Sustainable-Driven Renovation of Existing Residential Buildings in China: A Systematic Exploration Based on Review and Solution Approaches

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I am pleased to have the chance to revisit this paper since it addresses a timely and critical issue concerning China's pursuit of carbon neutrality by 2060 through energy-saving renovations in existing residential buildings. The paper aims to provide a comprehensive review of existing literature on sustainable renovation practices in Chinese residential buildings and proposes a research framework to assist stakeholders in navigating this complex domain.

The authors carry out a systematic review of peer-reviewed literature from reputable databases such as Web of Science and Scopus. This adds credibility to the study. The categorization of the renovation process into building performance simulation, suitability assessment, and sustainable renovation stages offers a structured approach to understanding the research landscape. The proposed research framework amalgamating the three stages of renovation provides a valuable tool for policymakers, designers, and researchers to comprehend the current status of sustainable renovation efforts, identify obstacles, and formulate effective strategies for future endeavours.

A label in Figure 1 is not clear. Also, ensure that all figures are referenced well and that written permission is sought if needed.

The authors mention the utilization of bibliometric methods. This study is based on the PRISMA framework and systematically reviews the research trends regarding sustainable renovations of past residential buildings in China. The methodology flows well and is replicable.

The paper identifies the need for a more systematic discussion on sustainable renovation frameworks and elaborates on specific gaps or limitations in existing literature. Highlighting these gaps provides direction for future research endeavours and contributes to advancing knowledge in the field.

An explicit discussion of the practical implications of its findings is carried out, providing concrete examples or case studies illustrating how applying the framework would enhance its utility for stakeholders involved in sustainable renovation initiatives.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The paper titled "Sustainable-Driven Renovation of Existing Residential Buildings in China: A Systematic Exploration Based on Review and Solution Approaches" focuses on a literature review within China use cases to support the designing stage to address renovation intervention in the existing building stock. The paper is the result of a previous paper (rejected) and fully changed; now it seems valuable for publication.

Please address the comments below:

INTRODUCTION

- It is necessary to frame the paper and the China targets defined, also at the global scale. An improvement of the introduction to compare China's policies for 2040 with other global policies is considered relevant to support a wider appreciation of the paper within the scientific community at the global scale.

- On page 3, it is necessary to reference more in detail what kind of bibliography refers to the sentence "Numerous researchers have delved into the application and development of residential building sustainable renovations from various perspectives."

RESULTS

This section must be improved consistently.

- When analyzing the data of the publications, can the curve refer to specific Chinese policies issued in some years? Please check and comment on this aspect to determine what could be the reasons for this change in interest since 2018. Comment on "RESULTS" or "CONCLUSIONS" section.

- When referring to technologies adopted, you cannot just list them, but it is mandatory to provide data about the relevance within the samples analyzed. Having extrapolated this data from article reviews, include information about quantity in the review documents. As an example, you could provide parameters such as the number of buildings, square meters, volume, percentage of overall intervention for a specific technology, etc. Be specific about the data information provided.

- Analyze the technologies adopted based on building use destination (residential, mixed, etc.) as well as the year of construction and the existing performance. It is relevant to understand if a set of technologies is preferable for specific buildings more than others.

CONCLUSIONS

This section must be improved consistently. Now it is more a resume of differnt considerations, but its objective is to provie a critical understanding of the results presnted.

- Not having a "DISCUSSION" section is needed in this section to analyze eventual limitations in the methodology adopted.

- Address more specifically for each of the expected stakeholders of the article, what are the tools to be used by policymakers, designers, and researchers in their specific activities.

- Specify more scientifically words such as "complex." Complexity is a matter of know-how, people involved, time, costs, or what else? Use terminology adequate for a scientific article and always with the purpose to highlight the remarks for your specific readers.

- Introduce the limitations emerged from your review. What are the missing points to work, how they could be addressed?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Dear Author,

Please find my comments below:

• INTRODUCTION/RESULTS: Replace phrases like "most significant growth" with specific percentages or figures. This will enhance the accuracy and credibility of your analysis.

• NEW TABELS:

• Table Clarity: In your tables, add columns for "Region" and "City" that correspond to the "Climate Zone" categories in Table 2. This will improve the organization and readability of your data.

• Building Type Definitions: Provide clear definitions and references for the "Building Types" in your tables. Include their intended use (as outlined in your paper), along with information on their typology or height. This will aid readers in fully understanding your classifications.

• U-value Context: Consider adding columns to your tables that compare pre-intervention/regulatory U-values with post-intervention results. This will demonstrate the effectiveness of the interventions in relation to established standards.

• CONSLUSIONS. Revise Conclusions: Your conclusions seem overly critical, and Table 8 needs further justification. Instead of simply stating that "optimized retrofit measures" cannot be determined without more analysis, offer constructive suggestions for the metrics (technological, economic, environmental) that could be used to demonstrate optimization. Additionally, consider whether the focus should be on the "degree of adoption" of interventions, and if so, provide evidence to support the reasons behind specific interventions being adopted or rejected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

The paper can be accepted in the present form.

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

I am delighted to get the chance to evaluate this study article entitled "Old Buildings and Climate Suitability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Retrofit Development". This study aimed to enhance the energy efficiency of older buildings by utilising bibliometric methodologies and visual analytical tools. It involved analysing relevant peer-reviewed literature from the Web of Science and Scopus databases.

The work exhibits a comprehensive grasp of the pertinent literature in the topic and references a suitable array of literature sources pertaining to the study. The text effectively presents its argument, taking into account the specialised terminology of the area and the level of understanding expected from the readers of the magazine.

The piece has a smooth flow and effectively immerses the reader in the subject matter. The purpose and objective are clearly elucidated and derived from the requirements of the topic.

The global need for energy is growing steadily, and the construction sector has a significant need for energy consumption. Hence, the primary objective of the building sector is to enhance energy efficiency in order to minimise energy usage. Retrofitting existing buildings offers a more cost-effective approach to achieving energy savings and emission reductions, as older structures were constructed with less emphasis on energy efficiency and need higher energy consumption compared to newer buildings. Numerous technical instruments are available in the market to enhance the energy efficiency of historic buildings. However, further discourse is required about the research framework for climate retrofitting of old buildings, and the existing body of knowledge must be further developed.

The paper's thesis is founded upon a suitable foundation of theory and concepts, and the methodology is thoroughly elucidated, facilitating the possibility of replication.

The results and conclusions align with the remainder of the study and are thoroughly examined, emphasising certain practical aspects.

The work effectively delineates the ramifications for research, practice, and society, while also bridging the divide between theory and practice.

The user's text is empty.This paper examines the research methodologies used by previous researchers in the simulation, evaluation, and retrofitting sectors. It takes into account various optimisation algorithms, variables, aims, and software tools. The paper provides a concise overview of a research framework that consists of three segments, each of which is used for distinct study subjects. Subsequently, the research framework for integrating the three parts for various study subjects is summarised. Given the growing interest in adapting old buildings to be more suitable for climate conditions, particularly in the context of energy conservation and emission reduction, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive overview of this field. Its purpose is to gather the findings of previous research and offer guidance to new designers.

In my opinion, this work is suitable for publication without any modifications and contributes to the existing body of knowledge in this particular topic.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with an extensive, worldwide literature research on the topic of building retrofit in the framework of climate-related issues. The starting point for this is two databases with almost 2000 hits. A criteria-based reduction led to around 100 relevant articles from the authors' point of view (figure 1). However, a very important limitation is that only open access articles were analysed. This means that very important research results are not considered and the global distribution is distorted.

The subsequent "analysis" remains very superficial and only reaches a certain level of depth when analysing the tools, chapter 3.3.2. Unfortunately, there is no in-depth analysis with a claim to the authors' own scientific achievement.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper titled "Review Old Buildings and Climate Suitability: A Systematic Review of Sustainable Retrofit Development" aims to review retrofit development in alignment with current trends and mainstream topics of the scientific community for the refurbishment of the built environment.

Considering the relevance of the topic, the review appears to not contribute meaningfully to the scientific field of reference without providing clear and well-stated original contributions. In particular:

• The boundary conditions of the research are not well defined, and the definition of "old buildings" is too broad, encompassing cultural heritage as well as buildings developed in the last 60 years with different configurations based on countries and technological solutions adopted. The term "old" is deemed inappropriate and lacks specificity. It is recommended to provide a more precise definition of the building segment under investigation to accurately reflect the paper's scope and objectives. Additionally, the retrofit interventions subject to analysis could have a higher impact if finalized to solutions for a specific field (energy, environmental, economic, social, urban regeneration). Reducing the scope of the review is needed to be more effective.
• The purpose of the review is not clear: do the authors want to provide insights for policymakers, universities, research centers, urban planners, architects, engineers, or others? This is crucial to provide in the conclusion clear statements to be adopted by stakeholders. With the current paper's definition, the content appears not to be relevant for the scientific community or other stakeholders.
• The methodology adopted is clear, but the limitations need to be addressed more specifically, and the reviewed use cases must be consistently improved.

General improvements for the paper:

• The relevance of energy consumption within the building sector and global policy implications should be elaborated further.
• The title needs to be reviewed, changing words such as "old" (not scientifically relevant in the retrofit field) or "development" due to a wide range of topics.
•  
• Introduction:
  • Expand on the significance of energy consumption within the building sector and discuss global policies in more detail. Refer to EU policies, China policies, Sustainable Development Goals to justify the relevance of the topic and highlight clearly the final purpose of your paper.
  • Provide a thorough explanation and scientific references regarding insulation's performance and durability.
  • Consider including discussions on technological solutions adopted in building envelopes with and without insulation.
•  
• Methodology:
  • There are concerns regarding the filters for the database used in the study. The use of multiple filters, not alternative, but contingent, reduces the amount of paper available for consultation. Additionally, specific words like "environment," "climate," and "sustainable" may exclude relevant case studies. Justify the rationale behind the chosen filters, ensuring they align with the paper's goals. Additionally, reconsider the term "old" as it is overly broad and lacks scientific relevance.
  • Improve the review using real case studies beyond scientific publications from databases such as WBDG or TABULA IEE Project Webtool.
•  
• Results:
• The qualitative assessment lacks quantitative data support. Provide quantitative insights connecting your analysis with the number of publications analyzed, countries represented, and the number of buildings referenced. Specify if research directions vary globally, particularly between Europe and Asia.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.docx