Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper examines the application of applied and integrated PV technology on 10 emblematic landmark buildings to highlight their architectural aesthetic according to 7 boolean performance parameters: PV system as arch. and environ. value PV contributing in defining the fifth facade PV emphasizing the geometry of the arch. building PV contributing to specific geometry of architectural building PV as architect. accent Total integration of PV into the building envelope PV as peculiar element The paper is interesting and I have enjoyed reading it. However I have this works really seems to be an informational or educational work more than a research work. Research work means that knowledge has been generated. Obviously a review can generate knowledge through the comparison of information from different sources and different elements, when this comparison is complete, presents a clear methodology, more or less complex, and provides conclusions that constitutes the main generated knowledge. In this paper that explanation is applied, but in a very simple way. That is, I consider that some knowledge has been generated, but without enough deep and weight. I would like seen this paper published, but in my opinion a great improvement is needed before, based in the following main points (and after such improvement a new review would be necessary, always in my opinion): - The abstract says that the research methodology has been defined. I consider that it is not correctly defined, and therefore a clear and concise methodology must be included - There is not a technical analysis, which is clearly needed, including a comparison on the 10 selected buildings of, for instance: the latitude and the influence of such parameter in the results for the concrete building (for instance comparing the results of the buildings accordingly to their respective emplacement, but also considering that all of them are located in the same latitude), the number of sun irradiation hours per year, the incidence angle on the PV panels and the possibility of orientation, and, especially, an economic and environmental impact analysis of the PV facilities in the buildings, or at least an estimation. This last point is clearly needed because it is possible that using PV is not environmentally friendly when the installation is very difficult, or the performances is very low, etc. PV panels are not environmentally friendly by themselves, they are when properly applied. - Also a comparison is needed of the selected buildings with a typical residential building, the most common in big and medium cities

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

We wish to thank the Reviewers for the useful comments, which have contributed to significantly improve the overall quality of this revised version of the manuscript.

We have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the Reviewers and all the necessary and requested changes have been made in this revised version of the manuscript.

The most relevant changes in this revised version of the manuscript are listed below:

• The type of article has been changed into Review article, to better reflect the presented work and following the comments of the reviewers.
• The title and the abstract have been revised to reflect better the contents of presented work.
• Section “1. Introduction” has been heavily revised by framing scientifically the topic of the manuscript and the main aspects to be considered. Many new relevant scientific references have been added and thoroughly discussed.
• Section “ Methodology and sampling process” has been significantly revised. An extended part on the assessment of PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality through the LESO-QSV method developed by the EPFL-LESO laboratory has been added. New figures have been also added to better examine the location of the case studies (Figure 1) and explain the LESO-QSV method (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4), following comments by the reviewers
• Section “ Presentation of the sample” has been improved by providing information in location and solar radiation data for the examined cases (Table 1) and new technical data and description of aesthetic aspects (Table 2).
• Section “ Results and discussions” has been revised and a new part related to the discussion of PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality has been added. In that regard, the analysis and the comparison of the different cases has now been addressed (Table 4 and Table 5).
• The list of references has been widely extended by providing scientific works to support the description, the methodology, the analysis, and the discussion of the review article.

In the following pages, complete answers to each specific comment of all the Reviewers have been provided.

 

Answers to Reviewer #1’s comments

Reviewer #1: The paper examines the application of applied and integrated PV technology on 10 emblematic landmark buildings to highlight their architectural aesthetic according to 7 boolean performance parameters: PV system as arch. and environ. value PV contributing in defining the fifth facade PV emphasizing the geometry of the arch. building PV contributing to specific geometry of architectural building PV as architect. accent Total integration of PV into the building envelope PV as peculiar element The paper is interesting and I have enjoyed reading it. However I have this works really seems to be an informational or educational work more than a research work. Research work means that knowledge has been generated. Obviously a review can generate knowledge through the comparison of information from different sources and different elements, when this comparison is complete, presents a clear methodology, more or less complex, and provides conclusions that constitutes the main generated knowledge. In this paper that explanation is applied, but in a very simple way. That is, I consider that some knowledge has been generated, but without enough deep and weight.

Thanks to the Reviewer#1 for this comment. The type of the article has been changed into Review paper and we have improved the scientific quality and readiness of the manuscript by providing:

• A more dedicated and specific text in the introduction with an extensive literature review;
• An assessment of the PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality through the LESO-QSV method developed by the EPFL-LESO laboratory. This assessment allowed us to address a comparison between the case studies (Table 4 and Table 5) and a specific discussion has been added in the sub-section PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality within the section of “ Results and discussions”.
• New figures with data to better examine the location (Figure 1) of the case studies and explain the LESO-QSV method (Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4).
• New table with informative and analytical data related to the analyzed case studies (Table 1 and Table 2) and the comparison between them.

I would like seen this paper published, but in my opinion a great improvement is needed before, based in the following main points (and after such improvement a new review would be necessary, always in my opinion): -     

1. The abstract says that the research methodology has been defined. I consider that it is not correctly defined, and therefore a clear and concise methodology must be included

Following the comments of the Reviewer#1 we thoroughly revised the research methodology. In that regard, we believe that the new part related to the assessment of the PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality allowed increasing the scientific value of the methodology part.

2. There is not a technical analysis, which is clearly needed, including a comparison on the 10 selected buildings of, for instance: the latitude and the influence of such parameter in the results for the concrete building (for instance comparing the results of the buildings accordingly to their respective emplacement, but also considering that all of them are located in the same latitude), the number of sun irradiation hours per year, the incidence angle on the PV panels and the possibility of orientation, and, especially, an economic and environmental impact analysis of the PV facilities in the buildings, or at least an estimation. This last point is clearly needed because it is possible that using PV is not environmentally friendly when the installation is very difficult, or the performances is very low, etc. PV panels are not environmentally friendly by themselves, they are when properly applied.

In this revised version the new Table 1 allowed to address a comparison on the 10 selected buildings by providing information about the aspects suggested by the Review#1.

Furthermore, a comparison between the case studies (Table 4 and Table 5) and a specific discussion has been added in the sub-section PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality within the section of “4. Results and discussions”.

Regarding the economic and environmental impact analysis, even if this is not the focus of this manuscript, which is more the evaluation of the architectural integration, and aesthetic of PV systems, a new paragraph with relevant scientific references in the sub-section PV system as architectural and environmental value has been added. Namely “. It has to be noted, that although photovoltaic systems can currently be considered as “clean” and have a relative low environmental impact, depending on their installation location and local electricity mix this might not always be the case as many researchers have pointed out [14] [56] [2] and the same applies for their economic viability.” It has to be noted that as the time frame of the case studies and locations are very different, a comparison of the economic analysis would not be possible on an even footing. Furthermore, for an environmental impact analysis much more data than are currently available would be needed, and in any case, it is out of the scope of this paper. However, we will consider to develop this part of the study in our working group and to present the results in a further more dedicated manuscript.

3. Also a comparison is needed of the selected buildings with a typical residential building, the most common in big and medium cities.

We agree with the Reviewer#1 that this comparison would be very interesting to do, but this is out of the actual scope of this manuscript. We will consider addressing this comparison in a further work.

Answers to Reviewer #2’s comments

Reviewer #2: This article is more of a report than a paper.

There is only a description of the building's shape and installed PV system, and no scientific or analytical results can be found.

This paper is difficult to publish unless scientific or analytical results are added.

Thanks to the Reviewer#3 for these comments. The revised version of the paper has been reorganized in order to have a more robust and logical structure as review paper.

The part related to the assessment of PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality allows a more scientifically analysis of the case studies. Analytical data of the analyzed case studies has also been provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

Answers to Reviewer #3’s comments

Reviewer #3: The work has the structure of a review paper.

Thanks to the Reviewer#3 for this comment. We agree with that and we have changed the type of the article accordingly.

The paper but must have a larger number of references.

In this revised version, we have extended the number of references and have provided a thorough discussion of the relevant literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This article is more of a report than a paper.
There is only a description of the building's shape and installed PV system, and no scientific or analytical results can be found.
This paper is difficult to publish unless scientific or analytical results are added.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

We wish to thank the Reviewers for the useful comments, which have contributed to significantly improve the overall quality of this revised version of the manuscript.

We have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the Reviewers and all the necessary and requested changes have been made in this revised version of the manuscript.

The most relevant changes in this revised version of the manuscript are listed below:

• The type of article has been changed into Review article, to better reflect the presented work and following the comments of the reviewers.
• The title and the abstract have been revised to reflect better the contents of presented work.
• Section “1. Introduction” has been heavily revised by framing scientifically the topic of the manuscript and the main aspects to be considered. Many new relevant scientific references have been added and thoroughly discussed.
• Section “ Methodology and sampling process” has been significantly revised. An extended part on the assessment of PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality through the LESO-QSV method developed by the EPFL-LESO laboratory has been added. New figures have been also added to better examine the location of the case studies (Figure 1) and explain the LESO-QSV method (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4), following comments by the reviewers
• Section “ Presentation of the sample” has been improved by providing information in location and solar radiation data for the examined cases (Table 1) and new technical data and description of aesthetic aspects (Table 2).
• Section “ Results and discussions” has been revised and a new part related to the discussion of PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality has been added. In that regard, the analysis and the comparison of the different cases has now been addressed (Table 4 and Table 5).
• The list of references has been widely extended by providing scientific works to support the description, the methodology, the analysis, and the discussion of the review article.

In the following pages, complete answers to each specific comment of all the Reviewers have been provided.

 

Answers to Reviewer #1’s comments

Reviewer #1: The paper examines the application of applied and integrated PV technology on 10 emblematic landmark buildings to highlight their architectural aesthetic according to 7 boolean performance parameters: PV system as arch. and environ. value PV contributing in defining the fifth facade PV emphasizing the geometry of the arch. building PV contributing to specific geometry of architectural building PV as architect. accent Total integration of PV into the building envelope PV as peculiar element The paper is interesting and I have enjoyed reading it. However I have this works really seems to be an informational or educational work more than a research work. Research work means that knowledge has been generated. Obviously a review can generate knowledge through the comparison of information from different sources and different elements, when this comparison is complete, presents a clear methodology, more or less complex, and provides conclusions that constitutes the main generated knowledge. In this paper that explanation is applied, but in a very simple way. That is, I consider that some knowledge has been generated, but without enough deep and weight.

Thanks to the Reviewer#1 for this comment. The type of the article has been changed into Review paper and we have improved the scientific quality and readiness of the manuscript by providing:

• A more dedicated and specific text in the introduction with an extensive literature review;
• An assessment of the PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality through the LESO-QSV method developed by the EPFL-LESO laboratory. This assessment allowed us to address a comparison between the case studies (Table 4 and Table 5) and a specific discussion has been added in the sub-section PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality within the section of “ Results and discussions”.
• New figures with data to better examine the location (Figure 1) of the case studies and explain the LESO-QSV method (Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4).
• New table with informative and analytical data related to the analyzed case studies (Table 1 and Table 2) and the comparison between them.

I would like seen this paper published, but in my opinion a great improvement is needed before, based in the following main points (and after such improvement a new review would be necessary, always in my opinion): -     

1. The abstract says that the research methodology has been defined. I consider that it is not correctly defined, and therefore a clear and concise methodology must be included

Following the comments of the Reviewer#1 we thoroughly revised the research methodology. In that regard, we believe that the new part related to the assessment of the PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality allowed increasing the scientific value of the methodology part.

2. There is not a technical analysis, which is clearly needed, including a comparison on the 10 selected buildings of, for instance: the latitude and the influence of such parameter in the results for the concrete building (for instance comparing the results of the buildings accordingly to their respective emplacement, but also considering that all of them are located in the same latitude), the number of sun irradiation hours per year, the incidence angle on the PV panels and the possibility of orientation, and, especially, an economic and environmental impact analysis of the PV facilities in the buildings, or at least an estimation. This last point is clearly needed because it is possible that using PV is not environmentally friendly when the installation is very difficult, or the performances is very low, etc. PV panels are not environmentally friendly by themselves, they are when properly applied.

In this revised version the new Table 1 allowed to address a comparison on the 10 selected buildings by providing information about the aspects suggested by the Review#1.

Furthermore, a comparison between the case studies (Table 4 and Table 5) and a specific discussion has been added in the sub-section PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality within the section of “4. Results and discussions”.

Regarding the economic and environmental impact analysis, even if this is not the focus of this manuscript, which is more the evaluation of the architectural integration, and aesthetic of PV systems, a new paragraph with relevant scientific references in the sub-section PV system as architectural and environmental value has been added. Namely “. It has to be noted, that although photovoltaic systems can currently be considered as “clean” and have a relative low environmental impact, depending on their installation location and local electricity mix this might not always be the case as many researchers have pointed out [14] [56] [2] and the same applies for their economic viability.” It has to be noted that as the time frame of the case studies and locations are very different, a comparison of the economic analysis would not be possible on an even footing. Furthermore, for an environmental impact analysis much more data than are currently available would be needed, and in any case, it is out of the scope of this paper. However, we will consider to develop this part of the study in our working group and to present the results in a further more dedicated manuscript.

3. Also a comparison is needed of the selected buildings with a typical residential building, the most common in big and medium cities.

We agree with the Reviewer#1 that this comparison would be very interesting to do, but this is out of the actual scope of this manuscript. We will consider addressing this comparison in a further work.

Answers to Reviewer #2’s comments

Reviewer #2: This article is more of a report than a paper.

There is only a description of the building's shape and installed PV system, and no scientific or analytical results can be found.

This paper is difficult to publish unless scientific or analytical results are added.

Thanks to the Reviewer#3 for these comments. The revised version of the paper has been reorganized in order to have a more robust and logical structure as review paper.

The part related to the assessment of PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality allows a more scientifically analysis of the case studies. Analytical data of the analyzed case studies has also been provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

Answers to Reviewer #3’s comments

Reviewer #3: The work has the structure of a review paper.

Thanks to the Reviewer#3 for this comment. We agree with that and we have changed the type of the article accordingly.

The paper but must have a larger number of references.

In this revised version, we have extended the number of references and have provided a thorough discussion of the relevant literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The work has the structure of a review paper.

The paper but must have a larger number of references.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

We wish to thank the Reviewers for the useful comments, which have contributed to significantly improve the overall quality of this revised version of the manuscript.

We have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the Reviewers and all the necessary and requested changes have been made in this revised version of the manuscript.

The most relevant changes in this revised version of the manuscript are listed below:

• The type of article has been changed into Review article, to better reflect the presented work and following the comments of the reviewers.
• The title and the abstract have been revised to reflect better the contents of presented work.
• Section “1. Introduction” has been heavily revised by framing scientifically the topic of the manuscript and the main aspects to be considered. Many new relevant scientific references have been added and thoroughly discussed.
• Section “ Methodology and sampling process” has been significantly revised. An extended part on the assessment of PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality through the LESO-QSV method developed by the EPFL-LESO laboratory has been added. New figures have been also added to better examine the location of the case studies (Figure 1) and explain the LESO-QSV method (Figure 2, Figure 3 and Figure 4), following comments by the reviewers
• Section “ Presentation of the sample” has been improved by providing information in location and solar radiation data for the examined cases (Table 1) and new technical data and description of aesthetic aspects (Table 2).
• Section “ Results and discussions” has been revised and a new part related to the discussion of PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality has been added. In that regard, the analysis and the comparison of the different cases has now been addressed (Table 4 and Table 5).
• The list of references has been widely extended by providing scientific works to support the description, the methodology, the analysis, and the discussion of the review article.

In the following pages, complete answers to each specific comment of all the Reviewers have been provided.

 

Answers to Reviewer #1’s comments

Reviewer #1: The paper examines the application of applied and integrated PV technology on 10 emblematic landmark buildings to highlight their architectural aesthetic according to 7 boolean performance parameters: PV system as arch. and environ. value PV contributing in defining the fifth facade PV emphasizing the geometry of the arch. building PV contributing to specific geometry of architectural building PV as architect. accent Total integration of PV into the building envelope PV as peculiar element The paper is interesting and I have enjoyed reading it. However I have this works really seems to be an informational or educational work more than a research work. Research work means that knowledge has been generated. Obviously a review can generate knowledge through the comparison of information from different sources and different elements, when this comparison is complete, presents a clear methodology, more or less complex, and provides conclusions that constitutes the main generated knowledge. In this paper that explanation is applied, but in a very simple way. That is, I consider that some knowledge has been generated, but without enough deep and weight.

Thanks to the Reviewer#1 for this comment. The type of the article has been changed into Review paper and we have improved the scientific quality and readiness of the manuscript by providing:

• A more dedicated and specific text in the introduction with an extensive literature review;
• An assessment of the PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality through the LESO-QSV method developed by the EPFL-LESO laboratory. This assessment allowed us to address a comparison between the case studies (Table 4 and Table 5) and a specific discussion has been added in the sub-section PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality within the section of “ Results and discussions”.
• New figures with data to better examine the location (Figure 1) of the case studies and explain the LESO-QSV method (Figure 2, Figure 3, and Figure 4).
• New table with informative and analytical data related to the analyzed case studies (Table 1 and Table 2) and the comparison between them.

I would like seen this paper published, but in my opinion a great improvement is needed before, based in the following main points (and after such improvement a new review would be necessary, always in my opinion): -     

1. The abstract says that the research methodology has been defined. I consider that it is not correctly defined, and therefore a clear and concise methodology must be included

Following the comments of the Reviewer#1 we thoroughly revised the research methodology. In that regard, we believe that the new part related to the assessment of the PV integration architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality allowed increasing the scientific value of the methodology part.

2. There is not a technical analysis, which is clearly needed, including a comparison on the 10 selected buildings of, for instance: the latitude and the influence of such parameter in the results for the concrete building (for instance comparing the results of the buildings accordingly to their respective emplacement, but also considering that all of them are located in the same latitude), the number of sun irradiation hours per year, the incidence angle on the PV panels and the possibility of orientation, and, especially, an economic and environmental impact analysis of the PV facilities in the buildings, or at least an estimation. This last point is clearly needed because it is possible that using PV is not environmentally friendly when the installation is very difficult, or the performances is very low, etc. PV panels are not environmentally friendly by themselves, they are when properly applied.

In this revised version the new Table 1 allowed to address a comparison on the 10 selected buildings by providing information about the aspects suggested by the Review#1.

Furthermore, a comparison between the case studies (Table 4 and Table 5) and a specific discussion has been added in the sub-section PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality within the section of “4. Results and discussions”.

Regarding the economic and environmental impact analysis, even if this is not the focus of this manuscript, which is more the evaluation of the architectural integration, and aesthetic of PV systems, a new paragraph with relevant scientific references in the sub-section PV system as architectural and environmental value has been added. Namely “. It has to be noted, that although photovoltaic systems can currently be considered as “clean” and have a relative low environmental impact, depending on their installation location and local electricity mix this might not always be the case as many researchers have pointed out [14] [56] [2] and the same applies for their economic viability.” It has to be noted that as the time frame of the case studies and locations are very different, a comparison of the economic analysis would not be possible on an even footing. Furthermore, for an environmental impact analysis much more data than are currently available would be needed, and in any case, it is out of the scope of this paper. However, we will consider to develop this part of the study in our working group and to present the results in a further more dedicated manuscript.

3. Also a comparison is needed of the selected buildings with a typical residential building, the most common in big and medium cities.

We agree with the Reviewer#1 that this comparison would be very interesting to do, but this is out of the actual scope of this manuscript. We will consider addressing this comparison in a further work.

Answers to Reviewer #2’s comments

Reviewer #2: This article is more of a report than a paper.

There is only a description of the building's shape and installed PV system, and no scientific or analytical results can be found.

This paper is difficult to publish unless scientific or analytical results are added.

Thanks to the Reviewer#3 for these comments. The revised version of the paper has been reorganized in order to have a more robust and logical structure as review paper.

The part related to the assessment of PV integration in architectural visibility, sensitivity and quality allows a more scientifically analysis of the case studies. Analytical data of the analyzed case studies has also been provided in Table 1 and Table 2.

Answers to Reviewer #3’s comments

Reviewer #3: The work has the structure of a review paper.

Thanks to the Reviewer#3 for this comment. We agree with that and we have changed the type of the article accordingly.

The paper but must have a larger number of references.

In this revised version, we have extended the number of references and have provided a thorough discussion of the relevant literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am glad to verify that the authors have carried out a very serious work of restructuring the paper, which they have converted into an interesting review article, following the comments of the 3 reviewers, who in this case have agreed considerably on their points in the first review. In any case I consider that all the requirements I exposed have been safisfied. In addition to making the modifications that have been requested, the authors have responded to these indications from the reviewers, explaining in detail what the changes have consisted of.
With all this, in my opinion, the article is now worthy of publication.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

We wish to thank the Reviewers for the useful comments, which have contributed to significantly improve the overall quality of this revised version of the manuscript.

We have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the Reviewers and all the necessary and requested changes have been made in this revised version of the manuscript.

The most relevant changes in this revised version of the manuscript are listed below:

• The requested information related to color and shape of PV, and their integration on the buildings’ roof or facades of the ten analyzed landmark buildings have been added in the graphical presentation (i.e. from Figure 5 to Figure 14) of the ten landmark buildings in the section Presentation of the samples.

In the following pages, complete answers to each specific comment of all the Reviewers have been provided.

Answers to Reviewer #1’s comments

Reviewer #1: I am glad to verify that the authors have carried out a very serious work of restructuring the paper, which they have converted into an interesting review article, following the comments of the 3 reviewers, who in this case have agreed considerably on their points in the first review. In any case I consider that all the requirements I exposed have been satisfied. In addition to making the modifications that have been requested, the authors have responded to these indications from the reviewers, explaining in detail what the changes have consisted of.

With all this, in my opinion, the article is now worthy of publication.

Thanks to the Reviewer#1 for the overall appreciation of the revised version of the manuscript

Answers to Reviewer #2’s comments

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the many updates.

 

I have one more suggestion.

 

I think that not only the case analysis of BIPV applied to 10 landmarks, but also the integration methods of BIPV that can be aesthetically applied to landmark buildings should be presented in the paper. For example, the color or shape of PV that can be applied (or that is applied) to the roof or exterior wall of a landmark building.

Thanks to the Reviewer#2 for these comments. The information suggested from the reviewer#2 related to color and shape of PV, and type of integration on the buildings’ roof or facades for all the ten analyzed landmark buildings have been added.

In particular, a new graphical part has been added in the figures (from Figure 5 to Figure 14) which present the landmark buildings in the section 3. Presentation of the samples. For each building the following information have been addressed:

• A graphical visualization of the PV integration system through icons indicating the following type of integration:
  • BIPV roof
  • BAPV roof
  • BAPV façade
  • BIPV façade
  • Glass-Glass PV roof
  • PV shading devices
• A visual representation of the PV installation have been done by highlighting the architectural and technological pattern of PV installation.
• Information and data related to the PV system installed:
  • PV System:
  • Shape
  • Color:
  • panels
  • Installed Capacity
  • Production
  • CO2 saving approx.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the many updates.

I have one more suggestion.

I think that not only the case analysis of BIPV applied to 10 landmarks, but also the integration methods of BIPV that can be aesthetically applied to landmark buildings should be presented in the paper. For example, the color or shape of PV that can be applied (or that is applied) to the roof or exterior wall of a landmark building.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewers

We wish to thank the Reviewers for the useful comments, which have contributed to significantly improve the overall quality of this revised version of the manuscript.

We have checked all the general and specific comments provided by the Reviewers and all the necessary and requested changes have been made in this revised version of the manuscript.

The most relevant changes in this revised version of the manuscript are listed below:

• The requested information related to color and shape of PV, and their integration on the buildings’ roof or facades of the ten analyzed landmark buildings have been added in the graphical presentation (i.e. from Figure 5 to Figure 14) of the ten landmark buildings in the section Presentation of the samples.

In the following pages, complete answers to each specific comment of all the Reviewers have been provided.

Answers to Reviewer #1’s comments

Reviewer #1: I am glad to verify that the authors have carried out a very serious work of restructuring the paper, which they have converted into an interesting review article, following the comments of the 3 reviewers, who in this case have agreed considerably on their points in the first review. In any case I consider that all the requirements I exposed have been satisfied. In addition to making the modifications that have been requested, the authors have responded to these indications from the reviewers, explaining in detail what the changes have consisted of.

With all this, in my opinion, the article is now worthy of publication.

Thanks to the Reviewer#1 for the overall appreciation of the revised version of the manuscript

Answers to Reviewer #2’s comments

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the many updates.

 

I have one more suggestion.

 

I think that not only the case analysis of BIPV applied to 10 landmarks, but also the integration methods of BIPV that can be aesthetically applied to landmark buildings should be presented in the paper. For example, the color or shape of PV that can be applied (or that is applied) to the roof or exterior wall of a landmark building.

Thanks to the Reviewer#2 for these comments. The information suggested from the reviewer#2 related to color and shape of PV, and type of integration on the buildings’ roof or facades for all the ten analyzed landmark buildings have been added.

In particular, a new graphical part has been added in the figures (from Figure 5 to Figure 14) which present the landmark buildings in the section 3. Presentation of the samples. For each building the following information have been addressed:

• A graphical visualization of the PV integration system through icons indicating the following type of integration:
  • BIPV roof
  • BAPV roof
  • BAPV façade
  • BIPV façade
  • Glass-Glass PV roof
  • PV shading devices
• A visual representation of the PV installation have been done by highlighting the architectural and technological pattern of PV installation.
• Information and data related to the PV system installed:
  • PV System:
  • Shape
  • Color:
  • panels
  • Installed Capacity
  • Production
  • CO2 saving approx

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf