Household Energy and Water Practices Change Post-Occupancy in an Australian Low-Carbon Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article deals with an interesting topic related to the practice of users within households and the effect on consumption. In particular the authors focus on the practices of thermal comfort and personal hygiene from a qualitative and quantitative point of view. The analysis is focused on Australian houses and provided the involvement of users before and after their occupancy in low carbon dwellings.
In general the manuscript is well structured with a detailed analysis of the results. I suggest a more detailed description of the semi-structured interview. Moreover I think that a discussion about the implication of the research can be useful.
I have a question about the heating system of WGV: it is curious that it is an "Electric oil heater". Can you explain that?
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. The interviews section has been expanded. The discussions of the implications of the research has been extended in the last paragraph of the conclusion.
The electric oil heater is used by some residents who do not have a reverse cycle air conditioner, or HVAC heating system. This is a small, portable heater that residents can purchase. It is the same as a column heater or oil-filled heater. These terms have been added to this section.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provides insight from a pre- and post-occupancy longitudinal study of low-carbon development residents and with a focus on tracking the pre-occupancy practices of residents.
The authors clearly highlight the limits of the study and give indications on possible research developments.
In my opinion, the paper is interesting. It is also easy to read. Furthermore, the article deals with a topical subject in the scientific community.
However, it can be improved with reference to a question.
The article addresses issues that are intertwined. On the one hand there is the social theme, but there are also cultural, environmental and economic issues.
More and more often these are issues that are treated in multi-criteria analysis models.
It is clear that the paper addresses differently the investigated question. But I believe it is important to at least give a brief reference to the important issue of the multi-criteria economic evaluations.
In this regard, I suggest extending the bibliography. Then, I suggest reading and considering for references: 1) Nesticò A., Sica F., The sustainability of urban renewal projects: a model for economic multi-criteria analysis. Journal of Property Investment and Finance 2017, Vol. 35, Issue 4, pp. 397-409, doi: 10.1108/JPIF-01-2017-0003. Emerald Group Publishing Ltd; 2) Nesticò A., Guarini M.R., Morano P., Sica F., An Economic Analysis Algorithm for Urban Forestry Projects. Sustainability 2019, 11(2):314; doi:10.3390/su11020314. MDPI AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Author Response
Thank you for the comments, I have added a section in the conclusion to comment on alternative methods of analysis.
Reviewer 3 Report
Please refer to the attached PDF.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Grammatical errors have been corrected. In regards to your other points:
I have expanded the sentence to clarify the meaning. Due to the already large number of figures in the paper I don’t want to put any more in. I have attempted to split some of the paragraphs up more and add in a few concluding sentences in section 4. I would have loved to have performed more statistical analysis on the consumption data however due to the patchy pre-occupancy data received by residents I decided to instead focus on the practices. I have added this line in to the discussion section where this is mentioned.