Identification and Prioritization of Thermal Environment Regulation Hotspots in Chengdu

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Using data from multiple sources, Cai et al. identified key zones for thermal environment regulation in green space in Chengdu, China. Based on their results, they categorized 4 priority intervention zones. I don’t this this work can be published in its current form. The major reason for rejection is that the authors did not perform an in-depth discussion of their results. Besides, the description of the method is very unclear. Below are some specific comments:
Method:
1.    2.2.1. Add the last access date for data sources
2.    L147: Revise “reason” to “cause”.
3.    L185-187: Break the sentence into two short ones.
4.    Equations should be numbered. Also, references should be provided if the authors did not create the equations.
5.    The meaning and unit of each term should be described. Below is one example:
L202: What does Pop and T stand for? What are the units?
6.    Table 1:
7.    L142-144: Why only 5 days data? How representative are they?
Results:
1.    Revise “Analysis of Results” to “Results”.
2.    L418: Revise “In contrast” to “By contrast”.
3.    The results mentioned a lot of places, I have no clue of where they are. A map with appropriate names should be shown in the Method part.
Discussion:
1.    The discussions are mostly general statements which are unrelated to the results.
2.    L465-476: The whole paragraph is about Wuhan and Nanjing. I don’t understand how they are related to Chongqing. It makes more sense to move this paragraph to the Introduction.
Conclusions: Almost all sentences can be found in the results. I don’t think they can be called conclusions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

This manuscript seems to be machine translated. Nevertheless, it still contains numerous grammatical errors and is very difficult to read.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) What are the units corresponding to the various physical quantities in Figure 1? Please ask the author to provide.
(2) Please provide detailed information on the meanings, range of values, and units of various symbols in the formula.
(3) Is it necessary to display the three statistical formulas on page 7 as they are all basic formulas?
(4) What are the units of the legends in Figures 3 to 7? What is the size of each basic cell? Why is the unit divided like this? Does it affect display accuracy?
(5) Does the method and conclusion presented in this article have value for promotion and application? Please ask the author to elaborate in detail.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, please find my comments and suggestions in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It seems the authors deleted some of my comments in the response. I don't think they have resolved the issues I raised. How can they present their conclusions before the discussions?  I still don't think the revised manuscript can be accepted for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Grammar errors is everywhere.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Our paper has been revised. Please see the attached file for the detailed content.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have improved the paper a bit, but in my opinion, the section “4. Conclusion and discussion” still needs to be improved. First, it looks very strange that the Conclusion is written first and then the Discussion. Secondly, the Conclusions are quite general, and the specific results obtained in this study are poorly described. In addition, the Discussion is more like one more conclusion than a discussion. There is almost no comparison of the results with the results of other studies in the Discussion.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

Our paper has been revised. Please see the attached file for the detailed content.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no comments, except that some numbers (such as 3.24% and 18.38% in the abstract) are too precise.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I authors declare that their manuscript has been proofread. However, the very first sentence in the abstract is grammatically wrong.

Author Response

First, we would like to thank the reviewers for their suggested revisions to the paper. Secondly, the data in the abstract section have been updated. Finally, we have made adjustments to the language, and the grammatical issue in the first sentence has been corrected. The highlighted sections in yellow indicate the changes made to the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have significantly improved the paper. Well done! Now it is a good and interesting study.

Author Response

Thank you to the reviewers for their suggestions, which have improved and enhanced the manuscript.