Façade Strategies for Climate Resilience: The Impact of Thermal Mass and Albedo on Urban Microclimates Across Different Climatic Zones

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall Comments:

This study focuses on the impact of building facade technologies and albedo on urban microclimates, with a topic of significant practical relevance. The experimental design is relatively systematic, and the conclusions provide reference value for urban climate-adaptive design. However, there are deficiencies in the detailed elaboration of research methods, completeness of data presentation, depth of result analysis, and relevance of the discussion section. It is recommended that the authors revise and improve the manuscript based on the following specific comments. Once these revisions are made, the manuscript may be more suitable for publication in the Urban Science.

 

Major Comments:

1. The description of ENVI-met model parameter settings and scenario simulation boundary conditions in the research methods is insufficient. Model validation is only reflected through the goodness-of-fit of air temperature and relative humidity, lacking validation of key indicators such as MRT. Relevant content needs to be supplemented to enhance methodological reliability.
2. Some table data have unclear expressions (e.g., missing unit for average temperature in Campinas), ambiguous data comparison logic, and insufficiently detailed chart annotations. Data formats should be standardized and necessary explanations added to ensure clear and accurate data presentation.
3. Result analysis mostly stays at the level of phenomenon description, with insufficient explanation of the internal mechanisms behind the differences in the effects of facade technologies and albedo across different climate zones. In particular, the analysis of the physical processes of the negative effects of high albedo in deep urban canyons is not in-depth enough. Further exploration is needed in combination with urban morphology and climatic characteristics.
4. Although the discussion section cites relevant literature, the integration with the results of this study is not close enough. The elaboration on research limitations and future prospects is relatively vague. It is necessary to strengthen the comparative analysis of literature, clarify the research innovations and shortcomings, and propose more targeted future research directions.

 

Minor Comments:

5. Lines 1-27: The title "impact of thermal mass and albedo" can be supplemented with "on urban microclimate in different climatic zones" to highlight the research scope; in the abstract, "decreasing it by 12.5% in Mendoza and 8.5% in Madrid and Campinas" needs to clarify that "it" refers to "extreme heat stress exposure".
6. Line 28: It is recommended to add keywords such as "urban canyon" and "thermal comfort index (UTCI)" that are more in line with the core content of the research.
7. Line 33: The expression "demographic shift such as population aging" is incomplete and should be revised to "demographic shifts such as population aging"; there is a grammatical error in "urban populations growth of has intensified", which needs to be corrected to "Urban population growth has intensified".
8. Introduction: When elaborating on urban overheating and the UHI effect, it is recommended to briefly explain their specific impacts on human health to strengthen the necessity of the research.
9. Line 57: After stating "their contribution to the microclimatic balance and outdoor thermal comfort remains underexplored", specific gaps in existing research can be adressed，such as "especially the lack of comparative studies on combined facade strategies for multi-story buildings in different climate zones".
10. MRT: The explanation of MRT can be more popularized, such as "Simply put, MRT is the equivalent temperature felt by the human body after comprehensively considering all radiation influences from the surrounding environment".
11. Line 158: It is recommended to supplement the specific calculation dimensions of the UTCI index, such as "UTCI integrates factors such as air temperature, humidity, wind speed, and radiation".
12. Line 167: The expression "strategies employing universal materials and technologies which disregard... can negatively impact" can clarify the specific reference of "universal materials" to avoid ambiguity.
13. Section 2.1: It is necessary to explain why these three cities with large climatic differences were chosen, such as "These three cities were selected to cover typical climate types including desert steppe, Mediterranean, and warm temperate climates".
14. Line 214: "a grid of 100(x); 80(y); 30(z) with a resolution of 3.0 (dx); 3.0 (dy); 5.0 (dz) meters" should unify the unit expression format, such as "100(x)×80(y)×30(z) grid with a resolution of 3.0 m (dx)×3.0 m (dy)×5.0 m (dz)".
15. Scenario: The correspondence between the "ID" column and technologies in Table 2 is unclear. It is recommended to add explanations for each ID below the table, such as "L represents lightweight technology, T represents traditional technology, and S represents ETICS".
16. Table 3: "25,9" in the "Average air temperature; °C" column for Campinas should be changed to "25.9 °C" to unify the decimal point format; the unit expression after the values in the "Maximum global solar radiation; W/m 2" column is irregular and should be changed to "W/m²".
17. Line 288: "assuming an area of 10 m²" needs to explain why this area was chosen and whether it is representative; it is recommended to supplement specific steps or examples of thermal capacity calculation.
18. Table 5: The subheadings such as "30.90 Average" in the "AT" and "MRT" columns of the header do not clearly correspond to cities, which is confusing. City labels such as "(Mendoza)" need to be added to the header; some data cells have chaotic formats and need to adjust the alignment.
19. Line 327: "Lightweight technology scenarios exhibit lower thermal inertia due to the absence of mass" can supplement specific differences in material properties, such as "lightweight technology has lower thermal inertia due to the use of low thermal conductivity materials such as polystyrene".
20. Line 341: After stating "high albedo may have detrimental effects", specific data support can be adressed，such as "In Campinas, the MRT in the high-albedo scenario of traditional technology increased by 6.50 °C compared to the low-albedo scenario".
21. Conclusion: "Traditional technology with low albedo emerges as the most effective option" needs to limit the scope of application, such as "in the 10-story urban canyon scenarios involved in this study"; it is recommended to supplement specific guidance suggestions of the research for actual urban planning, such as "in high-density building groups in similar climate zones, traditional low-albedo facade technology is preferred".

Author Response

The present document details changes that have been made in the paper. To simplify the correction, the modified paragraphs have been highlighted in yellow in manuscript.

 GENERAL COMMENTS

• Several recurring issues raised by the reviewers have been comprehensively addressed in the revised manuscript:
• Methodology: The ENVI-met model parameters and boundary conditions have been expanded, with a new subsection detailing assumptions and software limitations. Additional statistical measures (RMSE and MAE) have been included to complement R², providing a more rigorous model validation.
• Data Presentation and Figures: All tables and figures have been revised for clarity and scientific accuracy. Units, decimals, legends, and abbreviations have been standardized, and additional figures have been included to enhance the presentation of methodology.
• Analysis and Discussion: The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been separated to improve the analysis has been deepened to provide a more thorough examination of the results.
• Language Quality: The manuscript has been edited to correct grammatical errors, punctuation, and inconsistencies, including the consistent use of “façade.”

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

R1

1. The description of ENVI-met model parameter settings and scenario simulation boundary conditions in the research methods is insufficient. Model validation is only reflected through the goodness-of-fit of air temperature and relative humidity, lacking validation of key indicators such as MRT. Relevant content needs to be supplemented to enhance methodological reliability.
   • While the model was not directly validated for mean radiant temperature (MRT), the validity of the results relies on the construction of a theoretical model that accurately reproduced the morphological characteristics and surveyed material properties of the urban envelope in the study area. As detailed in Section 2.2, specific materials were created in the ENVI-met library to reflect the thermal and optical properties of the surveyed urban surfaces. The model was comprehensively digitized to replicate the real characteristics of the study area, including urban morphology, surface materials, and vegetation, all documented through field surveys. This survey was conducted as part of a previous study of the area published by Alchapar et al., 2025. Surface materials were represented using the ENVI-met 5.6.1 standard database, with site-specific adjustments to the albedo of horizontal and vertical external surfaces, while vegetation was parameterized using the software’s standard library complemented by locally collected data.

To minimize external variability and ensure the reliability of the ENVI-met simulations, a day with stable atmospheric conditions, free of precipitation and with minimal cloud cover, was selected. Model calibration was carried out by comparing measured and simulated air temperatures obtained from a sensor located within a central urban canyon. Although MRT was not validated through direct field measurements, its reliability is supported by the incorporation of critical input parameters—such as albedo, material properties, and cloud cover—that are recognized in the literature as key determinants for accurate MRT estimation (Aleksandrowicz, et al., 2023; Schöneberger et al., 2025)

Referencias:

- Alchapar N., Martin-Consuegra F., Villalba A., Alonso C, Pezzuto C., Fruto B., Pérez G. (2025). Effective and Affordable Methodologies for the Optical Characterization of Envelope Materials Within Urban Contexts. Urban Science, 9 (3). ISSN: 2413-8851; e-ISSN: 2413-8851. MDPI Publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/urbansci9030057.

- O. Aleksandrowicz, T. Saroglou, and D. Pearlmutter, “Evaluation of summer mean radiant temperature simulation in ENVI-met in a hot Mediterranean climate,” Build Environ, vol. 245, Nov. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110881.

- P. Schöneberger, T. Sinsel, W. Ouyang, Z. Tan, M. Bruse, and H. Simon, “Enhancing urban microclimate simulations: Validating ENVI-met’s accuracy in modeling multi-directional radiative fluxes and mean radiant temperature in subtropical hong kong,” Build Environ, vol. 284, Oct. 2025, doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2025.113475.

2. Some table data have unclear expressions (e.g., missing unit for average temperature in Campinas), ambiguous data comparison logic, and insufficiently detailed chart annotations. Data formats should be standardized and necessary explanations added to ensure clear and accurate data presentation.
   • Unclear expressions in Table 2 and missing units in the table data have been corrected, and the annotations in the figures have been improved to avoid ambiguity.
3. Result analysis mostly stays at the level of phenomenon description, with insufficient explanation of the internal mechanisms behind the differences in the effects of facade technologies and albedo across different climate zones. In particular, the analysis of the physical processes of the negative effects of high albedo in deep urban canyons is not in-depth enough. Further exploration is needed in combination with urban morphology and climatic characteristics.
   • The analysis of the results section was deepened to clarify the physical processes linked to façade technologies in different climate zones. See details in section 3.2.
4. Although the discussion section cites relevant literature, the integration with the results of this study is not close enough. The elaboration on research limitations and future prospects is relatively vague. It is necessary to strengthen the comparative analysis of literature, clarify the research innovations and shortcomings, and propose more targeted future research directions.
   • A discussion section and a conclusions section were edited and restructured to address the evaluators' suggestions. (Sections 4 and 5)
5. Lines 1-27: The title "impact of thermal mass and albedo" can be supplemented with "on urban microclimate in different climatic zones" to highlight the research scope; in the abstract, "decreasing it by 12.5% in Mendoza and 8.5% in Madrid and Campinas" needs to clarify that "it" refers to "extreme heat stress exposure". Line 28: It is recommended to add keywords such as "urban canyon" and "thermal comfort index (UTCI)" that are more in line with the core content of the research.
   • The suggestions were added.
6. Line 33: The expression "demographic shift such as population aging" is incomplete and should be revised to "demographic shifts such as population aging"; there is a grammatical error in "urban populations growth of has intensified", which needs to be corrected to "Urban population growth has intensified".
   • The two mistakes highlighted by the reviewer have been corrected.
7. Introduction: When elaborating on urban overheating and the UHI effect, it is recommended to briefly explain their specific impacts on human health to strengthen the necessity of the research.
   • The authors acknowledge the reviewer for raising this important point. The sentence “The necessity of mitigating these effects is strengthen by their specific impacts on human health, giving rise to a higher mortality due to heat stress in the most vulnerable population and in lower-income neighborhoods” together with the reference to Klinenberg, E. Heat Wave a Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 2022 (https://www.perlego.com/book/1853205/heat-wave-a-social-autopsy-of-disaster-in-chicago-pdf) have been added.
8. Line 57: After stating "their contribution to the microclimatic balance and outdoor thermal comfort remains underexplored", specific gaps in existing research can be adressed，such as "especially the lack of comparative studies on combined facade strategies for multi-story buildings in different climate zones". MRT: The explanation of MRT can be more popularized, such as "Simply put, MRT is the equivalent temperature felt by the human body after comprehensively considering all radiation influences from the surrounding environment".
   • The suggestions were added.

 

9. Line 158: It is recommended to supplement the specific calculation dimensions of the UTCI index, such as "UTCI integrates factors such as air temperature, humidity, wind speed, and radiation".
10. Line 167: The expression "strategies employing universal materials and technologies which disregard... can negatively impact" can clarify the specific reference of "universal materials" to avoid ambiguity.
    • The term in the hypothesis was corrected.
11. Section 2.1: It is necessary to explain why these three cities with large climatic differences were chosen, such as "These three cities were selected to cover typical climate types including desert steppe, Mediterranean, and warm temperate climates".
    • The three cities were selected to evaluate the impact of the facade technologies under a variety of climatic conditions. The inclusion of desert steppe, Mediterranean, and warm temperate climates allows for a comprehensive analysis of the facades' performance across scenarios
12. Line 214: "a grid of 100(x); 80(y); 30(z) with a resolution of 3.0 (dx); 3.0 (dy); 5.0 (dz) meters" should unify the unit expression format, such as "100(x)×80(y)×30(z) grid with a resolution of 3.0 m (dx)×3.0 m (dy)×5.0 m (dz)".
    • Both suggestions were corrected in 2.2 Section.
13. Scenario: The correspondence between the "ID" column and technologies in Table 2 is unclear. It is recommended to add explanations for each ID below the table, such as "L Line 214: represents lightweight technology, T represents traditional technology, and S represents ETICS". Table 3: "25,9" in the "Average air temperature; °C" column for Campinas should be changed to "25.9 °C" to unify the decimal point format; the unit expression after the values in the "Maximum global solar radiation; W/m 2" column is irregular and should be changed to "W/m²". Line 327: "Lightweight technology scenarios exhibit lower thermal inertia due to the absence of mass" can supplement specific differences in material properties, such as "lightweight technology has lower thermal inertia due to the use of low thermal conductivity materials such as polystyrene". Line 341: After stating "high albedo may have detrimental effects", specific data support can be adressed，such as "In Campinas, the MRT in the high-albedo scenario of traditional technology increased by 6.50 °C compared to the low-albedo scenario".
    • The suggestions were corrected. (sections 2.3 and 3.1)
14. Line 288: "assuming an area of 10 m2" needs to explain why this area was chosen and whether it is representative; it is recommended to supplement specific steps or examples of thermal capacity calculation.
    • We have edited the analysis to more accurately reflect the calculations and units. The document has been modified to replace the analysis based on 10 m² with an analysis per square meter, eliminating any possible confusion about the representativeness of the area. (sections 2.3 and 3.1)

 

15. Table 5: The subheadings such as "30.90 Average" in the "AT" and "MRT" columns of the header do not clearly correspond to cities, which is confusing. City labels such as "(Mendoza)" need to be added to the header; some data cells have chaotic formats and need to adjust the alignment.

- We have updated Table (actually Table number 6) to improve clarity and readability. City labels were added to ensure that the data clearly correspond to each location, addressing the initial point of confusion. In addition, cell formatting was adjusted for consistent alignment and a more coherent presentation. Finally, the columns showing the maximum values of each variable (AT and MRT) were highlighted with color ranges to facilitate analysis and allow clearer identification of behavioral patterns.

16. Conclusion: "Traditional technology with low albedo emerges as the most effective option" needs to limit the scope of application, such as "in the 10-story urban canyon scenarios involved in this study"; it is recommended to supplement specific guidance suggestions of the research for actual urban planning, such as "in high-density building groups in similar climate zones, traditional low-albedo facade technology is preferred".

• The conclusions section has been re-edited. (Sections 5)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript, titled “Facade strategies for Climate Resilience: impact of thermal mass and albedo on the urban microclimate,” has some value in promoting climate-resilient urban development. However, this manuscript has the following issues that need to be addressed.

 

1. Abstract section: First, the authors provide little information about the research methods, making it difficult for readers to understand how to use ENVI-met in simulation modeling. Second, the results are not clearly explained. Should the authors present the results from three aspects—air temperature, mean radiant temperature (MRT), and thermal comfort—to strengthen the logical coherence of the findings? The authors should reconsider whether these keywords are appropriate and whether they reflect the research objectives and methods of this paper.

 

2. Introduction section: The content of the introduction lacks logical coherence. The authors need to include subheadings in the introduction section, such as research background, literature review, and formulation of research questions. Importantly, the references in this manuscript appear to be outdated. The authors need to conduct a systematic review of the relevant latest articles to highlight the innovation and necessity of this study.

 

3. Methods section: The authors have not clearly explained the source of the urban spatial entities referenced in Figure 2. Satellite imagery or aerial photographs of the location should be provided. Figure 3 is missing important information and needs to be redrawn. Table 3 contains obvious errors in data presentation.

 

4. Results section: Similarly, it is recommended that the authors redraw Figure 4. The authors need to review and revise all figures and tables in the manuscript, as the current content lacks basic scientific accuracy and rigor.

 

5. Discussion and Conclusion section: The Discussion and Conclusion should be presented in two separate sections. The current content does not sufficiently highlight the value of this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript requires extensive editing and revision.

Author Response

The present document details changes that have been made in the paper. To simplify the correction, the modified paragraphs have been highlighted in yellow in manuscript.

 GENERAL COMMENTS

• Several recurring issues raised by the reviewers have been comprehensively addressed in the revised manuscript:
• Methodology: The ENVI-met model parameters and boundary conditions have been expanded, with a new subsection detailing assumptions and software limitations. Additional statistical measures (RMSE and MAE) have been included to complement R², providing a more rigorous model validation.
• Data Presentation and Figures: All tables and figures have been revised for clarity and scientific accuracy. Units, decimals, legends, and abbreviations have been standardized, and additional figures have been included to enhance the presentation of methodology.
• Analysis and Discussion: The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been separated to improve the analysis has been deepened to provide a more thorough examination of the results.
• Language Quality: The manuscript has been edited to correct grammatical errors, punctuation, and inconsistencies, including the consistent use of “façade.”

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

R2

1. Abstract section: First, the authors provide little information about the research methods, making it difficult for readers to understand how to use ENVI-met in simulation modeling. Second, the results are not clearly explained. Should the authors present the results from three aspects—air temperature, mean radiant temperature (MRT), and thermal comfort—to strengthen the logical coherence of the findings? The authors should reconsider whether these keywords are appropriate and whether they reflect the research objectives and methods of this paper.

-          Following the suggestions, the abstract has been completely revised and edited. The keywords were reconsidered to ensure they accurately reflect the research objectives and methodology.

2. Introduction section: The content of the introduction lacks logical coherence. The authors need to include subheadings in the introduction section, such as research background, literature review, and formulation of research questions. Importantly, the references in this manuscript appear to be outdated. The authors need to conduct a systematic review of the relevant latest articles to highlight the innovation and necessity of this study.

-          The Introduction section has been restructured. In addition, the references have been updated through a review of recent studies.

3. Methods section: The authors have not clearly explained the source of the urban spatial entities referenced in Figure 2. Satellite imagery or aerial photographs of the location should be provided. Figure 3 is missing important information and needs to be redrawn. Table 3 contains obvious errors in data presentation.

-          These issues have been addressed in the revised manuscript. Table 3 and figures have been corrected and aggregated

4. Results section: Similarly, it is recommended that the authors redraw Figure 4. The authors need to review and revise all figures and tables in the manuscript, as the current content lacks basic scientific accuracy and rigor.

-          The Results section has been completely restructured in the revised manuscript. All figures have been carefully reviewed and corrected to ensure clarity and accuracy, and additional figures have been included to enhance the presentation (section 2 and 3).

5. Discussion and Conclusion section: The Discussion and Conclusion should be presented in two separate sections. The current content does not sufficiently highlight the value of this study.

-          The Discussion and Conclusion have been separated into two distinct sections (section 4 and 5). The content has been revised to better highlight the significance and value of the study.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript tackles an interesting subject: how opaque façade thermal mass and albedo influence the outdoor environment, specifically thermal comfort. However, the originality of the study and its contribution to the existing literature are not clearly demonstrated. In addition, several issues need to be addressed to enhance the clarity of the manuscript.

Although the paper is comprehensible, it contains some typos, punctuation, and grammar errors. The quality of English can be improved. Examples can be found in lines 38, 91–94, 106, 134, 135–140, 280…

We recommend that the authors use the term “radiative properties” instead of “optical properties”, as it more accurately describes albedo and emissivity

The introduction is too long and not very well structured and luck justification of the study originality and its contribution

The authors should ensure that the references accurately support the statements made in the introduction. For example, the references cited in lines 68 and 77 require verification.

The study analyzes simulation results from different scenarios using ENVI-met. It is important that the authors provide detailed information about the underlying models and assumptions of the software, as well as discuss the strengths and limitations of using ENVI-met for this type of analysis.

In lines 221–222, the authors state: “Figure 2 shows the morphological configuration of the study area (described in section 2.2).” However, the figure appears to present the adjusted study area and simplified model scenario described in lines 237–239 (10 stories and no vegetation). This discrepancy should be clarified to avoid confusion.

The authors should clarify whether the model validation was conducted using the simplified model (with 10 stories and no vegetation) or a more realistic model reflecting accurate building heights and vegetation. Typically, validation is expected to be performed on the more realistic representation to ensure accuracy.

The authors state that model validation was performed using simulations over 2 days (2 cycles), totaling 48 hours. However, the results shown in Figure 3 only cover 24 hours. This discrepancy is unclear and should be explained.

The authors used R² to assess model validation. While R² indicates how well the model explains the variance in the observed data, it does not provide information about the magnitude of errors. We recommend that the authors include additional statistical measures that more accurately reflect how closely the predicted values match the actual observations.

Thermal capacity is typically calculated by multiplying the mass of the object by the specific heat capacity of the material. While the authors use Equation 1, which is correct, it is not clear why and  how the value of Q  was determined.

Figures 5, 6, and 7 are not clear. The authors should add a legend to explain what the points, dashes, and bars represent.
Also, please review the title of Table 6.

Line 376: The authors state that “the scenarios T0.3 and S0.3 are emphasized as exhibiting the lowest proportion of time experiencing elevated heat stress across all three studied cities.” However, this is only true for Mendoza. For Campinas, the T0.8 scenario shows a lower proportion of time with heat stress than S0.3.

In lines 422–427, the authors should be more careful in their analysis of results in Figure 8: in most scenarios, albedo values of 0.8 and 0.3 do not significantly affect the outcomes. Only for specific façade material, an albedo of 0.3 presents the lowest proportion of time with extreme heat compared to an albedo of 0.8.

In line 464: authors state “The present research aimed to identify the most effective combinations of surface properties (albedo and emissivity)”;  however, the impact of emissivity was not analyzed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Although the paper is comprehensible, it contains some typos, punctuation, and grammar errors. The quality of English can be improved. Examples can be found in lines 38, 91–94, 106, 134, 135–140, 280…

Author Response

The present document details changes that have been made in the paper. To simplify the correction, the modified paragraphs have been highlighted in yellow in manuscript.

 GENERAL COMMENTS

• Several recurring issues raised by the reviewers have been comprehensively addressed in the revised manuscript:
• Methodology: The ENVI-met model parameters and boundary conditions have been expanded, with a new subsection detailing assumptions and software limitations. Additional statistical measures (RMSE and MAE) have been included to complement R², providing a more rigorous model validation.
• Data Presentation and Figures: All tables and figures have been revised for clarity and scientific accuracy. Units, decimals, legends, and abbreviations have been standardized, and additional figures have been included to enhance the presentation of methodology.
• Analysis and Discussion: The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been separated to improve the analysis has been deepened to provide a more thorough examination of the results.
• Language Quality: The manuscript has been edited to correct grammatical errors, punctuation, and inconsistencies, including the consistent use of “façade.”

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

R3

1. The manuscript tackles an interesting subject: how opaque façade thermal mass and albedo influence the outdoor environment, specifically thermal comfort. However, the originality of the study and its contribution to the existing literature are not clearly demonstrated. In addition, several issues need to be addressed to enhance the clarity of the manuscript.

-          These points have been addressed in the revised manuscript. The originality and contribution of the study have been clarified, emphasizing how the investigation of opaque façade thermal mass and albedo effects on the outdoor environment and thermal comfort adds new insights to the existing literature. Additionally, the manuscript has been thoroughly revised to improve overall clarity and readability.

2. Although the paper is comprehensible, it contains some typos, punctuation, and grammar errors. The quality of English can be improved. Examples can be found in lines 38, 91–94, 106, 134, 135–140, 280…

-          The language has been corrected

3. We recommend that the authors use the term “radiative properties” instead of “optical properties”, as it more accurately describes albedo and emissivity

The term was replaced throughout the manuscript.

4. The introduction is too long and not very well structured and luck justification of the study originality and its contribution

-          The Introduction has been revised and edited in the updated manuscript. It has been restructured for better clarity.

5. The authors should ensure that the references accurately support the statements made in the introduction. For example, the references cited in lines 68 and 77 require verification.

-          We have corrected the references using the Mendeley editor.

6. The study analyzes simulation results from different scenarios using ENVI-met. It is important that the authors provide detailed information about the underlying models and assumptions of the software, as well as discuss the strengths and limitations of using ENVI-met for this type of analysis.

-          We have included a detailed paragraph in the Methodology section to address the models, strengths, and limitations of the ENVI-met software (section 2).

7. In lines 221–222, the authors state: “Figure 2 shows the morphological configuration of the study area (described in section 2.2).” However, the figure appears to present the adjusted study area and simplified model scenario described in lines 237–239 (10 stories and no vegetation). This discrepancy should be clarified to avoid confusion.

-          We have included a detailed paragraph in the Methodology section and Assessment of different scenarios to clarified this point (Section 2).

8. The authors should clarify whether the model validation was conducted using the simplified model (with 10 stories and no vegetation) or a more realistic model reflecting accurate building heights and vegetation. Typically, validation is expected to be performed on the more realistic representation to ensure accuracy.

We have included a detailed paragraph in the Methodology section and Assessment of different scenarios to clarified this point.

9. The authors state that model validation was performed using simulations over 2 days (2 cycles), totaling 48 hours. However, the results shown in Figure 3 only cover 24 hours. This discrepancy is unclear and should be explained.

-          Two consecutive days (48 hours) were simulated to ensure numerical stability and to allow the model to reach steady-state conditions. The first 24 hours were used as a spin-up period, minimizing the influence of initial boundary conditions and transient effects on the results. Consequently, only the second 24-hour cycle is presented in Figure 3, as it represents the system behavior once the simulation has stabilized.

10. The authors used R² to assess model validation. While R² indicates how well the model explains the variance in the observed data, it does not provide information about the magnitude of errors. We recommend that the authors include additional statistical measures that more accurately reflect how closely the predicted values match the actual observations.

-          We have included additional statistical measures—coefficient of determination (R²); mean bias error (MBE); root mean square error (RMSE); and mean absolute error (MAE)—and we have also added a scatter plot of the predicted value (ENVImet model) and the observed value (Po).

11. Thermal capacity is typically calculated by multiplying the mass of the object by the specific heat capacity of the material. While the authors use Equation 1, which is correct, it is not clear why and how the value of Q was determined.

-          In Section 2.3, we clarified the calculation of total heat capacity (C_total) by detailing its derivation from the specific properties of materials (see equations 1 and 2). Figure 4 and Table 5 describe the results calculated using these equations. 

12. Figures 5, 6, and 7 are not clear. The authors should add a legend to explain what the points, dashes, and bars represent.

-          The histograms have been improved, with each bar representing an analyzed scenario. The nomenclature criteria have been standardized, as detailed in Table 2.

13. Also, please review the title of Table 6.

-          The title of Table (mow Table 7) has been clarified.

14. Line 376: The authors state that “the scenarios T0.3 and S0.3 are emphasized as exhibiting the lowest proportion of time experiencing elevated heat stress across all three studied cities.” However, this is only true for Mendoza. For Campinas, the T0.8 scenario shows a lower proportion of time with heat stress than S0.3. In lines 422–427, the authors should be more careful in their analysis of results in Figure 8: in most scenarios, albedo values of 0.8 and 0.3 do not significantly affect the outcomes. Only for specific façade material, an albedo of 0.3 presents the lowest proportion of time with extreme heat compared to an albedo of 0.8.

-          The paragraph was edited to improve the analysis.

15. In line 464: authors state “The present research aimed to identify the most effective combinations of surface properties (albedo and emissivity)”; however, the impact of emissivity was not analyzed.

-          The term 'emissivity' was removed because it was not a property modified in the scenarios.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The peer-reviewed article titled "Facade strategies for Climate Resilience: impact of thermal mass and albedo on the urban microclimate" evaluates the impact of three opaque facade technologies (traditional, lightweight, and External Thermal Insulation Composite Systems) combined with two albedo levels (0.30 and 0.80) on air temperature, mean radiant temperature, and thermal comfort during summer in Mendoza (Argentina), Madrid (Spain), and Campinas (Brazil). The results indicate that the traditional facade technology with a low albedo value of 0.3 consistently performs best in mitigating urban outdoor overheating. The authors also indicated that the selection of facade materials for urban environments must be a multidisciplinary decision. It is critical to consider not only the intrinsic properties of materials but also the specific climate of the city and the morphological characteristics of the urban environment, particularly building height and urban canyon geometry.

Considering that the role of facades in energy efficiency, passive solar control, and their contribution to microclimatic balance and outdoor thermal comfort in urban areas remains underexplored, the aim of this study is justified. The article uses appropriate methods to achieve its research objective, and the authors' considerations are based on carefully selected scientific literature. The obtained results are interesting, deepening our understanding of the impact of various types of facades on the microclimate of street canyons.

 

However, it may be noted that the text of the article is rather carelessly written in many places. The term "façade" is frequently used instead of the correct English form. One may also raise concerns about the frequent use of hyphens in the reviewed text.

 

Further comments:

1. Correct Table 1. The minus signs before the geographic coordinates are unnecessary. Add "W" for Madrid. What do the values under the coordinates mean? Precipitation for Campinas - change the unit.
2. Verses 218-219 - probably no further specification of thermal conditions.
3. Table 4. - The authors use the terms Stucco and Cementitiuous boards. I suggest explaining both concepts in the text of the article. Furthermore, no albedo and emissivity values are provided for Isolant EPS.
4. Verse 280 - is He UTCI.... It should be The UTCI....
5. Table 6. - Abbreviations used to describe figures are not explained. Either repeat from Figure 6 or refer to the description of Figure 6.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The comments result from some carelessness on the part of the authors and have been explained in the review.

Author Response

The present document details changes that have been made in the paper. To simplify the correction, the modified paragraphs have been highlighted in yellow in manuscript.

 

GENERAL COMMENTS

• Several recurring issues raised by the reviewers have been comprehensively addressed in the revised manuscript:
• Methodology: The ENVI-met model parameters and boundary conditions have been expanded, with a new subsection detailing assumptions and software limitations. Additional statistical measures (RMSE and MAE) have been included to complement R², providing a more rigorous model validation.
• Data Presentation and Figures: All tables and figures have been revised for clarity and scientific accuracy. Units, decimals, legends, and abbreviations have been standardized, and additional figures have been included to enhance the presentation of methodology.
• Analysis and Discussion: The Discussion and Conclusion sections have been separated to improve the analysis has been deepened to provide a more thorough examination of the results.
• Language Quality: The manuscript has been edited to correct grammatical errors, punctuation, and inconsistencies, including the consistent use of “façade.”

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

R4

1. However, it may be noted that the text of the article is rather carelessly written in many places. The term "façade" is frequently used instead of the correct English form. One may also raise concerns about the frequent use of hyphens in the reviewed text.

-          The suggested corrections regarding the use of the word “façade” have been included. The criteria for using hyphens has been implemented only for scenario nomenclatures.

2. Correct Table 1. The minus signs before the geographic coordinates are unnecessary. Add "W" for Madrid. What do the values under the coordinates mean? Precipitation for Campinas - change the unit.

-          It was corrected

3. Table 4. - The authors use the terms Stucco and Cementitiuous boards. I suggest explaining both concepts in the text of the article. Furthermore, no albedo and emissivity values are provided for Isolant EPS.

-          In table 4, a note was made to explain both terms. The albedo of Insulating EPS materials was omitted, as this property is relevant in exterior surfaces.

4. Verse 280 - is He UTCI.... It should be The UTCI....

-          It was corrected

5. Table 6. - Abbreviations used to describe figures are not explained. Either repeat from Figure 6 or refer to the description of Figure 6.

The nomenclature criteria have been standardized in tables and figures, continued criteria of Table 2

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks to the authors for their careful revisions.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your thorough revisions. The manuscript has been significantly improved