Thermal Comfort and Perceptions of the Ecosystem Services and Disservices of Urban Trees in Florence
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
-the study is very interesting.
-one aspect is related to references, now is not according to the format. Also, tables or figure must be modified according to the journal rules.
Congratulation!
Author Response
the study is very interesting. -one aspect is related to references, now is not according to the format.
We have changed the reference format to numbered.
Also, tables or figure must be modified according to the journal rules.
The tables and figures are in line with the author guidelines.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
I have finished the review of your paper. Great work! Only some minor issues need to be checked/corrected. Please refer in the following to my comments and suggestions.
Best regards,
R.
PAPER: A good, well-written paper.
TITLE: OK.
AFFILIATION: Seems to be incomplete.
ABSTRACT:
General comment: In general, it is OK.
Specific comments:
Line 15: remove the additional space between the sentences.
Line 26: remove the capital E from ecosystem.
KEYWORDS: OK.
INTRODUCTION
General comment:
In general, well written. Citing system needs to be adapted to the journal requirements.
Specific comments:
Lines 71-72: Afro-Americans?
METHODS
General comment:
In general, well written.
Specific comments:
Line 187: correction needed for the C degrees.
Line 192: remove the additional space between sentences.
RESULTS
General comment:
In general, well written.
Specific comments:
Lines 199-201: move this information in a section from below.
Figure 1: check the font type and add the data labels on the charts.
Line 206: Check the first word and remove bold format and the following dot.
Lines 206-215: correct the C degrees. % should be right near the numbers. Also, check the font size and format of the text.
Figure 2: check the font type.
Line 231: it is uncommon to start a new subsection with a figure. Add some text before figure 3.
Figure 3: check the font type and add the data labels on the bars. If possible, include also the median values.
Table 1: reports interesting results. A correspondence analysis would have been beneficial…Check the font type in the table.
Line 259: Proffered >>> Preferred?
Line 265: remove the additional space between the sentences.
Line 273: unclear where U* are given.
Line 275: % should be right near the numbers.
Table 2: caption. Retain here the first sentence. The rest (codding) should be included as a footnote to the table. For this part, check the font type. Also, check the font type in the table.
DISCUSSION
General comment:
In general, well written. Citing system needs to be revised. Some more context and comparison to findings from other cities/regions (if available) would be beneficial.
Specific comments:
Line 307: % should be right near the numbers.
Line 325: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 346: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 381: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 389: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 423: ? I had the same problem with my car…It costed me ca. 2500 euro to fix it….Lucky me, I had a full insurance.
CONCLUSION
General comment:
In general, well written.
LITERATURE & CITING SYSTEM
General comment:
Citing system needs to be adapted to the requirements of the journal.
Author Response
have finished the review of your paper. Great work! Only some minor issues need to be checked/corrected. Please refer in the following to my comments and suggestions.Best regards,R.
PAPER: A good, well-written paper.
TITLE: OK.
AFFILIATION: Seems to be incomplete.
Have updated the affiliation
ABSTRACT:
General comment: In general, it is OK.
Specific comments:
Line 15: remove the additional space between the sentences.
Done
Line 26: remove the capital E from ecosystem.
done
KEYWORDS: OK.
INTRODUCTION
General comment:
In general, well written. Citing system needs to be adapted to the journal requirements.
Specific comments:
Lines 71-72: Afro-Americans?
No – people of colour was the term used by the authors and encompasses more ethnic groups
METHODS
General comment:
In general, well written.
Specific comments:
Line 187: correction needed for the C degrees.
Corrected
Line 192: remove the additional space between sentences.
Removed
RESULTS
General comment:
In general, well written.
Specific comments:
Lines 199-201: move this information in a section from below.
We feel this information is better standing alone.
Figure 1: check the font type and add the data labels on the charts.
We have checked previous issues of Forestry and we cannot see a standard font in use. We await guidance from the editors on this. We have added data labels to the charts.
Line 206: Check the first word and remove bold format and the following dot.
Done
Lines 206-215: correct the C degrees. % should be right near the numbers. Also, check the font size and format of the text.
Changed
Figure 2: check the font type.
Previous papers in Forestry have used a similar font to our Figures. We will check with the editors.
Line 231: it is uncommon to start a new subsection with a figure. Add some text before figure 3.
Moved text
Figure 3: check the font type and add the data labels on the bars. If possible, include also the median values.
We have checked previous issues of Forestry and we cannot see a standard font in use. We await guidance from the editors on this. We feel adding data labels on the bars would make the figure very messy. The bars indicate the spread of the data and the mean value is a good indication of the central estimate.
Table 1: reports interesting results. A correspondence analysis would have been beneficial…Check the font type in the table.
Changed the font
Line 259: Proffered >>> Preferred?
Changed to ‘representation of’
Line 265: remove the additional space between the sentences.
Done
Line 273: unclear where U* are given.
In the CICES group/EDS group column of table 2
Line 275: % should be right near the numbers.
Done
Table 2: caption. Retain here the first sentence. The rest (codding) should be included as a footnote to the table. For this part, check the font type. Also, check the font type in the table.
Changed
DISCUSSION
General comment:
In general, well written. Citing system needs to be revised. Some more context and comparison to findings from other cities/regions (if available) would be beneficial.
Specific comments:
Line 307: % should be right near the numbers.
Line 325: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 346: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 381: remove the additional space between sentences.
Line 389: remove the additional space between sentences.
Changed all these
Line 423: ? I had the same problem with my car…It costed me ca. 2500 euro to fix it….Lucky me, I had a full insurance.
CONCLUSION
General comment:
In general, well written.
LITERATURE & CITING SYSTEM
General comment:
Citing system needs to be adapted to the requirements of the journal.
We have changed it to numbered.
Reviewer 3 Report
121 Altitude Florence
126 Total area Florence km2
127 number of people living in Florence
187 give a quote according to which this value is characterized as a tropical night
302 perhaps to clarify the influence of trees at the time of flowering on allergies in humans
362 I suggest that you specify the number of trees (seedlings) that are on average, for example, in the last 10 years in the city
382 The impact of the castle on noise and protection of air pollution as an ecosystem service should also be mentioned.
Author Response
121 Altitude Florence
Added 50 m
126 Total area Florence km2
We don’t consider this necessary
127 number of people living in Florence
Added 380,000
187 give a quote according to which this value is characterized as a tropical night
Reference added.
302 perhaps to clarify the influence of trees at the time of flowering on allergies in humans
We don’t feel this information is necessary
362 I suggest that you specify the number of trees (seedlings) that are on average, for example, in the last 10 years in the city
We don’t feel this information is necessary here.
382 The impact of the castle on noise and protection of air pollution as an ecosystem service should also be mentioned.
We are not sure what you mean by castle. Incidentally we do discuss the air pollution reduction ES and have added wind/noise shelter to the text.
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear authors,
I have reviewed you manuscript “Thermal comfort and perceptions of the ecosystem services. I found study quite interesting with novel results that represent an important contribution to the field. It was a very enjoyable reading, although some grammar errors need to be corrected. I recommend an additional English revision. The introduction has some repetitive sections, particularly in the sections of previous studies. The Methods require additional descriptions. You must address how sampling bias was corrected and how you test the representativeness of the survey. I also suggest developing additional statistical analyses to corroborate your conclusions. See more specific comments below.
L12. “problematic” seems very vague. Be more specific about this issue.
L20. Change to: tree species.
L23. What do you mean by “climate modification properties”?
L24. Genera names in italic.
L38. Change to “world’s”.
L45. Reference?
L53. “spiritual impairment”? This doesn’t sound very scientific. Can you rephrase it?
L57-58. But there is also the contrary effect. Research shows that green spaces were more visited during the pandemic. See:
- Venter ZS, Barton DN, Gundersen V, Figari H, Nowell MS. Back to nature: Norwegians sustain increased recreational use of urban green space months after the COVID-19 outbreak. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2021 Oct 1;214:104175.
- Berdejo‐Espinola V, Suárez‐Castro AF, Amano T, Fielding KS, Oh RR, Fuller RA. Urban green space use during a time of stress: A case study during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Brisbane, Australia. People and Nature. 2021 May 26.
- Schweizer AM, Leiderer A, Mitterwallner V, Walentowitz A, Mathes GH, Steinbauer MJ. Outdoor cycling activity affected by COVID-19 related epidemic-control-decisions. Plos one. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0249268.
- Geng DC, Innes J, Wu W, Wang G. Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: a global analysis. Journal of forestry research. 2021 Apr;32(2):553-67.
- Lu Y, Zhao J, Wu X, Lo SM. Escaping to nature during a pandemic: A natural experiment in Asian cities during the COVID-19 pandemic with big social media data. Science of the Total Environment. 2021 Jul 10;777:146092.
L70-71. It’s important to notice that this study only included 112 metropolitan areas.
L82-83. Climate modification? As a decrease in temperature? Clarify.
L86. Describe what “material impacts” are for your readers.
L88. Here you say “urban forests”, but previously you say “trees”. Keep in mind that people’s perceptions of trees and urban forests might be different, as the latter is a concept.
L117-118. This sentence seems out of place. Not clear what the emphasis is or who is doing it.
L120. Consider including details about the climate, e.g. mean max temperature, annual precipitation. Also, consider adding demographic data, e.g. population size.
L131. This section requires more details about data collection. When did you do this? For how long was the questionnaire available? What local social media groups were uses? How did you get people’s emails? How did you address any sampling bias? Also, provide a brief description of the topics covered and how many questions were used for each one.
L132. Did you require any ethics approval for this?
L181-182. Why 250 m? How did you select this buffer? Justify this selection.
L187. Correct “degrees”
L187. Reference?
L189. How did you test the representativeness of the survey to assume it can be seen as a representation of Florence as a whole?
L189. For multiple-choice questions, I suggest assessing the data with average agglomerative clustering using the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA). I also suggest including a frequency of occurrence contingency table for the open questions to assess significant differences for species presence/absence.
L206-215. Correct “degrees”.
L211. New paragraph.
L213. Do you mean 46 nights for each year from 2014 to 2019? Or on average? I find it difficult to believe that the number of nights was the same for the entire period.
L247. Table 1 SHOWS.
L252. Lost sentence “95 and 89 respectively for all the trees.”
L262. Add missing: ’
L299-300. It is not clear yet if you can make this generalization from your sampling data. All you can say is that the majority of the people that responded to the questionnaire are uncomfortable.
L305. What about the urban heat island effect? This point could be discussed here.
L312. Reference?
L319. What are these goals?
L323-324. There is also the fact that green spaces are related to socio-economic characteristics. Wealthy neighborhoods can have more green spaces.
L328-329. Consider deleting. It reads out of place.
L339-340. This corroborates my previous comments. Demographic data about the respondents can be useful to explain these answers.
L354-355. Both Tilia and Cupressus were the most popular and least liked genera. Do you think it is probably due to sampling bias? Did you assess the species composition of the areas where respondents live?
L395. Good response!
L425. According to who?
L436. Reference?
L442-443. But you haven’t provided details about this. You need to expand this description in the results to understand this point in the discussion.
L454. This is why it is important to mention the time of the year when the questionnaire was sent. If it was during or after summer, responses may reflect the recent experience lived by people, possibly affecting the results.
Table 1. What does “% of trees” mean?
Author Response
I have reviewed you manuscript “Thermal comfort and perceptions of the ecosystem services. I found study quite interesting with novel results that represent an important contribution to the field. It was a very enjoyable reading, although some grammar errors need to be corrected. I recommend an additional English revision. The introduction has some repetitive sections, particularly in the sections of previous studies. The Methods require additional descriptions. You must address how sampling bias was corrected and how you test the representativeness of the survey. I also suggest developing additional statistical analyses to corroborate your conclusions. See more specific comments below.
L12. “problematic” seems very vague. Be more specific about this issue.
Changed to ‘can reach high risk categories’
L20. Change to: tree species.
Changed
L23. What do you mean by “climate modification properties”?
Shading and general UHI combatting properties
L24. Genera names in italic.
Changed
L38. Change to “world’s”.
Changed
L45. Reference?
We feel this sentence does not need a reference as it leads into the second sentence which has the reference.
L53. “spiritual impairment”? This doesn’t sound very scientific. Can you rephrase it?
This was the term used by Lewis, 1993 so we should leave it as it is.
L57-58. But there is also the contrary effect. Research shows that green spaces were more visited during the pandemic. See:
- Venter ZS, Barton DN, Gundersen V, Figari H, Nowell MS. Back to nature: Norwegians sustain increased recreational use of urban green space months after the COVID-19 outbreak. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2021 Oct 1;214:104175.
- Berdejo‐Espinola V, Suárez‐Castro AF, Amano T, Fielding KS, Oh RR, Fuller RA. Urban green space use during a time of stress: A case study during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Brisbane, Australia. People and Nature. 2021 May 26.
- Schweizer AM, Leiderer A, Mitterwallner V, Walentowitz A, Mathes GH, Steinbauer MJ. Outdoor cycling activity affected by COVID-19 related epidemic-control-decisions. Plos one. 2021 May 6;16(5):e0249268.
- Geng DC, Innes J, Wu W, Wang G. Impacts of COVID-19 pandemic on urban park visitation: a global analysis. Journal of forestry research. 2021 Apr;32(2):553-67.
- Lu Y, Zhao J, Wu X, Lo SM. Escaping to nature during a pandemic: A natural experiment in Asian cities during the COVID-19 pandemic with big social media data. Science of the Total Environment. 2021 Jul 10;777:146092.
This is true, however we feel our statement on the restrictions and rethinking importance of green space is sufficient in the context of this introduction.
L70-71. It’s important to notice that this study only included 112 metropolitan areas.
We feel this information is not necessary in the reporting of the study’s main findings.
L82-83. Climate modification? As a decrease in temperature? Clarify.
Added ‘local cooling’
L86. Describe what “material impacts” are for your readers.
Added ‘such as damage to property’
L88. Here you say “urban forests”, but previously you say “trees”. Keep in mind that people’s perceptions of trees and urban forests might be different, as the latter is a concept.
We generally prefer to use the term urban forests for this paper and urban trees where necessary.
L117-118. This sentence seems out of place. Not clear what the emphasis is or who is doing it.
Added ‘within the survey’ to make it a bit clearer.
L120. Consider including details about the climate, e.g. mean max temperature, annual precipitation. Also, consider adding demographic data, e.g. population size.
Population size added. We feel it is fine to leave the climate description as it is, because we include some climate data later in the results section.
L131. This section requires more details about data collection. When did you do this? For how long was the questionnaire available? What local social media groups were uses? How did you get people’s emails? How did you address any sampling bias? Also, provide a brief description of the topics covered and how many questions were used for each one.
We have added more information on the survey, however the full questionnaire is available as supplementary material.
L132. Did you require any ethics approval for this?
Yes, we added ‘thus meeting the requirements of the university ethics approval’ after the description of the steps taken.
L181-182. Why 250 m? How did you select this buffer? Justify this selection.
We have added after petralli et al 2015 as they used this buffer size in their study of influence of vegetation on temperatures in Florence
L187. Correct “degrees”
Done
L187. Reference?
Olcina Cantos reference added for tropical night.
L189. How did you test the representativeness of the survey to assume it can be seen as a representation of Florence as a whole?
We have carried out a chi squared test on the limited demographic data collected. Text added - Chi squared tests reveal that the gender distribution does not reflect that of the city (52% female, 48% male, REF) (χ2 = 0, p = 1), and neither does the distribution across age groups (χ2 = 42, p = 0.2), with 11 to 20 year olds and the over 60s being under-represented
L189. For multiple-choice questions, I suggest assessing the data with average agglomerative clustering using the unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA). I also suggest including a frequency of occurrence contingency table for the open questions to assess significant differences for species presence/absence.
We appreciate the suggestions however we feel for the purposes of this paper these analyses are extraneous. The multiple choice questions were only intended to gain the relative importance of park features and collect data on attitudes towards greenery and summer heat. Testing for significant differences between species presence/absence between the open questions is also a level of analysis we feel is not called for here.
L206-215. Correct “degrees”.
Done
L211. New paragraph.
We feel the info about tropical night frequency should be in the same paragraph as the comfort temperature range results.
L213. Do you mean 46 nights for each year from 2014 to 2019? Or on average? I find it difficult to believe that the number of nights was the same for the entire period.
We mention that it is the average
L247. Table 1 SHOWS.
changed
L252. Lost sentence “95 and 89 respectively for all the trees.”
We have removed this erroneous sentence.
L262. Add missing: ’
Added
L299-300. It is not clear yet if you can make this generalization from your sampling data. All you can say is that the majority of the people that responded to the questionnaire are uncomfortable.
We changed people to survey respondents.
L305. What about the urban heat island effect? This point could be discussed here.
We feel the reference to the petralli paper and summer heat health problems is sufficient in the context of this discussion opening paragraph. We would rather keep it simple.
L312. Reference?
There is no reference for this as it is our own conjecture based on the results.
L319. What are these goals?
To lessen the impact of climate change on cities. We feel this does not need explaining further here.
L323-324. There is also the fact that green spaces are related to socio-economic characteristics. Wealthy neighborhoods can have more green spaces.
This is true, but we do not feel the need to mention that here.
L328-329. Consider deleting. It reads out of place.
We would like to leave this sentence as it is an attempt to explain the low popularity of fruit trees.
L339-340. This corroborates my previous comments. Demographic data about the respondents can be useful to explain these answers.
We have added the demographic data to show how we encountered the usual problems with surveys. We have added more text here to highlight the problem and included a reference on survey bias.
L354-355. Both Tilia and Cupressus were the most popular and least liked genera. Do you think it is probably due to sampling bias? Did you assess the species composition of the areas where respondents live?
We did not assess species composition locally as we only had access to data for public trees, thus ignoring all private garden trees, and an initial spatial analysis of favourite species showed no clustering.
L395. Good response!
L425. According to who?
It is our opinion, but it is framed merely as the impacts which have a direct impact on citizens daily lives are more apparent than more
L436. Reference?
There is no reference for this as it is a common sense statement about the EDS of fear being related to dense plantings as in parks but we softened the statement by changing would to may
L442-443. But you haven’t provided details about this. You need to expand this description in the results to understand this point in the discussion.
We have added the chi square tests based on comparison of demographic data collected to the target population of Florence city in the results.
L454. This is why it is important to mention the time of the year when the questionnaire was sent. If it was during or after summer, responses may reflect the recent experience lived by people, possibly affecting the results.
We do mention the period of year, and have added ‘and being distributed in summer’ here to include this in the limitations.
Table 1. What does “% of trees” mean?
The proportion found within the public tree database for Florence as we mention in the title.
