The Role of Positive Energy Districts through the Lens of Urban Sustainability Protocols in the Case Studies of Salzburg and Tampere
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The manuscript will require further work before it can be accepted for publication. In some sections, the structure used and the lack of information make the work somewhat confusing. Authors also need to revisit the author's instructions and revise their writing. For example, "methodology" and "Are" in lines 141 to 143.
Specific comments
1. Line 2- Please, PEDs in full.
2. The abstract must present the main information for the initial understanding of the article. There must be a balance of information so that all sections are adequately covered. In this case, the contextualization occupies a significant portion of the abstract, and the main findings were not explored. In addition, the methodology of the work needs to be better presented.
3. In the Keywords, acronyms after keywords will make search engines difficult. The best thing is to remove the acronyms or create specific keywords for the acronyms.
4. In the Introduction Section, the relevance, innovation, and contribution of the work need to be better presented.
5. The title of the illustrations contains explanations that must be transferred to the text.
6. Tables 4, 5, and 6 are confusing. Were only the green dark and green light criteria selected? In which part of the article were the “Criterion correspondents” presented? What is the relationship between the information in each line (for example, “Preferred Locations” and “Energy efficiency”? Note that Buildings has a varied audience with different backgrounds.
7. In the discussion section, the authors need to discuss the findings further and highlight the relevance of the results.
8. In the Conclusion section, the authors should better highlight the relevance of the results and limitations of the research.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Corrections were included in the paper and reported in the review document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The objective of this research paper is to assess the efficacy of Positive Energy Districts (PEDs) in curbing CO2 emissions and delivering clean energy to urban areas. It also distinguishes the internal attributes of PEDs and contrasts them with current urban sustainability standards. Furthermore, the study delves into the obstacles and prospects of implementing PEDs in urban settings. The findings are obtained through a literature review of current certification standards for urban areas, an assessment of certification credentials and accomplished PED case studies, and a comparison of sustainability appraisal systems. The research methodology also incorporates a survey to gather data on the attributes of PEDs and their ability to reduce CO2 emissions. The study concludes that PEDs hold significant potential in cutting CO2 emissions and providing clean energy to cities, but their implementation encounters various challenges such as high costs, inadequate political backing, and limited public awareness. Successful PEDs necessitate a multi-stakeholder approach that considers technical, environmental, social, and economic factors. The study suggests the development of more efficient certification standards for urban areas and further research to address the challenges of implementing PEDs in urban settings. Public awareness and political support are also vital to the successful implementation of PEDs.
I have the following comments and suggestions for including information and improvements:
Abstract
The authors should consider incorporating additional details regarding the methodologies employed in the study, including the specific numerical values of the main results. This would help to enhance the robustness and completeness of the abstract. Additionally, the authors should clarify the main objectives of the study in a more explicit manner to ensure that readers have a clear understanding of the research goals.
Introduction
Providing a more explicit rationale for testing PEDs in various counties or locations sharing similar characteristics is imperative. Although the importance of the study is clear, it is necessary to include more elements that justify the use of PEDs in various counties and/or locations in terms of justification. This inclusion is vital to lend a broader perspective to the study, ensuring that the results do not appear to be confined to local importance alone.
Additionally, it is crucial for the authors to describe the objectives of the work directly and with greater clarity. While the complete introduction may reveal the purpose, explicitly stating the objectives will assist readers in comprehending the significance of the work more readily. This could include a clear statement of the research questions or hypotheses that the study aims to address, as well as an explanation of the broader goals of the research.
Methods
More details must be included in the sections 2.1 Characteristics of the Protocol Certificates chosen, 2.2 PED Case study completed: features and strengths.
1. The authors should incorporate a comprehensive flowchart outlining each stage of PEDs application of the processing undertaken in the study. Furthermore, it is vital to provide a detailed description of each processing stage to enhance readers' understanding.
2. Another critical aspect that the authors should consider is to include a dedicated section in the paper specifically addressing the methods and results pertaining to the validation of results derived from the PEDs application. This step is crucial for establishing the credibility and reliability of the findings. By providing explicit details on the validation process, readers will gain confidence in the accuracy of the results obtained and the overall validity of the study.
3. In addition, it is essential for the authors to incorporate a thorough justification for the selection of the criteria/score employed in the study. Elaborating on the reasoning behind choosing these criteria/score will provide readers with a clearer understanding of their suitability for the research objectives.
4. Another point that deserves attention and that can be improved refers to the choice of locations used in the Case studies. I suggest that, as far as possible, the criteria for choosing the locations used in the Case studies be justified in a more targeted way.
Results
- The authors must expand the results found in the present study more comprehensively. The results presented are incredibly synthetic. The authors should explore the results in more detail and quantitatively.
- Part of the results in graphs can improve readers' understanding of the quantitative results.
- Since validating the application of PEDs is an essential part of the paper, a separate section should be created to present and discuss the validation result.
Disscution
- Incorporating citations that provide conceptual support for the results obtained in this section is of utmost importance. By referencing relevant literature, the authors can strengthen the validity and significance of their findings, establishing a solid theoretical foundation.
- Furthermore, the authors must include a dedicated section that compares the results derived from the methods and analyses proposed in the article with existing findings in the literature. This comparative analysis will allow readers to contextualize the novel contributions of the study and understand how the results align or diverge from prior research. By highlighting similarities, differences, and potential implications, this comparative discussion will enrich the scientific discourse surrounding the topic and advance knowledge in the field.
Conclusions
Please include insights into future research directions related to the findings of the current study. This may contribute to the continuous progress and development of the scientific field. This forward-looking perspective will not only inspire further investigations but also facilitate the establishment of a roadmap for future researchers to explore uncharted territories and build upon the knowledge gained from this research endeavor.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Corrections were included in the paper and reported in the review document.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
the research on urban sustainability is critical and important regarding the future of human life. The paper introduces important insight on the subject. however, and in my advice, it should be focused. It presents many concepts and it is very difficult to follow the argument. Please focus the paper, choose the main concepts and present you results.
Author Response
The advice to prioritize the main research topic was followed, summarising where not necessary and expanding where formal corrections were needed.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
All mentioned issues have been addressed. My decision is: Aproved
With kind regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI appreciate the authors' diligent efforts in incorporating the suggested enhancements during the review process. I am confident that the manuscript is now fully prepared for publication in its current form.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
the paper was improved.
