Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research activities described in the paper are interesting and can actually contribute to the needed transformation of the EU building stock towards climate neutrality, identifying the most interesting barriers and obstacle to deep and less deep renovation actions.

I would like to suggest minor adjustments as in the following:

- page5 / row164: Could the author explain the boundaries of the pilots? I guess limit of the governance of local authority, but I am not sure if e.g. Bolzano is the municipality of a larger area

- pag.6 row225: is the second reference to [37] actually due to [38]?

- page7 / equation2: the authors should clarify if nc is related to a specific pilot market or if the sum include vc in every pilot market

- page7 / row279: why x and not vc as in the previous equation?

- page8 / row 305: the authors should explain what smaller-scale actors mean

- page11/ row354: I cannot understand the sentence: "as much as the very distribution of constraints in each pilot market"

- page21 / row547: I would suggest the author to check the completeness of the mentioned projects in the introduction, trying to cluster such projects depending on the kind of developed technology solutions and to shortly repeat the consideration in the conclusion.

- Page22 / row56: the authors could finally analyse the collected information on barriers to address the most promising technology solutions and methodological approach, or at least comment on this option for future analysis.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for considering our paper interesting and for the revisions you suggested to improve the quality of the paper. Here follows a point-by-point rebuttal describing the changes made. All of them were implemented in the revised version.

Comment 1: page5 / row164: Could the author explain the boundaries of the pilots? I guess limit of the governance of local authority, but I am not sure if e.g. Bolzano is the municipality of a larger area

Response 1: The Italian pilot is divided into three representatives sub pilots, which are partners of the REMODULEES project. One of these is represented by the Autonomous Province of Bolzano commonly known as Alto Adige which is the northernmost of the provinces in the Trentino-Alto Adige Region and in Italy, with 534,644 inhabitants and an area of 7398.38 km², making it the second largest province in Italy.

The NUTs considered are 2/3 as reported in row 149.

The limitation of this research is described in the conclusions in rows 640 to 646.

Comment 2:  pag.6 row225: is the second reference to [37] actually due to [38]?

Response 2: Yes, it has been modified in [38]

Comment 3:  page7 / equation2: the authors should clarify if nc is related to a specific pilot market or if the sum include vc in every pilot market

Response 3: mc is the average of the votes of each pilot to a specific constraint (added at row 323), which is then calculated by summing the votes of all the pilots (7) divided by the number of pilots which is 7. The number of constraints differs for each pilot so for some constraints the votes average affects the "0" which means that that constraint is not recognized within the pilot.

Comment 4: page7 / row279: why x and not vc as in the previous equation?

Response 4: Yes, we corrected the equation 3 including vc instead of x

Comment 5: page8 / row 305: the authors should explain what smaller-scale actors mean

Response 5: We have changed the sentence in order to explain better the concept (rows 358-361)

Comment 6: page11/ row354: I cannot understand the sentence: "as much as the very distribution of constraints in each pilot market"

Response 6: It is a typo; the sentence has been corrected by removing the word "very".

Comment 7:  page21 / row547: I would suggest the author to check the completeness of the mentioned projects in the introduction, trying to cluster such projects depending on the kind of developed technology solutions and to shortly repeat the consideration in the conclusion.

Response 7: From row 139 to row 147, we changed the text in order to explain better the EU funded projects mentioned and their results.

Comment 8: Page22 / row56: the authors could finally analyse the collected information on barriers to address the most promising technology solutions and methodological approach, or at least comment on this option for future analysis.

Response 8: From row 620 to row 626 there are information related this issue.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Research is important and a lot of effort has been put into carrying it out.

I think there are some gaps in the article that could make it better.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for your comments. In the attachment, there is the pdf file with the answers to each suggestion. All of them were implemented in the revised version.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article contains information technical. The problem addressed is current and has technical relevance, which makes it significant. The paper is well organized and convincing. The experimental methodology is described comprehensively. Interpretations and conclusions are justified by the results.

My recommendations are:

Point 1: The abstract can be rewritten to be more meaningful. The authors should add more details about their results in the abstract.

Point 2: Literature review techniques must be strengthened by including the issues in the current system and how the author proposes to overcome the same.

Point 3: Consider mentioning the significance of the reviewed literature in the context of your research. How do these studies inform or motivate your own investigation? This connection will help readers understand the relevance of your work.

Point 4: Quality of Figures is so important too. Please provide some high-resolution figures.

Point 5: Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

Point 6: What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Point 7: While it's valuable to include various authors' perspectives and studies, try to organize the information by grouping related studies together. For instance, you could have subsections within this section that group studies based on their application areas or methodologies.

Point 8: While providing detailed information is essential, make sure that the content remains clear and concise. Avoid overly technical language that might be difficult for some readers to understand.

Point 9: The comparative analysis of different control methods is informative. However, consider providing a more detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Why might one method be preferable over another in certain situations?

Point 10: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Author Response

Thank you very much for enjoying our paper and for your recommendations to improve it. Here follows a point-by-point rebuttal describing the changes made. All of them were implemented in the revised version.

Point 1: The abstract can be rewritten to be more meaningful. The authors should add more details about their results in the abstract.

Response 1: Thank you, we have better highlighted the results as suggested in the abstract.

Point 2: Literature review techniques must be strengthened by including the issues in the current system and how the author proposes to overcome the same.

Point 3: Consider mentioning the significance of the reviewed literature in the context of your research. How do these studies inform or motivate your own investigation? This connection will help readers understand the relevance of your work.

Point 7: While it's valuable to include various authors' perspectives and studies, try to organize the information by grouping related studies together. For instance, you could have subsections within this section that group studies based on their application areas or methodologies.

Response to point 2, 3 and 7: since the paper was already very substantial and aware of the strong motivations behind the European project from which this paper is derived, we were inclined to shorten the bibliographical citations. We thank you because it is definitely the cue for a specific review article on the topic that will allow us to cover all the aspects you suggested.

Point 4: Quality of Figures is so important too. Please provide some high-resolution figures.

Response 4: We provide some high-resolution images.

Point 5: Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

Response 5: The definition and application of a holistic methodology with the involvement of all actors in the retrofitting market (demand, supply, financial and institutional side) is necessary to know the main barriers to the exploitation of deep energy renovation. Moreover, this methodology is useful in the framework of a European project aimed at triggering market uptake strategies able to capitalize the results of technical and non-technical solutions developed in the framework of FP7 and H2020 EU-funded projects on deep renovation over the last 5 years.

Point 6: What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

Response 6: Respect other published materials, in this paper all the sides of the renovation process have been analysed with a direct engagement of the stakeholders involved. Moreover, the research is significant because it individuates the most shared and relevant constraints (cultural, social, technical, processual and financial) at pilot and European level, which limit or even stop the deep energy renovation process in the European markets in order to cluster the data and to highlight the diversities and the similarities.

Point 8: While providing detailed information is essential, make sure that the content remains clear and concise. Avoid overly technical language that might be difficult for some readers to understand.

Response 8: Yes, we have better explained all technical terms and acronyms.

Point 9: The comparative analysis of different control methods is informative. However, consider providing a more detailed discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Why might one method be preferable over another in certain situations?

Response 9: The weighting procedure allowed obtaining a constraints relevance classification from the most important to the least important at pilot market level and also at European level. At European level, only the combination of the weighting procedure with the probability density function method allowed us to select the most important constraints. The Probability Density Function, in fact, permits to consider the frequency of a vote and not only its importance.

We explained better the concept in 2.6 and in 3.6.3 paragraphs.

Point 10: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Response 10: Yes, we have discussed the main highlights of our work: the impacts at local and at European level and future development.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf