ALDREN: A Methodological Framework to Support Decision-Making and Investments in Deep Energy Renovation of Non-Residential Buildings
, Graziano Salvalai 2, Diletta Brutti 2, Corinne Mandin 3 and Wenjuan Wei 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
OVERALL REVIEW RESULT
The paper seems to be lacking in a distinct research methodology, and there are no research questions. It is reasonably clear that the intention of the paper is to develop a methodology, yet it is not clear what the RESEARCH CONTRIBUTION is. Such a paper requires an in-depth opening and discussion concerning the context (which in this case is renovation) and be evaluated and validated in the context with actual relevant users. In other words, there are necessary requirements about what is already available as well as discussing why, what, when, who, and how, besides a concrete validation and a vigorous discussion through the application process with actual users. Unfortunately, the paper appears to be deficient in this regard; nevertheless, the methodology sounds reasonable. In its current format, it looks like to be a report on developing an approach as part of an ongoing research project, but certainly not a scientific research paper, in my opinion! Therefore, while the work is worth presenting, full resubmission concerning restructuring the paper in a new form is required. I hope that this feedback will be useful as you look to strengthen your future research efforts.
MORE SPECIFIC COMMENTARY
The paper presents research results from the development of a methodological framework called “ALDREN” that aims to support decision-making and investment in deep energy renovation of non-residential buildings, based on a set of procedures (modules) that consist in the step-by-step implementation of protocols to assess the energy performance, Indoor Environmental Quality and financial value of buildings, before and after the energy renovation.
The English expression in the manuscript is correct. However, it still contains some grammatical language errors as wells as non-clear English expressions.
In my opinion, the related work in connection to the renovation context and its importance has not been properly studied and cited.
The title is misleading and almost impossible to understand on its own. There are two abbreviations in the title which must be replaced, and even “Italian Office Pilot Building” is not a clear term.
Line 5, Abstract – The abstract has not been executed sufficiently, and so is very weak! Unclear why the authors begin by citing Renovation Wave which has been published in Oct 2020. And EPBD? And ending with an introduction to the sections of the article. These seem to be fit to move to the Introduction instead. The abstract in this current format looks like to be a brief introduction to an ongoing research project, but not fit to be used as an abstract of a scientific paper! I encourage the authors to search for how to write a standard abstract and then re-write it. Or simply look at the journal website here (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings/instructions) and search for “Abstract”.
Line 22, Introduction - The Introduction is short and “shallowly” covered. The research contents and questions are not listed.
I decided to stop here! Please read the overall result!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The ALDREN project, in which the paper in question is framed, is adequately described in the first 8 pages of the paper, though the third section of the paper should be revised. The seven modules of the ALDREN BRP structure are described in this section, but only modules 1, 2, 6 and 7 are implemented in the pilot case. This part of the paper should focus on these modules and shortened the description of the other modules. Section 5 should also be expanded and strength.
The paper has the potential to reach a higher level. Some questions, that can guide the authors to expand its content, are posed to achieve that level:
On the ALDREN project structure (section 3):
- What protocols are applied in energy simulation and how is a harmonized calculation method ensured?
- Have reference standards been applied?; if so, what standards?
- How is the NZEB concept apply as EU level (each country has its own definition)?
On the pilot case result (section 5):
- What are all the elementary renovation actions initially valued?; which ones were selected and for what reasons?
- Can the main indicators (KPI) be offered according to priority levels (according to Table 12)?; How are priority levels decided?
- What impact have decisions concerning other areas (taken by the owner or linked to other types of comfort other than thermal) had on the energy renovation proposals?
Major changes:
Section 5, which show the results of the modules 2 (Energy rating), 7 (Renovation actions) and 8 (NZEB roadmap), is susceptible to further development and is also suspected of having errors (see below).
Error 1: In Figure 6, it makes no sense that immediate renovation (represented by a blue dot) provides a better energy rating than renovation that takes advantage of its full potential (yellow dot).
Error 2: There are obvious discrepancies between the information contained in Table 12, which offers four packages of measures with their corresponding implementation dates, and the results shown in Figure 8, where changes are only observed in the first and last year of the period.
The number of references used is very small (only 9 references) and it is considered that reference number 9 is not valid because it is an under review paper and is not yet published.
Minor changes:
Has the ALDREN project developed, or does it plan to develop, its extension for residential buildings? (“BRP structure also for residential: BuildLog + RenoMap”, Table 1, first column, second 'target').
Errors noted: change ‘Figure 6’ to ’Figure 2’ (line 162); change ‘Figure 7’ to ’Figure 3’ (line 187); and change ‘685’000 €’ to ‘685,000 €’ (Table 13, third row value).
Recommendation 1: Remove Figure 5 from the text as it is not legible; it is proposed to include the BRP of the case study as an annex to the paper rather than as a figure.
Recommendation 2: Remove or change the last part of the abstract (lines 15-18), where the different parts and sections of the paper are described; this description is usually included in the last part of the introduction and never in the abstract.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, thank you for your interesting paper.
I suggest the authors to give additional information to make this paper clearer to the reader.
You discuss the use of a decision-making tool to inform buildings' owners on the renovation potential of non-residential buildings. The ALDREN BRP is presented as complementary to the EVCs in section 2.2. Could the authors explain with more details the benefits and differences between the BRP and the EVC, what additional information is given to the building owners by using the BRP, and how this helps driving the renovation activity?
In figure 6, the intended immediate renovation and full potential renovation target the same energy rating. Which advantages are then presented to this building's owner by addressing a full potential renovation? Could you please argument this point? Also, what is the difference between these two renovation strategies for the case study you presented in the paper? From figure 2, it seems that by applying the full potential renovation package, there is a substantial difference of energy use for heating and cooling, plus the use of renewables. But I assume the values reported in figure 2 refer to another building.
How can the building's owner evaluate the renovation package from a cost perspective? Is the owner presented with a global cost calculation for different alternatives? it is just the initial investment cost? is the variation of energy price included in the calculation cost? Can you please argument?
The TAIL results presented in figure 7 seem to be based on measurements and simulations. Unfortunately, the reference provided by the authors for more details on the method is still under review. Could the authors describe briefly the method behind the scaling system adopted here? During the measurement campaign, were questionnaires used for evaluating the response of the building occupants?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I think highly of the numerous changes to the paper based on the comments and am now pretty sure the paper has been improved, mainly due to the added contents about the context. However, there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed in terms of content and language:
The paper still contains some grammatical language errors as wells as non-clear English expressions. A second proof-reading is therefore essential, e.g. if you will use ALDREN in the title, no need to use “the” behind it.
The title is still not well structured and not clear. The authors may consider: “ALDREN: A methodological framework to support decision-making and investment in deep energy renovation of non-residential buildings”.
Abstract – It is still unclear why the authors begin by citing Renovation Wave which has been published on Oct 2020. Certainly, the methodology and motivation for developing ALDREN has been grounded before this date! I suggest to reconsider, and maybe use some earlier references.
Keywords – I suggest to replace “energy retrofit”, with “energy renovation”, and even in the whole paper.
Introduction – Make sure you will add some content (1-2 paragraph) about the renovation context with respect to the complexity of the context concerning sustainability and multiple decision-makers involved, and thus use of tools/technology as solutions to deal with. In that case, you can cite and support your discussion with (e.g.) the following reference:
Kamari, A., Jensen, S.R., Corrao, R., & Kirkegaard, P.H. (2019). A Holistic Multi-methodology for Sustainable Renovation. International Journal of Strategic Property Management, 23, 50-64.
Section 2 – Make sure you will add some content (1-2 paragraph) on the available tools and systems in renovation context.
Conclusion section – It is still very weak. The authors should consider rewriting this section and discuss the research contribution and in particular what makes ALDREN different from other available tools/methods and how it has performed. Please also write about the limitation of this study and future research.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed almost all the questions and comments that were made.
Only one question remains to be clarified:
The following statement is included in the paper: “Interactions between the ALDREN Consortium and the ALDREN Alliance have also allowed to raise awareness on the co-benefits related to deep energy renovation and to the use of harmonized, reliable and transparent European performance ratings and reporting tools.” [Lines 107-109 (page 3)]
The question to answer was: How is the NZEB concept applied as EU level?
The authors answer this question remitting to reference 15, but no mention for harmonized method is found in this document. Moreover, about ‘Applied national definitions of NZEB’, it states the following: “Numerical indicators are not comparable across Member States because different energy performance calculation methodologies are used”.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my remarks and integrated them in a new version of the manuscript.
Author Response
"Please see the attachment."
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
