Renovation Strategies for Green Spaces in Aging Residential Communities in Cold Regions to Enhance Carbon Sequestration and Wellness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author provide a solid theoretical foundation for their study which is based on a thorough review of existing literature. This allows to appreciate their discoveries in the context of greater urban ecology and sustainable design. Besides, by discussing the survey data from residents, this paper effectively advocates for decision making that takes the community view into consideration when planning. However, there is a need for improvement in this paper.

1.) It comprises ten paragraphs in the introduction. This will make the manuscript too lengthy. Line 40-76: The 2nd and 3rd paragraph should be combined. 

2.)Line 206-209: Change the following sentence ('Proper green space planning and plant 206 selection can effectively improve the temperature, humidity, and wind speed of residential communities. Especially under cold climate conditions, scientifically designed green 208 space layouts help mitigate wind chill effects and enhance residents' comfort.') to the correct one. ('Proper green space planning and plant 206 selection can effectively improve the temperature, humidity, and wind speed of residential communities, especially under cold climate conditions, scientifically designed green 208 space layouts help mitigate wind chill effects and enhance residents' comfort.)

3.) The methodology section could benefit from more detail regarding the survey design and data analysis techniques.

4.) Thorough Proofreading for any typographical errors and grammatical mistakes as well as ensuring that there is a consistent format within the document would improve the overall presentation of the paper.

5.)The paper could expand on future research directions beyond those mentioned, such as exploring the economic implications of green space renovations or the role of policy in facilitating these changes. Future direction can also expanded to various case studies with different scenario such as different climatic conditions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of the English language can still be improved. A Thorough Proofreading for this paper is highly recommended. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the detailed responses to your comments are provided in the attached Word document.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Buildings: buildings-3540454: A Review of Renovation Strategies for Green Spaces in Aging Residential Communities in Cold Regions, Focused on Enhancing Carbon Sequestration and Wellness Benefits. This study focuses on the potential of green space renovation in ageing residential communities in cold regions under the "dual carbon" goals, exploring how scientific planning of green space layouts, selection of high-carbon-sequestering plants, and innovative architectural designs (such as sunrooms combined with new energy equipment) can enhance the winter utilization and carbon sequestration capacity of green spaces. My comments on how to improve the manuscript are as follows.

1. The title seems lengthy. Shorten it. As the title is too lengthy; consider rephrasing it using fewer words. For example, “Renovation Strategies for Green Spaces in Aging Residential Communities for Enhancing Carbon Sequestration and Wellness in Cold Regions”.
2. The official email IDs of authors are required usually.
3. The abstract is too general and should include essential findings and novel outcomes.
4. The keyword “Carbon sequestration” is repeated when compared to the title. Provide an alternative keyword.
5. Section 2 – The criteria for screening selected papers should be mentioned clearly for the readers to repeat the process to get the same results.
6. Lines 167 and 188 – There is a spelling error in "plant species" that needs correction.
7. Section 2.1 – Section titles should begin with sentence case; check all titles for consistency.
8. Sections 2.1 and 2.2 – Numerical results and conclusions from existing literature should be included.
9. Section 2.3 – The content related to the influence of plants on CO₂ concentration, PM index, VOCs, and other pollutants should be placed in a separate section rather than under "Residents' Rehabilitation & Therapy."
10. Line 317 – The statement "trees release VOCs" should be clarified.
11. Line 330 – Unnecessary abbreviations, such as for indoor air quality, should be avoided if they are not used repeatedly in the manuscript. Do the same for lines 343 & 344, 618 & 621 – unnecessary abbreviations for ALCA & HBI and BIPV & PVT.
12. Frequently used terms like "Green Space Layout," "Carbon Sequestration," and "Photovoltaic Systems" should be abbreviated where applicable.
13. Sections 2.3 and 2.4 – Avoid capitalizing every word in section titles.
14. Section 2.6 – The issues discussed can be subdivided and titled as 2.6.1, 2.6.2, 2.6.3, etc.
15. Section 2.6 – Issue 2 – The rationale for mentioning only specific species should be explained. If species selection is based on existing literature or another source, the source should be cited.
16. Section 2.6 – The suggested solutions require proper sourcing; references should be provided.
17. Figure 4 – The figure is unclear, and there is a spelling error in "Sun Spaces Under Strategy" that needs correction.
18. In Figure 6, a few phrases start with a lower-case letter. A few phrases start with a capital letter. Make all in sentence cases.
19. Figure 7 – The title should start with sentence case. Check all figure titles for consistency.
20. The clarity of Figures 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 should be improved.
21. The location of the case study survey carried out in China should be specified.
22. The limitations of the current study should be clearly stated.
23. Several places including list of references, the subscript is not done properly. Especially, for the chemical formula, it must be taken care of. Most of the figures are dull in color.
24. Overall, the figure clarity lacks very much in the manuscript. The quality of the figures must be improved for the quality of the journal.
25. Table 2. The first level heading is missing.
26. Sec 4.2. “Discussions” or “Discussion”?
27. Rewrite the conclusions based on the review. Major conclusions need to be provided precisely.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Editing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the detailed responses to your comments are provided in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript entitled “A Review of Renovation Strategies for Green Spaces in Aging Residential Communities in Cold Regions, Focused on Enhancing Carbon Sequestration and Wellness Benefits” submitted to MDPI Buildings journal. The authors stress the significance of renovating green spaces in aging residential communities, which is a timely topic and aligns well with urban upgrading planning goals an wider sustainability objectives. Overall, the manuscript offers valuable insights and will appear to the journal’s wider readership and in this sense is suitable for publication. I enjoyed reading this! However minor revisions are needed, including.

The manuscript continues a large number of long sentences. These should be broken down to enhance clarity.  For example first sentence of abstract (lines 11-15) “This study focuses on the potential of green space renovation in aging residential communities in cold regions under the 'dual carbon' goals, exploring how scientific planning of green space layouts, selection of high-carbon-sequestering plants, and innovative architectural designs (such as sunrooms combined with new energy equipment) can enhance the winter utilization and carbon sequestration capacity of green spaces.” This needs to be broken up. Its simply too complex and long.  

Lines 24-28. Please also simplify to something such as. “To renovate green spaces in aging residential communities, it is crucial to integrate residents' needs with green technologies and policy support. This approach promotes low-carbon, green, and liveable cities through interdisciplinary collaboration and innovative design.”

Abstract is currently a little long. Please rewrite and shorten it, but double check that the abstract clearly outlines the problem, methodology applied, the key findings and the implications. Add some numerical results if possible.

Please strengthen the problem statement in the introduction section, to show the difference to past studies. For example. Add research questions, which your results can answer such as. How can green space design enhance carbon sequestration in cold urban environments? What are the most effective plant species for winter greenery? Can sunrooms effectively improve green space utilization and resident well-being?

Please add how the survey respondents were selected. What was the sampling method?

Please link and embed Figure 1 in to the main text. Why is a sunroom important, why is it relevant. Improve Figure caption of Figure 1.

Improve and expand on all Figure capitations. Be more diescriptive in the Figure captions please.

Please check the consistency with citations numbering and their ordering and list of references.

Please add a few lines in the discussion which explore your results leading to actionable policy recommendations or implications for urban planners.

Enrich the discussion, with discussing briefly if the results from the study comparable/Transferable to other cold-climate urban environments (e.g., Canada, Northern Eu, or Russia). How about in terms of plant species selection and carbon sequestration efficiency? Is it possible to produce a generalizable generic framework that can be adapted for different cod region urban settings?

Please address limitations of the current study and acknowledge potential challenge sin implementing sunroom designs.

Please suggest future research directions. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the detailed responses to your comments are provided in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made the improvement based on the previous comments. However, there are still some corrections needed to be made before publication. Below are the comments as a references for the improvement.

1.can you add some relevant references into the discussions? It's important to support your discussion with relevant references. You may include the latest references into the discussion.

2.If possible, please make a precise conclusion such as two paragraph only.

Below is some of the english mistake that should be corrected:
1. "Existing green space layouts and plant selections have not fully optimized carbon sequestration potential" could be rephrased to "The existing layouts of green spaces and plant selections have not fully optimized their carbon sequestration potential."

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript demonstrates a good command of English and effectively communicates the research findings.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the detailed responses to your comments are provided in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

buildings-3540454 Revised version: The authors improved the manuscript based on the comments. Although the revision is satisfactorily done, a few minor comments that need to be addressed by the authors are given below.

• Add four to five more keywords to improve the visibility of the paper to the popular search engines and databases.
• Section 2 the heading is a long phrase. It can be changed as “2. Literature review”.
• Several section and sub section headings are with each letter capital. Change it to sentence cases.
• Figures 4 and 6 contain the dark background (block diagrams). It reduces the readability and clarity of the text in that box. Provide very light color background in order to make the letters visible to the readers.
• Also, in Figure 4, the text format is not uniform. Many phrases are in sentence cases. Few phrases are each letter capital, make them into uniformly to sentence case.
• Figure 4: “strategy” and “methods” need to be changed as “Strategy” and “Methods”. Start the word in capital letter in block diagrams.
• The central block “Retrofitting goals…”, the phrase “in cold regions” required? It has been already stated in the first heading of the block diagram. No need to mention “in cold regions” in all places in the Figure 4.
• Figure 6 heading: Make them to sentence case.
• Table 1: Make the 1st letter capital in Section 1 Section 2 and Section 3 headings.
• Provide the proper source citation for the formula given in Table 2.
• Table 2: “The formula for calculating plant carbon absorption.” Needs to be changed as “Plant carbon absorption”.
• Table 2: “Carbon Sink Efficiency Evaluation Formula” needs to be changed as “Carbon sink efficiency”.
• Table 2: “B”, “A” and “fcarbon” can be fined at it first appearance and there in no need to define the same in the same table again.
• Table 2: What is the unit for “Vc is the canopy cover rate”. Mention it.
• On Figure 8, label the sunrooms.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, the detailed responses to your comments are provided in the attached Word document.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx