Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Shading on Thermal, Visual, and Acoustic Properties of Indoor Environments

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title of the paper should be revised.

2. Perhaps in the thermal study, the average BMI of the subjects can be discussed.

3. Please also discussed on recommended lux or illuminance level on the findings compared to the 3 apartments. 

4. Glaring effect is not discussed.

5. Should have discussed on shading effect due to the sun path of the 3 apartments dramatically during the three periods of data collection.

6. Should elaborate on the sound or acoustics propagation compared with the decibel unit.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed this manuscript about shading facilities in apartments in China.

In it we find confusion expressions in English like:

It decides to analyze thermal, visual and acoustic conditions because the window, as an indispensable and integral component…

I believe that English should be revised.

The article seems interesting, although the graphic part of the article is slightly insufficient, there are no plans of the apartments studied, which could give the reader a better description of the buildings analysed. The article does not show graphs and only tables instead. The constructions system, interior finishing and fabric of the shadings could be interesting.

The authors have developed a clear methodology although the samples presented for the surveys are very limited only tree cases in one city and in a particular college. More physical data are required, for instance what was the temperature registered against the outdoor temperature shown in correlation. Also the time lapse of the surveys is limited because it is something more than one month.

They explain sufficiently the initiatives undertaken for research but the procedures leading to a feasible solution for the buildings selected are unclear. We do not know very well how these results could be extended to other situations and locations.

I have the impression that, the conclusions could have been clearer and more expanded by signalling exactly what in-built features of the building could help to create a better environment. What about introducing vegetation in the vertical plane as a way to protect from the radiation surplus and asymmetry?

The rest of the article seems well crafted and I do not perceive any fundamental flaw in its development although it could be much more enhanced especially in the results and discussion part if the authors complete their highly sociological research.

The results and conclusions are interesting and promising but could be strengthened in the sense explained above.

Summary of evaluation: This article sets interesting precedents for tackling with the cooling season in China reducing energy use. I suggest that major revisions are performed and this will help to improve the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Subjective and Objective Evaluation of Shading Facilities Impact on Indoor Thermal, Visual and Acoustics Indoor Environment

Author Response

Thank you very much. Your suggestions are valuable for us to revise this paper. The title has been modified.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have addressed most of my comments

Author Response

Thank you very much. Your suggestions are valuable for us to revise this paper.