Contribution of Urban Forests to the Ecosystem Service of Air Quality in the City of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
, Claudia Caballero González 1, Leonardo Cortés RodrÃguez 1, Ulises Javier Jáuregui-Haza 1 and AgustÃn GarcÃa-GarcÃa 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Contribution of urban forests to the ecosystem service of air quality in the city of Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic
41ff: “that may be complicated in the coming years by various»: This sentence needs to be revised What do you mean exactly with complicated?
55ff: “which has expanded horizontally and vertically [10].” You need to specify more what do mean with horizontally and vertically. I do not understand what exactly is meant.
46: “demand for goods and services»: Which type? Maybe you can use some examples.
73: “using the iTree tool» The tool has to be shortly introduced, maybe not all readers know what it is and for what it is used. I would be also good to know why you chose to use this tool and not others.
79: “particularly the ones negatively affected regarding” this need some more explanation: Why are some more affected than others?
83ff: “The rest of the document presents the usual 83
structure for this type of studies: a section on materials and methods is presented below. 84
This is followed by the data analysis and, finally, the results and main conclusions» The objective could be presented and than in a new paragraph you could state the structure of the paper. Otherwise the reader has the impression that this is a mix of things.
90: “inhabitants, a floating» AND needed?
Figure 1: You mention in the text that you will concentrate your analysis in 4 areas. Maybe it is worth mentioning or showing these areas in the map. Why did you choose these four areas? Are you going to compare them? Or are these areas similar? It remains unclear so far.
140ff: “These points are UNIBE, Los Prados, MOVEARTE, José Bordas Valdez, Hogar Escuela Rosa Duarte and Centro Educativo Santo Domingo.» It would be good if you would show these in the map.
158: “SO2), nor Carbon Monoxide (CO), however, UNIBE shows a high value in SO2 compared to the other sampling points.” Any estimation why this is the case?
Figure 4: The quality of the figure could be improved. The legend cannot be read.
Figure 5: Here as well the quality can be improved and the legend cannot be read.
211ff: This paragraph need to be put more into context What does this development mean for the amount of pollutants? Does it mean that more green infrastructure is needed?
231: “on the other hand, implies» if you write in the other hand the reader expects to read on the one hand first,
236: Why aren´t these hot spots discussed in the discussion?
Author Response
First, let us express our gratitude for the time devoted to reading our paper and your constructive remarks. They were very helpful for improving the quality of the paper. We hope that you will be satisfied by our replies. Please, find below a point-by-point response to your comments.
Reviewer´s comments are reported in black and our responses in red.
(1) 41ff: “that may be complicated in the coming years by various»: This sentence needs to be revised What do you mean exactly with complicated?
Following the recommendation made by the reviewer, in this revised version of the manuscript, we have changed that sentence to clarify its meaning.
(2) 55ff: “which has expanded horizontally and vertically [10].” You need to specify more what do mean with horizontally and vertically. I do not understand what exactly is meant.
This means that the city has grown both in area and in height.
(3) 46: “demand for goods and services»: Which type? Maybe you can use some examples.
The wording of the sentence was corrected and some examples of services were included: transportation, energy, and industry
(4) 73: “using the iTree tool» The tool has to be shortly introduced, maybe not all readers know what it is and for what it is used. I would be also good to know why you chose to use this tool and not others.
In the chapter "Materials and methods" a paragraph was added describing i-Tree Canopy tool
(5) 79: “particularly the ones negatively affected regarding” this need some more explanation: Why are some more affected than others?
(6) 83ff: “The rest of the document presents the usual 83
structure for this type of studies: a section on materials and methods is presented below.
(7) 84 This is followed by the data analysis and, finally, the results and main conclusions» The objective could be presented and then in a new paragraph you could state the structure of the paper. Otherwise the reader has the impression that this is a mix of things.
In relation to comments 5, 6 and 7, the paragraph was modified, in response to the reviewer's suggestions, for better understanding by: This study aims to analyze the relationship between urban green spaces and air quality in different areas of the city. The analysis focused on four specific pollutants to identify the areas negatively affected by air quality and establish the relationship with the existing urban vegetation. Our study will also allow us to define air quality monitoring needs in different urban areas to support the design of sustainable urban development policies that are sustainable and consistent with the population's health.
(8) 90: “inhabitants, a floating» AND needed?
Figure 1: You mention in the text that you will concentrate your analysis in 4 areas. Maybe it is worth mentioning or showing these areas in the map. Why did you choose these four areas? Are you going to compare them? Or are these areas similar? It remains unclear so far.
The authors consider that it is necessary to specify the amount of floating population because it contributes significantly to vehicular traffic and other services that influence air quality.
(9) 140ff: “These points are UNIBE, Los Prados, MOVEARTE, José Bordas Valdez, Hogar Escuela Rosa Duarte and Centro Educativo Santo Domingo.» It would be good if you would show these in the map.
These points are indicated in red in Figure 2.
(10) 158: “SO2), nor Carbon Monoxide (CO), however, UNIBE shows a high value in SO2 compared to the other sampling points.” Any estimation why this is the case?
This result can be explained due to the high flux traffic in this point of the city. This comment has been included in the manuscript.
(12) Figure 4: The quality of the figure could be improved. The legend cannot be read.
Figure 4 was improved as suggested by the reviewer.
(13) Figure 5: Here as well the quality can be improved and the legend cannot be read.
Figure 5 was also improved as suggested by the reviewer.
(14) 211ff: This paragraph need to be put more into context What does this development mean for the amount of pollutants? Does it mean that more green infrastructure is needed?
Yes, green infrastructure is one of the elements that must be considered in urban planning. It is feasible to take advantage of the provision of ecosystem services, such as air quality.
(15) 231: “on the other hand, implies» if you write in the other hand the reader expects to read on the one hand first,
The reviewer is right. The expression "on the other hand" was eliminated from the manuscript.
(16) 236: Why aren´t these hot spots discussed in the discussion?
These points are located in areas of high vehicular traffic in the city, as indicated in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript describes a study comparing urban forests to air quality in Santo Domingo. Overall, the paper is interesting but not necessarily very novel. The presentation leaves much to be desired. The documents a thorough proofreading for English grammar/spelling errors. All figures are very low quality and unreadable. The citations seem to be out of order in several places, for example in line 34, 36, and 38. While a good study, it needs significant improvements.
Specific comments follow:
Line 104: What unit is "built area"?
Figures 1 and 2 are very grainy and low resolution, making them impossible to be read.
Line 123: How was vegetation cover established? Was it for one point or a particular area or circumference around the sampling point?
Figure 3 is difficult to read. The symbols are very small and can't be identified.
Figures 4 and 5 are impossible to read.
For Table 3 it would be good to add "*" to the significant values at 0.05 and "**" for significant values at 0.01.
"Annex" should be renamed "Appendix"?
Author Response
First of all, we would like to thank you for the careful reading of the manuscript and your valuable comments to improve the quality of the paper. In the following lines, we detail how we took your suggestions into account in the revised version of the text.
Reviewer´s comments are reported in black and our responses in red.
The documents a thorough proofreading for English grammar/spelling errors
We thank the reviewer for this remark. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have made an effort to improve the grammar and spelling.
All figures are very low quality and unreadable.
We are sorry. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have changed the figures to improve the quality.
The citations seem to be out of order in several places, for example in line 34, 36, and 38.
We thank the reviewer for this remark. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have made an effort to arrange the list of references.
Line 104: What unit is "built area"?
The average density for 2020 is 142.4 inhabitants/km2
Figures 1 and 2 are very grainy and low resolution, making them impossible to be read.
The figures were modified by others of better quality, the information in English and the legends were completed
Line 123: How was vegetation cover established? Was it for one point or a particular area or circumference around the sampling point?
A similar area was measured for the sampling points in the city, from the average area of the educational centers, which were 25 of the 27 points.
Figure 3 is difficult to read. The symbols are very small and can't be identified.
Figures 4 and 5 are impossible to read.
The figures were modified by others of better quality in the manuscript
For Table 3 it would be good to add "*" to the significant values at 0.05 and "**" for significant values at 0.01.
ok
"Annex" should be renamed "Appendix"?
ok
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The removal of air pollutants was estimated in relation to the city's forest cover using the iTree Canopy software, a principal components analysis and a correlation analysis at 27 points in the city of Santo Domingo, National District. It was found that the average percentage of green infrastructure in the sampling points was 26%. A positive correlation was identified between the presence of NO2 and SO2 at the sampling points. It was observed that the higher the presence of forest cover, the higher the concentration of CO and the lower the presence of pollutants. Although five hot spots were defined in terms of air pollution levels in the National District, the study does not show conclusive results in terms of the relationship between green infrastructure and air quality. It is concluded that urban planning for environmental quality requires inter-institutional coordination, permanent monitoring of environmental quality and coordinated public policies to establish adequate indicators comparable to World Health Organization standards.
General comments
The objective of this study is to analyze the relationship between urban green spaces and air quality in different areas of the city. Areas are identified that negatively affect air quality. This is used to establish the relationship with the existing urban vegetation. The air quality monitoring needs in different urban areas are defined to support the design of sustainable urban development policies that are sustainable and consistent with the health of the population. The value of this work is the application of existing cost-effective monitoring methods in a developing country for the improvement of air quality.
The paper addresses relevant scientific questions. The paper presents novel concepts, ideas and tools.
The scientific methods and assumptions are valid and clearly outlined so that substantial conclusions are reached.
The description of experiments and calculations are sufficiently complete and precise to allow their reproduction by fellow scientists.
The quality and information of the figures must be improved: information in English, high quality drawings etc. The captions must be improved so that understanding of the figures is possible without the manuscript.
The related work is well cited.
Title and abstract reflect the whole content of the paper.
The overall presentation is well structured and clear. The language must be improved in detail.
The mathematical symbols, abbreviations, and units are generally correctly defined and used.
Specific Comments
The iTree Canopy software is not described in the chapter Materials and Methods. How this software is applied?
Technical corrections
The references must be improved according to the regulations of the journal.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments and suggestions. We think that they have helped us improve the paper. In the following lines, we detail how we took your comments into account in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer´s comments are reported in black and our responses in red.
The quality and information of the figures must be improved: information in English, high quality drawings etc. The captions must be improved so that understanding of the figures is possible without the manuscript.
Thank you for these remarks. In the new version of the manuscript, the figures were changed for others of better quality, the information in English and the legends were completed.
The language must be improved in detail.
Following the suggestion made by the reviewer, we have made an effort to improve the grammar and spelling.
The iTree Canopy software is not described in the chapter Materials and Methods. How this software is applied?
Following the suggestion made by the reviewer, a new paragraph was added describing i-Tree Canopy in "Materials and methods".
The references must be improved according to the regulations of the journal
We thank the reviewer for this remark. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have made an effort to improve the list of references.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Thank you for revising your manuscript. I still think that some parts can be improved (e.g. I-Tree in the methods section. Here it would be good if you specify how you have operationalize it). What I also noticed is that some comments have not been properly addressed, e.g. comment Nr. 8. Comment Nr. 2 could also be improved in the manuscript. The manuscript could profit from a proof reading in English.
Author Response
First, let us express our gratitude for your constructive remarks. Please, find below a point-by-point response to your comments and a detailed explanation on how we took them into account in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer´s comments are reported in black and our responses in red.
1- I-Tree in the methods section. Here it would be good if you specify how you have operationalize it
Following the suggestion made by the reviewer we have included a new paragraph in this revised version of the manuscript.
2- 55ff: “which has expanded horizontally and vertically [10].” You need to specify more what do mean with horizontally and vertically. I do not understand what exactly is meant.
We thank the reviewer for this remark. This means that the city has grown both in area and in height. Following his/her suggestions we have extended the explanations provided in the paper. A comment précising this expression has been added in the manuscript: “increasing the constructed area of the city at east at west, mainly with highest buildings”
3- (8) 90: “inhabitants, a floating» AND needed?
We thank the reviewer for this remark. The authors consider that it is necessary to specify the amount of floating population because it contributes significantly to vehicular traffic and other services that influence air quality. The number of inhabitants and floating population is specified in the manuscript. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have included a new paragraph: “For the evaluation of land cover and the estimation of ecosystem services, at each of the sampling points, 300 points were photo interpreted, with a standard error of 3% for each of the coverage categories. The parameters for the economic valuation of the ecosystem services of the tree cover were estimated based on the data collected in areas of Santo Domingo and the iTree database. The biomass and carbon values are estimated based on the dasometric parameters of all species registered in the i-Tree database.”
4- The manuscript could profit from a proof reading in English.
We thank the reviewer for this remark. We have proofread the manuscript. We apologize for the language mistakes.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Specific Comments
Table 2 is missing.
Table 3 is not discussed in the manuscript. Appendixes 2 – 4 are not discussed in the manuscript.
In Figure 3 the points should not be connected by lines.
The captions of figures and tables must be improved so that understanding of the figures and tables is possible without the manuscript: explanation of parameters etc.
Technical corrections
The references must be improved according to the regulations of the journal: “,” or “;” or free space between author names.
Author Response
First, let us express our gratitude for your constructive remarks. Please, find below a point-by-point response to your comments and a detailed explanation on how we took them into account in the revised version of the manuscript.
Reviewer´s comments are reported in black and our responses in red.
1- Table 2 is missing.
We thank the reviewer for alerting us about this problem. There was a mistake in table numbering arising from the previous round of review. Ancient table 3 is now table 2. It has been corrected in the paper.
2- Table 3 is not discussed in the manuscript. Appendixes 2 – 4 are not discussed in the manuscript.
We thank the reviewer for this remark. Table 2 (formerly number 3) and appendixes 2-4 have been cited in the text when discussing the results of principal component analysis.
3- In Figure 3 the points should not be connected by lines.
Following the suggestion made by the reviewer we have changed the figure template in this revised version of the manuscript to improve the visual understanding.
4- The captions of figures and tables must be improved so that understanding of the figures and tables is possible without the manuscript: explanation of parameters etc.
Likewise, following the suggestion made by the reviewer, we have changed the captions of figures and tables to improve the understanding.
5- The references must be improved according to the regulations of the journal: “,” or “;” or free space between author names.
We thank the reviewer for alerting us about that issue identified in the references section. In this revised version of the manuscript, we have corrected and standardized the items, following the journal rules.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
