Greenspace Exposure with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review is interesting; however, the recommendations should point out some aspects, such as the superficiality with which  the variables have been treated, for example, the production and type of volatiles emitted by plants, which depend on the floristic composition of the green spaces and the phenology, (topics related to the vision of this journal) that are known to affect human health; the analysis of the sites where the studies are carried out, since the results cannot be the same in places with high pollution (for example, ozone and suspended particles), compared to places with low pollution. In the case of analysis on the availability of green spaces for people with a low economic level compared to those with a higher economic level, includes associated issues, such as better food and health quality, making it a complex variable. Although these topics are pointed out in the manuscript, it is done in a trivial way, that’s why I believe that elaborate on them can help for future works to provide results that explain how green areas and respiratory diseases are correlated and that they can be comparable. leading to the formulation of informed recommendations that do not affect health.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is very interesting, up-to-date and very well structured, with technical/scientific language appropriate to the subject and written in a way that is reader-friendly.

My suggestions for improvement relate to small details.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

 

This is an interesting review (forests-2923765) as is focused on papers showing results considering more indicators for both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and green fields’ characteristics. It points out this way better view on the relationships between green fields’ exposure and COPD patients. It also proposes several hypotheses to explain the pathways by which green fields' exposure influences COPD.

Overall, the manuscript brings valuable knowledge for understanding the relationship between green fields' exposure and COPD. I find the article clearly written and well sounding, with well-structured sections, specific objectives clearly posed, the databases used and the assessment metrics-clearly explained, conclusions are supported by the results and the entire content is presented in an understandable way.

 

1.      A little adjustment of the title:  The chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and the green fields' exposure: A systematic review

2.      Line 39: “toxic gas particles”: please corrected it as “toxic gas and particles”

3.      The sentence at line 45 could be deleted as is somehow a repetition of the above sentence. The reference 16 can be kept and included along with 14, 15.

4.      Lines 128 and 130, 153 and 154: reviewers’ contributions - do you refer to the authors of present ms? Other researchers than authors? Please, acknowledge their support, in this last case.

5.      Reference list: please complete all coordinates of cited papers - example of an incomplete reference [20] Nowak, D.J., et al.,…. In this case, the names of all authors are missing.

6.      Supplementary appendix: it would be good to start with a list of all Tables and their captions included in the appendix.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reported the relationship between green space and human health and it is very important!

Please add your consideration about below advice.

You reported "the findings had significant heterogeneity, with large differences in the greenness assessment, COPD identification methods, and population characteristics. The mechanisms of this impact have not been conclusively determined".Yes, it is difficult and complicated problem! but, how about pay attention to common matters in the 3689 cases? Are there any common matters? Or what id the largest difference in the assessment. Probably, the largest difference is the kew point to improve solving method for this kind of problem. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf