The Urban Environment Impact of Climate Change Study and Proposal of the City Micro-Environment Improvement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

At the first I would like to thank Authors for interesting article and hard work. I have read the article carefully. In my opinion the work deals very important issue as urban environment impact of climate change in urban areas. The work is prepared very well. In my opinion the obtained results could be very interesting for researches who deal similar issues. I had only a few minor comments:

1. Line 37: please to cite references as [4-7]. The same in throughout text.
2. Please clearly highlights the novelty of conducted works.
3. Please to rewrite the characteristic of region. This part should include the most important information: physiographic, meteorological and socio-economic characteristic.
4. Please to number the references.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
we feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article, your suggestion really means a lot to us. We supplemented our results and edited our article extensively. According to Reviewer suggestions, we have made corrections to our previous manuscript. Detailed corrections are given in the attached document.
Thank you and have a nice day

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The introduction is too long. It only finishes in page 3, making it difficult to follow what is the main objective. It should be condensed to 2-3 paragraphs within 3/4 page with an introduction of different sections at the end of the introduction.

Lines 108-109, . This is a detailed examination of the city conditions 108
and the selected locality with a specific proposal. What does it mean?

Description of this city should be kept in one page with a description on why this city is selected as the city for research.

Copy edit must be needed, e.g. line 168 ''Already in the first phase of planning the infiltration device'' should be revised.

Why Nitra city? Can the results be generalised? It should state that very clearly.

Line 334, we calculated rainfall yield q5, q10 and q30, what are these?

Table 4, please use repeat header row.

Section 3.1, not sure why most information is needed in this section. Only a small part may be useful.

Although the whole paper refers to the use of GIS in the title, it is not clear about this when we read toward until the last section.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
we feel great thanks for your professional review work on our article, your suggestion really means a lot to us. We supplemented our results and edited our article extensively. According to Reviewer suggestions, we have made corrections to our previous manuscript. Detailed corrections are given in the attached document.
Thank you and have a nice day

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 104, part of the words disappeared.

Line 121, density of 810 inhabitants . km? Do you refer to per km or?

Table 1, replace Explanations with Note:

Line 256 font size suddenly increases, please check the journal requirements regarding format throughout the whole paper.

Lines 287-288, Comparison of precipitation and temperatures in the city of Nitra and the surrounding rural landscape for the years 2015 – 2019, what does it mean by surrounding?

Lines 313-314, what does it mean by . This is the abundance of rain in l.s-1
.ha-1 for 5 minutes, 10 minutes and 30 313 minutes?

Last few lines in green, how does Nitra compare other cities? Why Nitra?

Author Response

Thank you

You have helped us a lot in improving the quality of our article. Detailed corrections are given in the attached document.

 

Thank you and have a nice day

Author Response File: Author Response.docx