Environmental Adaptations for Achieving Sustainable Regeneration: A Conceptual Design Analysis on Built Heritage Fujian Tulous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Lines 303-308: suggested making the accuracies consistent throughout and using SI units with proper notations. Values up to 02 decimals may be too high.

Lines 258,  279: to be corrected as W/m2K

Section 3.1.1: The aspect of thermal mass and thermal capacity of the structure has been not looked at. This aspect would be more important in view of the building's performance and thus should be mentioned.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors presented the research on the heritage regeneration framework in terms of environmental adaptation. The manuscript is reasonable in structure and detailed in content. However, some problems still exist. It is advised to accept them after modification.

1. Figure 5(b) is not mentioned in the paper content.

2. The sub-section number should be named as “2.*” in the section “2. Overview of Tulou Heritage Regeneration”.

3. The sub-section number should be named as “3.2.*” in the section “3.2. Passive House Strategies”.

4. The English writing of the paper can be improved further.

5. In the penultimate sentence of the abstract, the authors mention that socioeconomic and cultural issues have an impact on sustainable development, which should be explained in more detail in the article.

6. There is no obvious logical relationship between the third part “3. Conventional Sustainable Design Strategies” and the fourth part “4. Transition Fom Convention to Regeneration”, and the authors should make appropriate modifications.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting preliminary study on the potential of regenerating/retrofitting non-World Heritage Tulou in the Fujian region. The research is based on literature review and case studies analysis. Although the article is interesting and the general topic is relevant, a thorough review is necessary to make the article suitable for publication. Below are some suggestions to improve the article.

Add a ‘Methodology’ section. The methodology of the study is not clearly presented anywhere in the text. It is mandatory to assess the replicability of the study to explain its research methodology.

Completely review the technical ‘Terminology’. Some examples of wrong terminology are as follows: (Abstract) environment quality = environmental quality; heat insulation = thermal insulation; water prevention = waterproofing; facility control = mechanical or electrical systems; thermal pressure ventilation = chimney effect; Tromble wall = Trombe wall. Please also check other terms like: mechanistic? figures? (row 308).

Remove redundant parts. There is significant amount of repetition and redundancy in the article, please remove parts that are not necessary. For instance, parts where the authors are explaining technologies or environmental design strategies that are well known. Some examples are as follows: rows 198-211 (dwelling as shelters for people); rows 223-235 same as before (repetition); 427-434: it is not necessary to explain how the Trombe wall works (remove this part). Figure 5 is not necessary (for the same reason as before). Instead, please explain how the Trombe wall can be integrated in the Toulou design.

Provide missing citations. For example in rows 462-474 citation of relevant research is needed to prove/strengthen the benefits of rammed earth walls.

Overall, the article needs an extensive and thorough professional proofreading (English language and technical terminology) in order to be published.

After such a review, abstract and conclusion should be re-written to better summarise the study structure and the achieved results.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I sincerely thank the authors for providing a reviewed version of the article. The article has been extensively reviewed both in the content and style. I think it has now reached an adequate level for publication.