscript has been adjusted to reflect this intent. The study assesses Colonial Revival style residences because of limited or lack of existing research on the performance of this study. The research also evaluates Colonial Revival style residences due to their unique architectural features, attractiveness, and availability in the study area. The characteristics and architectural elements of Colonial Revival style buildings have been fully captured in existing studies [Ref. 1-2]. One of the reviewers recommended not to discuss the features again in this manuscript to avoid repetition.
The study considered physical measurements of environmental variables (such as temperatures, relative humidity, dew point, air velocity, etc.) at the height of 1.1m above the floor level in line with ASHRAE Standard 55. The reason for taking the measurements at 1.1m above the floor level is also included in the manuscript (Section 2.3.1).
According to the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 [58], there are three major heights (0.6m, 1.1m, and 1.7m) above the floor level at which measurements of environmental variables can be recorded. The current study considered the measurements taken at 1.1m which aligned with the recommendation of the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 55 for accessing occupants in sedentary positions [58].
The novelty and objectives of this study are clearly outlined in Section 1.1. Please see the objectives below.
The objectives of the current research include to:
- Examine occupants’ perceptions of comfort in the selected residences using various research techniques to collect data for analysis.
- Investigate if people’s perceptions of thermal comfort significantly impact their perceptions of the thermal environment.
The author thanks the reviewer for the comments to strengthen the quality and contribution of this work to the body of knowledge.
Bottom of Form
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Well it's more understandable now
