Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I must commend the content of this article for its insightful exploration of thermal comfort assessments at local or micro-scales within urban areas. The importance of these assessments for climate-conscious urban planning and public health is evident, and the study's focus on the western part of the Balkan Peninsula involving five countries is a significant contribution to the field. The utilization of the Physiological Equivalent Temperature (PET) index, along with the collection of meteorological data from 32 national stations over a substantial period (2001 to 2020), demonstrates the thoroughness of the research. However, I would like to offer some suggestions for improvement.

 

1. The current Abstract Section could benefit from a more specific presentation of the research findings. While it does provide an overview of the study and its methodology, it lacks a clear summary of the results.

 

2. It might be beneficial to discuss the challenges faced in collecting and maintaining long-term meteorological datasets in urban environments, as this is an issue highlighted in the introduction.

 

3. The article could delve into the practical implications of these findings for urban planners and public health authorities in the five countries studied, offering recommendations or potential adaptation strategies. Such practical insights can bridge the gap between research and real-world applications. Furthermore, elaborating on the urban morphology's specific impact on thermal conditions within cities could provide a more comprehensive understanding.

 

4. Line 92. What are the PET, UTCI, SET and OUT_SET ? Please provide the full name of these abbreviations when they first appear.

 

Overall, this is an excellent piece of research with the potential for even greater impact with some refinements.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find attached our responses to your comments and suggestions.

 

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your submission.

The article is well-written, fluent, and understandable.

I wonder if you have checked if the station's micro-location may have changed or if the classic observations have been replaced by AWS over the twenty years covered by your study. It would also be interesting to know how much the micro-location of individual stations has changed over the twenty years.

Besides the IPCC you might also include citations of the WMO annual report or Copernicus data.

It is not entirely clear why you place Portorož among the stations in the valley on one occasion, and on the other among those under the influence of the Mediterranean.

Have you checked to what extent shallow ground inversions affect your results?

How do you interpret the different signs of trends between the nearby stations of Lendava and Murska Sobota?

In line 509, there is probably a typo because the word ForIn means nothing.

Dividing the year into seasons is pretty rough, have you thought about dividing it into months? Especially in autumn and spring, there could be significant differences within the three months of the season.

Have you an estimation of the maximum thermal stress, which usually occurs in summer after 2 p.m. solar time?

Could you explain how you selected the stations considered in your study? 

Just a comment: It is interesting that you left out only Macedonia from the former Yugoslavia.

 

Best wishes

Language is fine, one typo detected

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Please find attached our responses to your comments and suggestions.

 

Best regards,
Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is an important study that reveals the bioclimatological conditions in a large part of the Balkan countries. The results are interesting. The paper is sufficiently novel, and the topic is widely discussed. It is a comprehensive and well-written paper and uses appropriate methodology. Therefore, this issue merits publication in Sustainability. This paper is suitable for publication without revision.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

English language fine.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

 

Thank you for the positive opinion about our work. We can see only the comment about English language in the system. If there are additional comments, please let us know.

Best regards,
Authors