Evaluation and Optimization Strategies of the Living Environment in One Resettlement Area of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper addresses the issue of residential relocation caused by the South-to-North Water Diversion Project. Comprehensive subjective environmental assessments and objective environmental tests were conducted in the relocation areas, involving extensive questionnaires, field measurements, simulations, and analyses. This research aims to improve and optimize the lighting, thermal conditions, housing, and public spaces in residential areas, enhancing the living comfort of the relocated individuals, which holds significant social importance. However, there are still issues that need further optimization:
1. The manuscript contains a large amount of text, in which there are grammatical errors and redundant expressions. It is recommended to review and modify them. For example, the use of "are" in line 25 and the use of "however" and "therefore" from lines 101 to 114.
2. The author did not separate the method section into a chapter, but scattered it throughout the research content and results. This may lead to some content appearing in the wrong section. For example, the description of Figure 2 in the introduction should be placed in 2.2 research area.
3. The pie chart in the article should provide corresponding data, and give sub-figure names, with attention to typesetting and beautification. For example, Figure 3 does not provide the corresponding values, and the sub-figure names in Figure 19 are redundant and repetitive.
4. The average value in line 234 is 3.138. Lines 197-198 indicate that 3 is normal and 4 is satisfactory. The conclusion drawn by the authors that residents are basically satisfied with the environment is weakly supported.
5. What is the reason for the classification setting of Building quality in Tables 3 and 4, and how does it differ from the classification in Table 1 mentioned earlier? 6. The measured data in this study is from winter, while the simulation results include both winter and summer. How can the reliability of the summer data be verified?
7. Are the summer data used in the follow-up simulation process simulated data? Such as the data in Table 10.
8. The relative humidity changes in Fig. 10b are not mentioned in the main text.
9. In Section 4.2.2, the building structure is modified and simulated, and it is recommended to provide detailed material parameters.
10. There is a subgraph in Figure 19 that presents the results of satisfaction surveys, please verify.
11. Line 158 states that there are a total of 505 residents in the area, and only 58 questionnaires were issued in Table 11, with a small number of questionnaires.
Author Response
Thank you for your review and careful check. Your comments and suggestions are very constructive for the improvement of this manuscript.
Comment 1. The manuscript contains a large amount of text, in which there are grammatical errors and redundant expressions. It is recommended to review and modify them. For example, the use of "are" in line 25 and the use of "however" and "therefore" from lines 101 to 114.
Response: We have made careful check of grammar and text expression. The mentioned errors are corrected.
Comment 2. The author did not separate the method section into a chapter, but scattered it throughout the research content and results. This may lead to some content appearing in the wrong section. For example, the description of Figure 2 in the introduction should be placed in 2.2 research area.
Response: We have reorganized the manuscript and corrected the mentioned misplaced section. In order to well express the structure of the manuscript, we modified the Fig. 1 technical flowchart.
Comment 3. The pie chart in the article should provide corresponding data, and give sub-figure names, with attention to typesetting and beautification. For example, Figure 3 does not provide the corresponding values, and the sub-figure names in Figure 19 are redundant and repetitive.
Response: The mentioned errors are modified: corresponding data is added for Fig. 3; redundant and repetitive information in Fig. 19 is deleted.
Comment 4. The average value in line 234 is 3.138. Lines 197-198 indicate that 3 is normal and 4 is satisfactory. The conclusion drawn by the authors that residents are basically satisfied with the environment is weakly supported.
Response: The wrong expression (satisfied) is modified as “neutral” according to the definition of the value. A sentence is added for better understanding: “Necessary improvement is expected in order to reach a level of general satisfaction (4.0) or highly satisfaction (5.0).”
Comment 5. What is the reason for the classification setting of Building quality in Tables 3 and 4, and how does it differ from the classification in Table 1 mentioned earlier?
Response: After matrix transformation, the secondary factors are regrouped. The previously used same group names (first level factors) with the Table 1 did mislead readers. Thus we just present the newly grouped as different category (A-F) in Tables 3 - 5, as they have difficulty have each a decent group name. For better presentation of the re-integration of factors, Fig. 4. the rotating component matrix is given.
Comment 6. The measured data in this study is from winter, while the simulation results include both winter and summer. How can the reliability of the summer data be verified?
Response: Previously, we think winter data is enough for software validation. As suggested, we now added summer data and comparison. The results are also verified (section 3.2.1).
Comment 7. Are the summer data used in the follow-up simulation process simulated data? Such as the data in Table 10.
Response: Yes, both the data in Table 9 and10 is simulated data.
Comment 8. The relative humidity changes in Fig. 10b are not mentioned in the main text.
Response: Thank you for your reminder. Now the mentioned relative humidity changes analysis part is added (section 3.2.2).
Comment 9. In Section 4.2.2, the building structure is modified and simulated, and it is recommended to provide detailed material parameters.
Response: The suggested building material parameters (including heat transfer coefficient value of current situation and after-renovation) are added or described (section 4.2.2).
Comment 10. There is a subgraph in Figure 19 that presents the results of satisfaction surveys, please verify.
Response: The Fig. 19 (now Fig. 22) is redrawn. The mistaken sub-graph is corrected and the format is simplified for better expression.
Comment 11. Line 158 states that there are a total of 505 residents in the area, and only 58 questionnaires were issued in Table 11, with a small number of questionnaires.
Response: There are 505 residents in this village, but only a small proportion is presented for long-stay, while the majority is out in cities for work, and they come back home only in spring festival. This is of a very common phenomenon in Chinese villages. We conduct the survey with most of the stay-home villagers. Though the sample size is relative small, the survey reflects the main willingness of villagers.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents evaluation and optimization strategies a resettlement area by combining subjective satisfaction evaluation and objective experimental measurements and simulations. The results may lead to change the policy for the living environment for immigrants and thus improve their life.
I miss the justification why the measurements of the outdoor and indoor environment were made in these days and if the data were sufficient for the study.
I would recommend to investigate themal insulation measures for roof and floor slab, as well as for the external walls. Interior insulation of walls can cause serious problems of indoor environment due to thermal bridges in connection to uninsulated floor and due to humidity regime of the room.
It is recommended to separate the conclusions and discussions in the article.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Your comments and suggestions are very constructive for the improvement of this manuscript.
Comment 1：I miss the justification why the measurements of the outdoor and indoor environment were made in these days and if the data were sufficient for the study.
Response: Previously, we only used winter measurement data for software simulation validation, now we added summer measurement data and the comparison results was as well favorable. After validation, more simulation with different cases can be conducted and evaluated.
Comment 2：I would recommend to investigate thermal insulation measures for roof and floor slab, as well as for the external walls. Interior insulation of walls can cause serious problems of indoor environment due to thermal bridges in connection to uninsulated floor and due to humidity regime of the room.
Response: As suggested, Figure 10 (The material layers of the building envelope) is added. Apart from that, we added the calculated heat transfer coefficient value of floor slab in current situation and after-renovation (section 4.2.2).
Comment 3：It is recommended to separate the conclusions and discussions in the article.
Response: As suggested, the discussion part is separated as section 6.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper takes Yunyu New Village, Sheqi County, Nanyang city, in the resettlement area of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project as an example and evaluates the living environment of the resettlement area of the South-to-North Water Diversion Project from both subjective and objective aspects. The framework of the manuscript is reasonable, the content is rich, and it hast strong theoretical significance and practical value. The following aspects could be considered as suggestions in the manuscript:
1. Modify the Chinese expression to English.
2. It is recommended that all figures have higher clarity and better layout.
3. It is suggested to add a "discussion" section.
4. Moderate editing of the English language is required.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of the English language is required
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Your comments and suggestions are very constructive for the improvement of this manuscript.
Comment 1: Modify the Chinese expression to English.
Response: We have made careful check of grammar and text expression. The inappropriate expressions are corrected.
Comment 2: It is recommended that all figures have higher clarity and better layout.
Response: The Figures are all checked and the low-quality ones (Fig.3, 12, 22) are replaced and modified.
Comment 3: It is suggested to add a "discussion" section.
Response: As suggested, the discussion part is added as section 6.
Comment 4: Moderate editing of the English language is required.
Response: As suggested, the language polishing service is used for better expression.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The topic addressed by the manuscript is of interest for the field of knowledge. However, the structure of the text, as well as the amount of information presented make it difficult to understand. It is necessary to restructure the text in order to clearly differentiate between the theoretical framework in which it is inserted, what is the objective proposed by the research, what is the methodology followed to address it and specify what are the results achieved. In addition, it is recommended to include a discussion section prior to the conclusions, in which limitations found in the research and future lines of work should also be pointed out.
It is also important to follow that structure in the summary, which presents the information in a complex way and makes it difficult to understand.
Kind regards
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageWithout being an expert in English, I find that the text needs a thorough revision at the linguistic level so that it can be understood correctly.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. Your comments and suggestions are very constructive for the improvement of this manuscript.
Comment 1: However, the structure of the text, as well as the amount of information presented make it difficult to understand. It is necessary to restructure the text in order to clearly differentiate between the theoretical framework in which it is inserted, what is the objective proposed by the research, what is the methodology followed to address it and specify what are the results achieved.
Response: As suggested, we have reorganized the manuscript and corrected the mentioned misplaced section. In order to well express the structure of the manuscript, we modified the Fig. 1 technical flowchart and added Fig. 6 main research framework. The explanation of the framework is given in the end of section 2.6 for better connection and understanding of the context.
Comment 2: In addition, it is recommended to include a discussion section prior to the conclusions, in which limitations found in the research and future lines of work should also be pointed out.
Response: As suggested, the discussion part is added as section 6, before the conclusion.
Comment 3：It is also important to follow that structure in the summary, which presents the information in a complex way and makes it difficult to understand.
Response: As suggested, the summary part is reorganized, following the main technical flowchart of Fig.1. The limitation and future expectation part is moved to the discussion section.
Comment 4：Without being an expert in English, I find that the text needs a thorough revision at the linguistic level so that it can be understood correctly.
Response: As suggested, the language polishing service is used for modification and better expression.
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Although some changes have been made to improve the manuscript (for instance, a discussion section has been included) the structure of the text remains unclear, and it is therefore considered that the recommendations made have not been adequately addressed. A deeper structural adjustment in the text is necessary to improve its comprehension.
Kind regards.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Without being an expert in English, I find that the text needs a thorough revision at the linguistic level so that it can be understood correctly.
Author Response
Comment 1: the structure of the text remains unclear, and it is therefore considered that the recommendations made have not been adequately addressed. A deeper structural adjustment in the text is necessary to improve its comprehension.
Response: Thank you for your review. We admit the problem you mentioned. Because of our inertia, we failed to make the structure modification previously. This time when we get down to adjusting the whole manuscript, we do find it necessary and worthwhile. As shown the following table of content, Section 2 “Methodology” is added, on-site measurements, simulation and renovation strategies for indoor environment are grouped together in Section 4:
Table of content (not added in the article)
- Introduction
- Methodology
2.1. Research subjects
2.2. Importance-performance analysis (IPA) method
2.3. Interview and questionnaire survey
2.4. On-site measurement
2.5. Software simulation
- Selection of renovation content
3.1. Construction of the index system
3.2. Descriptive analysis of survey results
3.3. Factor analysis
3.4. Modified IPA analysis
3.5. Analysis of renovation priority
- Indoor Environmental Evaluation and Optimization Strategies
4.1. Evaluation of the indoor environment
4.2. Indoor environment optimization strategies
4.3. Indoor environment renovation and strategy adjustment
- Outdoor environment optimization strategies
5.1. Investigation of immigrants' willingness
5.2. Design strategies based on immigrants' willingness
- Discussion
- Conclusions
References
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
After reviewing the new version of his manuscript, an important change in its structure is observed, so that it is presented in a clearer way for the reader. Congratulations.