Assessing the Impact of Ambient Noise on Outdoor Thermal Comfort on University Campuses: A Pilot Study in China’s Cold Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract

1. The abstract states a "35.29% increase in thermal sensation" in HP compared to LP. How was this percentage calculated? Is this a relative or absolute difference? Clarify whether the statistical significance of this increase was tested.

2. The term "5.88 percentage point uptick in ‘very hot’ thermal sensations" is used. Are these percentages derived from raw counts or normalized data? Provide justification for the use of percentage points versus percentages.

Introduction

3. References are inconsistently formatted (e.g., "noise23," "Jin et al.4"). Why are some citations numbered inline while others use superscripts? Ensure adherence to journal citation guidelines.

4. some refrences can improve level of your introduction part include of:
   The influence of outdoor thermal comfort on acoustic comfort of urban parks based on plant communities - ScienceDirect                                                                                     The assessment of soundscape quality in historic urban parks: A case study of El-Goli Park of Tabriz, Iran - Negar Mohammadzadeh, Rahmat Mohammadzadeh, 2023

5. The introduction cites "Fanger et al.9" but later references (e.g., "Pellerin and Candas1314") lack clarity. Are these references correctly numbered and listed in the bibliography?

Methods

5. The power analysis (G*Power) recommends a minimum sample size of 100 per phase, but only 20 volunteers were used. How does this discrepancy affect the statistical validity of the results? Justify the decision to proceed with a smaller sample.

6. The formula for calculating TmirTmir​ (Page 6) includes variables like $ϵ$ and $D$. Were these parameters empirically measured or assumed? Provide calibration details for reproducibility.

7. Participants’ clothing thermal resistance and metabolic rates were input into RayMan for PET calculations. How were these parameters standardized or measured across participants?

Results

8. Figure 3 and Figure 5 describe TSV/TCV distributions but lack visual aids. Are the textual descriptions sufficient to interpret trends? Clarify how cumulative frequency curves were derived.

9. Table 5 shows a neutral temperature of 16.3°C for HP (full range) but 21.2°C for the segmented range. Why does this inconsistency exist? Explain why the segmented analysis was prioritized despite discrepancies with participant-reported TSV.

10. The R² values for regression models in Figures 8–9 are below 0.75 for HP. How do the authors justify the use of linear regression given the low explanatory power?

Discussion

11. The comparison with Du et al.32 (Page 16) references a study not listed in the bibliography. Ensure all cited references are included and correctly numbered.

12. The discussion claims "high-decibel noise exacerbates thermal discomfort." Does the data conclusively isolate noise as the primary factor, given potential confounding variables (e.g., air temperature differences between HP and LP)?

Conclusion

13. The conclusion states that noise’s impact on thermal sensation "diminishes outside the specified temperature range." What mechanisms explain this threshold effect? Provide empirical or theoretical support.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors;

I suggest the following revisions to improve the manuscript:

The introduction establishes the significance of outdoor thermal comfort but does not provide a structured discussion of previous studies. Including a paragraph summarizing prior work on thermal and acoustic interactions would improve coherence.

The research gap is vaguely stated. A clearer statement on why existing studies are insufficient and what this study adds to the field is necessary.

The transition from general urbanization challenges to specific noise-thermal interactions is abrupt. A smoother transition would improve readability.

The literature review includes relevant studies but lacks a comparative analysis of different methodologies used in previous research. Discussing how prior studies measured noise and thermal perception would enhance the review.

The selection of study sites is well-justified, but the explanation of why only two sites were chosen is insufficient. Were other locations considered? How were these sites deemed representative of broader urban conditions?

The sample size (20 participants) is relatively small for statistical significance. Also, it is mentioned that the minimum appropriate sample size should be 100. Discussing potential limitations and justifying the sample size with references to similar studies would strengthen the methodology.

The questionnaire-based approach follows ASHRAE guidelines, but it is unclear whether participants were given prior training on thermal comfort scales. Clarifying this would improve reliability.

The statistical methods used for data analysis (Spearman correlation, linear regression) are appropriate, but the paper does not mention whether assumptions for these tests were checked. Discussing potential biases or limitations in data analysis is necessary.

The results are presented with multiple tables and figures, but the explanations sometimes lack depth.

The comparison between high-noise and low-noise environments is informative, but potential confounding factors (e.g., wind, humidity) are not thoroughly addressed. Including a discussion on these variables would strengthen the findings.

The discussion does not fully address practical implications. How can urban planners or university administrators use this information to improve outdoor comfort? Providing specific recommendations would enhance the paper’s relevance.

While the conclusion mentions implications, it lacks specific action points. Suggesting policy recommendations or practical applications for campus design would add value.

I hope the authors find these comments constructive for improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article, despite dealing with a potentially interesting topic, needs to be thoroughly revised in its formal and content aspects.

1. As far as formal revisions are concerned, a thorough proofreading of the whole text is necessary to check its syntactical correctness (even the first line of the abstract is wrong!) and in the register (I would avoid the use of first-person narration such as ‘in my country’ in favour of a more objective and scholarly description of a problem that concerns China but not only). Furthermore, a problem occured with in-text references, which appear both as author name and number without brackets, creating confusion and reading difficulties.

2. Turning to the content revisions, the introductory and concluding sections need to be significantly strengthened in order to place this study meaningfully within a framework of research that is significant and relevant to the international scientific community. Starting from the explanation of the correlation between noise and thermal comfort in the literature to the discussion of its practical implications (guidelines for space design, choice of materials, etc.), the study needs greater support and scientific rigour. It may be useful to cite other similar studies and discuss their results or refer to case studies where similar issues have been studied. The experiment itself is carried out in a clear and logical manner, but is uninteresting if not properly contextualised. The weakness of the scientific structure of the study is also evident in the scarcity of the bibliographical references used.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Accurate proofreading is needed, more formal style is recommended.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your study presents valuable insights into the impact of ambient noise on outdoor thermal comfort, contributing to an often-overlooked aspect of thermal perception. The methodology is well-structured, and the findings are clearly presented.

To further strengthen the manuscript, consider the following minor refinements:

1. Briefly discuss the generalizability of your findings beyond the studied locations.

2. Clarify whether the observed differences in thermal perception were statistically significant.

3. Highlight practical implications for urban design and outdoor comfort strategies.

4. A final proofread may improve clarity and readability.

Overall, this is a well-conducted study with meaningful contributions. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors;

The revised version includes more references and background information but still lacks a well-structured synthesis of past research. A dedicated paragraph summarizing prior work on thermal-acoustic interactions would improve coherence.

While more references have been added, the review still does not critically compare methodologies from past research. The study would benefit from a deeper discussion on how different studies measured noise and thermal perception.

The revision acknowledges the small sample size but does not sufficiently justify why 20 participants were used despite mentioning the need for 100 earlier.

The manuscript still does not specify whether participants were trained, which raises concerns about the reliability of subjective thermal comfort assessments.

Some improvements were made in clarifying findings, but certain sections still lack interpretative context. For example, more discussion is needed on why the high-noise environment leads to a stronger perception of warmth.

The revision makes an effort to connect findings to campus design, but the recommendations remain general. Providing specific action points (e.g., policies on construction noise, acoustic barriers) would enhance applicability.

I hope the authors find these comments constructive for improving the manuscript.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A significant improvement has been made, but still unsufficient in my opinion.

The references to other published papers and the framing of the study in the broader context is still poorly developed.

Additionally, citations formatting is still wrong: authors should follow the journal template which requires to use this [1]  formatting for in-text citations. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf