Evaluating the Spatial and Temporal Characteristics of Summer Urban Overheating through Weather Types in the Attica Region, Greece

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is about the statistical description of the seasonal periodicity of urban heat islands from a macroscopic perspective. The article is well-organized with most of the components that good research should contain. The methodology is clearly explained, and the data is substantial and persuasive. The results are clearly represented and can inspire the climate adaptation methods in the Attica region.

I consider this article can be improved in some sections mentioned below.

 

Abstract

Sustainability has a classification ranking under geography and studies on this subject often describe phenomena through the ‘spatial-temporal’ dual scale. This article is analyzed from the dual perspectives of time and space. Therefore, it is better to emphasize the analytical perspective in the text.

(1) I suggest using ‘spatiotemporal characteristics of the UO’ instead of ‘spatial characteristics of the UO’ in line 15.

 

Introduction

(2) Citing more recent references can reflect that this research holds constant and broad attention to this field.

(3) It is recommended to reduce the discussion of the impact that weather changes bring. Since it has little relevance to the topic of the paper and has been discussed a lot in past studies, it can become a consensus and be omitted.

 

Methods and Data

(4) There is a study that tested Copernicus data set with actual measurements (Refer to the 18th citation in this article). Would you consider adding some validation to the data in the text for better persuasion?

 

Results

(5) Table 1 might be better presented as a figure. Temperature differences between WTs and other climatic factors can be highlighted. In this way, the reader can have a clearer understanding of the results at the beginning.

(6) Figure 3 shows the UHII of day and night as two bar graphs in the current version. The data of these two periods can be presented in different colors in a same bar chart to reflect the contrast effect more directly.

(7) The comma in Figure 4 and 5 should be replaced with a decimal point.

(8) As mentioned in the revision of the abstract, using ‘Spatial and temporal characteristic’ instead of ‘Spatial characteristic’ as the sub-title of 3.4 would be better.

 

Conclusion

(9) In addition to the current content, look forward to reading some critical thinking and prospects for this study in the Conclusion section.

 

References

 

(10) The format of the references would benefit from close editing. For example, unifying whether the journal name is abbreviated or full, and adding doi to some journal articles that lack doi, etc.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The subject of the paper is interesting for publication, however, there are some aspects that should be addressed. 
The results are not visualized enough for a perfect understanding. The output of the analysis is explained but not in figures. for instance, the diurnal and nocturnal mean air temperature, and location of stations, ect.  are the most necessary ones. 

furthermore, the output of the statistical analysis is not presented. it has put the paper in a vague condition for the readers.   

The English proficiency of the paper is in acceptable condition. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

 

I have thoroughly read your manuscript and am impressed with the breadth of your research. There are decades of data on heat islands in the Athens metropolitan area, where millions of people live. Athens is also an important Greek tourist hub, and evidently mitigating urban heat islands is urgent there.

 

I will recommend to the editor that your manuscript be published, and I have a few recommendations for improving the manuscript.

 

1) The title does not clearly tell readers what the article is about. I recommend that authors formulate another title, in the form of a newspaper headline. The title would be more thought-provoking if it mentioned the most important research finding.

 

2) Add more keywords. They help readers understand the content of the paper. Furthermore, keywords make the article more visible to search engines like Google Scholar.

 

3) There is an abundant tangle of acronyms (UHI, OU, UHII, PCA, CA etc) that make reading difficult and demotivating. Those numerous acronyms throughout the manuscript compel readers, especially those whose native language is not English, to go back to the first pages of the article to remember its meaning. Please, write those terms in full along the manuscript, and limit the use of acronyms to the absolute minimum.

 

4) On line 50, what does the word "vumerous" mean? You meant numerous, probably.

 

5) How to mitigate heat islands in Athens? I missed some paragraphs with your recommendations in this regard, in the Discussion of the article. You certainly have a lot of important information for city managers about how Athens could combat its heat islands - and readers will be grateful if you let them know about it.

 

6) The figures are barely readable. I assume that in proof reading you will insert images with better resolution in the text.

 

7) Finally, please use and abuse any graphic elements - photos, maps, infographics, drawings to enhance readers' understanding of the various important information and messages in this chapter. William Zinsser, in the excellent How to Write Well: The classic American handbook of journalistic and non-fiction writing, says that the writer's task is to make life easier for readers - so images are very welcome in this chapter!

 

Best regards,

 

The Reviewer

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx