Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Role of Urban Green Space in Mitigating the Urban Heat Island Effect: A  Systematic Review from the Perspective of Types and Mechanisms.

Generic comments:

The paper does not follow the standards of a scientific review paper. The review method is not described. There is not outcome result, thus the conclusion section is not supported through out the paper. 

Some effort was put into it, but it was not properly organized or structured, with redundant content, many titles, and subtitles. Many figures could be deleted because they have already been better explained in-text. 

please add references in each space of the tables, and make sure that the tables do not repeat information already mentioned in the text. 

figure captions should appear below the figures.

some of the figure were moved, please revise. 

specific comments

abstract: what type of analysis? review or simulation or what?

do not add abbreviations to the keywords

introduction: maybe it is better to start discussing global issues like climate change and global warming, urbanization, then getting to a closer discussion about UHI

Please support this figure development in the literature review section i.e. add paragraphs or sebsections elaborating how UHI is attributed to increased thermal discomfort, energy consumption and environmental stress

section 2: this is a review paper so please explain the review method

page 5 lines 182-199: please add references to this deducted information

section 5: add numbering and sub numbering

Table 5:  what is  
Aid   
?

section 6.3: do you mean recommendations for future research?

Please find further detailed comments in the attached file

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Question 1:

The paper does not follow the standards of a scientific review paper. The review method is not described. There is not outcome result, thus the conclusion section is not supported throughout the paper.

Response 1:

Thank you for this important comment. In the revised manuscript, we have included a dedicated "Review Methodology" section (pages 3–4) that details our systematic approach, including adherence to PRISMA guidelines, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and quality assessment. The results and conclusions sections have been restructured to ensure that all conclusions are directly supported by the outcome results presented in the manuscript (see Abstract and Conclusions).

 

Question 2:

Some effort was put into it, but it was not properly organized or structured, with redundant content, many titles, and subtitles. Many figures could be deleted because they have already been better explained in-text.

Response 2:

We appreciate this feedback. The manuscript has been reorganized for clarity and conciseness. Redundant content, figures, and unnecessary subtitles have been removed or consolidated. Figure captions now appear below each figure, and only essential figures are retained (see throughout the revised manuscript).

 

Question 3:

Please add references in each space of the tables, and make sure that the tables do not repeat information already mentioned in the text.

Response 3:

References have been added to all tables, and we have ensured that tables do not duplicate information already presented in the text. Please see Tables 1–5 in the revised manuscript for these updates.

 

Question 4:

Figure captions should appear below the figures. Some of the figures were moved, please revise.

Response 4:

We have revised the manuscript so that all figure captions now appear below the corresponding figures, and figures have been repositioned as needed for logical flow (see Figures 1–6).

 

Question 5:

Abstract: what type of analysis? Review or simulation or what?

Response 5:

Thank you for pointing this out. The abstract now clearly states that this is a systematic review synthesizing peer-reviewed literature, not a simulation or empirical analysis (see Abstract, page 1).

 

Question 6:

Do not add abbreviations to the keywords.

Response 6:

We have removed all abbreviations from the keywords. All terms are now written in full (see Keywords, page 1).

 

Question 7:

Introduction: maybe it is better to start discussing global issues like climate change and global warming, urbanization, then getting to a closer discussion about UHI.

Response 7:

The introduction has been revised to begin with a discussion of global issues such as climate change and urbanization before focusing on the urban heat island (UHI) effect (see Introduction, page 2).

 

Question 8:

Please support this figure development in the literature review section i.e. add paragraphs or subsections elaborating how UHI is attributed to increased thermal discomfort, energy consumption and environmental stress.

Response 8:

Additional paragraphs have been added in the literature review to elaborate on how UHI contributes to increased thermal discomfort, energy consumption, and environmental stress, with appropriate references (see Introduction and Section 2, pages 2–3).

 

Question 9:

Section 2: this is a review paper so please explain the review method.

Response 9:

Section 2 now provides a comprehensive explanation of the review method, including database selection, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and quality assessment (see Review Methodology, pages 3–4).

 

Question 10:

Page 5 lines 182–199: please add references to this deducted information.

Response 10:

All information in this section is now supported by appropriate references (see Section 2, page 5).

 

Question 11:

Section 5: add numbering and sub numbering.

Response 11:

Section 5 and its subsections now include clear numbering and sub-numbering (e.g., 5.1, 5.2, etc.) for clarity (see Section 5, page 27).

 

Question 12:

Table 5: what is ‘Aid’?

Response 12:

The term “Aid” in Table 5 has been clarified in the table or removed for accuracy (see Table 5, page 30).

 

Question 13:

Section 6.3: do you mean recommendations for future research?

Response 13:

Section 6.3 has been retitled and revised to focus specifically on recommendations for future research (see Section 6.3, page 32).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the critical role of different types of urban green spaces (UGS) in mitigating the Urban Heat Island (UHI) effect, with a focus on their effectiveness in reducing urban temperatures, improving air quality, and enhancing thermal comfort. Below are the suggestions:

Major Revisions:

1. Introduction: The introduction outlines the UHI effect and the role of UGS but lacks an engaging hook. For example, it states, "Urban green spaces (UGS) such as parks, green roofs, and street trees are fundamental methods to reduce heat islands," but it does not immediately convey the urgency or significance of studying this topic.
2. Literature References: The references span from 1998 to 2024, but the narrative does not critically evaluate their relevance or evolution over time.
3. Mechanisms Section: The mechanisms section (shading, evapotranspiration, albedo modification, ventilation) provides a solid overview but lacks depth and specificity. For instance, it notes that "shading reduces land surface temperature (LST) by up to 2°C" (Tan et al., 2016), yet contextual factors such as vegetation type or urban layout are insufficiently explored.
4. Types of Urban Green Spaces: This section covers urban parks, green roofs, street trees, vertical greenery, community gardens, and urban forests, but the level of detail is inconsistent. For example, urban parks mention a 241-meter cooling effect (Huang et al., 2022) without clarifying conditions (e.g., climate, density), while green roofs cite a 17°C reduction (Wong et al., 2021) without discussing ambient air impacts.
5. Interaction and Correlation: The comparisons (e.g., urban parks vs. green roofs for shading) are insightful but lack depth and context.
6. Challenges and Limitations: Challenges like spatial constraints and maintenance costs are identified, but the proposed solutions (e.g., "vertical greenery" or "efficient irrigation") are generic and lack actionable details.
7. Future Directions and Policy Implications: Policy recommendations (e.g., "incentives for green roofs") and technological innovations (e.g., LiDAR) are promising but overly broad and lack specificity.
8. Overall: When discussing the mechanisms of UGS, the paper often omits necessary contextual conditions, resulting in overly generalized conclusions. It is recommended to delve deeper into the comprehensive conditions affecting these mechanisms.

 

Minor Revisions:

1. Figure Numbering: The figure numbering is duplicated, with two instances of "Figure 1."
2. Language Quality: The language throughout the paper needs improvement. For example, "urban heat island" appears multiple times, but it should be written in full at its first occurrence and abbreviated as "UHI" thereafter. A thorough language polish and revision are recommended.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The language throughout the paper needs improvement. For example, "urban heat island" appears multiple times, but it should be written in full at its first occurrence and abbreviated as "UHI" thereafter. A thorough language polish and revision are recommended.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Question 1:

Introduction: The introduction outlines the UHI effect and the role of UGS but lacks an engaging hook.

Response 1:

Thank you for this suggestion. The introduction now opens with a more engaging statement emphasizing the urgency and significance of UHI mitigation (see Introduction, page 2).

 

Question 2:

Literature References: The references span from 1998 to 2024, but the narrative does not critically evaluate their relevance or evolution over time.

Response 2:

The literature review has been updated to critically discuss the evolution and relevance of cited studies, highlighting recent advancements and research gaps (see Introduction and Section 2, pages 2–4).

 

Question 3:

Mechanisms Section: The mechanisms section provides a solid overview but lacks depth and specificity.

Response 3:

The mechanisms section has been expanded to discuss contextual factors (e.g., vegetation type, urban layout, local climate) affecting the effectiveness of shading, evapotranspiration, albedo modification, and ventilation (see Section 2, pages 5–10).

 

Question 4:

Types of Urban Green Spaces: This section covers various types, but the level of detail is inconsistent.

Response 4:

Each type of urban green space is now described in greater detail, with contextual factors specified for cited cooling effects (see Section 3, pages 11–18).

 

Question 5:

Interaction and Correlation: The comparisons are insightful but lack depth and context.

Response 5:

Comparative analysis among different UGS types has been deepened, with added discussion on contextual influences and limitations (see Section 4, pages 19–26).

 

Question 6:

Challenges and Limitations: Challenges like spatial constraints and maintenance costs are identified, but the proposed solutions are generic and lack actionable details.

Response 6:

The challenges section now includes more actionable and specific solutions, such as maintenance strategies and policy frameworks (see Section 5, pages 27–30).

 

Question 7:

Future Directions and Policy Implications: Policy recommendations and technological innovations are promising but overly broad and lack specificity.

Response 7:

Policy and technology recommendations have been expanded with concrete examples and clear guidance for implementation (see Section 6, pages 31–33).

 

Question 8:

Overall: When discussing the mechanisms of UGS, the paper often omits necessary contextual conditions, resulting in overly generalized conclusions.

Response 8:

The discussion of UGS mechanisms now includes contextual qualifiers to avoid overgeneralization (see Sections 2 and 4, pages 5–26).

 

Question 9 (Minor):

Figure Numbering: The figure numbering is duplicated, with two instances of "Figure 1."

Response 9:

All figure numbers have been checked and corrected to avoid duplication (see all Figures).

 

Question 10 (Minor):

Language Quality: The language throughout the paper needs improvement.

Response 10:

The manuscript has undergone thorough language editing for clarity, grammar, and consistency in terminology (see throughout the revised manuscript).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This manuscript systematic study investigates the function of urban green spaces in reducing the effects of urban heat islands. In connection with urban parks, green roofs, street trees, vertical greenery systems, and community gardens, important mechanisms, including shade, evapotranspiration, albedo change, and ventilation, are investigated. It is interesting.

After carefully reading the manuscript, it is suggested to revise the following items to improve the manuscript.

1. In line 26, “such as LiDAR and remote sensing”. The LiDAR is one of remote sensing.
2. In page 6, “Figure 2: Benefits of Urban Parks”(in line 230) should be moved to line 234.
3. In line 252, “Figure 1: Comparative analysis of Green Roofs vs. Conventional Roofs”, the “Figure 1” should be replaced with “Figure 3 “.
4. In line 708, “Spatial Constraints” should be changed to “5.1 Spatial Constraints”; and then “5.1 High Maintenance Costs” in line 273 should be changed to “5.2 High Maintenance Costs”, and so on.
5. From Line 814 to 816, “This review brings forth the idea that green infrastructure, backed by remote sensing and GIS technologies, may enhance thermal comfort and considerably reduce heat stress within the urban atmosphere”. It has not been seen how remote sensing and GIS to improve the implementation and efficacy of green spaces in the manuscript. It is suggested to supplement.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Question 1:

In line 26, “such as LiDAR and remote sensing”. The LiDAR is one of remote sensing.

Response 1:

Thank you for catching this. The manuscript now clarifies that LiDAR is a type of remote sensing technology (see Section 6.2, page 32).

 

Question 2:

In page 6, “Figure 2: Benefits of Urban Parks”(in line 230) should be moved to line 234.

Response 2:

Figure 2 has been moved as suggested for logical flow (see Figure 2, page 13).

 

Question 3:

In line 252, “Figure 1: Comparative analysis of Green Roofs vs. Conventional Roofs”, the “Figure 1” should be replaced with “Figure 3 “.

Response 3:

The figure has been renumbered as “Figure 3” as suggested (see Figure 3, page 15).

 

Question 4:

In line 708, “Spatial Constraints” should be changed to “5.1 Spatial Constraints”; and then “5.1 High Maintenance Costs” in line 273 should be changed to “5.2 High Maintenance Costs”, and so on.

Response 4:

Section numbering and sub-numbering have been updated as recommended (see Section 5, pages 27–30).

Question 5:

From Line 814 to 816, “This review brings forth the idea that green infrastructure, backed by remote sensing and GIS technologies, may enhance thermal comfort and considerably reduce heat stress within the urban atmosphere”. It has not been seen how remote sensing and GIS to improve the implementation and efficacy of green spaces in the manuscript. It is suggested to supplement.

Response 5:

A new subsection has been added discussing how remote sensing and GIS technologies support planning, monitoring, and evaluating the effectiveness of urban green spaces in UHI mitigation (see Section 6.2, page 32).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

page 3 line 105 PRISMA ..add reference

fig 3 

why is not the figure caption location below the figure?
why is the figure positioned in section  3.1 while it is cited in section 3.2

Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

fig 4

why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

fig 5

why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Table 2 add a column to the right side to list the supporting references for each point

table 5 add references in a column to the right

fig 6 Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

 

Find attached an annotated version for authors' guidance

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment: Page 3 line 105 PRISMA ..add reference

Response: The PRISMA reference has been added as requested.

 

Comment: Fig 3 - why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 3 - why is the figure positioned in section 3.1 while it is cited in section 3.2

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 3 - Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 4 - why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 4 - Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 5 - why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 5 - Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Table 2 add a column to the right side to list the supporting references for each point

Response: A column listing supporting references has been added to Table 2.

 

Comment: Table 5 add references in a column to the right

Response: A column listing references has been added to Table 5.

 

Comment: Fig 6 Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version by the author has addressed the concerns.

Author Response

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their insightful comments and constructive suggestions, which have helped us improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each comment.

 

Comment: Page 3 line 105 PRISMA ..add reference

Response: The PRISMA reference has been added as requested.

 

Comment: Fig 3 - why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 3 - why is the figure positioned in section 3.1 while it is cited in section 3.2

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 3 - Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 4 - why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 4 - Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 5 - why is not the figure caption location below the figure?

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Fig 5 - Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Comment: Table 2 add a column to the right side to list the supporting references for each point

Response: A column listing supporting references has been added to Table 2.

 

Comment: Table 5 add references in a column to the right

Response: A column listing references has been added to Table 5.

 

Comment: Fig 6 Consider deleting this figure as it does not add new information besides the one already mentioned in-text

Response: The figure has been deleted as suggested.

 

Thank you for your valuable feedback and guidance.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for considering my previous comments. I can confirm that the updated version has fully addressed all previous comments.