Simulation Tools for the Architectural Design of Middle-Density Housing Estates

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript concerns the comparison of the local climatic conditions modeling. Although the topic is vital, the paper needs some improvements to meet the scientific article standards. Please find below my suggestion on how to improve the manuscript.

1)      The title is confusing and does not reflect the actual content.

2)      It is unclear what the research's aim is – the objective in the abstract (line 17) and the introduction (lines 85-86) vary essentially. It seems that the title and abstract are from another manuscript. The aim indicated in the introduction (lines 85-86) seems more relevant to the paper content. However, something is missing in the statement influence of (two simulation methods) on what?

3)      Materials and methods are clearly explained. There is no need to repeat information in the results section.

4)      Please remove the repetitions from the results section concerning the method. Lines 257-265 are more appropriate for the discussion section.

5)      Discussion is not a discussion formally. The obtained results should be discussed in the discussion section with the literature provided in the introduction. So the introduction section does not provide the background for discussion.

 

6)      The conclusions do not result from the conducted analysis.

Author Response

Mathieu PARIS                                                                                                      
Corresponding Author
LIFAM
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Montpellier
179 Rue de l’Esperou
34090 Montpellier
France

Tél. : +33 06 51 65 40 58
E-mail : mathieu.paris@montpellier.archi.fr
Manuscript ID : sustainability-1833647

                                                                                                                                     Editor in Chief

 

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript number sustainability-1833647, entitled “Simulation tools for the architectural design of middle density housing estates”.

Thanks for allow us to revise our initial submission. The present revised manuscript has taken into account the relevant reviewers’ comments. Let us now answer more accurately to each reviewer.

Reviewer 1 :

1. Title has been edited to be appropriate to the content of the article.
2. The objectives have been clarified and made consistent. In addition, the introduction has been largely revised to respond more thoughtfully to the topic of the article.
3. The repetitions in the results part have been remove.
4. Items in lines 257-265 have been moved to the Discussion section
5. The discussion has been largely revised and brought into line with the new elements added to the introduction.
6. The conclusion was brought into line with the introduction, the redefined objective and the discussion.

Reviewer 2 :

1. The theoretical background was further detailed in the introduction, particularly following the comments of Reviewer 1.
2. Still in line with Reviewer 1's comments, the discussion and conclusion have been reworded and related to the new introduction
3. The choice of the case study and the methods used have been described in more detail in the introduction.

Reviewer 3 :

1. Figure 1 has been split into 2 separate figures and captioned more precisely. The descriptions are more in line with the pictures shown.
2. A clarification concerning the emissivity of white walls, their consideration and their real role has been provided.
3. Figures 5 and 6 have been better captioned and described
4. In relation to the comments of Reviewer 1 and 2, the conclusion has been reformulated by integrating elements relating to the new introduction but also elements of response concerning temperature management.

Reviewer 4 :

1. In line with Reviewer 3 comments, Figure 1 has been split, detailed, and better described.
2. Figure 2 is better captioned (dashed and solid lines) and the absyss axis is explained in the previous paragraph.

 

 

All the other comments have been corrected, and we would like to thank you for these relevant remarks. I would also thanks the editor.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission.

 

See the attachment.

 

We believe our findings would appeal to the readership of your journal.

 

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Montpellier, August, 02, 2022     Mathieu Paris

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Theoretical background can be improved. In fact, the scientific literature concerning three significant issues involved in the paper should be recalled in more detail: land use; heat islands; urban morphology.

At the same time, the conclusions and the final discussion of the results should also refer more deeply to the same general themes of the paper.

Finally, the criteria that guided the choice of the case study and its significance in the literature should be better specified.

 

Author Response

Mathieu PARIS                                                                                                      
Corresponding Author
LIFAM
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Montpellier
179 Rue de l’Esperou
34090 Montpellier
France

Tél. : +33 06 51 65 40 58
E-mail : mathieu.paris@montpellier.archi.fr
Manuscript ID : sustainability-1833647

                                                                                                                                     Editor in Chief

 

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript number sustainability-1833647, entitled “Simulation tools for the architectural design of middle density housing estates”.

Thanks for allow us to revise our initial submission. The present revised manuscript has taken into account the relevant reviewers’ comments. Let us now answer more accurately to each reviewer.

Reviewer 1 :

1. Title has been edited to be appropriate to the content of the article.
2. The objectives have been clarified and made consistent. In addition, the introduction has been largely revised to respond more thoughtfully to the topic of the article.
3. The repetitions in the results part have been remove.
4. Items in lines 257-265 have been moved to the Discussion section
5. The discussion has been largely revised and brought into line with the new elements added to the introduction.
6. The conclusion was brought into line with the introduction, the redefined objective and the discussion.

Reviewer 2 :

1. The theoretical background was further detailed in the introduction, particularly following the comments of Reviewer 1.
2. Still in line with Reviewer 1's comments, the discussion and conclusion have been reworded and related to the new introduction
3. The choice of the case study and the methods used have been described in more detail in the introduction.

Reviewer 3 :

1. Figure 1 has been split into 2 separate figures and captioned more precisely. The descriptions are more in line with the pictures shown.
2. A clarification concerning the emissivity of white walls, their consideration and their real role has been provided.
3. Figures 5 and 6 have been better captioned and described
4. In relation to the comments of Reviewer 1 and 2, the conclusion has been reformulated by integrating elements relating to the new introduction but also elements of response concerning temperature management.

Reviewer 4 :

1. In line with Reviewer 3 comments, Figure 1 has been split, detailed, and better described.
2. Figure 2 is better captioned (dashed and solid lines) and the absyss axis is explained in the previous paragraph.

 

 

All the other comments have been corrected, and we would like to thank you for these relevant remarks. I would also thanks the editor.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission.

 

See the attachment.

 

We believe our findings would appeal to the readership of your journal.

 

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Montpellier, August, 02, 2022     Mathieu Paris

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The contribution is current and it is necessary to continue working on it. Global warming is a problem for the whole world.

 

The abstract is chosen correctly and describes the essence of the contribution.

 

Figure 1 – It is necessary to describe and mark separately the images that are part of Figure 1. It must be clear to the reader what is exactly shown. Before picture  1, add its description and a link to the picture 1. 

 

106 – the first time cited picture 1. It should be described rather than shown.

 

133 – reference to image 1. I suggest dividing the content of the picture and adjusting the structure so that the reader is clear about what the picture contains

 

153 – it would be good to add the opinion of the author whether the reflection from the facade of the house has significance. Because a lot of research has been matured regarding the influence of the emissivity of the facade surface on the surrounding space. The facade can clearly fulfill the operative temperature.

 

Figure 5 – describe which line is for RayMan and which is for LadyBug. It is not obvious from the picture

 

Figure 6 – it would be appropriate to add the date of the bottom, which was used in the simulation

 

Conclusion – It would be appropriate to add what are the real possibilities for eliminating the temperature in the monitored points. Because that should also be the conclusion of the contribution, not just an evaluation of all programs.

 

The author will describe the issue, but I expected more real measures from the research or at least a study to predict the decrease of temperatures in the exterior during the summer.

 

But it is possible that the author is preparing it in the next publication.

Author Response

Mathieu PARIS                                                                                                      
Corresponding Author
LIFAM
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Montpellier
179 Rue de l’Esperou
34090 Montpellier
France

Tél. : +33 06 51 65 40 58
E-mail : mathieu.paris@montpellier.archi.fr
Manuscript ID : sustainability-1833647

                                                                                                                                     Editor in Chief

 

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript number sustainability-1833647, entitled “Simulation tools for the architectural design of middle density housing estates”.

Thanks for allow us to revise our initial submission. The present revised manuscript has taken into account the relevant reviewers’ comments. Let us now answer more accurately to each reviewer.

Reviewer 1 :

1. Title has been edited to be appropriate to the content of the article.
2. The objectives have been clarified and made consistent. In addition, the introduction has been largely revised to respond more thoughtfully to the topic of the article.
3. The repetitions in the results part have been remove.
4. Items in lines 257-265 have been moved to the Discussion section
5. The discussion has been largely revised and brought into line with the new elements added to the introduction.
6. The conclusion was brought into line with the introduction, the redefined objective and the discussion.

Reviewer 2 :

1. The theoretical background was further detailed in the introduction, particularly following the comments of Reviewer 1.
2. Still in line with Reviewer 1's comments, the discussion and conclusion have been reworded and related to the new introduction
3. The choice of the case study and the methods used have been described in more detail in the introduction.

Reviewer 3 :

1. Figure 1 has been split into 2 separate figures and captioned more precisely. The descriptions are more in line with the pictures shown.
2. A clarification concerning the emissivity of white walls, their consideration and their real role has been provided.
3. Figures 5 and 6 have been better captioned and described
4. In relation to the comments of Reviewer 1 and 2, the conclusion has been reformulated by integrating elements relating to the new introduction but also elements of response concerning temperature management.

Reviewer 4 :

1. In line with Reviewer 3 comments, Figure 1 has been split, detailed, and better described.
2. Figure 2 is better captioned (dashed and solid lines) and the absyss axis is explained in the previous paragraph.

 

 

All the other comments have been corrected, and we would like to thank you for these relevant remarks. I would also thanks the editor.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission.

 

See the attachment.

 

We believe our findings would appeal to the readership of your journal.

 

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Montpellier, August, 02, 2022     Mathieu Paris

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This manuscript reports a case study on the temperature and wind speed of the ‘Grec Village’ and estimates the mean radiant temperature and PET by two simulation tools. The following are my comments:

1.     Fig. 1: it’s confusing about the images in this figure. It will be helpful if authors label them clearly like (a) upper left: xxx, (b) upper right: xxx, …

2. Fig.2: (1) do the lines show the average temperature/wind speed or only one measurement for each point? (2) explain the dash-line and solid-line in the caption or labels, and what’s the x-axis in this figure?

3. Please provide more details about the two models used in the simulation, e.g. formula or equation.

Author Response

Mathieu PARIS                                                                                                      
Corresponding Author
LIFAM
Ecole Nationale Supérieure d’Architecture de Montpellier
179 Rue de l’Esperou
34090 Montpellier
France

Tél. : +33 06 51 65 40 58
E-mail : mathieu.paris@montpellier.archi.fr
Manuscript ID : sustainability-1833647

                                                                                                                                     Editor in Chief

 

Dear Editor,

Please find enclosed our revised manuscript number sustainability-1833647, entitled “Simulation tools for the architectural design of middle density housing estates”.

Thanks for allow us to revise our initial submission. The present revised manuscript has taken into account the relevant reviewers’ comments. Let us now answer more accurately to each reviewer.

Reviewer 1 :

1. Title has been edited to be appropriate to the content of the article.
2. The objectives have been clarified and made consistent. In addition, the introduction has been largely revised to respond more thoughtfully to the topic of the article.
3. The repetitions in the results part have been remove.
4. Items in lines 257-265 have been moved to the Discussion section
5. The discussion has been largely revised and brought into line with the new elements added to the introduction.
6. The conclusion was brought into line with the introduction, the redefined objective and the discussion.

Reviewer 2 :

1. The theoretical background was further detailed in the introduction, particularly following the comments of Reviewer 1.
2. Still in line with Reviewer 1's comments, the discussion and conclusion have been reworded and related to the new introduction
3. The choice of the case study and the methods used have been described in more detail in the introduction.

Reviewer 3 :

1. Figure 1 has been split into 2 separate figures and captioned more precisely. The descriptions are more in line with the pictures shown.
2. A clarification concerning the emissivity of white walls, their consideration and their real role has been provided.
3. Figures 5 and 6 have been better captioned and described
4. In relation to the comments of Reviewer 1 and 2, the conclusion has been reformulated by integrating elements relating to the new introduction but also elements of response concerning temperature management.

Reviewer 4 :

1. In line with Reviewer 3 comments, Figure 1 has been split, detailed, and better described.
2. Figure 2 is better captioned (dashed and solid lines) and the absyss axis is explained in the previous paragraph.

 

 

All the other comments have been corrected, and we would like to thank you for these relevant remarks. I would also thanks the editor.

We confirm that this manuscript has not been published elsewhere and is not under consideration by another journal. All authors have approved the manuscript and agree with its submission.

 

See the attachment.

 

We believe our findings would appeal to the readership of your journal.

 

We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

 

Yours sincerely.

 

Montpellier, August, 02, 2022     Mathieu Paris

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Sustainability