Sustainable Urban Environment through Green Roofs: A Literature Review with Case Studies
, Iasonas Arvanitis 1, Anna Tzavali 2, Vassilios Papakostas 3, Sophia Kappou 4, George Andreakos 4, Angeliki Fotiadi 4, John A. Paravantis 3,*, Manolis Souliotis 5 and Giouli Mihalakakou 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease consider following issues in the manuscript:
What is your plant selection criteria for green roofs and living walls?
How climate influences the performance of green roofs?
Green Roofing and its cost benefits in the construction Industry
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article ‘Green roof thermal transmittance: Energy benefits and insulation potential’’ is interested article, however, it require changes. Moreover the technical, novel side of the paper is very week. Following are the comments for the authors to improve the article:
Ø The article title is a general statement, authors are suggested to re-write the title with the research impact and novelty perspective.
Ø A lot of research is going on the Green roof thermal transmittance. How authors claim the new aspect for the need of this publication?
Ø Problem statement should be mentioned at the start of the abstract, why the study is important? What is the novelty aspect? That is totally missing.
Ø What is the base of selection of this study? Author should define some specific criteria.
Ø Moreover, the literature review and introduction is very general. Authors should merge section 2 with the introduction section.
Ø The keywords should be specific.
Ø Figure 1 should be moved in the introduction section, as it is from the literature.
Ø There should be some graphical representation in the form of figures as well.
Ø Article only include only 4 tables. Some statistical analyses should be justified.
Ø There are few old references, authors are encouraged to add latest literature.
Ø Authors have used person nouns at different places i.e. we etc. please avoid those in technical writing.
Ø Table 3 and 4 are also from the literature, where is the actual analysis of this study?
Ø This article is very confusing in term of novelty and value addition. There must be some new data addition or analysis before the article is processed for production steps. Otherwise, I do not see anything value added or novelty. How authors justify the novelty of this article?
Ø Further, the conclusion section needs to be write again and separate than discussion. Only focused conclusion of the study is required. It is lengthy at the moment.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOverall, the manuscript is well written. However, three questions need to be considered before further consideration:
(1) As a scientific paper, more quantitative descriptions should be used instead of plain language. Vague adjectives, such as “good”, “ideal”, and “poor”, should be avoided if there is no concrete number to support the conclusion. For example, in Line 196, “decreasing surface temperature, reducing photochemical reactions, contributing to energy savings and playing a significant role in carbon sequestration,” the surface temperature decreasing amount, types of photochemical reactions, and the word “significant” should all be further elaborated using exact numbers, flow charts or tables.
(2) Line 249, please clarify citing sources of example countries listed in the paragraph. Where did authors find these examples such as Tokyo, German, Canada, China, etc?
(3) Authors provide novel knowledge on the U-value comparison. It is recommended that the author highlight the background and importance of the "U-value" concept in the introduction to clarify the paper's scope.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic of the proposed manuscript is extremely topical. The authors have endeavoured to extensively review the existing literature on green roofs, including the energy and environmental benefits of green roofs, sociopolitical aspects, modelling of green roofs and green roof thermal transmittance calculations. This review would be useful for scientists, architects and builders to choose the right approach for landscaping roofs.
I have the following comments for the authors, and the work would only benefit from their consideration:
1. The submitted manuscript lacks key references such as:
· Ahmet B. Besir, Erdem Cuce. Green roofs and facades: A comprehensive review, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, Volume 82, Part 1, 2018, Pages 915-939, ISSN 1364-0321, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.09.106
· Cascone, S., Coma, J., Gagliano, A., & Pérez, G. (2019). The evapotranspiration process in green roofs: A review. Building and Environment, 147, 337-355.
· Cascone, S., Catania, F., Gagliano, A., & Sciuto, G. (2018). A comprehensive study on green roof performance for retrofitting existing buildings. Building and Environment, 136, 227-239.
· Coma, J., Pérez, G., Solé, C., Castell, A., & Cabeza, L. F. (2016). Thermal assessment of extensive green roofs as passive tool for energy savings in buildings. Renewable energy, 85, 1106-1115.
2. It would be helpful if data were given on the variation of roof surface temperature over the length of the day according to different types of green roofs.
3. There is insufficient graphic material to describe the different green roof scenarios and structures.
4. Cost assessment of different GRs is missing.
5. There are no recommendations for the future development of building a green roof structure in terms of materials, e.g. recycled, lightweight solutions, etc.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAccept
