Skip Content
You are currently on the new version of our website. Access the old version .
MDPIMDPI
by
  • Adéla Brázdová1,* and
  • Jiří Kupka2

Reviewer 1: Zainab Khalid Reviewer 2: Dakota Aaron McCarty

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted article contains novelty and covered the main objectives of the journal. Selected environmental parameters were measured on a model exterior green wall (Liko-S a.s., Czech Republic) for one year to confirm or deny the cooling effect of the exterior green wall on the surrounding environment. The technical-economic and socio-economic aspects were analysed based on the literature research and our own experience with this issue. In addition to a series of measured and analysed data, the output of the thesis also consists of a proposal for an objectification-decision scheme that can serve as a tool for future stakeholders in the pre-implementation phase of the intended exterior green wall. The following points should be considered before finalizing the article for publication.

Introduction is filled up with studies focused on only Europe. It may narrow down the scope of the article and readership. I highly recommend to follow the given literature focused on Asia and write it in the introduction to make it more interesting for readers and increase the scope of the study.

[1] Climate change and agriculture in South Asia: Adaptation options in smallholder production systems

[2] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan

[3] A systematic review on Asian's farmers' adaptation practices towards climate change

It is recommended to highlight the article's main contribution at the end of the introduction.

What could be the main limitation of the study? Please write some limitations in conclusion section.

English of the article is required to be improved.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper discusses the use of green infrastructure elements, notably living green walls, in the urban environment as a tool to help cities adapt and be resilient to climate change. The main contribution of the paper is objectification of exterior green walls.

 

I enjoyed reading your paper and it is nice to see literature incorporating a case study and generating data to be analyzed. Below are my comments, section by section. 

 

Comments:

 

Overall comments:

  1. Please do a final re-read and edit. Some parts are a bit difficult to understand and the flow of the manuscript all together breaks in multiple spots. 

    1. Remember, telling a story is important. 

  2. There are parts that need deeper explanation, introduction, and exploration. You bring a lot of interesting methods and ideas to the table, but many are not adequately presented. 

  3. I get a bit confused because your title specifically mentions climate change adaptation. I feel one could argue that despite negative techno-economic and socio-cultural outcomes, a city could still be considered better off when it comes to “climate adaptation” with living green walls. So, why bring in techno-economic/socio-cultural aspects? Or why title your manuscript with “climate change” specifically?

    1. You use concepts of “active living city” and “urban greenery” more than “climate adaptation”, is there a reason to not title using one of those terms? 

    2. I’m not suggesting to change the title, just saying there can be some potential confusion

 

  1. Introduction

I would recommend a rewrite of the opening introduction to more clearly present what will be studied and why. As it is, it’s a bit hard to understand and some parts seem a bit contradictory. This is an introduction to the introduction, so it should give enough understanding of what is going to come from the following section. 

 

Here are a few specific comments: 

 

  1. Line 36 to 40 is a bit hard to understand. I’d consider rephrasing it to make sure what you’re intended to say is clear, especially as it’s in the first paragraph. 

    1. I’m not fully sure why you’re mentioning  W/m2, what’s a good or bad level? You could better explain the importance of using this. 

    2. I’m not sure what you mean by “use… and/or… don’t use” solar radiation.

  2. Line 55 says the aim is to investigate if green walls can be a suitable tool for adapting to climate change. Then, line 56-57 mentions “techno-economic and socio-cultural solutions”, I am not sure of the connection between those two and climate change adaptation. That’s not saying they don’t exist, I just don’t understand them in the context of this research. 

    1. Later you mention “urban greenery” and how those relate. I’d personally add in a small snippet of that to this part of the introduction to better tie in all the parts together before diving deeper in the next sections. 

  3. Line 59 you say this research presenta "a suitable solution for green interiors and exteriors in line with sustainability and ecology trends". However, you previously mentioned (line 54) you specifically don’t focus on interior walls. 

 

1.1 Background of problematics 

No major comments here, just a few minor ones. 

 

  1.  I’d recommend mentioning the idea of “heat transfer” a bit since it’s relevant to this study .

  2. You being to bring in the concept of the “active living city” and “urban greenery”, which I am assuming is the reason for mentioning techno-economic and socio-cultural ideas in your introduction? If so, bring that to the main introduction to alleviate any confusion. 

  3.  Good summarizations of “urban greenery” and bringing that literature in. 

  4. You outline your main purposes of doing this study here… There’s a need to find ways to bring greenery to dense areas and green walls are a potential solution. 

 

2. Materials and Methods 

2.1. Case study: Living wall (Liko-S) 

You do an excellent job of setting up the explanation of your experiment, however, I do have a few questions on reasonings for why you did certain things. 

 

  1. In the introduction you mentioned a case in Singapore, what was that size of that compared to your study? You call it “relatively small’ but it’d be nice to know how it fits with other cases in terms of size. 

  2. Excellent explanation of the area and wall itself. 

  3. What does “near the LW“ mean on line 219? What are the exact distances? Again, with the Singapore case, they measured 0.15, 0.3, and 0.6 meters. That’s the only other example you gave. 

    1. If you used different distances, what is the reasoning for that? How can you be sure it didn’t affect the study? 

 

2.2. Objectification of the issue of green walls

A few comments after this part. You seem to focus on making a more holistic assessment method for green walls and that’s good to see. 

 

3. Results

3.1. Case study: Living wall (Liko-S) 

Some potential issues with the test design, or explanation, come about from this section. Commented below: 

 

  1. Line 271 says some data loggers had malfunctioned but you only mention the remedy for one. It’d be good to specifically mention which malfunctioned (with their “sign” id) and how you fixed the data. 

    1. Unless just that one malfunctioned, then you should rewrite as it currently reads as multiple have. 

  2. Line 278, what is the reason for 4 hour intervals? Was the previous literature to support doing this? Or another reason?

    1. You mention the dataset was too large, but there are only 8,760 hours in a year, having potentially 113,880 rows of data across 13 sensors (depending on how you tabulate the data). That’s hardly “big data” level. 

  3. Figure 4 is really cool! (no pun intended). It is impressive to see such a difference between the wall and the green wall, despite it being a smaller size. 

  4. The part with the blackbird seemed a bit random. It could do with a better introduction to that paragraph.

 

3.2. Process of objectivization of the concept of green walls

I like your supplied scheme, it’s quite detailed and properly thought out. I do have a few other commented, however:

 

  1. On line 354 (and in the abstract) you mention your own experience as a major source of information. While I admire the confidence and am not questioning your knowledge, you should provide more sufficient evidence from previous literature to back up your claims or more thorough evidence to back up your expertise.

    1. This manuscript reads somewhat like it is coming from a thesis? If that’s the case, please consider the audience you are writing to! 

  2. Table 3 could use some better formatting. I know it can be a challenge to do so with something so large, however, it’s a bit of a challenge to properly read!

    1. The best recommendation I can give is lines between the columns to better distinguish where each column is. I see some questions cross all three aspects, but with the small margins, they are a bit jumbled and difficult to see which goes where. 

  3. I understand that the questions are your attempt to objectivize the concept of green walls, however, I don’t fully understand how each of these questions goes towards that goal. There could be a much deeper explanation here. 

    1. You have appendix B, but don’t really discuss it. Despite being a small sample (n=1), it’s still valuable data. As long as the reader knows it’s not a representation of the industry/population as a whole, I feel it’s fine to discuss further. 

 

4. Discussion

I did not have any major issues with the discussion, I just recommend some slight editing/proofreading. 

 

5. Conclusion

The conclusion is similar to the discussion (i.e. starting two consecutive paragraphs with “however”). 

 

  1. This is quite pedantic, but the use of “his”/”he” in reference to the investor (from line 462) should be neutralized (i.e. they/them). As mentioned, the person interviewed is anonymous. Plus, women can also be investors.




Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have addressed all comments. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your hard work and edits on your manuscript. All looks great! 

Please do a final spelling/word check to fix any small errors. For example line 339 starts with "he" when it should be "The".  Outside of very minor things like that, I have no further comments.