The Impact of Climate Change on a University Campus’ Energy Use: Use of Machine Learning and Building Characteristics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I consider that the paper is not ready for publication.
A more in-depth and current research review in the field of study is needed. The methodology is not clear and the results are confusing. Supplementary material would help to better understand the development of the study.
The conclusions are supported by the study, however a very general overview of the conclusions is given. I consider that, as before, the conclusions should be more precise.
To sum up, it is not ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review my manuscript. Please find the updated manuscript. I added more supporting references to the paper and supplement my discussion and conclusions. I analyzed universities’ action plans to strengthen my paper and differentiate it from other publications. Please reconsider my manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper investigating the impact of climate change on a university campus’ energy usage by utilising statistical analysis and building characteristics. The paper is a complete work; both the methodology and approach presented would be interesting for readers working in the field, and the conclusions derived from the study are also offering very useful insights. I do not have any further comments or suggestions for improvement of this paper. An excellent contribution to knowledge in the associated field.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments. I updated my manuscript based on the other two reviewers’ comments. This paper is reviewed by editors to improve the English language and style.

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is interesting to read, however, I see the following major issues that should be resolved before publishing this paper:

• The models for predicting energy consumption in buildings developed in this study should be more clearly presented in the manuscript. In the opinion of the reviewer, for greater clarity, the method of applying these models should be shown on a specific example.
• The font size of few figures (2, 3 and 4) should be increased. The font should be readable and understandable within the default view.
• It would be interesting to add information about what operating factors were omitted (in addition to excluding technological advances).
• There is insufficient information on how the output data- electricity (ELC) and steam (STM) consumption was obtained.

Some specific comments/suggestions are provided below:

• The location of Figure 1 is incorrect - in relation to its description and the first reference in the text
• Line 168 - the sentence begins with a lowercase letter or it is "cut"
• There is no reference to Equation 1 in the text
• Part of Figure 3 (line 388) is more of a table
• The header of subsection 5.4 (line 434, 435) is incorrectly formatted, additionally the subsection number 5.4 was repeated (on lines 434 and 491)
• Figure 4 should be closer to the place of his mention in the text (line 438)
• In the text of the manuscript there is a reference to figure 5 (on line 473) which is not in the manuscript. It is also referenced on lines 522 and 525. So either the authors forgot to include this figure in the text, or they deleted it, leaving its analysis however. So this part of the paper should be corrected.
• Shouldn't SI units be used?
• In line 399, U-value should be capitalized, similarly in a paragraph on lines 486-490.

Additionally (which should be considered), it seems to me that the article is too divided into sections and subsections. For example, section 7 only has 7 lines of text ("Limitations" is usually part of the "Discussion" or "Conclusions" sections) and in my opinion it would be better to modify this.

Also, section 3 is too bulleted - some subsections only have 4 lines of text. You might not think of "steps" as subsections and try merge sections 3 and 4 into one section.

Author Response

• The models for predicting energy consumption in buildings developed in this study should be more clearly presented in the manuscript. In the opinion of the reviewer, for greater clarity, the method of applying these models should be shown on a specific example.

Future weather data was used as an input to the developed model. Please find the changes made to be clearer. Figure 5 should be helpful to see the prediction by comparing historical data.

• The font size of few figures (2, 3 and 4) should be increased. The font should be readable and understandable within the default view.

I replaced those figures.

• It would be interesting to add information about what operating factors were omitted (in addition to excluding technological advances).

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to study about operating factors. I added about operating part in the end of the introduction (right after explanation regarding technological advances).

• There is insufficient information on how the output data- electricity (ELC) and steam (STM) consumption was obtained.

Owing to privacy concerns and confidentiality, we are not able to disclose the university campus name and specific geographic location (address). Nevertheless, we were fortunate to receive high fidelity university campus building data to conduct this study. If you have further questions, please contact Dr. Ravi Srinivasan at [email protected]

Some specific comments/suggestions are provided below:

• The location of Figure 1 is incorrect - in relation to its description and the first reference in the text

I fixed it. Thank you.

• Line 168 - the sentence begins with a lowercase letter or it is "cut"

I fixed it. Thank you.

• There is no reference to Equation 1 in the text

I added Equation 1 in the text. Thank you.

• Part of Figure 3 (line 388) is more of a table.

Since it is a bar chart, I considered it as a Figure. However, please let me know your suggestion.

• The header of subsection 5.4 (line 434, 435) is incorrectly formatted, additionally the subsection number 5.4 was repeated (on lines 434 and 491)

I fixed it. Thank you. I also checked overall document for formatting.

• Figure 4 should be closer to the place of his mention in the text (line 438)

I fixed it. Thank you.

• In the text of the manuscript there is a reference to figure 5 (on line 473) which is not in the manuscript. It is also referenced on lines 522 and 525. So either the authors forgot to include this figure in the text, or they deleted it, leaving its analysis however. So this part of the paper should be corrected.

I fixed it. Please see figure 5. Thank you.

• Shouldn't SI units be used?

We follow IP measurement system. Thanks.

• In line 399, U-value should be capitalized, similarly in a paragraph on lines 486-490.

Thanks for the comments.

• Additionally (which should be considered), it seems to me that the article is too divided into sections and subsections. For example, section 7 only has 7 lines of text ("Limitations" is usually part of the "Discussion" or "Conclusions" sections) and in my opinion it would be better to modify this. Also, section 3 is too bulleted - some subsections only have 4 lines of text. You might not think of "steps" as subsections and try merge sections 3 and 4 into one section.

Thanks. Based on your comments, I updated the section. In addition, I also merged the Limitation and Discussion sections.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The quality of the paper has improved significantly.
Now it is ready to be acceptede.

Reviewer 3 Report

All my comments have been addressed in the revised manuscript and I recommend its publication.