Modified iButtons: A Low-Cost Instrument to Measure the Albedo of Landscape Elements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

According to the journal indications (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/instructions), please bring the length pf the abstract to max. 200 words. Please check all abbreviations are explained the first time used: e.g. line 61 CMA The Introduction lacks of an important point regarding global warming and surface temperature increase: the need of cooling (air-conditioning). Please integrate that! Among others please consider: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wene.210, https://www.pnas.org/content/112/19/5962.short, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378778814007907 Please do not name companies: line 76, produced by Maximum Integrated Introduce the iButton when first named (explain what it is). The conclusions section is by far too short - please expand this section References: writing style and structure are wrong

-Minor issues:

Lines 5 and 8: indications of 1 and 3 seem to be the same - please unify and use one reference number Line 34: indication of page number is not needed Line 39: even if well known, please specify PM Line 52: suns energy Line 81 etc.: please write a dot after each Figure indication: e.g. Figure 1 a). Black... Line 83 etc.: please do not write in cursive "et al."

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

This article focus on a practical issue concerning the measurement of a very important variable in urban climate and urban heat island analysis. It covers every aspect expected in this kind of research and, although it raises several uncertainties, they are clearly stated in this article.

These article outcomes may provide significant inputs to the development of low cost sensors, much needed for the expansion of climate related studies.

English writing is very good.

Abstract

The abstract is consistent with the content of the article.

Introduction

No comments.

Methodology

The methodology is quite comprehensive and effective, although for validation purposes the use of a contrasting commercial albedometer would been advisable. Nonetheless, I think that the article has its merits regardless of this limitation

Results

Results are clearly presented and are quite comprehensible.

Conclusions

The conclusions are consisted with the results of this study.

Detailed corrections

Line 117 - A reference material of white painted polystyrene (WPP) and was also measured.

For the overstated reasons I am recommending this article should be accepted in its present form.

Kind regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper presents very interesting research which fits to the scope of the journal. However, there are some issues which should be considered before publishing. Below I present some comments and suggestions.

 

There is no separate literature review section, and considering also relatively short introduction, it seems that research background should be expanded. As the journal is concentrated not on the meteorological measurements itself, I suggest to expand the aspect of implications between urban design and exposure of final built environment to thermal stress. There are some studies in that field in Sustainability journal, check for instance: The Use of a Decision Support System for Sustainable Urbanization and Thermal Comfort in Adaptation to Climate Change Actions—The Case of the Wrocław Larger Urban Zone (Poland), Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 1083; Study of the Cooling Effects of Urban Green Space in Harbin in Terms of Reducing the Heat Island Effect, Sustainability 2018, 10(4), 1101.

 

The research aim should be clearly stated. Current version “this study will investigate a low cost instrument (under $AUD 50) and a new method, to concurrently measure the albedo of a number of LEs typical of urban landscapes in Perth, Western Australia” is not well precise. The word “investigate” does not say what exactly is going to be done. Moreover, I would split it into two parts – in the aim of the research mention about “verification/application/etc.” of the new method, and in next sentence you can mention that it is applied on a number of LEs typical of urban landscapes in Perth, Western Australia. It should be divided, as the method is universal and only tested in one location. Otherwise, reader could assume that this method works only in Perth and this paper is only a case study.

 

Section 3 is quite long and, therefore, I suggest to consider splitting into two separate sections results and discussion. Moreover, scientific discussion should compare obtained results with other studies in this field. Are your results similar? Do they differ from other studies? What are the probable reasons of such situation? Are there any limitations that you can highlight in your research (accessible data, method, etc.)? Discussion should be supported with references of other studies to present how your research fulfill gaps or overcome some limitations of the state of art. In line 67 other researchers constructing low-cost albedometers are mentioned. Highlight differences between your and their solution and that might constitute your scientific input to the state of art.

 

I strongly encourage the Authors to correct the paper, as in my opinion it presents very interesting study and, after improvements mentioned above, might constitute a valuable paper. It was really a pleasure to review this article.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The melioration indications have been well implemented.