Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I reviewed the given manuscript on “Research on the dynamic carbon emission baselines for public buildings in a northern cold areas city of China?”, while my major comments are given. These comments are directly linked with the given study and will improve the quality of the paper.

Major comments are given below,

1.      Please add the highlights for the given manuscript. I think without highlights paper is incomplete.

2.      These highlights must 5 within the 85 characteristics.

3.      The Abstract has minor significant information for a reader; therefore, please follow the recent studies to write a catchy abstract. Hint: authors must try to focus on some environmental concerns in 2-3 sentences, after that they should introduce the public buildings and their environmental stress.

4.      Similarly, in the abstract data, technique and region should be incorporated in one sentence.

5.      The first paragraph of the study has no significant information, try to link with crux why you have focused on the carbon neutrality. [Hint: the core leading factor of carbon emissions and globe has taken number of green initiatives they may support the concept of carbon neutrality].

6.      Also try to link how energy and environment because both are interlink with each other and can affect the environment under the theme of carbon neutrality.

7.      Besides, the building construction and emissions, it is necessary to include energy sector in your introduction. How energy is performing to deteriorate the level of sustainability? How would you explain the consequences of energy in building construction?

8.      Moreover, the research gap is unclear; try to improve it according to journal requirements.

9.      Please start your intro and you should introduce all abbreviation in the start of text.

 

10.   Please add some recent studies and try to expand this section.

11.   In addition (literature review), the authors have not introduced a proper channel of studies that must deliver a clear message to the reviewer. Therefore, it is necessary to relate your manuscript to building construction and environment situation, rather than other sides.

12.   The most important point please discusses in detail your methodology interpretation, because this section is too much concise.

13.   Please provide here a graphical presentation after a short summary.

14.   Provide the data, its sources and measurement units in a table.

15.   Please cite some recent studies and their comments regarding your outcomes. The discussion section should be improved.

16.   In the conclusion section there is need to re-explain the first paragraph. I think it is your findings; therefore, please concise it.

 

17.   Policy recommendations are not sufficient at this stage of the manuscript. I think the authors must add a separate section for policy recommendations in conclusion section. Also, add some exciting limitations regarding political factors for the future studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript considers interesting topic and it is well-structured and easy to read.

The following issues should be considered:

Please explain all abbreviations (full-length word), at least HVAC is missing

Figure 1 does not give very good picture on the location of the city. A map covering a larger area (e.g. whole China) could be more informative.

More information on the data collection process should be provided

In line 163, please refer to Figure 2.

In line 290, why there is a title “Patents”

I feel that more thorough analysis on results could be added. A separate discussion section could add the value of the manuscript. At least an analysis on the differences between building types and discussion on the reasons behind different energy consumption values could be added.

Importance and implications of the results could be highlighted even more in abstract and conclusions

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The content of the submitted manuscript is good, but the current form's presentation does not fulfill the journal requirements. Modification is needed to consider for publication.

Major comments

·       Quality of figures are not up to the mark. Modify it.

·       Author presented discussion without support literature. It should be there.

·       Abstract should be conclusion of the study. Its missing.

·       I suggest the author demonstrate what the paper adds to the current literature. and what new knowledge is added by this study?

·       Why carbon emission only? Highlights the importance in specific manner.

·      

References

 

Reference section should be increased with number of recent studies. I would like to suggest to author to include following published article to improve the quality of articles, these are

 

Exposure and health: A progress update by evaluation and scientometric analysis. Stochastic  Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 2022 (10.1007/s00477-022-02313-z).

 

Spatially Resolved Distribution, Sources, Exposure Levels, and Health Risks of Heavy Metals in <63 μm Size-Fractionated Road Dust from Lucknow City, North India. International Journal of Environmental Science and Public Health 2022, 19 (19), 12898. (doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191912898).

Spatial distribution, pollution levels, and risk assessment of potentially toxic metals in road dust from major tourist city, Dehradun, Uttarakhand India.  Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment 2022, (10.1007/s00477-022-02207-0).

 

 

Other comments:

English editing is needed in some parts of the manuscript.
Abbreviations should be explained before the introduction.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Te authors have chosen to analyse dynamic carbon emissions in the northern area of China. Whereeas the theme itself is interesting, there are many issues lacking especially where methodology is concerned. Possibly the weather data is evident to the inhabitants of China, but not to the readers coming from other countries. Fig 1 - is unredeable, there is no source and in fact it does not present The level of energy consumption as indicated in the text. Even if the research was random, some initial conditions must have been made - as reserchers do not compare apples with oranges, but apples with apples. Therefore the basics are: the dates when the buildings were build, thir volume and type of building materials used for their envelope. Discussion should also include outcomes of similar research in other countries. Also limits and usefulness of presented research should be presented.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Authors have made significant improvement and i want to accept this manuscript. 

 

Author Response

The language of the paper has been polished. And appropriate adjustments have been made in the methods, discussions, and conclusions sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors have made significant improvements.

Author Response

The language of the paper has been polished. And appropriate adjustments have been made in the methods, discussions, and conclusions sections.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have responded to several queries. Still, the Discussion section is limited to China only - it is a vast country with several climatic zones. Nevertheless, there are other countries providing similar research, and the authors are unfortunately not too keen to compare results. The conclusions are much better, but still rather weak. Control still missing in the methodology section - omitting of vital procedures and data does not mean that no questions will be asked. In this case - on what basis were the buildings chosen and what were other - outside function - choice parameters,

Author Response

The paper has been revised in detail based on comments.

A more in-depth comparison of results was added to the discussion section. On the one hand, research results related to cities in different climatic regions in China, such as Beijing, Shanghai, Hong Kong, Taiwan, are compared, the difference in carbon emissions stems from the development of energy-saving and low-carbon policies for buildings in Tianjin, which is provided a detailed introduction. On the other hand, relevant foreign research is compared, such as Singapore, Sweden, Sydney (Australia), Gujarat (India), Bristol (UK), the reasons for the differences in energy consumption intensity and energy structure is analyzed.

The conclusion has been further adjusted to supplement the correlation analysis, suggesting that there is no significant correlation between the construction age of buildings and their carbon emissions.

The method section is also described in detail. It includes the basis for building selection, the sample size of buildings of various types and construction age intervals, the structural form of buildings, heat transfer coefficient, and other key parameters, and strives to ensure that the sample size of the survey conforms to the overall level of Tianjin.

The language of the paper has been polished.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors have responded to most of my remarks. They should be aware that their statement "The conclusion has been further adjusted to supplement the correlation analysis, suggesting that there is no significant correlation between the construction age of buildings and their carbon emissions." 

should be further supported, as in a majority of countries there is a significant correlation between the construction age of buildings and their carbon. emissions. If it is otherwise in China - this should be further explained as it is a very important area of presented research.

Author Response

The previous expression has been adjusted to make the meaning clearer。Through correlation analysis of building carbon emissions, it has been determined that the age of a building can to some extent impact its unit area carbon emissions. However, this influence may be positive for some buildings and negative for others, as many other factors may have a greater impact. For instance, a favorable factor for reducing carbon emissions is that younger buildings tend to be more energy-efficient. Nevertheless, this may also indicate higher energy consumption due to more functional requirements and a comfortable environment, which constitutes a disadvantage for carbon reduction. Therefore, relying solely on building age to assess the level of carbon emissions may lead to unreliable conclusions, and a comprehensive analysis using more factors is required. 

In addition, the language has been professionally polished, and there is a polishing certificate.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf