Greening Schools for Climate Resilience and Sustainable Co-Design: A Case Study of Thermal Comfort in Coimbra, Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very clear introduction - but a couple of points that need a little clarification:

Line 56 - "These insights are especially relevant for urban educational facilities". Why? Is this because of the lack of investment you go on to discuss or are there any specific issues to do with the educational land use?

Line 56 - you make a sweeping statement that ...urban educational facilities, ... often suffer from infrastructural inadequacies that impair thermal comfort. I dare say that is true, but this statement needs qualification - is this a global issue, or an EU issues, or just Portugal.

Line 68 - university campuses in Portugal, or broader?

Geographical context:

I would be helpful to have a little more explanation as to why these two schools were chosen as opposed to other schools – are these typical cases or extreme cases?

Methods:

Very clear, well written and supported by sufficient citation. But I presume the survey etc was carried out in Portugese rather than English. You should state this somewhere.

Also, why was Opinion about indoor temperature only on the ESDD Survey?

Results:

Why was Area A6 at ESJF not included in the survey, and if not how did it come to be included in the results.

Figure 6/7: it would be helpful to label these maps with the Area numbers are reported earlier in the paper for easier cross referencing.

Figure 8 – it’s not at all clear how this represents the suggested changes to manage micro-climate better. Suggest labelling key features.

Figure 9 – what do A, B, C, D refer to?

Line 460 – is this paragraph relevant – I understand the point, but not sure it’s needed in this paper – it’s an argument for green spaces in school, but this paper is specifically about using such space to deal with thermal issues.

Conclusions are well written and logically derived from the data.

Author Response

Comment 1 (Line 56): “These insights are especially relevant for urban educational facilities.” Why? Is this because of the lack of investment you go on to discuss or are there any specific issues to do with the educational land use?
Response 1: Thank you for this observation. We clarified that the challenges stem primarily from historical underinvestment in Portuguese school infrastructure, with broader relevance for Southern European contexts. This has been specified in the Introduction (p. 2, para. 3, lines 55–60).

Comment 2 (Line 56): The statement that “…urban educational facilities often suffer from infrastructural inadequacies…” needs qualification. Is this a global issue, an EU issue, or just Portugal?
Response 2: We revised the sentence to specify that this is particularly the case in Portugal, though parallels exist in Southern Europe. Relevant references were added. (Introduction, p. 2, para. 3).

Comment 3 (Line 68): Do the references to university campuses refer only to Portugal, or more broadly?
Response 3: We clarified that the references include both Portuguese universities and international studies. (Introduction, p. 2, para. 4).

Comment 4 (Geographical context): Why were these two schools chosen as opposed to other schools? Are these typical cases or extreme cases?
Response 4: We added a paragraph explaining that the schools represent typical cases of two common typologies (urban compact vs. suburban pavilion), rather than extreme examples. (Study Sites, p. 4, para. 2).

Comment 5 (Methods): State that the survey was carried out in Portuguese.
Response 5: This has been clarified in the Methodology section (p. 6, para. 2).

Comment 6 (Methods): Why was opinion about indoor temperature only included in the ESDD survey?
Response 6: We added a note explaining this was due to logistical constraints and site-specific conditions. (Methodology, p. 6, para. 3).

Comment 7 (Results): Why was Area A6 at ESJF not included in the survey, and if not, how did it come to be included in the results?
Response 7: We clarified that Area A6 was excluded from formal survey questions because it is a restricted space, but was included in the results as it was frequently mentioned in open comments. (Results, p. 12, para. 3).

Comment 8 (Figures 6/7): Label the maps with area numbers.
Response 8: We updated Figures 6 and 7 to include area labels A1–A6. (Figures 6 and 7).

Comment 9 (Figure 8): The interventions are unclear. Suggest labeling key features.
Response 9: We revised Figure 8 to highlight the proposed interventions with labels and a clearer legend. (Figure 8).

Comment 10 (Figure 9): What do A, B, C, D refer to?
Response 10: We clarified in the caption that A–D correspond to nearby green spaces (parks and gardens). (Figure 9 caption).

Comment 11 (Line 460): The paragraph is not necessary.
Response 11: We removed this paragraph to keep the focus on thermal comfort. (Discussion, p. 26).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction is well developed. The methods used, discussion and conclusion are appropriate. However, even though thermal comfort is the main keyword in this article, it is not properly addressed and analysed. It is not clear whether the survey conducted involved the thermal comfort scale. Besides, the analysis part lacks the statistical results from the survey conducted. 
Refer to the attached file for comments through the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Even though thermal comfort is the main keyword, it is not properly addressed and analysed. It is not clear whether the survey involved a thermal comfort scale.
Response 1: We clarified that the survey used thermal sensation scales adapted from ASHRAE, simplified for accessibility. (Methodology, p. 6).

Comment 2: The analysis lacks statistical results from the survey.
Response 2: We expanded the results section with descriptive statistics and charts summarizing the survey responses. (Results, p. 11–13).

Comment 3: Refer to the annotated file for detailed comments.
Response 3: All suggested edits were incorporated into the revised text, particularly improving clarity in the Introduction and Results sections.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article primarily focuses on the issue of thermal comfort at two secondary schools in Coimbra, Portugal, and explores how green spaces can alleviate extreme temperatures and improve the thermal comfort of the school environment. The study uses a mixed-methods approach, combining community survey feedback with on-site microclimatic measurements to assess the role of greening in mitigating thermal stress and enhancing the school environment. I believe there are several areas that still require improvement or further clarification from the authors, as outlined below:

1. The methodology section could further clarify how the community survey data is combined with microclimatic data. Although the article mentions integrating survey results with temperature and humidity data, it is unclear how these data were combined and analyzed. A clearer explanation of the analysis process between these data sources, particularly the triangulation method used, would enhance the transparency and reproducibility of the methodology.

2. In Section 3.1, how were the questions designed to reduce bias and improve reliability? The validity of the questionnaire should be discussed, which would help readers assess the generalizability of the results.

3. Section 3.3 discusses 3D modeling and spatial analysis techniques (e.g., Empirical Bayesian Kriging), but the limitations or uncertainties of these modeling methods could be discussed, as well as how these factors may affect the conclusions. Clarifying the assumptions made during the analysis process would be helpful.

4. In the results section, while the maintenance issues at ESDD (e.g., underutilized green spaces, poor tree maintenance) are discussed, how do the current maintenance practices compare with those of other similar schools (e.g., schools in the Coimbra area)? Are there any best practices in school green space maintenance from the literature?

5. Figures 6 and 7 present microclimate temperature and humidity maps for the two schools, but the figure captions should more clearly distinguish how these maps were generated (e.g., interpolation techniques, grid spacing, etc.). Additionally, it is recommended to ensure consistency in the color scale used in the figures to avoid confusion for the readers.

6. Although the article discusses the current thermal comfort issues, it could further explore future climate scenarios (e.g., the impact of rising temperatures on thermal comfort). How would the environment of these schools be affected if the frequency of heatwaves increases in the future?

7. Section 4.1 focuses on the overall use and satisfaction with green spaces in the survey results, but there is little mention of how different demographic groups (e.g., gender, age, grade) perceive thermal comfort and the use of green spaces. Cross-analysis of this data would help provide deeper insights into the needs of different groups.

8. While the article integrates feedback from students and teachers, there is little discussion on feedback from the broader school community (e.g., parents or local residents). Including perspectives from a wider range of stakeholders would strengthen the applicability of the recommendations, particularly in terms of gaining more support for proposed interventions.

9. The proposal to plant deciduous tree species is reasonable, but further justification of the ecological suitability of the selected species is needed. Why are species like beech or oak particularly suitable for Coimbra’s microclimate? Are there concerns about potential invasive species or long-term maintenance challenges?

10. Figures 8 and 9 present the proposed interventions, but these figures could be better explained in the text. How do these interventions align with the feedback from the school community? A discussion on the cost-benefit analysis of each proposed intervention would provide more clarity.

11. The conclusion briefly mentions the importance of linking school interventions with urban sustainability goals, but it could further discuss how the green infrastructure of these schools could contribute to broader urban climate issues, such as mitigating the urban heat island effect.

Author Response

Comment 1: Clarify how community survey data were combined with microclimatic data.
Response 1: We expanded the methodology to explain the triangulation process, detailing how survey perceptions were mapped against temperature and humidity data. (Methodology, p. 7, para. 3).

Comment 2: Discuss validity and bias reduction in questionnaire design.
Response 2: A paragraph was added describing pilot testing, vocabulary adaptation, and reliability checks. (Methodology, p. 6, para. 2).

Comment 3: Discuss limitations of 3D modelling and kriging.
Response 3: We added a dedicated note on assumptions and uncertainties in these methods. (Methodology, p. 9, para. 4).

Comment 4: Compare maintenance issues at ESDD with other schools.
Response 4: We added contextualisation with examples from other Coimbra schools and relevant Portuguese studies. (Discussion, p. 20).

Comment 5: Improve figure captions (6/7) to clarify interpolation method.
Response 5: Captions were updated to specify interpolation technique (EBK), grid spacing, and harmonised colour scales. (Figures 6/7).

Comment 6: Consider future climate scenarios.
Response 6: We added discussion of projected increases in heatwaves and their implications for school environments. (Discussion, p. 22).

Comment 7: Explore demographic differences (age, gender, grade).
Response 7: We clarified that statistical tests showed no significant differences by demographic group. (Results, p. 14).

Comment 8: Include feedback from parents/residents.
Response 8: We acknowledged this limitation and suggested including broader stakeholders in future participatory processes. (Conclusions, p. 29).

Comment 9: Justify tree species selection.
Response 9: We expanded ecological justification for proposed species (oaks, plane trees), while noting maintenance and invasiveness concerns. (Discussion, p. 23).

Comment 10: Clarify Figures 8 and 9 and their link to feedback.
Response 10: Figures 8/9 were revised and captions expanded to show how interventions align with survey responses. (Figures 8 and 9).

Comment 11: Strengthen conclusion links with urban sustainability goals.
Response 11: We expanded the conclusion to highlight contributions to urban climate adaptation and heat island mitigation. (Conclusions, p. 28).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper investigates the role of green spaces in enhancing thermal comfort in urban schools through a case study of two secondary schools in Coimbra, Portugal. It combines microclimatic measurements with surveys of the school community, providing both quantitative and qualitative insights. The topic is highly relevant to climate resilience, sustainable school design, and urban adaptation, and it aligns well with the journal’s scope. However, it needs some minor modifications before publishing in this journal. Please find below all the required modifications.
1- Although an extensive literature review, some references are highly Eurocentric; integrating studies from other Mediterranean and hot-climate regions (Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia) could broaden global relevance.
2- About the survey, there was a limited discussion on the representativeness of the sample (214 responses). Were age groups balanced? What percentage of the school population was reached? More detail on survey reliability (e.g., validation, internal consistency) would strengthen credibility.
3- While kriging and shadow modeling are appropriate, statistical comparison of temperature differences (ANOVA, t-tests) would add more rigor.
4- The study presents descriptive outcomes but lacks inferential analysis to test significance.
5- The discussion is rich but slightly repetitive in places; it could be more concise.
6- Linking results more strongly with Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and policy frameworks (EU Green Deal, local climate adaptation strategies) would reinforce practical importance.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language is overall clear, but some sentences are long and could be streamlined. Minor grammatical polishing is needed.

Author Response

Comment 1: Literature review is Eurocentric; add references from other regions.
Response 1: We integrated additional references from the Middle East, North Africa, and South Asia. (Introduction, p. 3).

Comment 2: Limited discussion on representativeness of sample.
Response 2: We added detail on response rates, demographic balance, and sample validity. (Methodology, p. 6).

Comment 3: Include statistical comparison of temperature differences.
Response 3: We added ANOVA and t-test results comparing temperature variations across sites. (Results, p. 16).

Comment 4: The study is descriptive; add inferential analysis.
Response 4: Inferential tests were included as above.

Comment 5: Discussion is slightly repetitive.
Response 5: We streamlined the discussion to remove redundancy. (Discussion, p. 19–21).

Comment 6: Strengthen link to SDGs and policy frameworks.
Response 6: We expanded the final section to highlight contributions to SDGs, the EU Green Deal, and national climate adaptation policies. (Conclusions, p. 28–29).

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for your detailed responses and revisions to the reviewers' comments. In your replies, you have thoroughly explained the integration of data, the validity and bias reduction in questionnaire design, and the limitations of 3D modeling and kriging interpolation. These revisions not only enhance the transparency and rigor of the methodology but also make the research process much clearer for readers. Additionally, the discussion on tree species selection for school environments and the future climate scenarios significantly enriches the depth of the paper. Overall, these improvements make the paper more comprehensive and strengthen the credibility of the research.