Sustainable Urban Regeneration with Wind and Thermal Environment Optimization: Design Roadshow of a Historic Town in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments to the Authors

This is an interesting paper that investigates the link between sustainable development and the urban renewal in a specific historic district of Huili, China. The study uses a hybrid research method (archival research coupled with a field method) to identify the district’s current issues and develop specific transformation strategies. The reviewed literature is authoritative and representative of the field of study, and the study findings are presented and commented upon in appropriate manner. The “Conclusions” follow from the work reported and the limitations of the research are put forward.

However, the paper has, in my opinion, some drawbacks that need to be overcome to improve the quality and relevance of the research:

1-The “Abstract” needs to be more informative. Although the research gap is stated in the “Introduction”, it also needs to be stated in the “Abstract”;

2 -The structure of the research needs to be stated in the “Introduction” section. A short paragraph could be added at the end of the subsection 1.2 (see 4);

3- Although the reference works are authoritative and representative of the field of study, research dealing with experiences in countries of other regions of the world needs to be expanded. Out of the thirty two reference works, fifteen are focused on China. This aspect needs to be articulated with the argument presented in 5);

4-Although The description of the methodology is presented in a detailed manner, I would advise the authors to better articulate Sections 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Materials and Method) and better elaborate on Section 2.  Subsection 1-3 “Research focus” should be switched to Section 2. The research questions need to clearly stated and connected with different steps of the research design to answer to those research questions.

5- In my opinion, a “Discussion” section is missing in the text. The main findings of the study need to be put in perspective, highlighting the commonalities and differences with previous works in the field (both national and international research). I would also advise the authors to elaborate here on how the objectives set for the study have been achieved. Again Section 4 “Discussion: Built Environment Evaluation” should be switched to Section 3 “Results”. The authors could include the “Discussion” part of the text in the “Conclusion” section, which would then be renamed “Conclusion and Discussion”.

 

 

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

An interesting article. However, some details need to be provided to improve the quality of research.

Recommendations are listed below:

Which are the parameters included into analysis (section 2.2)? Please provide some data about indoor and outdoor temperature and wind speed and standards of green or healthy buildings. Also, some information about software used for simulations need to be included to understand better the obtained results.

Can you provide more information’s about renovation strategy (section 2.4)?  What do you mean by ,,nesting of boxes of different scale,,? Are the proposed solutions compatible with ancient buildings? Have been analysed the heritage and socio-economic impact?

What kind of materials was proposed for interventions? Are sustainable materials with low environmental impact or conventional one?

Please label figure 4 with a and b and the meaning of each of them. Also, please specify the meaning of 1, 2,3 and 4 from fig.4 and 1 to 7 from fig 6. Is in the fig. 4 presented the ,,ancient city of Huili”? Can you mark the area where the interventions are proposed?

In fig. 5 it is not clear whether the buildings from ancient city streets were demolished and rebuilt, or how the square/boulevard was enlarged. The proposed interventions and their economic and social impact should be specified clearly.

What kind of green plants species (lines 388-391 - Section 3.3) were proposed to improve the city micro-climate environment? Can you offer more details?

Please insert the Green Building Evaluation Standard GB/T50378-2019 in the reference list.

In line 453 please insert the meaning of PMV. Is it Predicted Mean Vote? The standard on which it was determined the value of PMV must pe included in the reference list.

Please be careful, some words are not spelled correctly. For instance ,,environ-mental” must be replaced by ,,environmental” (line114), “ac-tual” must be replaced by “actual” (line 151), “im-prove” must be replaced by “improve” (line390), “in-creased” by “increased” (line 437).

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

The draft article no. coatings-3328829 contains significant scientific content and offers great potential for advancing knowledge and fostering interest in disseminating experimental findings within the academic community. This is achieved through the lens of urban sensitivity and structural appropriateness in constructions of vernacular tradition, alongside their implications for cultural heritage, considering the geographical location of the Silk Road and its alignment with contemporary architectural projection.

The experimental development is appropriate and original, perfectly integrated with the intended objectives and methodology, as well as the development and analysis of results and their presentation.

Similarly, I believe that the conclusions and bibliographic material are well-developed and thoroughly substantiated.

I would only suggest a potential improvement in the conclusions section, which, while precise and genuinely "conclusive," may come across as somewhat repetitive. I kindly request that this section be refined and made more concise, avoiding reiterations where possible.

Yours sincerely,

Author Response

Please check the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the answers and for the additions made.