Identifying Energy-Use Behavior and Energy-Use Profiles of Hotel Guests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with a study on the energy-use behavior of hotel guests.
The introduction is clear and supported by a wide references collection but the structure of the manuscript,
the description of the methods is rather confusing and do not allow a complete comprehension of the proposed methodology.
Such methodology should be presented more clearly and in a more orderly manner. Moreover the results should be deeper discussed.
Some of the conclusions seem to be trivial
some specific issues
row 54-57 the sentence seems rather confusing and should be rephrased.
Figure 1 Please increase the font size to improve readability
row 155 and several others in the following: Word misses the reference "Error! Reference source not found.)". Please fix
row 178 typo error "This In this section," Please fix them
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The works deals with the identification of typical energy-use profiles of hotel guest through the data retrieved by a survey. I think that the topic is quite relevant and deserves investigation. Nevertheless, the paper needs major improvements to enhance the clarity of the methodology, enabling its replicability and to increase the relevance of the results.
In particular:
Check the references to the Sections (several errors in the identification of the source, in some parts the text is rather difficult to be understood)
Methodology: please, introduce more clearly which are hypotheses 1-11 the first time they are mentioned in the text. To me it would be clearer for the reader rather than in Table 1
Figure 1: which is the starting point of the logical path? It is not clear how to read the chart in relation to the hypotheses. I suggest to better explain it in the text or (preferably), to edit the figure according to the logical path that the reader should follow (check the arrows direction)
Line 306: “To achieve this goal, a software should be used to perform 306 the energy behavior reliability analysis”: which software? Is the use part of the methodology? I suggest to be more precise.
As a general comment: I suggest to avoid “should”/”Would” and to refer to what is needed, what you have done in your work or planned to do in the future.
I think that the path from the survey to the identification of the energy use profiles is not well explained in the paper. Which are the questions/answers that enables the categorization according to motivation/opportunity/Ability? I think that this is a key step in the work and should be described more in detail. Moreover, I suggest reporting the survey’s questions in annex/additional materials.
I suggest to improve the structure of the paper by including a discussion section and to better underline the relevance of the results.
The authors stated that the main scope of the work to identify “energy-use profiles” of hotel guests. Nevertheless, in my opinion the results need more detail to be relevant and provide clear inputs for implementing energy-saving strategies. Currently, the division in 4 groups (low, low-medium, medium-hig, high) and 3 categories (prone, indifferent, resistant) is, in my view, too qualitative. I suggest to link the answers from the survey and the energy behaviours to each category/group, and to better discuss the results. Is there any connection between the answers to the survey and the related energy use profile with the socio-demographic data? This would be a significant indication, also for developing targeted energy conservation measures.
I suggest to report more information about the energy behaviours of the respondents, so it would be easier to identify appropriate measures towards energy saving.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is the review of the manuscript entitled “ Identifying Energy-Use Behavior and Energy-Use profiles of Hotel Guests”. The authors present an interesting topic, being in line with the mission of the Applied Sciences Journal.
A good article overall. Some improvement can be made in this article:
1) The abstract section is missing some quantitative main research findings.
2) Authors are asked to validate their research findings.
3) Pay attention to the automatically generated links "Error! Reference source not found" appears in several lines of the manuscript.
4) Conclusion section is missing some perspective related to the future research work, quantify main research findings.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been significantly improved following the suggestions of the reviewers and it is now suitable for publication on Applied Science
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors deeply work on the publication and clarified the methodology as well as increase the valorization of the results. I think that, after this loop, the paper is ready for being published.
