Green Cores as Architectural and Environmental Anchors: A Performance-Based Framework for Residential Refurbishment in Novi Sad, Serbia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author tried to present a different view to address the mentioned "Research question" or hypothesis? in a confined context.

However, the idea is not rephrased in a very concise and logical manner, quite hard to extract the most crucial and critical points what the author wants to share?

1, The topic is too broad, very general and not stated clearly with good boundary as a study.

2, The study is about the confined built environment, while what is the purpose for Figure 5 here? Not able to understand its logic 

3, The methodology to establish the comparative evaluation and comparison as Figure 1 and its results illustration in Section 4.5 and conclusion is not well linked reasonably or logically. 

4, overall quality should be improved or even re-written as a scientific paper rather than an narrative report only 

5, The manuscript should be simple, concise, easy to read and understand in a clear and logical manner. 

Author Response

Dear editor, thank you very much for the valuable feedback and constructive comments.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points raised and we hope the revised version meets the expectations.

The author tried to present a different view to address the mentioned "Research question" or hypothesis? in a confined context.

In the revised manuscript, the research question has been clarified and redefined to focus explicitly on the structural and environmental optimization. Furthermore, the hypothesis has been separated and articulated independently, ensuring a clear distinction between the guiding question and the experimental assumption.

However, the idea is not rephrased in a very concise and logical manner, quite hard to extract the most crucial and critical points what the author wants to share?

1, The topic is too broad, very general and not stated clearly with good boundary as a study.

In the revised version, the title has been adjusted to reflect a more precise focus and the boundaries of the study are explicitly defined in the Introduction part.

2, The study is about the confined built environment, while what is the purpose for Figure 5 here? Not able to understand its logic 

Fig 5 has been removed in the revised manuscript to maintain focus and ensure that all figures directly support the study’s scope and arguments.

3, The methodology to establish the comparative evaluation and comparison as Figure 1 and its results illustration in Section 4.5 and conclusion is not well linked reasonably or logically. 

Figure 1 has been revised to clarify the methodological workflow and is now directly linked to the comparative results presented in the Section 4.5.

4, overall quality should be improved or even re-written as a scientific paper rather than an narrative report only 

Substantial revisions have been made throughout the manuscript to strengthen the scientific framing, clarify methodology and integrate additional results. We hope these revisions aligned with the expectations of a scientific paper rather than narrative report.

5, The manuscript should be simple, concise, easy to read and understand in a clear and logical manner. 

Hopefully we managed to edit and adjust the manuscript accordingly.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study examines the structural and environmental impacts of building retrofitting from an architectural design perspective, exploring its positive effects on neighborhood resilience. Overall, the research addresses a topic of international interest and demonstrates a unique perspective with clear innovation. The paper is logically structured, methodologically sound, and supported by comprehensive content with well-analyzed results and discussion. The reviewer considers this work to fully meet the publication standards of sutainability. However, to enhance reader accessibility, the following suggestions are offered:

(1) The term "green cores" is not recommended as a keyword due to its lack of clear physical meaning.
(2) The conclusion section should be divided into two or three paragraphs and include limitations and future research directions.
(3) The colors in Figure 3 are too faint and should be adjusted for better visibility.
(4) The presentation of Figure 5 does not fully align with academic conventions and requires revision.
(5) Figure 2 should include a legend explaining all graphical elements.

Author Response

Dear editor, thank you very much for the valuable feedback and constructive comments.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points raised and we hope the revised version meets the expectations.

This study examines the structural and environmental impacts of building retrofitting from an architectural design perspective, exploring its positive effects on neighborhood resilience. Overall, the research addresses a topic of international interest and demonstrates a unique perspective with clear innovation.

Thank you very much.  

The paper is logically structured, methodologically sound, and supported by comprehensive content with well-analyzed results and discussion. The reviewer considers this work to fully meet the publication standards of sustainability.

Thank you for the encouraging comment.

However, to enhance reader accessibility, the following suggestions are offered:

(1) The term "green cores" is not recommended as a keyword due to its lack of clear physical meaning.

We have removed the term from the keywords as suggested. To clarify its meaning in the physical context of our study, we have now defined what is meant to by this term in the Introduction section.

(2) The conclusion section should be divided into two or three paragraphs and include limitations and future research directions.

The conclusion section has been revised and divided into three paragraphs, with limitations and future research clearly addressed.

(3) The colors in Figure 3 are too faint and should be adjusted for better visibility.

The colors in Figure 3 have been adjusted for improved visibility.

(4) The presentation of Figure 5 does not fully align with academic conventions and requires revision.

Fig 5 has been removed in the revised manuscript to maintain focus and ensure that all figures directly support the study’s scope and arguments.

(5) Figure 2 should include a legend explaining all graphical elements.

A legend explaining all graphical elements has been added to Figure 2.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research investigates the integration of green cores as central biophilic elements in residential architecture for existent buildings.

Important observations must be made regarding this study in view of its publication:

Section 4.1 should be better detailed. A scheme of the apartment is suggested to be introduced here (or at least some photos – with the apartment and the building block, being a real apartment in the case study).

Section 4.2. As regarding the proposed architectural reconfiguration, more data regarding the integration of the reconfiguration into the existent typical building should be added. For example, how are resolved technically the sanitary installations required for the new position of the kitchen, in relation with the other neighbours into the building? Being an existing multi-family residential building, there are cold water vertical pipes / columns (possibly also for domestic hot water if it is a centralized District Heating – for heating and DHW), plus wastewater drainage. From this perspective, the provided case study is not consistent technically.

Lines 414 – 415. I suggest adding units, even if they are dimensionless parameters, e.g. 0.65 [-].

Lines 432 – 433. More results are required. Please add outputs from the analyzes, for example for the environmental simulations. You mention it multiple times, but you don’t have any result. For example, the results for the evapo-transpiration process, and also a briefly description of the input parameters are required to be added.

Author Response

Dear editor, thank you very much for the valuable feedback and constructive comments.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points raised and we hope the revised version meets the expectations.

The research investigates the integration of green cores as central biophilic elements in residential architecture for existent buildings.

Important observations must be made regarding this study in view of its publication:

Section 4.1 should be better detailed. A scheme of the apartment is suggested to be introduced here (or at least some photos – with the apartment and the building block, being a real apartment in the case study).

Section 4.1 has been expanded with additional details and a table including images of the apartment and the context.

Section 4.2. As regarding the proposed architectural reconfiguration, more data regarding the integration of the reconfiguration into the existent typical building should be added. For example, how are resolved technically the sanitary installations required for the new position of the kitchen, in relation with the other neighbours into the building?

Thank you for the observation. Section 4.2 has been revised to include additional details regarding the integration of the proposed reconfiguration into the existing multi-family residential building. The new kitchen installation is connected to the existing bathroom vertical pipe system with an extended network for water supply and drainage. A complete architectrual and mechanical installation project was prepared and approved by the local authorities in accordance with national building regulations. (in accordance with Article 128a of the Law on Planning and Construction (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 72/09, 81/09-correction, 64/10-CC decision, 24/11, 121/12, 42/13-CC decision, 50/13-CC decision, 98/13-CC decision, 132/14, 145/14, 83/18, 31/19, 37/19-other law, 9/20, 52/21, and 62/23), and the provisions of the Rulebook on the Content, Manner and Procedure for the Preparation and Control of Technical Documentation according to the Class and Purpose of Buildings (Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia, No. 96/2023).

Lines 414 – 415. I suggest adding units, even if they are dimensionless parameters, e.g. 0.65 [-].

Units have been added for all parameters, including dimensionless values.

Lines 432 – 433. More results are required. Please add outputs from the analyzes, for example for the environmental simulations. You mention it multiple times, but you don’t have any result.

Additional results have been included in the manuscript to provide clearer evidence of the design’s spatial and environmental impacts.

For example, the results for the evapo-transpiration process, and also a briefly description of the input parameters are required to be added.

Thank you for the comment. The evapotranspiration process is not the focus of this study and has been listed now as a boundary condition and a topic for future research. The paper focuses solely on the architectural aspects of the design for this topic.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The research "Green cores as Structural and Environmental Anchors: A performance-based framework from interior refurbishment to urban resilience" examines vegetated cores within small residential buildings as functional architectural components. The research study addresses multiple essential knowledge deficiencies. The study investigates the architectural core's environmental integration function which remains understudied because most green building projects concentrate on building periphery elements such as rooftops and facades. The research presents a performance-based system for plant-based interior design which uses measurable simulation data to move past the traditional view of greenery as mere decoration. The research applies macro-level concepts from urban metabolism and biophilic urbanism to create unit-scale applications which prove adaptable to different building types and offer social advantages. The research presents original findings which guide sustainable retrofitting practices through its valuable recommendations.

The manuscript requires the following revisions:

1. The research presents innovative findings through its analysis of a Serbian apartment unit, yet its findings lack sufficient evidence for broad application across urban and socio-cultural and policy domains.

2. The research depends solely on digital modeling to generate its results. The study lacks any field data or post-occupancy assessment or extended monitoring period to validate its simulated results.

3. The research fails to present information about the expenses and upkeep requirements and practical sustainability of integrating LED systems with IoT irrigation and vegetation in small residential buildings.

4. The study presents plant-based energy harvesting for LED support as experimental research, which should be identified as conceptual or future-oriented instead of established fact.

5. The sections about tax incentives and elderly and student housing present ambitious ideas, yet they lack sufficient backing from empirical research and policy documents.

Regards,

A reviewer 

Author Response

Dear editor, thank you very much for the valuable feedback and constructive comments.

We have carefully revised the manuscript to address the points raised and we hope the revised version meets the expectations.

Dear authors,

The research "Green cores as Structural and Environmental Anchors: A performance-based framework from interior refurbishment to urban resilience" examines vegetated cores within small residential buildings as functional architectural components. The research study addresses multiple essential knowledge deficiencies. The study investigates the architectural core's environmental integration function which remains understudied because most green building projects concentrate on building periphery elements such as rooftops and facades.

The research presents a performance-based system for plant-based interior design which uses measurable simulation data to move past the traditional view of greenery as mere decoration.

The research applies macro-level concepts from urban metabolism and biophilic urbanism to create unit-scale applications which prove adaptable to different building types and offer social advantages. The research presents original findings which guide sustainable retrofitting practices through its valuable recommendations.

Thank you for the encouraging comment.

The manuscript requires the following revisions:

1. The research presents innovative findings through its analysis of a Serbian apartment unit, yet its findings lack sufficient evidence for broad application across urban and socio-cultural and policy domains.

While this study focuses on a single Serbian apartment unit and adheres to local policies, its findings serve as a foundation for future research. Susequent studies could build on this work to explore broader applications across different urban, socio-cultural and policy contexts. It has been added to the future research conclusion paragraph.

2. The research depends solely on digital modeling to generate its results. The study lacks any field data or post-occupancy assessment or extended monitoring period to validate its simulated results.

While extended field monitoring or user-based post-occupancy assessment is not available at this stage, the study now includes validation through a post-occupancy expert assessment. Five architects independently evaluated the apartment before and after the refurbishment, rating aesthetic value, sustainability, economic feasibility, structural quality, contemporaneity, and overall performance. These expert evaluations provide an alternative form of validation, complementing the digital simulations and offering professional confirmation of the architectural and environmental improvements achieved through the intervention.

3. The research fails to present information about the expenses and upkeep requirements and practical sustainability of integrating LED systems with IoT irrigation and vegetation in small residential buildings.

Thank you for the comment. The study was conducted as an experimental project, and the integration of LED systems and IoT-based irrigation was primarily intended to explore architectural and environmental design strategies rather than market valuation. While the property value increased, in the local context (Serbia) real estate prices are largely determined by location rather than the inclusion of such systems. Consequently, the higher cost of the apartment is not directly attributable to the interventions. Maintenance requirements for the integrated systems are relatively minor, and long-term economic aspects remain outside the scope of this study, representing a topic for future research. The current focus was on demonstrating architectural performance, environmental integration, and feasibility of the green core concept rather than detailed financial analysis. We implemented this into the Discussion and Generalization with Broader Implications part.

4. The study presents plant-based energy harvesting for LED support as experimental research, which should be identified as conceptual or future-oriented instead of established fact.

We agree that the plant-based energy harvesting for LED support is experimental and have clarified in the manuscript that it is a conceptual and future-oriented approach. A few references have been added to support the notion of plant-based energy.

5. The sections about tax incentives and elderly and student housing present ambitious ideas, yet they lack sufficient backing from empirical research and policy documents.

The discussion has been integrated into the development and future research sections, indicating that further empirical research and policy review would be required to substantiate these proposals.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript meets the basic criteria for acceptance now. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors answered my observations punctually. I have no other comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments addressed.