Thermal Resilience of Citizens: Comparison between Thermal Sensation and Objective Estimation in Outdoor Spaces: A Case Study in Seville, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

- The concept of thermal resilience is not defined nor detailed with appropriate references. The author focuses on thermal comfort but in the aim of the study they refer to thermal resilience. Please clarify it.

- The relevance of the study should (e.g. lines 164-168) should be provided in the discussion or conclusion section

- figure 1 is not entirely useful, please avoid redundancy

- several reference errors are present, formatting of table is not coherent, language of graph is sometimes not in English. please carefully check and submit a complete version of the manuscrpit

- The innovative contribution is not clear. what is this study adding to the existing body of knowledge, based on the research gap identified? The authors mentioned the lack of studies in mediterranean region but reasons behind this are not mentioned.

- language style must be improved to match the scientific requirements of the journal

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2010898

Title: Thermal resilience of citizens: comparison between thermal sensation and objective estimation in outdoor spaces: a case study in Seville, Spain

Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, our sincerest thanks for the comments on our manuscript. We think they have unquestionably contributed to improving the quality of the paper since it helped us take into account some issues which we did not thoroughly consider.

• The manuscript has been modified to address each of the excellent comments and recommendations raised.
• The authors have additional explanations.
• The 'tracked changes' tool has been used to clarify where manuscript revisions have taken place.

We feel the comments have greatly strengthened the revised manuscript, and we hope that this will comply with the remarks pointed out. We will now proceed to respond to each of them in detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract should be rewritten in order to provide a best explanation on the research, including methods and the main goal of the paper. It’s totally unclear in the way is presented now.

In my opinion, the presentation of introduction is not good. Although I consider the topic to be very relevant, the authors should present more studies showing what is the main gap they want to cover. 

Why did you not explain the meaning of COMFA?

What is thermal resilience, in the last paragraph of introduction? Why use this term?

Error! Reference source not found on page 6

Please explain why did you measure air temperature instead operative temperature?

The authors ignored completely the uncertainty regarding the mean radiant temperature. One way of estimation of the mean radiant temperature is through the measurement of six different values of plane radiant temperature and the calculation of a weighting average. How these values were obtained? Please verify the following papers in order to help you in discussions. This is a very important issue.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101961

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2018.09.041

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.04.068

Why using a 5-point scale instead the traditional 7-point scale?

Authors presented several graphs in Results. However, it is necessary to present how the graphs were built or how data were treated with details in Methods Section.

What were the main gaps your research covered?

What are the main study limitations.

English must be greatly revised.

The methods section should show how the search will be performed, so that it can be replicated. As it is, it is unknown how the authors will work with the answers obtained. Improving this section is mandatory.

In Discussion section, there is a few comparison with similar studies. This must be included. Discussion is basically the presentation of results, with few studies linking with their results. This section must be greatly improved.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2010898

Title: Thermal resilience of citizens: comparison between thermal sensation and objective estimation in outdoor spaces: a case study in Seville, Spain

Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, our sincerest thanks for the comments on our manuscript. We think they have unquestionably contributed to improving the quality of the paper since it helped us take into account some issues which we did not thoroughly consider.

• The manuscript has been modified to address each of the excellent comments and recommendations raised.
• The authors have additional explanations.
• The 'tracked changes' tool has been used to clarify where manuscript revisions have taken place.

We feel the comments have greatly strengthened the revised manuscript, and we hope that this will comply with the remarks pointed out. We will now proceed to respond to each of them in detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This revised version improved clarity but several errors remain

- editing should be conducted in appropriate details: i.e. lines 30, 165, 197, etc.

- the conclusion part of the abstract and in general the implications/impact of the study are not yet clear. Is the study replicable? which are the impacts/benefit that the results can provide for future studies/research/applications?

- discussion about the results should be conducted in terms of objective statements, please avoid subjective opinion that are not supported by evidence

- limitation of the study should be moved in the conclusion section as previously suggested

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, we are grateful for this second opportunity to review the article. So, we would like to thank the reviewers as well as the editor for taking their time to help us with the paper.

Please find below a detailed list of corrections/additions done to the manuscript so as to comply with all the relevant comments and recommendations raised by the reviewers. With the ‘tracked changes’ mode, you may see the location of these changes.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors made a great effort in order to improve the paper. However, there are some erros that must be corrected:

1) Acero J. A. et al - what number is this?

2) Noemi Kantor et al. Kantor et al. [27] have made an......

3) Eduardo et al. [60] demonstrated that the estimation of ISO 7726:1998 generates an 726 error greater than 0.5ºC ..... When we do citations, we usually use the last name of the authors..... Broday et al. [60] demonstrated.....

Author Response

Manuscript ID: applsci-2010898 R1

Title: Thermal resilience of citizens: comparison between thermal sensation and objective estimation in outdoor spaces: a case study in Seville, Spain

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, we are grateful for this second opportunity to review the article. So, we would like to thank the reviewers as well as the editor for taking their time to help us with the paper.

Please find below a detailed list of corrections/additions done to the manuscript so as to comply with all the relevant comments and recommendations raised by the reviewers. With the ‘tracked changes’ mode, you may see the location of these changes

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.docx