Cooler and Healthier: Increasing Tree Stewardship and Reducing Heat-Health Risk Using Community-Based Urban Forestry
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an interesting article worth publication in the special issue of Sustainability. But i suggest two changes that will sharpen the quality of this article. 1. Introduction is extremely long. Without losing the essence of contents, kindly reduce this length to half or 2/3rd. 2. Conclusion too is very long. This may be reduced to 1/2 of present length, of course, without losing the essence of its contents.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. We have reduced the introduction substantially. We did not modify the conclusion, as it is only half a page long.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Since my field of study is applied ITC on urban meteorology, I could review this paper only as objective reader.
For my, the paper has clear structure, it provides clear idea what was intended to achieve and how, and presented clear results.
For my taste is it a bit long (considering number of pages), but study was comprehensive, and if editors don't mind it, neither do I.
Only thing I would suggest is to rewrite abstract a bit. I could clearly understand it only after I've read entire paper (I should be otherwise). Also "Heat exposure poses health risks that heavily burden disadvantaged communities" - Heat exposure poses health risks to all communities not just disadvantaged ones. It effects could be higher to some over others.
Keep up good work
Regards
Author Response
Thank you for your review. The abstract has been modified to be easier to understand as well as to address your comment about heat exposure.
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting study. The structure of the study is relatively complete. The design of the paper is relatively sound. I am honored to read this paper. I have a few suggestions.
1) In the discussion section, some dimensions could be added. For example, the perceptions of different regions and different countries treating this issue.
2) In Table 1, is the sample size of 118 a bit small? Can it explain the problem?
3) Was a reliability test performed when the questionnaire was returned for counting? I don't seem to see it in the paper.
4) I think some references can be removed. Keep some highly relevant literature. For example, references 29, 33, etc.
Author Response
Thank you for your thorough review.
1) We have added to the discussion about the experience of other regions with this topic (starting line 961).
2) We discuss a post hoc power analysis starting on line 527 in which we found an effect size of 0.5 for intervention conditions that had as few as 12 subjects, which the sample size of 118 and the intervention and control groups within that sample provided both in the messaging condition and planting condition.
3) A sentence about reliability has been added starting at line 410.
4) Some of the context in the prior version has been removed for brevity, and about 10 references have been removed.
