Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the paper is interesting and a literature review is generally helpful.

In the abstract it should be stated that the articles considered were published from 2008 to 2023 although 2023 is not over yet and the chart on page 5 shows a possibly misleading 2023 column. Why was 2023 also included?

Furthermore, the reasons for choosing the period 2008-2023 should be better explained in the methodology and the reasons for some bibliographic references from 1999 (Pherson, E.G.; Simpson, J.R.. …) from 2002 (Nowak, D.J.; Crane, D.E…); (Bass, B.; Krayenhoff, S.; Martilli, A.; Stull, R…).

It is not clear why the focus is on Canada while in the bibliography there are also national strategy documents of Spain and China.

The synthesis effort made in TABLE 1 is not homogeneous in the data. The first row, in the location and Climate column, is the only case in which information such as "Simulations were conducted for days during the hottest month" is included. In the findings and conclusions column, the thicknesses of green roofs or walls, or even urban forests, are never mentioned. None of the reviewed articles include this data?

To conclude, the abstract states that: Finally, major knowledge gaps are identified and a multi-disciplinary research program is proposed, but in paragraph 6. Conclusion and future research there is only a list of 3 possible future topics to be investigated and not a multidisciplinary research program.

This article is a literature review (Nature-based Solutions for Carbon-neutral Climate Resilient Buildings and Communities: a review) and should remain a review with some suggestions for future research.

Among the suggestions could also be proposed to the Municipalities to use sensors (which already exist in the cities) that measure both the temperature and the levels of CO2, to monitor the changes as green roofs or gardens are built.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor

Here are my opinions and suggestions for the article titled "Nature-based Solutions for Carbon-neutral Climate  Resilient Buildings and Communities: a review", to that I was assigned as a referee.

1.     Title: The title of the study can be revised to reflect the content and method in the most accurate way. It may not be a good choice to add “Canada” or “cold climate”  to show the limitations of the study. Furthermore, the selected keywords should be in harmony and include each other/matched.

2.     Abstract: Instead of listing the objectives of the literature review and listing which multi-disciplinary areas are included in the study, authors can write the abstract in a fluent way.

I think the whole abstract can be re-written after considering the checklist above:

·       What is the subject area of the research?

·       What is the main problem of the research (which sub-problems it points to)

·       What are the main hypotheses of the research (or what is the most important hypothesis)

·       What the research method / methodology is (how it is applied)

·       What is the main finding(s) of the research?

·       How/why the findings can be used in the future.

3.     Introduction: please highlight your research problem and the hypothesis in this chapter. Since there is not a “literature review” chapter in the article, related literature may be given in this chapter. This chapter should also reveal the difference of your work considering the related literature. In a paragraph introduce your work process and highlight your contribution to the literature.

4.     Methodology: Why SCOPUS database was selected should be explained. I think for this kind of research WoS is suitable. And why have you limited this search over the last 15 years (2008-2023)? Why not 10 years? 20 years? Or after 2000? Is there a threshold in 2008?  Furthermore, the explanation of reviewed articles shouldn’t be placed in the methodology part (Lines109-121), please move them to the “Findings” chapter.

5.     Part-3 is named as “3. Reduction of carbon emissions” I think after the methodology part a “findings” chapter is needed. Author(s) can divide this part into the sub-titles as they did. But here, it would be good to explain why examined articles have been gathered under these groups/subtitles should be explained in the methodology part.

6.     Why “4. Design guidelines” and “5. Policy” were given as separate chapters? They also belong to “findings”. Chapters 3-4 and 5  can be given in a more compact way and can be supported with illustrations, graphics, and/or tables. It is easy for the readers to follow all the items covered in those chapters.

7.     Please add a “discussion” chapter before the conclusion so that reader can grasp how you discuss your hypothesis.

 

8.     Conclusions: In this section, the research question and hypothesis should be reminded and answered to the readers. Limitations in the process should be stated. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The work has been much improved. It would be convenient/necessary then to better clarify (maybe in the conclusions) what are the differences between extensive or intensive green roofs and walls with respect to environmental performance (indoor and outdoor).

The thick green surface and substrate layers contribute to a significant reduction in heat transfer to the air and the building. The thermal inertia of the substrate is as important as its thickness in increasing the cooling potential of green roof.

This is an important issue for the Design guideline, ”in order to allows practitioners to maximize the benefits of NBS whilst maintaining the integrity and functionality of the building to which the NBS is attached in different situations, over a long-term period” ( line 479 to 481).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Editor,

I have completed reading and evaluating the second version of the paper titled “Nature-based Solutions for Carbon-neutral Climate Resilient Buildings and Communities: a review”

I would like to thank the authors for taking all my comments into account and taking the article to a better level. I recommend them reconsider my suggestion on the title. The title still doesn’t reflect the content of the study.

 

It can be published after language and grammar checks.

Author Response

please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx