Spatial Performance Optimization of High-Altitude Residential Buildings Based on the Thermal Buffer Effect: A Case Study of New-Type Vernacular Housing in Lhasa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a study on optimizing the thermal performance of new-style dwellings in Lhasa using a parametric and multi-objective optimization approach. The current version, however, does not do justice to the work. By focusing on improving the clarity, organization, and presentation, the authors can significantly enhance the impact and accessibility of their valuable research. I look forward to seeing a revised version.

- Quality of writing: Please improve the quality of writing by shortening some sections and focusing on key messages.

- Manuscript structure: Please structure the manuscript and title the sections as follows: 1. Introduction; 2. Methodology; 3. Results; 4. Discussion; 5. Conclusions. All other sections must be integrated within one of these sections. If you prefer, you may merge the results and discussion sections into one. The conclusions section should not include any subtitles or references. All sections and subsections must be numbered.

- Abstract: The abstract needs to be rewritten to answer the following questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract more specific and quantitative, while ensuring it appeals to a broad audience. The abstract should stand alone; no references, figures, tables, or equations should be cited.

- Introduction: The introduction should be written as a single section, not divided into three subsections. An updated and comprehensive literature review should also be conducted to present the state of the art and identify the knowledge gaps relevant to the research topic. Several recent publications on this subject are missing from the paper. Please revise and strengthen the introduction accordingly.

- Methodology: There is unnecessary repetition (e.g., 2.1 Case Study and Climate Data; 2.2 Case Study and Climate Data). Please revise the entire methodology section to provide a smooth and coherent explanation of the research methods, ensuring clarity for the reader.

- Figures and tables: Please improve the quality of figures and tables.

- Conclusions: The conclusions section is missing. This section should be independent from the main text and should not cite tables, figures, or references. It should concisely present the most important new findings and outline potential future developments of this work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper offers a solid and detailed analysis of thermal buffering strategies for high-altitude housing. Still, it would benefit from clearer real-world validation and more focus on the practical feasibility of the proposed designs.

1. The abstract mentions an 80% heating-load reduction, what baseline model and conditions were used for this comparison?
2. The indoor comfort problem is stated without field data, what measurements or references support this claim?
3. How does the proposed thermal buffer approach differ quantitatively from conventional envelope strategies?
4. Why are similar passive optimization studies from other high-altitude regions (e.g., Andes, Himalayas) not cited?
5. How transferable are the Lhasa-based results to other high-altitude cold climates?
6. Have the social or economic feasibility aspects of the proposed design framework been considered?
7. The literature relies mainly on Chinese sources; can the authors integrate recent international studies (post-2020)?
8. A concise comparison table summarizing previous 20-40% energy-saving studies is required to contextualize the novelty of this work.
9. The validation of simulation results against measured data lacks details on data source, duration, and sampling method.
10. The study uses NSGA-II but does not justify parameter settings such as population size and generations.
11. The model assumes zero internal heat gains; the authors should explain how this simplification affects accuracy.
12. The selection criteria for key optimization variables are not clearly explained or statistically supported.
13. The results mention an 80% heating-load reduction, but the corresponding optimized parameters are not listed.
14. The correlation between HSP improvement and energy reduction is not statistically discussed.
15. Visual figures (Figures 25-34) lack consistent color scales, making comparison between cases difficult.
16. The results section merges analysis with discussion; separation would improve clarity and focus.
17. The authors claim improved resilience but do not relate this to long-term climatic variability or future scenarios.
18. Economic and construction feasibility of the optimized designs is not evaluated.
19. The discussion does not address how optimization outcomes could inform local building codes or design guidelines.
20. The impact of implications to pscyhology and/or mood state to energy consumption/thermal comfort should be discussed. i.e: check Turhan and Özbey Coefficients and discuss it.
21. The potential impact of solar orientation and shading from nearby buildings is not considered.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

the paper is quite rich and full of solid technical work, i can see a lot of effort went into the modeling and simulation. topic is relevant and important esp for high altitude housing and energy saving. the use of parametric tools and optimization shows strong skill.

but the paper still needs more clarity and structure before it can be accepted. main issues are missing validation, vague research gap, and too many descriptive parts without deeper analysis. theory side (thermal buffer concept) is not clearly advanced or explained, and practical implications are mostly stated not demonstrated. results are huge in quantity but they need synthesis and better link back to objectives

 

abstract:

• good topic, relevant and technicaly sound, but not clear what exact gap they trying to fill. scope not defined properly, so bit confusing what’s inside or outside of the study.
• method part too vague, just says simulation + optimization but no tools or validation info, makes me not sure how solid the results are.
• numbers like 80% heating load drop and 50% comfort increase sound way too big, not sure what they comparing to. missing baseline or uncertainty range.
• not sure if this work is only for Lhasa or other similar climates too, they didn’t say.
• overall looks advanced but feels kinda opaque, like not fully explained, missing depth.

introduction

• they say not much work in high-altitude areas but dont show any data or paper review to back that up, so the novelty claim weak
• “new-type vernacular housing” used often but not defined, like what does it mean exactly? materials? layout? official type?
• also not clear on what scale they working, single building or whole settlement?
• objectives sound like technical steps not real research questions, should be framed like “how does X affect Y” kind of
• they say they deepen “thermal buffering theory” but no proof or logic on how they actually did that.
• too many policy-type paragraphs (safe housing, relocation) that don’t add much to the science
• still not clear if this only fits Lhasa or other cold regions too.
• as it is, originality and contribution aren’t very convincing

methodology:

• no clear diagram showing how all parts (case, model, sim, optimization) link to objectives, so hard to see the logic flow
• two case types chosen well but no reason why those exactly, could be bias in selection.
• model part is detailed but they don’t show any validation, just say “good agreement”, no data or error stats.
• zone temps (14 -18 C) seem random, no field test or user data to support.
• missing simulation assumptions like infiltration, occupancy, internal loads, etc
• model boundary details spread all over, not clear enough to reproduce.
• optimization only looks at 2 things (energy + comfort), which oversimplifies the performance picture
• no info on runtime or computing demand, which matters for practical design.

results

• tons of data and graphs but not much analysis, just describing numbers. doesn’t really connect back to research goals.
• mixes raw results and conclusions, hard to tell what’s insight vs what’s just output.
• figures clear but no stats like deviation or variance, so can’t judge stability
• some nice tests like second floor addition, but no link to real-world buildability or cost.
• didn’t clearly show how results relate to objectives in 1.4, kinda scattered.
• no comparison between housing types, mostly talks about one model, so not sure how general it is.

discussion:

• repeats results a lot instead of analyzing them, feels like a summary.
• no argument connecting results with hypothesis or explaining limits.
• says “thermal onion” but doesn’t quantify or model it properly
• mentions older theories but doesn’t say how this is different or better
• claims to expand theory but doesn’t explain what’s actually new
• some vague phrases like “shows good potential”, not enough numbers or depth.
• no link to real design or policy use, so feels abstract

conclusion:

• restates the results nicely but doesn’t really interpret them or show new insights.
• doesn’t go back to check if all 3 objectives were achieved.
• no clear design guidelines or policy takeaways even though they mention practical

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to the comments made by the reviewer by making changes to the initial version of this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed answers.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The new version of the paper is a big step up from the earlier one. The authors have clearly worked through all the main points that came up in both rounds of review. The topic is very important—looking at how to make housing more energy-efficient in high-altitude, cold areas is super relevant. This version of the paper shows much better methods, clearer theory, and some real-world ideas that make it more useful. I think it should be accepted, maybe just with a bit of language polish if needed. Overall, it's a solid and well-put-together addition to this research area.