Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overview and general recommendation:

The article discusses an experiment on design strategies that can influence thermal comfort in the streets. Overall, the idea and research topic align well with the journal's scope and have the potential to advance the research field. While the authors conducted an interesting study, certain sections of the paper remain unclear, indicating a need for improvement. Consequently, I am unable to recommend this paper for publication in its current state. I suggest revising the methodology and discussion sections. Detailed comments and suggestions for improvement are provided below.

 

Introduction

This section is well-written and clear, although a detailed literature review should be avoided in the introduction (e.g., lines 60-76).

 Line 63, the sentence is not clear: "The results showed that residents of Tianjin were more adapted to their cold environment" – More adapted than who?

Materials and Methods

This section is overly lengthy; therefore, I recommend avoiding detailed descriptions of the models used. Instead, briefly explain why you chose one over the other.

I also have doubts regarding the methodology. While analyzing different spots in the neighborhood, it seems that they were treated equally. Referring to Figure 1, I observe that points 1 and 3 are not surrounded by the buildings in the block under analysis, but points 2 and 4 are. How did you account for the fact that results at points 1 and 3 may be influenced by the architectural situation outside your designated research area?

Line 128: Add a space between the word “Figure” and the number.

Line 130: The phrase "research scope used in the study" might be clearer if you refer to it as the research area or location. "Research scope" may imply a theoretical framework.

Line 236: Clarify the exact locations of the "pickup points" in Figure 3 compared to the initial map of your research area. Do they correspond to the locations provided in Figure 1? If so, it might be better to assign the same numbers in Figure 3. Additionally, (d) has no scale indication in meters.

Results

Some parts of the results could be integrated into the discussion section. For instance, in lines 303-306 and lines 327-330, you discuss and attempt to provide explanations for your results. If you separate the results and discussion sections, it's important not to mix this information. Regarding the assumption in lines 303-304, I am unsure if it is correct. When I refer to Figure 1, I don't observe significant differences between points 1 and 4, especially when it's not clear what extends beyond point 1 (outside the research area toward the other streets and building blocks. See also my comment regarding the methodology).

Line 344: Avoid repeating the full name of PET.

Line 366: Provide the full name for the first mention of NBS.

Line 374: Confirm if you intended to refer to Point 2 and 3, or perhaps 2 and 4 instead.

Discussion

The discussion is relatively short and does not thoroughly explore the meaning of your results. You've done a lot of work, but what does that tell us? The discussion should focus more on the scenarios that you have analyzed. I would suggest including a discussion on how your results can be adapted practically. Is it possible to suddenly have trees on the streets? Can young trees survive if we plant them now? I have doubts we can do that. What are the solutions then?

Lines 387-388: How did you arrive at such a conclusion in the first sentence of this paragraph? I did not find a related analysis on “street form” previously.

Lines 412-414 and 419-422: I recommend withdrawing this information as it pertains to methodology, not the discussion.

Line 440-442: What do you mean by "the study will consider"? Which study are you referring to?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript (land-2773344) tries to explore the relationship between street design and urban microclimate, aiming to propose a range of design strategies that can significantly improve thermal comfort within the street environment. These strategies hold immense potential for city-wide implementation and provide valuable insights to enhance the overall thermal quality of streetscapes. Although the study fits within the aim and scope of this journal, its novelty and contribution to urban heat island effect research needs to be highlighted throughout the manuscript. Another serious concern is that some related latest studies have been neglected. More detailed suggestions and comments are presented as follows:

- 1. The scientific question or research gap is missing in the Abstract. Both the abstract and Introduction Section did not engage with the wider readership of this international journal. For example, most contents in the abstract are just related to the specific study area.

- 2. The novelty / originality should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. In particular, the authors need to look further into the latest research in this field. In fact, the literature review is far from enough. Note that the analysis of the relationship between landscape configuration and urban thermal environment is not a new attempt in urban heat island effect research (see below for examples).

Exploring the connection between morphological characteristic of built-up areas and surface heat islands based on MSPA. Urban Climate, 2024, 53: 101764

Urban Greening as a Response to Climate-Related Heat Risk: A Social–Geographical Review. Sustainability. 2023; 15(6): 4996.

Sustainable Mitigation Strategies for Urban Heat Island Effects in Urban Areas. Sustainability. 2023; 15(14): 10767.

- 3. The interest domain of the current study located on Wanxia Road, Wanxia neighborhood, Shenzhen, China, spans an area of 289 m × 208 m, which may be too small.

- 4. Figure 2 Methodological framework: The innovative parts of this study should be highlighted in this framework figure.

- 5. This study was assessed primarily based on a software simulation approach, which may not fully capture actual physical phenomena and environmental changes. In addition, the study did not use other assessment methods or models to compare the reliability of its results, which may limit the broad applicability of its conclusions.

- 6. This study only made observations and measurements during specific summer daytime hours and had a relatively small sample size, which may not reflect the thermal comfort situation in different seasons and time periods throughout the year and may limit the representativeness and applicability of its results.

- 7. The study focused on the overall thermal comfort of the urban environment, but did not adequately consider the differences between individuals. The thermal comfort of the environment may vary between individuals, so this point also needs to be explored further.

- 8. The study did not compare the impact of different urban road types on the thermal environment and therefore may not have a full understanding of which road types have a greater impact on the urban thermal environment.

- 9. The study did not compare the impact of different morphological elements on the urban thermal environment, and therefore may not provide a full understanding of which morphological elements have a greater impact on the urban thermal environment.

- 10. The authors also need to improve the Conclusion Section by mentioning the main disadvantages of your work.

- 11. Takeaway for practice is also encouraged to be included in this manuscript. It should be clear enough to present your policy recommendations for both local and international practice.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The stated aims of this study are very interesting, with a very well-constructed introduction and a rich bibliography. The methods should be better justified: why a single site (and why this one), a single date, why these 3 scenarios? The parameterization of the models is not clear, and it's not easy to criticize the results of the 3 scenarios without this information. The results also contain very little analysis of the effects of the different design choices. The discussion and conclusion lack perspective, with bibliographical references to similar studies.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made enhancements to the manuscript. Although I still hold differing views on certain responses, I acknowledge their prerogative. Therefore, I recommend accepting the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for incorporating my previous comments and suggestions. This manuscript can be accepted in present form.