Embodied Energy Coefficient Quantification and Implementation for an Energy-Conservative House in Thailand
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe evaluation of this manuscript has been completed, and it is a meaningful study, but it needs Major Revisions. Please see my comments:
1. It is not recommended that the author give a lot of background description in the Abstract. I suggest that the author rewrite the abstract to briefly state the background in the first paragraph, then describe the methodology, and finally describe the conclusions.
2. Seven keywords are too many, I recommend limiting it to five, as this is what most journals require. In addition, too many keywords will make the topic of the paper unclear.
3. The article does not seem to have enough literature review, I suggest that the author add a chapter entitled "Literature Review". In this chapter, the shortcomings of the existing researches are summarized, including the methodology and the perspective of empirical research.
4. Some new research needs to be considered, as research progress in the field of carbon emissions is rapid: International Journal of Heat and Fluid Flow 2024, 106, 109328
5. The purpose of the manuscript is unclear. The author may consider breaking down the weaknesses of the existing research and then responding to each of these weaknesses in subsequent chapters, which will make the manuscript seem logically cohesive.
6. Research material requires citations and descriptive statistics, which enhance the credibility of the manuscript.
7. Italics of variables are necessary when writing equations.
8. How did the authors determine that the "Single-family house" has a wide range of applications? More description of the case is necessary.
9. Too many tables make the manuscript look like a research report. Can the author turn some tables into pictures (e.g. Table 4, Table 6, etc.)
10. In the "Discussion" section, it is necessary to explain the causes of some phenomena by quoting them.
11. The Conclusion is too long. The author only needs to describe the work, contributions, and shortcomings of the manuscript. For the large amount of data and the reasons for it, the author should describe it in the "Discussion" or "Results" section.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate revision is needed.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thoughtful review of my manuscript, "Embodied Energy Coefficient Quantification and Implementation for an Energy-Conservative House in Thailand." I appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback.
I have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and I have revised the manuscript accordingly. The details of the editing process are outlined in the attached file.
For your reference, I have highlighted the changes within the revised manuscript (in red).
I believe that these revisions address your concerns and strengthen the overall clarity and contribution of the paper. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback on the revised version.
Please note that I am currently unable to submit the revised manuscript because another reviewer's comments are pending. However, I have completed my revisions based on your feedback and am eager to submit the final version as soon as possible.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Nattaya Sangngamratsakul
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: sustainability-2977189-peer-review-v1
Title: Life Cycle Energy Analysis of Residential Buildings: A Case Study in Thailand
The paper makes a noteworthy addition to the topic of sustainable construction methods, notably in Thailand. Its detailed approach, rigorous quantification, and clear suggestions provide useful insights for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners interested in boosting energy efficiency in residential structures. Addressing the detailed flaws raised above will help to enhance the article and increase its impact and readability.
The authors are encouraged to address the following issues:
1- The introduction is unclear on the importance of life cycle energy analysis (LCEA) in the context of Thailand's sustainability goals. The sudden change between the introduction and methods part makes it difficult for readers to follow the logical flow of the manuscript.
2- The manuscript discusses the use of a "IO-based method" for estimating embodied energy but does not offer additional information on the precise input-output data sources used or the justification for choosing this method over others. Furthermore, assumptions about the service life of construction materials and transportation distances should be properly expressed and justified.
3- Outdated data (IO-based method) may not accurately reflect current energy consumption patterns, production technologies, or resource availability, leading to skewed findings.
4- Excluding demolition energy from the study ignores a crucial part of the building's life cycle, resulting in an inadequate assessment of its environmental effect and energy use. The authors must justify.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
While the language used throughout the manuscript is generally clear, there are instances of verbose or convoluted phrasing that could be simplified for improved readability.
For example, the sentence "To achieve the energy conservation in residential building sector, it is essential to understand the life cycle energy analysis approach which quantified both embodied energy and operational energy throughout the building's lifetime" (Line 573) could be revised to "Understanding life cycle energy analysis is essential for achieving energy conservation in the residential building sector." Simplifying sentences like this would enhance clarity and readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your thoughtful review of my manuscript, "Embodied Energy Coefficient Quantification and Implementation for an Energy-Conservative House in Thailand." I appreciate you taking the time to provide your feedback.
I have carefully considered your comments and suggestions, and I have revised the manuscript accordingly. The details of the editing process are outlined in the attached file.
For your reference, I have highlighted the changes within the revised manuscript (in red).
I believe that these revisions address your concerns and strengthen the overall clarity and contribution of the paper. Thank you again for your time and consideration. I look forward to your feedback on the revised version.
Please note that I am currently unable to submit the revised manuscript because another reviewer's comments are pending. However, I have completed my revisions based on your feedback and am eager to submit the final version as soon as possible.
Thank you for your understanding.
Sincerely,
Nattaya Sangngamratsakul
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authorsaccept
