Investigating the Relationship between Landscape Design Types and Human Thermal Comfort: Case Study of Beijing Olympic Forest Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very important paper and addresses a critical area of the relationship between urban green landscape types and spatial differentiation of human thermal comfort. The methods are sound and replicable. It is laudable that the researchers collected 15 years of micro data.
There are minor edits that must be completed to strengthen the paper -- they are fairly uncomplicated edits, but should be completed.
The abstract needs plain language; e.g., lines 13-16 are unclear to the reader in the first reading and can be put in plain language.
The paper needs a Map to thoroughly situate the reader in the spatial aspects of the discussion.
The figures presented in-text should be reduced (with extras put in the SI). Graphs and figures should not all be presented as bar charts.
Additional discussion of the application of results would be very useful.
Author Response
1.The abstract needs plain language; e.g., lines 13-16 are unclear to the reader in the first reading and can be put in plain language.
After revision, lines 12-14 can be clearly understood by the reader in the first reading.
2.The paper needs a Map to thoroughly situate the reader in the spatial aspects of the discussion.
After revision, pages 3 and 4, figure 1(Location Map of Beijing Olympic Forest Park) and figure 2(17 Experimental Sample Points in the Green Space of BOFP) have been added.
3.The figures presented in-text should be reduced (with extras put in the SI). Graphs and figures should not all be presented as bar charts.
After discussing with the two professor, we think that if some of the figures are integrated together, it will not look intuitive. The main purpose of these figures is to compare different types.
4.Additional discussion of the application of results would be very useful.
The conclusion has been revised. Please refer to page 15-16.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Tex is quite difficult, but nevertheless very interesting. I have the following specific comments:
1. "Abstract"- please do not use abbreviations before the full name is developed. This is because the way it is written makes it difficult to understand the results obtained
2. In my opinion, the "Introduction" part should be rewritten, it is full of vague phrases, not much meaningful - e.g. line 67 "It does so digitally, in a landscape architecture environment". Personally, I am a landscape architect and I have never come across the term 'landscape architecture environment' before. Also, the next sentence (68-70) adds absolutely nothing. Please write in simple but scientific language why this topic is relevant. I have the impression that the text from lines 66 to 87 is poorly connected to the first part of the introduction
3 The description of the "Study area" is very laconic, there is nothing here except the area of the park and its location. I believe that this part of the study needs a much broader presentation of the
4. Plant communities are characterised by a certain complexity, not all of them have the relationships described in line 124. Please present in the form of a matrix, which variants can be found in relation to specific plant community types
5 "Data collection" section- Please explain what the "representative vegetation types" are, line 136. In line 138, the authors write about two comparison samples - but there is no explanation of what characteristics these sites had.
It is not very clear why the test was carried out only for three days in August - line 153. Please explain this.
6. I am not convinced by the description of the "Limitations". Any study can be said to require further research to ensure its reliability - line 426 Limitation should be reconsidered
7. Similarly "conclusions" part - what does it mean that "canopy density of.... should be controlled" line 434. What canopy density do the authors recommend specifically? What pattern of undergrowth and underwood should be maintained? Please be specific. So far, all I can find are laconic statements and information about the need for further research.
Author Response
1.After revision, lines 12-14 can be clearly understood by the reader in the first reading.
2.The introduction has been partially modified, please refer to page 1-3.
After revision, line 60, replace "landscape architectural environment" with "landscape environment".
3.After revision, page 3, figure 1(Location Map of Beijing Olympic Forest Park) has been added.
4.After revision, page 4, figure 2(17 Experimental Sample Points in the Green Space of BOFP) has been added.
5.The selection of the test time is based on the climate characteristics of Beijing.The climate in Beijing is hot in summer and cold in winter. The spring and autumn are suitable but short.The test was conducted within 3 days in August based on the above climate characteristics of Beijing and the specific requirements of the test itself.
The study focuses on the comfort of human body in urban green areas, so it should be carried out in the summer of vegetation growth season. The typical summer time in Beijing is June, July and August. July is hot and rainy, and the meteorological conditions change dramatically (usually hot in the morning and rainy in the afternoon), which is not conducive to the test.
The meteorological conditions during the test in August tend to be stable and meet the requirements of various test conditions (the weather and meteorological conditions of the three days as the test time are stable and have no significant difference). The reason for the test time of 3 days is that there are 17 experimental samples.
6.The Limitations section is deleted. The main contents or key points are described in the discussion section. Please refer to page 15-16.
7.The relevant content of canopy identity is deleted. The content of canopy identity has not been discussed before. It is a little unreasonable to say here.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is quite interesting in terms of science, it has many cognitive values. The authors correctly formulated two research questions in the introduction. However, I missed a brief description of the manuscript's structure in the introduction.
A review of the literature is sufficient.
References should be added to the techniques/methods in section 2.2 where a similar approach can be found (in other studies).
In the discussion part, the authors refer to the correlation but did not examine it or did not publish the results. Please complete the results for the correlation (its value, significance, and explanation of why this and not another measure was used).
Noteworthy is the description of limitations, which, however, should be integrated with the conclusions.
In the conclusions, the authors should add a description of the novelty and information to whom they address (to whom they will be useful) their research results
Other minor shortcomings
1. Chapter 2 numbering is mixed up with 1 numbering.
2. Incorrect citation style, should be MDPI compliant.
3. Explanations under the formulas are illegible.
4. Figure 8 is labeled in a language other than English
5. No statements at the end of the article.
Please refer to the question in the main text,
has the mathematical record of the dependence (page 5) been verified in terms of the correct structural form? What test was used for this purpose?
Author Response
1. Chapter 2 numbering is mixed up with 1 numbering.
It has been revised, refer to page 3.
2. Incorrect citation style, should be MDPI compliant.
The citation style has been revised according to MDPI compliant.
3. Explanations under the formulas are illegible.
It has been revised, refer to page 6.
4. Figure 8 is labeled in a language other than English.
After revision, figure 10 is labeled in English.
5. No statements at the end of the article.
The Limitations section is deleted. The main contents or key points are described in the discussion section. Please refer to page 15-16.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for taking my comments into account. I see that the text has been improved considerably
