Elevator Selection Methodology for Existing Residential Buildings Oriented Toward Living Quality Improvement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Ambiguity in Methodology Description: The description of the methodology in section 2.3 is somewhat ambiguous. The author should clarify the specific steps and criteria used in the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) to determine the weights of each factor. This will enhance the reproducibility and transparency of the research.
2. Incomplete Data Presentation: In tables 2, 3, 4, and 5, some data entries are incomplete or missing. The author needs to ensure all relevant data is fully presented and that any missing values are either filled in or explained.
3. Inconsistent Reference Citations: There are inconsistencies in the citation of references throughout the text. The author should review and standardize the citation format to ensure uniformity, adhering to a specific academic style such as APA or MLA.
4. Unclear Evaluation Criteria: The criteria for evaluating the impact of different elevator types on living quality could be more clearly defined. The author should provide a detailed explanation of how each factor (ventilation, noise, daylighting, visual access) was measured and scored.
5. Lack of Error Analysis: In the simulation and measurement sections, there is little discussion of potential errors or uncertainties. The author should include an analysis of the possible sources of error in the measurements and simulations, and how these might affect the results.
6. Overly Complex Language: Some sentences in the text are overly complex and difficult to parse. The author should simplify the language where possible, breaking down long sentences into shorter, clearer ones to improve readability.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to improve the quality of our submitted manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3524694). We are deeply grateful for the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revised version, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions point by point. We hope the revised manuscript now meets the high publication standards of your esteemed journal.

All modifications have been highlighted in red for your convenience.

On the following pages, we provide our detailed point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the selection of elevator types for existing residential buildings and proposes a comprehensive evaluation method oriented towards living quality. Aiming at the urgent need for elevator installation in existing residential buildings under the background of China's aging population, the study focuses on the impact of elevator selection on living quality, which is in line with national policy orientation and social hot issues, and has strong practical value and academic significance. In the research of the paper, a mixed research method combining AHP, field measurement, simulation analysis and questionnaire survey is adopted. An evaluation framework is constructed from two aspects: objective environmental indicators (ventilation, noise, lighting, vision) and subjective resident satisfaction. The method is rigorous and comprehensive. Field measurement and simulation were carried out on 50 elevator-installed buildings in 8 communities in Beijing. The large sample size and data covering different elevator types and floors enhance the credibility of the conclusion. Through comprehensive evaluation, the elevator types suitable for typical buildings in Beijing (such as type E2) are clearly recommended, and specific design optimization suggestions (such as elevator shaft location, corridor length, etc.) are put forward, which have guiding significance for practical engineering and can provide strong support for scientific decision-making on elevator installation in existing residential buildings.

The following are specific review comments:

1. The abstract should clarify the core innovation of the research (such as the proposed comprehensive evaluation framework) and briefly summarize the conclusions.
2. The introduction can further compare relevant domestic and foreign studies to highlight the uniqueness of this study in terms of methods (such as combining subjective and objective indicators).
3. Elaborate on the design of the questionnaire survey (such as reliability and validity tests of the questionnaire) and sampling methods (such as the specific implementation of stratified sampling).
4. Supplement the basis for the selection of simulation software (such as why Eddy3D, Pachyderm Acoustic, etc. are chosen) and the specific steps of parameter calibration.
5. Add a comparative analysis of different elevator types on each indicator in the results section (such as the specific reasons why type E2 performs better than other types in terms of ventilation and noise).
6. The discussion section needs to further explain why certain elevator types scored lower (such as type E3 performing poorly in ventilation and noise), and analyze them in combination with building layout and elevator design.
7. The definitions of "half-floor landing" and "full-floor landing" need to be clarified.
8. The titles and axis labels of some charts (such as Figure 3, Figure 8, Figure 10) are not clear enough, and the data formats of some tables (such as Table 2-5) are inconsistent (such as missing some data). It is recommended to standardize the chart format and supplement necessary explanations to improve readability.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to improve the quality of our submitted manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3524694). We are deeply grateful for the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revised version, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions point by point. We hope the revised manuscript now meets the high publication standards of your esteemed journal.

All modifications have been highlighted in red for your convenience.

On the following pages, we provide our detailed point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the effort the author(s) have put into writing this paper. Please find my comments below:

• Introduction Section: Please review the paper for grammar and spelling errors.
• Line 28: The word "according" appears twice; please revise.
• Figure 1: Provide a more detailed explanation to enhance clarity.
• Line 85: Check the punctuation at the end of the sentence.
• Lines 127, 146, 149, 206, 219, etc.: Ensure consistent spacing at the end of sentences.
• Em Dash (—): Review its usage throughout the paper and remove any unnecessary instances.
• Figures and Discussion Section: I recommend relocating all figures currently in the conclusion section to a new section titled Interpretation or Discussion. Within this section, authors can integrate figures and tables more effectively. Additionally, consider including a subsection for future research recommendations.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Thank you for the effort the author(s) have put into writing this paper. Please find my comments below:

• Introduction Section: Please review the paper for grammar and spelling errors.
• Line 28: The word "according" appears twice; please revise.
• Figure 1: Provide a more detailed explanation to enhance clarity.
• Line 85: Check the punctuation at the end of the sentence.
• Lines 127, 146, 149, 206, 219, etc.: Ensure consistent spacing at the end of sentences.
• Em Dash (—): Review its usage throughout the paper and remove any unnecessary instances.
• Figures and Discussion Section: I recommend relocating all figures currently in the conclusion section to a new section titled Interpretation or Discussion. Within this section, authors can integrate figures and tables more effectively. Additionally, consider including a subsection for future research recommendations.

Author Response

Dear Editor and Reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate the opportunity to improve the quality of our submitted manuscript (Manuscript ID: sustainability-3524694). We are deeply grateful for the reviewers’ constructive and insightful comments. In this revised version, we have carefully addressed all the comments and suggestions point by point. We hope the revised manuscript now meets the high publication standards of your esteemed journal.

All modifications have been highlighted in red for your convenience.

On the following pages, we provide our detailed point-by-point responses to each of the reviewers’ comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf