Exploring Thermal Discomfort during Mediterranean Heatwaves through Softscape and Hardscape ENVI-Met Simulation Scenarios

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. Almost all of the figures and tables in the manuscript have normative problems, such as being illegible, inconsistent in size, and so on. In addition, the expression of the contents of the figures is not clear, and the explanations in the figure names or legends are not comprehensive enough, such as Fig. 1. The authors are requested to make corrections carefully, and professional assistance can be requested if necessary.

2. Two indicators, UTCI and PET, were selected to assess the thermal environment in this manuscript. Therefore, which indicator is used for the conclusion of the study? What is the purpose of selecting two indicators?

3. A major problem with this manuscript is that the study focuses on thermal comfort, while in 4.6 Comparison of design scenarios, only air temperature is compared. This is not a reasonable design.

4. Another key problem with this manuscript is that the results in 4.6 are all conclusions obtained by comparing other scenarios with the base scenario. However, we all know that one of the key principles of comparison experiments is that there is only one variable, yet the other scenarios are not designed with one variable compared to the basic scenario. If more than one variable is present, there may be potential coupling between the variables, leading to changes in simulation results that are not necessarily determined by a single factor. Therefore, the authors' conclusions are hardly convincing.

5. RQ4 appears in the first paragraph of the discussion, what is RQ4?

6. The temperature units used in the text are not uniform, both in °C, Fahrenheit and Calvin, the author needs to standardize them.

7. It is suggested that the author should merge the first and second sections and cut out unnecessary content.

Author Response

First and foremost, we would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper.

We would like to assure you that we have responded to all of your comments and suggestions.

Please find below our responses given point-by-point.

Please also refer to the revised manuscript whose changes are highlighted in yellow.

As requested in the decision letter of 09-July-2024, we have uploaded three documents: this cover letter containing our response to reviewers from the previous peer review (Supplemental File for Review-docx); the updated manuscript with all our individual changes highlighted (Supplemental File for Review, docx); a clean copy of the final manuscript (Formatted Main File-pdf). All authors also agree with the revised version of the manuscript that is submitted.

Reviewer#1, Concern#1:

Almost all of the figures and tables in the manuscript have normative problems, such as being illegible, inconsistent in size, and so on. In addition, the expression of the contents of the figures is not clear, and the explanations in the figure names or legends are not comprehensive enough, such as Fig. 1. The authors are requested to make corrections carefully, and professional assistance can be requested if necessary

 

Author response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, all images have been corrected according to your comments.

Author action: modification of all Envi-met diagrams: We have tried to keep the original format of the figures, as extracted by ENVIMET software. We wouldn’t want to graphically modify the legends, respecting the output file from ENVIMET software. Therefore, we have modified the scale of the inserted figure proportionally.

Reviewer#1, Concern#2: 2.     Two indicators, UTCI and PET, were selected to assess the thermal environment in this manuscript. Therefore, which indicator is used for the conclusion of the study? What is the purpose of selecting two indicators?

Author response: Thank you very much for the clarification. We would like to explain that the use of PET and UTCI, is based on the fact that they are both well-acknowledged bioclimatic indices which are used in a variety of research studies. The thermal sensation scale of the selected indices has also been modified to express better the thermal conditions of Mediterranean climatic characteristics. Following the methodology of previous published articles (i.e Tseliou et al., 2022) the authors judged that the implementation of two well-known bioclimatic indices to evaluate the thermal comfort conditions of the examined area would enhance the validity of the findings of the current study. Conclusions will be modified accordingly.

Author action: lines 156 - 163

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#3: A major problem with this manuscript is that the study focuses on thermal comfort, while in 4.6 Comparison of design scenarios, only air temperature is compared. This is not a reasonable design.

Author response: Thank you very much for your comment. We a PET and UTCI comparison has been included in the chapter 4.6, as well.

Author action: see Table 23 in chapter 4.6 and lines 968-972 and lines 975-985

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#4: Another key problem with this manuscript is that the results in 4.6 are all conclusions obtained by comparing other scenarios with the base scenario. However, we all know that one of the key principles of comparison experiments is that there is only one variable, yet the other scenarios are not designed with one variable compared to the basic scenario. If more than one variable is present, there may be potential coupling between the variables, leading to changes in simulation results that are not necessarily determined by a single factor. Therefore, the authors' conclusions are hardly convincing.

Author response: Thank you very much for opening dialogue on this topic. Indeed, we have employed different hardscape and softscape techniques in order to compare and contrast popular landscape design strategies. We have modified the “Material and Data Section” so as to clarify the rationality of this choice, making the appropriate connections to existing literature. The concept of the paper revolves around a clustering of softscaping techniques (RQ1 and RQ2 that correspond to scenarios 2,3, and 4 in the revised manuscript) and hardscaping design techniques (RQ3 that corresponds to scenario 5). These selected landscape strategies are popular among urban designers and are frequently used in urban regeneration projects (combined together). That is the reason why scenarios 2 and 3 employ a combination of different softscaping techniques (including all horizontal surfaces that make a significant contribution to albedo changes).

In brief, we would like to explain that, in scenarios 4 and 5, a single variable is compared to the existing condition. Specifically, scenario 5 examines the use of high albedo materials, while scenario 4 considers the addition of vegetation alone (adult trees). These scenarios can be compared and quantified. Scenarios 2 and 3 differ essentially in one variable: scenario 2 includes soil, while scenario 3 includes grass. Therefore, these scenarios can be compared both to each other and to the existing condition.

However, the results of the study indicate that the best scenario is the one with the addition of adult trees only (Scenario 4). Hence, it can be concluded that the contribution of vegetation as a single variable was examined, as well as the contribution of cool materials as a single variable. Subsequently, the combined effect of some common interventions, such as soil, roofs, and grass in scenarios 2 and 3, was also examined. Nonetheless, even when combined, these interventions did not achieve the cooling effect observed with adult trees (scenario 4). Therefore, further examination of these combined interventions was deemed unnecessary. Particular emphasis will be placed on this finding, which contrasts with other research that finds the combined effect of certain elements to be more potent

 

Author action: lines 180-208, lines 247-248, methodology scheme line 270 (Fig.2), line 276, 286, 296,303, 388, 448, 503,555

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#5: RQ4 appears in the first paragraph of the discussion, what is RQ4?

Author response: We apologize for any typos; they have been corrected in the revised manuscript.

Author action: lines 188-196

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#5-6: The temperature units used in the text are not uniform, both in °C, Fahrenheit and Calvin, the author needs to standardize them .It is suggested that the author should merge the first and second sections and cut out unnecessary content.

Author response: Thank you very much for this notification, we have standardized them in the revised version of our manuscript.  Please see the following changes inside the text.

Author action: Line 50 of the text: reference in Fahrenheit units has been erased, chapter 4.6 has been modified, lines 635, 647, 650, 652

 

Reviewer#1, Concern#7: It is suggested that the author should merge the first and second sections and cut out unnecessary content.

Author response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Sections 1 and 2 have been merged and modified according to your comments.

Author action: line 31 to line 208

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the article, I missed the second part of the study, which was supposed to refer to the use of clean, affordable energy for power supply prevention systems and to improve the thermal well-being of the population. What was meant by that? Trees, greenery, green roofs?

The title of the article should be more accurate.

 

The literature and materials for the study are traceable and realistic.

The authors analyze five different housing design scenarios, the study aims to identify the most effective approach to mitigate outdoor heat stress. An experiment was performed - modeling the temperature load for all five scenarios using software.

Long-term temperature data in the country were used in the experiment. The impact of individual scenarios on the decrease in temperature load - thermal stress outside was determined. The conclusions were expected - adult trees have a high share in reducing stress, the shape of the tree has not been studied so far and I consider this to be one of the benefits. It is interesting to know about the grass surfaces, which during the simulation did not achieve the expected effect - reduction of thermal stress.

I did not find similar research, even though the effect of greenery on reducing temperature stress is known. I consider the study to be basic, primary research.The discussion of the article is sufficiently developed, it is possible to follow up with applied research.

In the article, I missed the second part of the study, which was supposed to refer to the use of clean, affordable energy for power supply prevention systems and to improve the thermal well-being of the population. What was meant by that? Trees, greenery, green roofs?

The title of the article should be more accurate.

I recommend publishing.

 

 

Author Response

First and foremost, we would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper.

We would like to assure you that we have responded to all of your comments and suggestions.

Please find below our responses given point-by-point.

Please also refer to the revised manuscript whose changes are highlighted in yellow.

As requested in the decision letter of 09-July-2024, we have uploaded three documents: this cover letter containing our response to reviewers from the previous peer review (Supplemental File for Review-docx); the updated manuscript with all our individual changes highlighted (Supplemental File for Review-docx); a clean copy of the final manuscript (Formatted Main File-pdf). All authors also agree with the revised version of the manuscript that is submitted.

Reviewer#2, Concern#1: In the article, I missed the second part of the study, which was supposed to refer to the use of clean, affordable energy for power supply prevention systems and to improve the thermal well-being of the population. What was meant by that? Trees, greenery, green roofs?

Author response: Thank you very much for the notification. The part of the study that is not included in the results section has been removed from other sections as well. It has been explained that the presented findings belong to a broader research project.

Author action: You may identify the change in lines 90-93 of the revised text

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#2: The title of the article should be more accurate.

Author response:   Thank you very much for pointing this issue out. The title has been changed in order to better reflect the content of the paper.

Author action: see the revised title “Exploring thermal discomfort during Mediterranean Heatwaves through softscape and hardscape ENVI-met simulation scenarios”

Reviewer#2, Concern#3: The literature and materials for the study are traceable and realistic. The authors analyze five different housing design scenarios, the study aims to identify the most effective approach to mitigate outdoor heat stress. An experiment was performed - modeling the temperature load for all five scenarios using software. Long-term temperature data in the country were used in the experiment. The impact of individual scenarios on the decrease in temperature load - thermal stress outside was determined. The conclusions were expected - adult trees have a high share in reducing stress, the shape of the tree has not been studied so far and I consider this to be one of the benefits. It is interesting to know about the grass surfaces, which during the simulation did not achieve the expected effect - reduction of thermal stress. I did not find similar research, even though the effect of greenery on reducing temperature stress is known. I consider the study to be basic, primary research.

Author response:   Thank you very much for your positive comments.

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#4: The discussion of the article is sufficiently developed, it is possible to follow up with applied research.

Author response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have taken into consideration your comment and modified the discussion part accordingly.

Author action: lines 711-715

Reviewer#2, Concern#5: In the article, I missed the second part of the study, which was supposed to refer to the use of clean, affordable energy for power supply prevention systems and to improve the thermal well-being of the population. What was meant by that? Trees, greenery, green roofs?

Author response: Thank you very much for the notification. The part of the study that is not included in the results section has been removed from other sections as well. It is explained in the revised manuscript that the presented findings belong to a broader research project.

Author action: You may identify the change in lines 90-93 of the revised text

 

Reviewer#2, Concern#6: The title of the article should be more accurate. I recommend publishing.

Author response:   Thank you very much for pointing out the issue of the title. The title has been changed in order to better reflect the content of the paper. We highly appreciate your recommendation for publishing

Author action: see the revised title “Exploring thermal discomfort during Mediterranean Heatwaves through softscape and hardscape ENVI-met simulation scenarios”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study makes an interesting assessment of thermal discomfort resulting from Mediterranean Heatwaves by analysing different simulation scenarios using ENVIMET software. 

The contents are well written and well expounded, and the methodology and results are well stated and supported by a good framing of the contents in the introduction compared to other related work. 

It is recommended to increase the readability of the legends in the images of the simulations (fig. 8 to fig. 22) which, although they are then argued in the text, are not readable directly from the image. 

Author Response

First and foremost, we would like to thank you for your thorough review of our paper.

We would like to assure you that we have responded to all of your comments and suggestions.

Please find below our responses given point-by-point.

Please also refer to the revised manuscript whose changes are highlighted in yellow.

As requested in the decision letter of 09-July-2024, we have uploaded three documents: this cover letter containing our response to reviewers from the previous peer review (Supplemental File for Review docx); the updated manuscript with all our individual changes highlighted (Supplemental File for Review-docx); a clean copy of the final manuscript (Formatted Main File pdf). All authors also agree with the revised version of the manuscript that is submitted.

Reviewer#3, Concern#1: The study makes an interesting assessment of thermal discomfort resulting from Mediterranean Heatwaves by analysing different simulation scenarios using ENVIMET software.  The contents are well written and well expounded, and the methodology and results are well stated and supported by a good framing of the contents in the introduction compared to other related work

Author response:   Thank you very much for your positive comments.

Reviewer#3, Concern#2: It is recommended to increase the readability of the legends in the images of the simulations (fig. 8 to fig. 22) which, although they are then argued in the text, are not readable directly from the image.

Author response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. Indeed, the legends are not clearly shown.

Author action: all images taken from Envi-met simulations have been modified. We have tried to keep the original format of the figures, as extracted by ENVIMET software. We wouldn’t want to graphically modify the legends, respecting the output file from ENVIMET software. Therefore, we have modified the scale of the inserted figure proportionally.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ok