Reaching Near-Zero Environmental Impact in Heritage Buildings: The Case of the Wine Cellar of Rocafort de Queralt

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors analyzed reducing thermal comfort facilities in heritage buildings through a case study of the Rocafort de Queralt Wine Cellar, built in 1918 and known for its Catalan modernism. Using in situ monitoring and dynamic simulations with Design Builder and NECADA software, they examined four scenarios: current state, passive improvements, architectural rehabilitation, and future climate conditions for 2050. Results showed 87% thermal comfort achieved without facilities in scenario 2, and 100% when cultural activities aligned with seasonal orientations.

Major Revision is recommended –

-            How does the methodology used in the study, particularly the combination of in situ monitoring and dynamic simulations with Design Builder and NECADA software, adequately address the challenges of assessing thermal comfort in heritage buildings?

-            To what extent do the results of Scenario 1 highlight the limitations of the Celler’s thermal inertia in mitigating discomfort during extreme seasonal conditions? How could these limitations influence the choice of mitigation strategies?

-            In Scenario 2, while passive improvements reduced discomfort significantly, why did summer conditions still fail to meet acceptable levels? Could alternative strategies or adjustments improve performance during critical periods?

-            Given that 86.9% of operating hours in Scenario 2 achieved acceptable comfort levels, is this outcome sufficient for public cultural use? What additional measures or refinements could ensure consistent year-round comfort?

-            In Scenario 3, the rehabilitation project incorporated biophilic design elements. How do these strategies contribute to psychological comfort, and should their thermal impacts have been explicitly modeled in the simulations?

-            What is the significance of 37.09% of annual hours exceeding comfort thresholds in Scenario 1? How does this figure compare with Scenario 2 and Scenario 3, and what conclusions can be drawn about the overall efficacy of the interventions?

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your comments. We have followed all suggestions and the article is much improved.

We attach here a file with the specific answers to each suggestion.

 

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The manuscript provides a well-rounded description of the research topic  but,  For example, in introduction section 1.5 could integrate more recent references to strengthen the motivation for the study.

2. Show the result of dynamic simulation of table 3 and 4 materials in comparative manner in single figure for easy understanding follow the citing reference like : 

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2020.10.050

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2021.10.294

3. Why have you only  chosen low e 5mm glazing over single glazing ? 

4. addressing the limitations of the study and their potential impact on the findings

5. revising lengthy sentences into shorter, more concise statements would make the text more reader-friendly

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful to your comments. We have followed all suggestions and the article is much improved.

We attach here a file with the specific answer to each suggestion.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is novel and interesting, with strong readability and practical implications. The focus of the research, which relates to achieving near-zero environmental impact while preserving heritage values, is explicated early in the paper and followed through in later sections effectively and comprehensively.

The paper uses an innovative approach that combines both cultural preservation issues and passive solar design. An important strength of the paper is its development of well-structured scenarios that test different reconstruction options. Each of these scenarios is supported with relevant data and simulation processes.

The practical questions relating to both heritage management integration of future climate change issues and ongoing use questions are all effectively integrated.

While clearly not a focus of the paper, a potential weakness was the absence of cost and financial implications for the various scenarios. I would not recommend that this is required although in future iterations of the research this could potentially be included.

Potentially the explication of some technical terms may also be improved. Finally, some discussion of similar projects undertaken elsewhere in the region or more broadly may be beneficial.

Overall, I very much enjoyed reading this paper and I wish the authors all the best in their ongoing research project.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your comments. We have followed all suggestions and the article is much improved.

We attach here a file with specific answers to each comment.

Best regards,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments have been clearly raised. I give a favorable opinion for the publication of the paper.