A Methodology to Regulate Transformation of a City’s Appearance Due to Energy Efficiency Building Renovations: A Case Study: Errenteria (Spain)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A Methodology to Regulate Transformation of a City’s Appearance Due to Energy Efficiency Building Renovations
The manuscript is well-structured and articulately written, particularly with its focus on Spain as the case study. It would be prudent to mention Spain in the title to provide immediate context to readers.
A primary concern arises from the paper's assertion that the results and methods could be universally applied throughout Europe. Such a broad generalization seems neither feasible nor realistic. The complexities associated with various buildings, especially when considering urban planning, heritage, and historical structures, make this approach overly optimistic. I recommend a revision to narrow the scope of the conclusions. Specific recommendations should cater to areas mirroring the characteristics of the chosen case study.
The abstract, though well-composed, is somewhat generic. It's important to question if the methodologies and conclusions proposed can genuinely be applied uniformly to all European structures.
Introduction While the introduction offers a commendable literature review and rationale for the general approach, it lacks a clear justification for the selection of Spain as the case study.
Methods This section offers a detailed methodological approach grounded in an extensive literature review. However, its complexity raises concerns regarding its practical application. Moreover, there's a noticeable omission of considerations for historical or heritage-rich areas. This lack of attention to heritage conservation raises doubts about the methodology's realism, especially when confronted with structures of significant historical or heritage value. Applying such methods universally could be overly generalized and unsuitable for a diverse range of buildings.
Discussions and Conclusions Basing sweeping recommendations on a single case study is not methodologically sound. It is imperative to revise this section to provide recommendations tailored to areas resembling the case study in aspects such as architecture, urban planning, and climatic conditions.
Author Response
We would like to first thank you for your comments. We are sure they will help considerably improve the text. Our responses to them are provided below.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper exposes an excellent insight of researchers to mitigate the alteration of urban landscapes due to refurbishment for energy efficiency of facades in buildings not yet protected by specific laws. The proposed method is intended to provide a decision-making tool for local governments to regulate aspects related to the architectural image of buildings.
The paper would have more strength if there were a section devoted to state of the art on further research in other geographical contexts for building classifications or studies similar to the one proposed by the authors. In general, the paper denotes references mainly related to Spanish cases.
One cannot overlook the great efforts that, for example, the DOCOMOMO association makes at the international level. There are several examples in Europe of cataloguing developed recently to survey neighbourhoods and building complexes from the second half of the twentieth century that are not on the "official" lists of protected buildings. This, in many cases, is the first step for future protection. The method proposed by the authors would thus fit in better.
The methodology is explained well. Some scientific needs to be more specific steps remain to be made more explicit. For example, there needs to be a direct mention of archival and historical research, which are necessary precisely to establish the project's years of implementation and authorship. The determination of the state of preservation does not follow any scientifically agreed-upon criteria (e.g., the different categories of decay proposed by ICOMOS).
In Section 3.3, the case studies should be commented on more extensively to explain the assigned numerical values better.
The paper can be accepted after major revisions, limited to these necessary specifications
Author Response
We would like to first thank you for your comments. We are sure they will help considerably improve the text. Our responses to them ar provided below.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The article addresses the topic of building energy retrofit from a novel perspective, which is focused on aesthetic value preservation or control of urban homogenization. It is thus presented a methodology that enables public administrations to introduce a number of variables that weren't previously taken into account in guidelines for energy retrofit, including aesthetic aspects to be preserved or at least regulated. The study proposes a methodology which tries to objectivize aesthetic-perceptual value. Even if this can be seen as a weak point, I strongly believe is crucial. This is the way an increasing number of researchers is trying to follow to include these aspects into mainstream concerns related to energy and environment.
The introduction and aim of the study are well written and clear, the methodology clearly described in all its phases and assumptions, and case study correctly presented.
Some minor comments:
1. It is not totally clear how did you consider/rate buildings that have been already renovated, such as in the case study. Perhaps a couple of words more on this could be spent since the methodology. What if, for example, the renovation has been completely disruptive to color homogeneity, materials or another indicator?
2. It might be interesting to include some considerations about the time needed to complete the case study evaluation or, more generally, how long it would take the public administration to carry out the procedure on a particular city scale.
3. I recommend moving lines 520-526 to the introduction, as a sort of legitimacy of the study. This concept of the landscape which is not only physical but also “intangible” is important to be introduced to the reader since the beginning.
4. There is an error in the reference list as n.1 and n.54 are empty lines.
Author Response
We would to first thank you for your comments. We are sure they will help considerably improve the text. Our responses to them are provided below
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you to the authors for making the suggested changes. I believe that this manuscript has undergone significant improvement. With the revisions in place, it now appears to be in a position suitable for publication. I appreciate the effort and dedication put into addressing the feedback
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper has improved as a whole.
Regarding lines 122-124, I would like to point out that there are countries (like Italy) where the debate on the issue of protecting "contemporary" architecture is already underway. Thanks to the studies and research on this issue, the Ministry of Culture is conducting specific censuses to start practices for protecting buildings from the second half of the 20th century. These studies are still ongoing, with published results only for some regions. Thus, I understand the authors' difficulty in finding information about them. This observation can be a suggestion for further research advancement.
Despite this, having improved the text with the reviewers' suggestions and including due references to ICOMOS and DOCOMOMO standards allow the article to be accepted.
