Heat vs. Health: Home Office under a Changing Climate

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comment:

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to read this paper. This paper is well put together and written. It presents a study about modeling thermal comfort changes of people working at home in three Austrian cities (Vienna, Innsbruck and Graz) during the next decades until 2080. Generally, the manuscript follows the usual structure of a scientific article and is fully consistent with the journal scope. The objective of the study is clear.

The paper presents a strong literature review identifying results of previous studies, and the methodology is well explained. The results are clear.

I just leave some small notes to improve some aspects.

 

Response:

We thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript. 

 

Comment:

KEYWORDS

1. Being a keyword, the concept of “telework” should be explained in the paper.

 

Response:

We thank you for this comment. As the term telework is nearly the same as home office, we exchanged the terms in the keywords list.

 

Comment:

Methods

2. It might be helpful to provide a conceptual framework of this study

 

Response:

We agree and added the following paragraph to the methods section. Please note that the rationale behind the study was already briefly noted at the end of the introduction section.

 

“Our study aims to investigate the impact of two megatrends, i.e., increasing summer temperatures and high popularity of home office, on the thermal comfort of people working from home in the three Austrian cities Vienna, Innsbruck, and Graz until the year 2080. The conceptual framework of the study involves identifying the factors that influence thermal comfort, such as indoor and outdoor temperature, humidity, air quality, and clothing insulation.”

 

Comment:

3. line 134 – It is better to provide details information about the literature review section. For instance, which libraries you used and how many papers included?

Response:

Thanks for noting. Our statement was misleading, as we did not conduct a classic literature review, but only a literature search in the search engines Google Scholar and PubMed to be able to extend the already existing framework to the scope of this study, as described in the results section. So, the term literature review was replaced by literature search.

 

Comment:

4. Lines 172 to 173 – what are ZAMG and Ö KS15?

 

Response:

Thanks for spotting this. In response to the request, we added the according explanation.

“The calculation of the heat wave temperatures as well as the probability of recurrence was based on the inner-city meteorological statistics of the Austrian weather service ZAMG (Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics) at the three locations. We used the Austrian bias corrected and localized climate scenario ensembles ÖKS15 [42] to determine the climate change signal.

 

Comment:

RESULTS and DISCUSSION

The tables are very informative and clear and the tests done seem appropriate. The results are reported clearly and insightfully.

I agree the research provides a good basis for further research.

 

Response:

Again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and the favorable evaluation of our paper!

Reviewer 2 Report

 Heat vs. Health: Home Office under a Changing Climate

The manuscript is original, well written and the methodology is detailed. The paper covers a very important and pertinent issue of indoor heat and its associated health impacts. The topic is of high interest especially due to the ongoing effects of climate change around different parts of the world. I do not have major comments for this work but only a few minor comments as follows:

·         The authors did not show the model formulation or how the data was fitted during the simulation. The authors can show this in additional supporting materials for the study or as an appendix.

·         The authors should have described the home office setting for Austria in terms of the number of occupancies or home dwellers. For example, I would expect a decrease in mental health due to feelings of loneliness to be among those who were single dwellers, i.e without children or relatives at home.

·         In line 211, mention that the 385 meters refers to altitude or elevation.

·         In line 322 and 368, what do the authors mean by today’s situation? Maybe ‘current or contemporary’ will be a better word.

·         In Figure 5, why does the legend not differentiate between the four levels of extreme? Also the north arrow can be removed since the graphs are not related to spatial entities.

·         Be consistent with the decimal point type, e.g in line 440 and line 443 the decimal points are different and so is the case throughout the document.

·         Move explanation of green and blue infrastructure in line 545 to the section where green and blue infrastructure is first mentioned in line 55.

·         Correct the font error in reference number 84.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Comment:

Heat vs. Health: Home Office under a Changing Climate

The manuscript is original, well written and the methodology is detailed. The paper covers a very important and pertinent issue of indoor heat and its associated health impacts. The topic is of high interest especially due to the ongoing effects of climate change around different parts of the world. I do not have major comments for this work but only a few minor comments as follows:

Response:

We thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript. 

Comment:

The authors did not show the model formulation or how the data was fitted during the simulation. The authors can show this in additional supporting materials for the study or as an appendix.

Response:

We agree on the importance of describing the simulation settings in more detail. We added the following explanation to the methods section:

“For the outdoor climate simulations, the horizontal resolution was defined as 2x2m, the vertical resolution as 3m and temporally the results are resolved hourly. The standard materials of buildings and greenings of the GREENPASS database were used as simulation settings. As boundary condition the method "Full Forcing" was chosen, i.e. every half hour weather data is copied as 1D model to the boundary of the model area.”

Comment:

The authors should have described the home office setting for Austria in terms of the number of occupancies or home dwellers. For example, I would expect a decrease in mental health due to feelings of loneliness to be among those who were single dwellers, i.e without children or relatives at home.

Response:

We agree that sociodemographic factors might play a role in resilience of people working from home. In response to this request, we added some more data on number of employees:

“In Austria, for example, 17.7% of the employed population, which was in average about 4,440,00 people aged 15, worked from home during the last quartal of the year 2021, with little difference in the proportion of men and women [31]. Furthermore, home office was done more often the higher the level of education and professional qualification. The industries with the highest proportions of home office included information and communication and financial and insurance services.“

Comment:

In line 211, mention that the 385 meters refers to altitude or elevation.

Response:

Thanks for noting, the text was improved in response to this comment:

“This is due to the fact that the Inn valley, where Innsbruck is situated in, heats up very strongly during the day and thus reaches daily temperature maxima similar to Vienna, which elevation is about 385 meters lower than those of Innsbruck. ”

Comment:

In line 322 and 368, what do the authors mean by today’s situation? Maybe ‘current or contemporary’ will be a better word.

Response:

Thanks for noting, the text was improved in this respect in response to this comment.

Comment:

In Figure 5, why does the legend not differentiate between the four levels of extreme? Also the north arrow can be removed since the graphs are not related to spatial entities.

Response:

Thanks for spotting this. Unfortunately, no simulations for the period 1981-2000 are available for the outdoor space, since there are no threshold regulations for outdoor spaces for the past. This only affects the indoor simulation, so the focus for the outdoor simulation is on the present and future.

Comment:

Be consistent with the decimal point type, e.g in line 440 and line 443 the decimal points are different and so is the case throughout the document.

Response:

Thank you! Done!

Comment:

Move explanation of green and blue infrastructure in line 545 to the section where green and blue infrastructure is first mentioned in line 55.

Response:

Thank you! Done!

Comment:

Correct the font error in reference number 84.

Response:

Done.

Again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript.   

Reviewer 3 Report

Summary: The paper aims to study the effect of climate change to people working from home in terms of their health and well-being. It also proposes the provisioning of blue and green infrastructure to moderate or alleviate the impact of urban heat island effect due to urbanization and anthropogenic factors. 

 

Specific comments: 

There are a few self-citations which I am not sure if it's justified, particularly in Section 2.1, where it is cited that the study adapted a framework developed in [38, 39].

In Section 2.2, there can be more explanation for "only the smallest possible number of episodes was calculated". Is it via triangulation or how is it determined? 

In Section 2.2.2, there seems to be inconsistency which can cause confusion in terms of the period, i.e. 2070-2090, because elsewhere in the paper, it's indicated that the study aimed at modelling thermal comfort changes of people working at home until 2080. 

In Section 2.4.2 and Table 2, the clock time is inconsistent and in several cases, incorrect. For instance, it should be 8am to 4pm instead of 8am to 16pm. 

In Section 3.2.3, the expression or unit for temperature should be consistent, instead of having Kelvin and degrees celsius. 

Figure 10 can be better illustrated and annotated. Furthermore, it is not elaborated in the text. Likewise for Figure 2 - it's not explained or discussed in text. All tables and figures should be elaborated on. 

The study only looks at Austria, or a country in mainland continental Europe. There can be a few types of climate, namely: tropical, dry, temperate, continental and polar. Perhaps the title should reflect that, or at the very least, this should be discussed. 

The conclusion can be longer and should review how successful the study has been in terms of addressing the aims and objectives. 

 

Overall

The paper is well-written and should be published. 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Comment:

Summary: The paper aims to study the effect of climate change to people working from home in terms of their health and well-being. It also proposes the provisioning of blue and green infrastructure to moderate or alleviate the impact of urban heat island effect due to urbanization and anthropogenic factors.

Response:

We thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript. 

Specific comments:

There are a few self-citations which I am not sure if it's justified, particularly in Section 2.1, where it is cited that the study adapted a framework developed in [38, 39].

 

Response:

We agree and now just refer to main work to mention the framework on which we built on in this paper and so warrant to be mentioned.

 

Comment:

In Section 2.2, there can be more explanation for "only the smallest possible number of episodes was calculated". Is it via triangulation or how is it determined?

 

Response:

Thanks for this comment. As mentioned in the methods section, this number of episodes refer to five days due to technical reasons: In order to account for possible cumulative effects when studying heat waves, it was decided to study episodes with a total length of five days. In addition, it is not the most extreme heat waves that should be examined, but rather events that are to be expected again and again and therefore an adjustment is necessary. Therefore, the five-day mean daily maximum temperature was used to define the heat waves, and events with a two-year probability of recurrence were selected.

We now added the number of episodes, which was five days in the text.

Comment:

In Section 2.2.2, there seems to be inconsistency which can cause confusion in terms of the period, i.e. 2070-2090, because elsewhere in the paper, it's indicated that the study aimed at modelling thermal comfort changes of people working at home until 2080.

Response:

To define an average climate always 20-year periods are used and this climate is allocated to the center of that period. So, the climate for 2070-2090 and for 2080 is the same. We have clarified this in the text.

Comment:

In Section 2.4.2 and Table 2, the clock time is inconsistent and in several cases, incorrect. For instance, it should be 8am to 4pm instead of 8am to 16pm.

In Section 3.2.3, the expression or unit for temperature should be consistent, instead of having Kelvin and degrees celsius.

 

Response:

Thank you for spotting these wrong expressions, which we corrected accordingly.

 

Comment:

Figure 10 can be better illustrated and annotated. Furthermore, it is not elaborated in the text. Likewise for Figure 2 - it's not explained or discussed in text. All tables and figures should be elaborated on.

 

Response:

We are thankful for this comment an checked the figures and the tables on this issue. Fig. 10 portrays a specific framework that is non-directed and unsymmetrical, lacking any definite center. Hence, owing to our personal design preferences, we have chosen the current relatively simple format.

 

Comment:

The study only looks at Austria, or a country in mainland continental Europe. There can be a few types of climate, namely: tropical, dry, temperate, continental and polar. Perhaps the title should reflect that, or at the very least, this should be discussed.

 

Response:

In response to this request, we have included a paragraph that highlights this topic.

“Notably, the investigated Austrian locations belong on a global view to the same climate region, representative for low elevation locations in Central Europe. According to the Köppen-Geiger classification all belong to the class "Cfb” [93]. Thus, all findings discussed in this study are only valid for this warm temperate humid climate zone and cannot be transferred to other climate zones (e.g. tropical or subtropical).”

 

Comment:

The conclusion can be longer and should review how successful the study has been in terms of addressing the aims and objectives.

 

 Response:

In response to this request, we have now added some more content in the conclusion section.

“This study highlighted several aspects that have a strong link to sustainability. For example, it was emphasized that the way we design and operate our built environment has a major impact on human health, well-being, creativity, and performance at work. It was also emphasized that buildings can be both an important driver for increasing biodiversity and adapting to climate change, as well as an important barrier in this regard. Another important aspect related to sustainability is the importance of nature-based solutions in urban planning to prevent indoor overheating. Here, the ad-vantages of radiant surface cooling systems through thermal activation of indoor sur-faces were particularly emphasized, as they represent a sufficiently effective and cli-mate-neutral option.

Addressing the issue of indoor thermal comfort requires an inclusive, holistic, trans- and interdisciplinary approach that considers different dimensions of sustainability. It is important to focus on building design, energy-efficient technologies and the use of sustainable materials in order to reduce energy consumption and reduce indoor temperatures. This approach will involve engineering solutions, design, and technology. At the same time social and behavioral aspects have to be addressed. Raising awareness about health risks related to climate change and biodiversity loss and providing guidelines and best practices for maintaining a comfortable indoor environment during (home) office work is important as well. Policies and educational pro-grams are thus required for this aim.

In addition, the study identified various strategies related to biophilia, indoor and outdoor air quality, lighting, and acoustics as important domains that can facilitate a sustainable future of work. However, it was pointed out that these aspects that influence occupational health are often not adequately addressed in occupational science, even though significant synergies could exist for climate change mitigation and adaptation, as well as flora and fauna conservation.

Overall, the study shows that in addition to SDG 8: "Decent Work and Economic Growth," other SDGs should be considered to make our cities truly sustainable and promote good health for all, now and in the future. To achieve this, several strategies are needed, such as integrating nature-based solutions into urban planning, creating access to recreational green and blue spaces for all residents, and implementing concepts such as horizontal and vertical greening to promote well-being and health in urban environments.

On a global scale, climate change, as a common public perception, is affecting not just the growing number of people working from home in the post-COVID-19 generation, but everyone living on the planet. Policy recommendations to address global warming could exemplarily base on implementing carbon pricing, investing in renew-able energy, encouraging energy efficiency, implementing land-use policies, promoting public transportation, encouraging sustainable lifestyles, and supporting international cooperation. By implementing these measures, governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take significant steps towards reducing the impact of global warming on the environment and people.”

Comment:

 

Comment:

Overall

The paper is well-written and should be published.

 

Response:

Again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript.  

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript number “ISSN 2071-1050”is very well written, and aimed at modeling thermal comfort changes of people working at home in three Austrian cities during the next decades until 2080, highlighting the urgent need for employees working from home in the new situation to adjust their behavior under climate change. In my opinion, this contribution features a framework for a family office in post-Newcastle Pneumonia Austria that integrates social, ecological, and economic aspects. However, there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.

1. Global warming, as a common public perception, is affecting not just the growing number of people working from home in the post-New Canopy epidemic generation, but everyone living on the planet. In this light, the conclusions of this article seem overly broad. I wish the authors had made some more specific, layered policy recommendations.

2. The entire study focuses on measurement data from three cities in Austria. I am curious if these three cities are generalizable to Austria as a whole, or to other regions at the same latitude.

3. The framework diagram of the authors' ideas is very clear, but it is not symmetrical, and I hope to make it more beautiful.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

 

Comment:

The manuscript number “ISSN 2071-1050”is very well written, and aimed at modeling thermal comfort changes of people working at home in three Austrian cities during the next decades until 2080, highlighting the urgent need for employees working from home in the new situation to adjust their behavior under climate change. In my opinion, this contribution features a framework for a family office in post-Newcastle Pneumonia Austria that integrates social, ecological, and economic aspects. However, there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication.

Response:

We thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript. 

Comment:

1. Global warming, as a common public perception, is affecting not just the growing number of people working from home in the post-New Canopy epidemic generation, but everyone living on the planet. In this light, the conclusions of this article seem overly broad. I wish the authors had made some more specific, layered policy recommendations.

Response:

We certainly, agree and put some layered policy recommendations to address global warming to the conclusion section:

“On a global scale, climate change, as a common public perception, is affecting not just the growing number of people working from home in the post-COVID-19 generation, but everyone living on the planet. Policy recommendations to address global warming could exemplarily base on implementing carbon pricing, investing in renewable energy, encouraging energy efficiency, implementing land-use policies, promoting public transportation, encouraging sustainable lifestyles, and supporting international cooperation. By implementing these measures, governments can reduce greenhouse gas emissions and take significant steps towards reducing the impact of global warming on the environment and people.”

Comment:

2. The entire study focuses on measurement data from three cities in Austria. I am curious if these three cities are generalizable to Austria as a whole, or to other regions at the same latitude.

Response:

Yes, we agree that this is an important information for the readership. We added the following explanation.

“The investigated Austrian locations belong on a global view to the same climate region, representative for low elevation locations in Central Europe. According to the Köppen -Geiger classification, all locations belong to the class "Cfb” (see Kottek, M., et al (2006). World Map of the Köppen-Geiger climate classification updated, Meteorol. Z., 15, 259–263). Thus, all findings discussed in this study are only valid for this climate zone and cannot be transferred to other climate zones (e.g. tropical or subtropical).”

Comment:

3. The framework diagram of the authors' ideas is very clear, but it is not symmetrical, and I hope to make it more beautiful.

Response:

Thank you for your positive feedback on clarity. It's important to note that the diagram portrays a specific framework that is non-directed and unsymmetrical, lacking any definite center. Hence, owing to our personal design preferences, we have chosen the current format.

Reviewer 5 Report

This paper deals with an investigation about the impact of thermal comfort changes on home working. Three case studies were analysed in Austria. I think it is an interesting study, well written, with a deep bibliographic analysis and good elements of novelty. Thus, the paper may be suitable for publication on Sustainability after minor adjustments to better increase its clarity. In particular:

1)      In section 2.2.2 (line 170), 2070-2090 is reported as one of the analysed periods, but in the rest of the paper 2080 is the last analysed period. So, were the analyses carried out till 2080 or 2090?

2) Section 2.4.1: could the authors better underline the differences between old and renovated buildings about windows (e.g. in terms of U-values)?

3) PET is used for outdoors space simulations. Could the authors justify this choice with respect to other indexes?

4) Section 3.2.3: more data and comments might be useful to better understand the obtained results. In particular, the existing multi-family house was chosen as a representative example for the three building variants. But, given the fact the 3 buildings were chosen, a text briefly reporting results for the other 2 buildings is expected.

5) Also results for old buildings in not renovated conditions (before 2050) might be briefly reported and compared to the ones of renovated buildings. It might be a further relevant added value to the paper.

6) The text font (and dimension) of reference [84] should be adjusted.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 5

Comment:

This paper deals with an investigation about the impact of thermal comfort changes on home working. Three case studies were analysed in Austria. I think it is an interesting study, well written, with a deep bibliographic analysis and good elements of novelty. Thus, the paper may be suitable for publication on Sustainability after minor adjustments to better increase its clarity. In particular:

1)      In section 2.2.2 (line 170), 2070-2090 is reported as one of the analysed periods, but in the rest of the paper 2080 is the last analysed period. So, were the analyses carried out till 2080 or 2090?

Response:

We thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript. 

We corrected this typo. Thanks for noting. The last decade is 2090.

Comment:

2) Section 2.4.1: could the authors better underline the differences between old and renovated buildings about windows (e.g. in terms of U-values)?

Response:

Done.

“In comparison the unrenovated windows have a U-value glass: 2.5 W/(m².K), g-value: 0.67, U-value frame: 3.0 W/(m².K), frame share: 30 %)”

Comment:

3) PET is used for outdoors space simulations. Could the authors justify this choice with respect to other indexes?

Response:

We agree on this point and added this justification:

“PET is recommended for pedestrian level considerations in urban areas. It is possible to calculate the PET also with lower temperatures, where equivalent indices widely used in the evaluation of outdoor thermal environments like standard effective temperature (SET) or universal thermal climate index (UTCI) are not working.”

 

4) Section 3.2.3: more data and comments might be useful to better understand the obtained results. In particular, the existing multi-family house was chosen as a representative example for the three building variants. But, given the fact the 3 buildings were chosen, a text briefly reporting results for the other 2 buildings is expected.

Response:

We agree and added some more information on this.

“The single-family house features a higher window share than the multifamily house, resulting in a higher risk of overheating, as indicated by our results. Additionally, in the case of home office use, the internal gains exceeded the thresholds. In contrast, the new multi-family home showed results similar to those of the existing multi-family home, likely due to their comparable building physical qualities and identical type of use.”

Comment:

5) Also results for old buildings in not renovated conditions (before 2050) might be briefly reported and compared to the ones of renovated buildings. It might be a further relevant added value to the paper.

Response:

We totally agree, but we have not conducted simulations for this scenario. In response to this request, we added the following statement to the limitations section.

“Although we did not calculate scenarios for old buildings in their unrenovated state (prior to 2050) in this study, it would be worthwhile to compare the outcomes of unrenovated buildings with those that have been renovated. This comparison could be explored in future studies.”

Comment:

6) The text font (and dimension) of reference [84] should be adjusted.

Response:

Thank you. Done.

Again, we thank you for your valuable feedback and the overall favorable evaluation of our manuscript. 

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I think the current manuscript is acceptable for publication.