Developing a National Climate Adaptation Framework for the Design of Moisture-Resilient Buildings

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript seems clear and well written. The introduction is relevant. The methodology, discussion and conclusion are appropriate.

One minor comment: the word "pbl" in Figure 2 is recommended to be changed to "section" instead, for example "pbl 3-1" to "Section 3-1" of the Norwegian Planning and Building Act.

Author Response

See response in separate document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for the interesting material.
The steps in working on the document and the prerequisites that formed its basis are presented quite interestingly. At the same time, we have one, but significant remark.
In the text of the article, the term "risk" is used 50 times, usually in combinations "risk assessment" or "climate risk assessment". The entire material of the article is built on "climate risk assessment", including the main figures 3-6, but we could not find any numerical assessment of this risk. According to ISO 13824 "risk it is combination of the probability or frequency of an event and the magnitude of its consequences", that is, any risk is a quantity that can be calculated. In the presented work, there are no methods of numerical assessment that illustrate "climate risk assessment". In our opinion, the material should be expanded by illustrating the process of numerical risk assessment, or rewritten avoiding the use of this term.

Author Response

See response in separate document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a paper on a very significant topic. The resilience of buildings against moisture-induced damages and the consideration of climate change in the relevant frameworks are issues of great importance when the long-term performance of the built environment is concerned. Given the multitude and complexity of the degradation mechanisms associated with moisture in building components, the derivation of clear and scientifically sound risk assessment frameworks and design guidelines that can be applied in practice is a complex task. This paper, reporting results of research projects, presents such a thorough and systematic effort; this is greatly appreciated by this reviewer. Also, the paper is written in very good English.

However, in the present form of the manuscript there are some important shortcomings, which the authors must address:

1) Abstract. The authors mention: "this article explores and evaluates the development ... Norwegian Planning and Building Act.", and "introduces structured checklists and division of responsibilities (architects, engineers, etc.)..". Although in the manuscript there are references and (mostly) qualitative descriptions of some of the elements cited in the previously mentioned sentences, not all of them are presented in adequate detail or at all (e.g. responsibilities of actors). It would be very useful to be clear in the abstract about what is actually presented to a noteworthy detail in this paper. Is it the general approach/steps followed in the research? Is it the risk assessment framework? A combination with emphasis on a specific aspect? 

2) Introduction. Also in relation to the previous comment, it would be important to highlight in the last paragraph what exactly out of this whole research effort is presented in the manuscript. It is of course very useful to mention essential characteristics of the framework, as the authors do, but this very good presentation could be accompanied by more specific information about what the reader should expect to see in the following texts.

3) Novelty, especially with regard to the international audience.

3.a) In lines 92 and 93, the authors mention "Novelty of international interest is the collaborative and structured approach by the private–public research aiming for the national climate adaptation framework for the construction industry". However, this approach is very shortly described in table 1 and the subsequent texts. No details are provided about central methodological decisions in texts 2.1. to 2.4., which in most part repeat the information presented in the table. Just to provide few examples of what could be mentioned (the list is by no means exhaustive): i. lines 131-133: what were the basic conclusions (could be of interest for the international audience)?; ii. section 2.3.: how were the experts chosen to be included in the studies (it is a methodological aspect of the involvement of various stakeholders); iii. line 158: is there a report/publication where the testing has been presented?

Moreover, the vast majority of references in Table 1 are in Norwegian; as a result, it is necessary to provide critical points of the methodological approach in the paper, for the international audience to follow. 

3.b) lines 94-95: "Further, the climate risk assessment elements identified by the process should be of interest independently of national outlines...". This is indeed true; however, it is crucial to provide some context on individual elements (e.g. indices that are proposed to be used, magnitudes of quantities defining low/high exposure, etc.), so that the international audience acquires an idea of which conditions require attention and, therefore, how the framework actually works.

4) Figures 3-6

4.a) In [38], a similar set of figures exists. Are the figures presented in the paper the translated versions of the ones in [38]? If yes, and no other additions/ changes are made in the revised manuscript's figures, then this fact should be in a way acknowledged in the "source" field for each figure.

4.b) In the column under 'Risk to Building", the information is of varying nature. Sometimes it refers to geometrical and other characteristics of the building and its elements, while in other cases it addresses climatic conditions. This fact should at least be explained in the text (if no re-organisation of the tables is attempted), so that confusion is avoided.

4.c) In several cases, the "values" defining the chromatic scale are not clear. For example: i) Figure 5, first row, what is "simple geometry?"; ii) same figure, under "WIND", regarding roof shape: how many protrusions are "few protrusions"; iii) figure 5, next to "parapet flashing design": low/high driving rain exposure by which index and/or to which numeric value? This issue of abstract/not precisely defined "values" characterises several rows in those tables, creating weak points. Please specify.

4.d) Also with regard to the chromatic scale: there seems to be a gradual transition from green to red everywhere. Are there cases where the answer is binary (one end of the scale or the other)? If yes, is there a meaning in using this type of gradual chromatic scale in these cases? For the cases where a gradual transition from the green to red is actually meaningful, it is not clear what exactly represent the different colors in between. This could be answered/clarified via the response to the previous comment.

4.e) A note could be added to the texts that in figures 3-6 risk factors that don't explicitly relate to moisture are listed (e.g. "sun").

4.f) Figure 6: i) "Design/distance to terrain" is used both for cladding and for windows in different rows. Please specify in the relevant rows which component is addressed in each case. ii) “window placement and moisture exposure” row: what if large WDR exposure occurs in cold inland regions?

5. line 297-298: the consideration of climate change in the presented risk assessment framework has not been adequately discussed, and could be further highlighted.

6. Lines 317-318: how are figures 3-6 explicate "by whom, and at what stage of the planning process", as mentioned in the previous lines?

7.  Section 4.4: is there a bibliographic source reporting these results and the checklists used?  

Minor comments

i) The numbering of sections 2.4 and 2.5 seems to be reversed.

ii) The links in references [42] and [45] don't seem to work.

iii) lines 168-172. This is a minor comment, but a slightly more analytical explanation of the difference between SAK and TEK would probably help the international reader follow the text.

 

 

 

Author Response

See response in separate document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the provided answers and the corrections made to the manuscript. The topic addressed is highly relevant and interesting, offering promising prospects for further, more in-depth research in this field. I hope the authors will continue their investigations in this direction. The article can be recommended for publication.

Author Response

Thanks a lot for the nice feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors provided an effective and productive revision of their manuscript, leading to its substantial improvement.

There remain some minor issues for the authors to consider in order to further improve their paper.

1. Line 108: “However, recommendations…”. Please check whether the word “However” (or the word “only” a few words later) is needed here, as the meaning of this sentence depends heavily on it.
2. Line 140: “pointed out by the involved companies based on personal interest and knowledge”. Was this practice followed, apart from companies, also by organisations (e.g. municipalities)? What about the selection of property owners to be included in the process? Perhaps short clarifications here would enhance the quality of the provided information.
3. Line 175: “on behalf of”. Could it be “instead of”?
4. Lines 320-322: please revisit this sentence, as there seems that there could be a syntax mistake.
5. Line 330: “services s that”. Please delete the “s”.
6. Line 417: “lates useful”. Is it “latest useful”?
7. Regarding the comment 4.e) of the previous round of review about the inclusion of a note to the texts that in figures 3-6 risk factors that don't explicitly relate to moisture are listed (e.g. "sun"): I agree with the authors retaining such elements in the framework, they are very important. The comment was proposing to just add a short relevant note in the text, explaining this fact, and not to remove these aspects from the framework. Perhaps the authors could reconsider this suggestion.

Author Response

Please see response in separate document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf