Retrofit Analysis of a Historical Building in an Architectural Constrained Area: A Case Study in Rome, Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is a paper about retrofiting historical buildings.

Overall the paper is well written and does hold some value since historical buildings are often seem as hard to treat. 

The authors have done a good job making the case for this work and explaining the overall methodology and results of their study. However, there are a few points that need further attention. 

It is not clear why this specific tool is used and not for example EnergyPlus and most importantly the limitations of the RETScreen tool are not discussed at all. The calibration of the model is welcome but no details are given on how was the calibration performed which is more important than the +/- 2-3% accuracy. Overall, a well thought section on the limitations of the work would add great value to the paper as well as the future work intended (are the results informing policy? how can this be adopted across this stock?). Also, retrofiting, especially internally can cause unintended consequences during summertime or in future years. Perhaps the authors could use a future climate scenario weather file and test their suggested solutions to make the work more relevant in the context of changing climate.

A few suggested improvements regarding the graphs and tables: 

Figure 1 is not really adding anything to the study

Figure 3 needs a lot clearer otherwise it should be omitted

Figures 4 & 5 do hold some of the results but can also be hiding many of the inabilities of the model

Table 1 is very hard to read, try switching rows to columns to allow for more space and clarity of presentation.

Last but not least, the language needs improving on certain paragraphs, please proof-read your work.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study presented in the manuscript discusses an important subject that merits research and discussion. The study's design and methodology  are, overall, sound. That being said, there are areas where the manuscript should be improved, in some quite substantially.

The first area for improvement is the literature review. Certain items were mentioned very briefly (especially those discussed in lines 111-118). Every literature item should be mentioned individually and critically enaged with, e.g., the major contributions of each study should be listed and set within the framework of the research presented in the manuscript. There is also insufficient dedicated literature on architectural conservation and the specificity of heritage building refurbishment.

It is difficult to glean what is the study's specific takeaway and value to the state of the art - this should be explicitly stated and backed with references. 

The second area for improvement is reporting on the building used as the case under study. More information on the specific conservation regulations and guidelines applicable to it should be listed, e.g., whether the authors chose not to apply thermal insulation to the facade merely because it is considered good practice or because some specific regulations explicitly banned this. Either way, a reference is needed here, such as the form of statutory conservation the building is under. In addition, the title and/or abstract should mention the type of building and its age, as different classes of heritage sites merit vastly different approaches. It should also be mentioned why this specific building was selected for research. Is it representative of some larger group of buildings and thus makes the research widely applicable, or is it unique in some profound way? Please provide a justification for this.

The third area is the paper's structure and editing side. Section 2.3. has all of its subsections numbered 2.3.1., while the subsection entitled "Sun protection film" has unjustified text. I suggest subdividing the introduction into smaller sections so it is not one long block of text. The overall flow of argumentation could use improvement and an increase in clarity.

The conclusions should be revised to include possible directions of future research and highlight the overall significance of the study. Please remove superfluous information from this section - the age of the building was already listed earlier and repeating it is redundant.

The manuscript is understandable overall, but the quality of its English needs to be improved as there are numerous grammatical, stylistic and word choice errors throughout the text. The manuscript needs to be proofread by a native speaker, preferably with expertise in academic writing.

While the manuscript has its issues, the research presented in it is valuable and I recommend that it be published after the comments above have been sufficiently addressed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf