Synergistic Landscape Design Strategies to Renew Thermal Environment: A Case Study of a Cfa-Climate Urban Community in Central Komatsu City, Japan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe idea at the base of the paper is interesting and the topic very up to data, that is why in my opinion it can be accepted after some minor revision.
The paper is well-structured and well-written, methodology and performed analyses seem to be objective, research findings are coherent with the conclusions and recommendations section.
As for the content of the paper, I just have some comments that, in my opinion, would help to improve the work:
1) Avoid the use of first person in a scientific paper. There is a lot of the use within the text.
2) It is not clear why the date was chosen to perform data collection.
3) Why 35 design cases were established to investigate the performance of the new SLDS?
4) What are the main gaps your research covered?
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSmall typos.
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript entitled “Synergistic landscape design strategies to renew thermal environment: A case study of a Cfa-climate urban community in central Komatsu City, Japan” for consideration for publication in the Journal of Sustainability. We are grateful to you and the reviewers for your valuable time and efforts in reviewing our paper and providing insightful comments. We have incorporated changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes in the manuscript. Consequently, we expect the manuscript to comply with the requirements of this journal after careful our revisions.
Comments from Reviewer #1
l Comment 1: Avoid the use of first person in a scientific paper. There is a lot of the use within the text.
l Response: Thank you very much for the reminder and suggestions. I have revised five places to avoid the use of the first person. I have used these terms to revise related content such as this study/this research. The revised text reads as follows on [In Abstract Section, Page1, Lines 16-17; In Subsection 4.3.3, Page 21, Lines 613; In Subsection 5.3, Page24, Lines 725; In Subsection 5.4.1, Page24, Lines 730; In Subsection 5.5, Page25, Lines 764].
l Comment 2: It is not clear why the date was chosen to perform data collection.
l Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments. I've split weather data from 2019 to 2021 into two parts to explain why I chose the 22nd of August 2021 as the collection and simulation date. The revised text reads as follows on [In Subsection 2.2, Page6, Lines 178-182, Lines194-196 ].
l Comment 3: Why 35 design cases were established to investigate the performance of the new SLDS?
l Response: Thank you for your comments. Based on the research hypotheses and questions, the SDLS mechanism is set to divide the three-level optimization method. Therefore, the community renewal strategy is defined according to each validation condition (from a to b) until it meets the optimal thermal environment. The main modifications are found in Figs. 1 and 6. The revised text reads as follows on [In Section2, Page4, Lines139-141 ;In Section3, Page11, Lines 295-304 ].
l Comment 4: What are the main gaps your research covered?
l Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments. We have revised Subsection 1.4, Section 5 and Section 6. Examples include the effectiveness of SDLS implementation in a three-tiered optimization approach, the contribution of thermal mitigation to UHI across different scales of community for all day, and the selection of urban trees. The revised text reads as follows on [In Subsection 1.4 Motivation, Page3, Lines 105-128; In Section 5, Page22-25, Lines 628-783; In Section 6, Page22-25, Lines 793-805].
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
thank you for your interesting work.
While your test case seems to have undergone thorough professional scrutiny, the merit of this research i.e. the original contribution must be stated and elaborated on more clearly. Although in practise Synergistic Landscape Design Strategies may be applied regularly in Japan this is the case elsewhere on the planet; SLDS as a concept have been described generally in literature and are state of the art in academia, especially in teaching urban planning, landscaping and architecture.
This research presents the implementation of Synergistic Landscape Design Strategies, which is described as a multilayered analytical approach for the prognosis of the effects of landscape design, urban design, vegetation mixture and others on in- and outdoor microclimates in urban residential areas in order to provide thermal stress relief for the inhabitants.
The abstract and title should make it transparent that this research is a case study on the city of Komatsu specifically.
Since among others the interrelated effects of architecture and vegetation are under scrutiny, section plans that show e.g. how topography, vegetation heights and architectural elevations interact would be extremely helpful to explain the different scenarios to professional planers and architects.
All the best for your work
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor editing on spelling and grammar advised.
Author Response
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to submit our revised manuscript entitled “Synergistic landscape design strategies to renew thermal environment: A case study of a Cfa-climate urban community in central Komatsu City, Japan” for consideration for publication in the Journal of Sustainability. We are grateful to you and the reviewers for your valuable time and efforts in reviewing our paper and providing insightful comments. We have incorporated changes to reflect most of the suggestions provided by the reviewers. We have highlighted the changes in the manuscript. Consequently, we expect the manuscript to comply with the requirements of this journal after careful our revisions.
Comments from Reviewer #2
l Comment 1:While your test case seems to have undergone thorough professional scrutiny, the merit of this research i.e. the original contribution must be stated and elaborated on more clearly.
l Response: I appreciate your suggestion that I address the original contributions of the paper in the abstract, motivation, discussion, and conclusion, respectively. The original contribution stated that urban community regeneration plans should be renewed using more than three synergistic strategies to reduce the community temperature and thermal indices to mitigate the urban heat island effect. Adding evergreen or coniferous trees is more conducive to reducing the UHI in large-scale models. The revised text reads as follows on [In Abstract Section, Page1, Lines 16-17; In Subsection 1.4 Motivation, Page3, Lines 108-128; In Section 5, Page22-23, Lines 636-638 ].
l Comment 2: The abstract and title should make it transparent that this research is a case study on the city of Komatsu specifically.
l Response: According to your comments on the revision of the abstract and title, we have revised the abstract and title altogether. The title has been changed to:“Synergistic Landscape Design Strategies to Renew Thermal Environment: A Case Study of a Cfa-climate Urban Community in Central Komatsu City, Japan”. Abstract section details: “A typical Japanese community in central Komatsu city was selected to illustrate the simulation-based design strategies.” The revised text reads as follows on [In Title Section, Page1, Lines 1-3; In Abstract Section, Page1, Lines 18-19 ].
l Comment 3: Since among others the interrelated effects of architecture and vegetation are under scrutiny, section plans that show e.g. how topography, vegetation heights and architectural elevations interact would be extremely helpful to explain the different scenarios to professional planers and architects.
l Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. Based on the synergistic landscape design strategies (SLDS) the axial side analysis of each scenario implemented in Figure 6, it can be visually observed the vegetation, architecture, topography, and strategy changes in each scenario, as well as the synergistic approach to the scenario design by marking the logo crossing the different strategies. The revised text reads as follows on [In Section 3, Page12, Lines 348-349 ].
l Comment 4: Are the research design, question, hypotheses, and methods clearly stated? Must be improved
l Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions and comments. Rationalize the relationship between applying synergistic landscape strategies to different combinations of building forms (HC, AC, BC areas) based on the logic of this paper. The modifications are focused on the section of sections 1.4 and 3. We discuss the research design, question, hypothesis, methodology, and workflow. The revised text reads as follows on [In Subsection 1.4 Motivation, Page3, Lines 105-128; In Section 3, Page11-12, Lines 295-305 ].
l Comment 5: Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?
l Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions. I carried out the relationship between strengthening background theory and empirical research according to three parts of the research topic and innovation, mainly from three aspects:1)The three-level optimization methods in the implementation of SDLS on the microclimate parameters and thermal index of community renewal; 2) Compared to others this study achieved thermal mitigation for small and large scale communities with a key "W" strategy under consideration of urban physical factors.; 3) On this basis, selecting coniferous or evergreen urban trees in central urban communities is more conducive to mitigating UHI to achieve the objectives of SDGS. The revised text reads as follows on [In Section 5, Page24-25, Lines702-707 and Lines 756-762 ; In Section 6, Page26, Lines 793-805 ].
l Comment 6: Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling? Can be improved
l Response: Reviewing your comments, I have strengthened the core findings and removed some redundant findings in Section 5 based on my research objectives and novelty. We will highlight the prominent contributions of a three-level optimization method to the communities with different building form combinations in Japanese communities, particularly effective multifactor improvements and climate resilience to urban physical features. The revised text reads as follows on [In Section 5, Page22-25, Lines628-763].
l Comment 7: Is the article adequately referenced? Can be improved
l Response: Thank you very much for the reminder. This article has been re-cited according to the reference format and checked for correctness. The revised text reads as follows on [In References Section, Page27-30, Lines828-971].
l Comment 8: Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature? Can be improved
l Response: Thank you very much for the reminder. Based on the academic background studies in the introduction, new results are explained and cited in the discussion section. The revised text reads as follows on [In Section 5, Page23-25, Lines 648-654, Lines 666-668, Lines 756-763 ].
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
