Assessment of Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts of Energy Efficiency Improvements in Multi-Apartment Buildings: Case Study of Lithuania
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsTitle: Assessment Of Socio-Economic and Environmental Impacts Of Energy Efficiency Improvements In Multi-Apartment Buildings: Case Of Lithuania
Introduction on the paper
This paper examines support mechanisms for building renovation and their alternatives in Lithuania, with a focus on evaluating the socio-economic and environmental impacts of energy efficiency measures in multi-apartment buildings. The study explores four scenarios: (1) Reallocation of Government Expenditure for Renovation, (2) Increase in Taxes on Products, (3) Government Loans, and (4) Costless. It provides valuable insights due to the limited literature on this topic in Lithuania.
The study contributes by developing a framework to assess socio-economic and environmental impacts across different scenarios, offering a comprehensive economy-wide analysis, and focusing on Lithuania’s urgent need for building renovations within the EU context. The findings are relevant for policymaking, especially for countries with similar challenges.
The paper’s objectives include tailoring the CleanProdLT model to evaluate renovation impacts, assessing government support measures’ effects on job creation (especially youth employment), and providing comparative analysis for policymakers.
The Lithuanian case reveals that while building renovation will likely have short-term negative impacts on employment, there is no immediate increase in construction demand. The study primarily focused on aggregated energy savings, whereas other research has explored the employment impacts of specific energy efficiency measures, finding that replacing old diesel boilers, insulating external walls and roofs, and installing double or triple-glazed windows create significant employment opportunities.
General Comments:
In general, the article is very interesting, especially due to the topics it addresses, such as employment aspects, which are often underrepresented in the scientific literature. However, I am assigning a major revision for now so that the authors can better detail and clarify the energy-related aspects (e.g., in Table 2) in order to better understand the methods used to derive the estimates presented. It would also be interesting if, alongside the numbers presented, the authors could include the primary energy conversion factors currently in use in Lithuania and how they are expected to change over time. In fact, an important aspect to consider is the variation in the national energy mix over time (if this has not been taken into account, I would suggest indicating the current PEFs and stating that the estimates do not account for future PEF changes). Similarly, it would be interesting to include some references on the current energy costs and how they are expected to evolve in the future.
- Providing more details on Table No. 2 is important to understand how these values were determined (are they values based on energy performance certificates, or are they average values calculated from a realistic use of the buildings?).
Editorial comments:
- Line 202: "Figure 2 represents this by the rectangular boxes connected by dashed grey lines."
- Comment: "In Figure 2, there are no dashed grey lines."
Line 210: "This corresponds to the dashed red line in Figure 2."
Comment: "In Figure 2, there is no dashed red line."
- Line 237: "Control the measurement units of energy saving potential."
Comment: "Check the measurement units for energy savings potential."
- General: "Some part of text are in red (i.e., Line 219, 223)."
Comment: "Some parts of the text are in red (e.g., Lines 219, 223)."
- Number 28 in references: "Control the reference (Page not found)."
Comment: "Verify reference number 28 (page not found)."
- Numbers 29 and 41 in references: "Insert DOI."
Comment: "Add DOI for references 29 and 41."
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have submitted a high-level scientific article for publication, corresponding to the level of the Sustainability journal. The work will undoubtedly be of great interest to readers and has good prospects for further development.
The work presents the results of an exemplary planned and executed modeling and analysis of the obtained data. However, there are some comments on the work.
A comment on the essence of the work.
The comment concerns the possibility of practical use of the model, namely the selected modeling period up to 2079. The validity of such an approach raises serious doubts. The point is not even whether the authors will be able to live until 2079 and assess the correspondence of the modeling data and the actual development of events. Over the course of 50 years, everything will change - the level of technology, the economy, politics, international relations, fossil and renewable resources, etc. In other words, almost all the assumptions included in the model without exception will lose their credibility. Against this background, it is impossible not to notice that, using the data available up to 2021, the authors are developing a model that covers the already past period of 2021-2024. A natural question arises - how well does the model work in this relatively short period of time, when the assumptions embedded in the model can be considered reliable.
It should be immediately stipulated that the remark is debatable and does not require the authors to significantly adjust the work. But even a corresponding small assessment of the model's performance in the text and, perhaps, in the conclusions would correct this negative impression.
Editorial and technical comments.
1. There are unacceptable errors in the text formatting. For example, the caption (lines 297, 298) is separated from the figure itself. In line 361, there is a "hanging" title of section 3.3, torn away from the subsequent text. From this point of view, it is necessary to check the entire text of the article.
2. Table 3 is divided between two pages, which makes it difficult to understand the data presented in it. If it is not possible to present the table in its entirety, it is customary to repeat its "header" on the transferred part of the table.
It will not be difficult for the authors to take into account the technical comments made.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript offers a socio-economic and environmental analysis of energy efficiency measures in multi-apartment buildings in Lithuania. The use of the CleanProdLT general equilibrium model is worthy, though a clearer justification of its selection over alternative models could enhance the methodological rigor. While the results are understandable, they sometimes lack explicit connection to broader implications for other regions or global contexts, which could enhance the paper's relevance. Below are the specific concerns of this reviewer.
Abstract. The abstract lacks a detailed explanation of the CleanProdLT model's role. Please add a sentence explicitly stating how the model contributes to achieving the study’s objectives.
Introduction. The introduction does not sufficiently link these to the European Green Deal’s broader goals. Kindly, enhance the discussion to better align national findings with European sustainability objectives.
Materials and Methods. The rationale for selecting the CleanProdLT model requires further elaboration. Please compare the model to other equilibrium or input-output models in a brief paragraph to justify its application.
Results. Figures 6 through 9 inadequately represent data. Kindly, enhance the appearance of
Discussion. Please address potential limitations of the CleanProdLT model and assumptions used. It is recommended to include a paragraph evaluating the limitations of the model and how they may affect the results.
Conclusions. The conclusions lack actionable recommendations for policymakers. Kindly, expand the conclusion with specific policy suggestions, particularly addressing how findings can guide similar efforts in other EU Member States.
Overall: The manuscript provides meaningful contributions to the literature on energy efficiency in building renovations, particularly in Lithuania. However, its presentation and methodology discussion require improvement. Addressing these concerns will elevate its impact and alignment with the journal's standards.
Recommendation: This manuscript presents novel and policy-relevant findings. However, before publication, the authors must address presentation quality, including figure enhancements, and strengthen the discussion of the methodology's global applicability. Recommend a major revision to align the manuscript with the journal's standards.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been improved by incorporating the reviewer's suggestions into the text. The authors are thanked for promptly addressing the reviewer's requests.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have provided reasoned responses to my previous comments. The paper is suitable for acceptance in its current form.
