Appraisal of Sustainable Retrofitting of Historical Settlements: Less than 60% Unexpected Outcomes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a helpful case study on historical building ecological retrofit, but it has significant gaps in the literature review and research shortcomings. Even though the authors mention important works by Kats et al. and Italian studies, they overlook recent systematic reviews and necessary research methods related to retrofitting heritage sites. Missing are technical compromise concerns in building conservation (Martínez-Molina et al., 2022) and climate-adjusted retrofit methods supported by comparative studies. This represents a piecemeal foundation incapable of representing modern interdisciplinary discourse.

The methodology rightly incorporates BIM energy modelling and cost-benefit evaluation, but it fails to justify the omission of life cycle assessment (LCA) and dynamic simulation tools used in comparable studies. While the 67% saving is within the range of high-performance retrofits, the results are also not placed in the broader empirical ranges (7.5-26% saving in residential retrofits). The estimated payback period of 2 years appears optimistic compared to industry standards (6-15 years) and would merit sensitivity testing.

The argument can link conclusions to climate targets, but does not utilise material compatibility constraints and long-term performance monitoring—issues that existing research addresses. Findings declare the case study's success without considering existing counter-evidence on the scalability of retrofits and barriers to policy implementation.

While language is primarily clear, repetitive linguistic errors (e.g., "builted," inconsistent tense) and overly dense syntax require a lot of editing to achieve publication standards. Adding missing landmark studies and explicit methodological constraints to the theoretical foundation would significantly enhance the rigour and relevance of the paper.

Author Response

1

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction (42-137): The beckground and context presented appears to be very broad with very general themes that are not relevant to the main issue addressed by the article. In addition, the scientific problem does not appear to be well defined, it is recommended to focus more on the objectives of the study and the sustainable retrofit issue.
Modeling (385-394): The article does not explicitly clarify the choice of AutoCAD3d software over other more widely used tools in the research field (Revit), it would be useful to clarify this point and explain why modeling using BIM methodology was not done directly. 
Energy simulation (455): It is described in a generic way it is useful for the purpose of the study to clarify issues related to Technical information about the software (Termus BIM), better clarify the validation or calibration of the results, source of climate data ( were databases used? If yes which ones?) what type of energy simulation was used (hourly? Static?)
Economic analysis(494-567): Presents established indicators in research ( NPV,IRR, PBP) are not clarified by the article whether discount rates were used, whether investment costs or operation and maintenance costs were included ( usually given in LCA studies) In order to make the research more scientifically strong it would be useful to include input data and sources used for prices. 
The payback value of 2 years (554): Needs to be supported by more detailed data.
Bibliography and literature review (695-762): Self-reference appears to be present in the references between 10-31 so suggest expanding the bibliography with 6-7 peer-reviewed articles published in the last 5 years on similar methodologies and relevant topics (biocompatible materials, retrofits,). The bibliography appears to be partly dated and lacks relevant references from more recent literature.
Workflow: The methodology could be described with more details to allow reproduction (parameters, data sources, software settings).  The workflow used in the case study is often fragmented to the reader, in order to make the research clearer it would be helpful to improve the clarity of the writing and create a diagram of the workflow so that the format of the files that were used, the use of software, and the process as a whole are clear. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Line 3 “less 60% Unexpected Outcomes” is  semantically incorrect. Suggested: “Energy-Efficient Retrofitting with Over 60% Savings”
Line 16 “Planetary tragedy of fossil overconsumption” is rhetorical  wording.
Line 89 The statement “the only obstacle is lack of knowledge” is reductive and not scientifically justified.

Author Response

2

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper centres on the vital topic of ecological retrofitting of historic buildings. It aims to evaluate a sustainable retrofitting solution from ecological and economic angles to tackle global fossil energy overuse and climate change. This theme aligns with society's focus on sustainable development and holds practical significance. The authors use the Liberty-style architecture in Reggio Calabria's Latin Quarter as a case study for detailed geometric and thermal analysis.

 

1、For the introduction, it's suggested to streamline the climate change background and emphasise the link between building ecological retrofitting and energy efficiency improvement.

2、In part 3, a more detailed description of the selection criteria for cork and marlstone is recommended. Their renewability, low energy consumption during production, and suitability across different climates should be highlighted. Additionally, their historical use in cultural buildings can strengthen their relevance to historical building retrofits. A table comparing cork boards and natural hydraulic lime plaster with common materials like traditional bricks and concrete in terms of thermal conductivity, environmental impact, and cost-effectiveness would be beneficial.

3、A transitional paragraph between material selection and economic evaluation methods in part 3 would clarify how the chosen materials' properties affect economic assessment results.

4、In part 4, the formulas for economic indicators like NPV, IRR, and PBP are too general. It's better to omit them and focus on calculation process explanation. Also, all formulas in the text should be numbered for clarity.

5、For part 7, a deeper exploration of the specific relationship between building energy consumption and climate change is suggested. The unique role of historical building improvement in achieving sustainable development goals should also be highlighted. Specific data or case studies can be cited for support.

6、In part 7, specific factors causing significant reductions in energy consumption and CO₂ emissions, such as material properties and retrofitting synergy, should be analysed in detail. The specific retrofitting measures, such as insulation layer thickness and window replacement, and their impact on building thermal performance and energy consumption should be explained.

7、In part 7, it's suggested to explore the interrelationship between different economic indicators and how economic feasibility changes with retrofitting scale and building types.

8、The study's results and their application value for similar historical building retrofitting projects should be elaborated. How these results meet the needs of stakeholders like policymakers and construction industry professionals should be explained. Specific suggestions to promote ecological retrofitting in practical projects can be proposed.

Author Response

3

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf