A Numerical Simulation-Based Adaptation of the Pedestrian-Level Wind Environment in Village Streets: A Case Study on the Chuan Dao Area of the Hanjiang River in Southern Shaanxi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript offers a detailed study of the adaptation of the pedestrian-level wind environment in village streets through numerical simulation, focusing on the Han River area in southern Shaanxi. It analyzes the impact of building density, height, and street width on wind comfort. The methodology and results are clear, and the proposals for improving air quality and thermal comfort are commendable. However, the discussion could be expanded with comparisons to previous studies and more emphasis on the practical implications of the findings. Overall, it makes a significant contribution to the field of sustainable urban development. I would suggest the following changes/additions:

Introduction: The introduction effectively sets the stage for the study. However, it would be helpful to have a clearer statement of the research questions or hypotheses.

Methodology: The methodology is well-detailed and appropriate for the research questions. However, a brief explanation of why specific numerical simulation models were chosen would enhance understanding.

Literature Review: The literature review is thorough, but it could be more focused on highlighting the gap that this study aims to fill. I would suggest including comparisons with recent studies that have a similar focus.

Results: The results are clearly presented. Adding more discussion on the implications of the findings for future urban and rural planning could enhance the article.

Discussion: The discussion could be expanded to compare the findings more explicitly with those of previous studies mentioned in the literature review.

Conclusions: The conclusions succinctly summarize the key findings. Including some suggestions for future research based on the study’s limitations would be helpful.

Language: Perform a grammar and syntax check to improve the quality of the language. Moderate editing of the English may be needed to ensure clarity and flow.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Language: Perform a grammar and syntax check to improve the quality of the language. Moderate editing of the English may be needed to ensure clarity and flow.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

1.Summary 

Thank you for your professional comments on our articles. We use this feedback to improve the quality of our manuscripts. As you may be concerned, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Based on your suggestions, we have revised our previous manuscript. I have sent you a PDF of the revised Manuscript, with the corrections underlined in yellow, and the location of the corrections in the revised manuscript indicated in the response below for your review, as follows.Please see the attachment.

2.Response to Reviewer comments:

Comments 1:[ Introduction: The introduction effectively sets the stage for the study. However, it would be helpful to have a clearer statement of the research questions or hypotheses.]

Response 1:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised it to address the question. We have added a detailed description of the research question in 1 Introduction 1.2 Literature Review. (See page 3, lines 51-54 and page 4, lines 1-6 in the revised version.)

Comments 2:[ Methodology: The methodology is well-detailed and appropriate for the research questions. However, a brief explanation of why specific numerical simulation models were chosen would enhance understanding.]

Response 2:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. In response to this issue, we have made a revision. We have added subsection 2.5.3 to Part 2, which describes in detail the setting and selection of specific physical simulation parameters. (See page 10, lines 27-38 and page 11, lines 1-19 of the revised version).

Comments 3:[ Literature Review: The literature review is thorough, but it could be more focused on highlighting the gap that this study aims to fill. I would suggest including comparisons with recent studies that have a similar focus.]

Response 3:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. In response to the question, we have revised it. We have searched and read the relevant literature in the introductory section 1.2 Literature Review, summarised and added some to the introduction. And added relevant newer references for comparison. (For details, see lines 37-48 on page 3 in the revised draft)

Source:

1. Di Song, Ming Lu, Jun Xing,Impact of spatial layout on vertical wind conditions and comfort levels in high-rise residential buildings in Shenzhen,Urban Climate,Volume 55,2024,101949,ISSN 2212-0955,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2024.101949.
2. Junliang Cao, Shaoxiang Cao, Zhipeng Ma, Lin Liu,Diffusion characteristic of air pollutant from district heating source driven by urban wind field and layout optimization,Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,Volume 239,2023,105462,ISSN 0167-6105,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2023.105462.
3. Nasim Eslamirad, Francesco De Luca, Kimmo Sakari Lylykangas, Sadok Ben Yahia,Data generative machine learning model for the assessment of outdoor thermal and wind comfort in a northern urban environment,Frontiers of Architectural Research,Volume 12, Issue 3,2023,Pages 541-555,ISSN 2095-2635,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2022.12.001.
4. H. Sousa, M. Glória Gomes, F. Marques da Silva, A. Tomé,Systematization of spatial functional layouts and pedestrian wind comfort assessment for an ultra-thin triangular free form shell structure,Building and Environment,Volume 246,2023,110951,ISSN 0360-1323,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110951.

Comments 4:[ Results: The results are clearly presented. Adding more discussion on the implications of the findings for future urban and rural planning could enhance the article.]

Response 4:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised the article to address this issue. We have added 4.2 Improvement Strategies and Prospects in the Conclusion section of the article, which suggests future improvements, suggests corresponding strategies, and describes the directions that should be focused on in future research. (See page 23, lines 47-53 and page 24, lines 1-36 in the revised version).

Comments 5:[ Discussion: The discussion could be expanded to compare the findings more explicitly with those of previous studies mentioned in the literature review.]

Response 5:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised the article to address this issue. We have added a discussion of previous research in the conclusion section of the article. (See page 23, lines 40-46 in the revised version.)

Comments 6:[ Conclusions: The conclusions succinctly summarize the key findings. Including some suggestions for future research based on the study’s limitations would be helpful..]

Response 6:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised the article to address this issue. We have added a discussion of future research directions in the conclusion of the article, 4.2 Improvement Strategies and Prospects, and a discussion of the limitations of the article. (See page 24, lines 44-53 in the revised version).

Comments 7:[ Language: Perform a grammar and syntax check to improve the quality of the language. Moderate editing of the English may be needed to ensure clarity and flow.]

Response 7:(in yellow):Thank you for your suggestions, and we have done our best to correct the manuscript regarding language. We sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the corrections will be approved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Based on a case study in the southern Shaanxi province in China the authors conducted a simulation based adaptation of wind environment at pedestrian level in village streets.

The introduction section is written in such a way that it is confusing for the reader. It is not fully clear that it is a literature review not the findings of studies conducted by the paper authors themselves.

Table 2, column 3 – not clear. Table 3 – title missing.

The methods used were correctly chosen and applied. Apart from the remarks mentioned above there is no need for major revisions.

The results are compeling and are sure to be used as a reference point for researchers conducting similar studies.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

1.Summary 

Thank you for your professional comments on our articles. We use this feedback to improve the quality of our manuscripts. As you may be concerned, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Based on your suggestions, we have revised our previous manuscript. I have sent you a PDF of the revised Manuscript, with the corrections underlined in yellow, and the location of the corrections in the revised manuscript indicated in the response below for your review, as follows.Please see the attachment.

2.Response to Reviewer comments:

Comments 1:[ The introduction section is written in such a way that it is confusing for the reader. It is not fully clear that it is a literature review not the findings of studies conducted by the paper authors themselves.]

Response 1:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. To address the issue, we have revised it. We have revised the language of the literature review in 1 Introduction 1.2 Literature review, so as not to confuse the reader, I have divided the introduction into two parts to allow the reader to follow and understand the article clearly. (See page 2, lines 21-53 and page 3, lines 1-40 in the revised version)

Comments 2:[ Table 2, column 3 – not clear. Table 3 – title missing..]

Response 2:We apologise for our own carelessness and in the revised draft we have corrected the errors and explained them in detail in the table headers so that the reader can better understand the paper. (See page 7, line 21 and page 13, lines 16-17 in the revised draft for more details)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for submitting your manuscript. The study proposed outdoor wind environment evaluation requirements applicable to the Hanjiang River area in winter and summer by summarizing the field survey and meteorological data of Lefeng Village, and proposed relevant optimization suggestions through the numerical simulation method of computational fluid dynamics. The following are my review comments, which I hope will be helpful to your research:

1. Innovation and importance of the study

The authors' study has made a detailed analysis of the outdoor wind environment of villages and streets in the Hanjiang River area by combining field surveys and computational fluid dynamics simulations, which is innovative and important. However, I suggest that the authors further elaborate on the unique contribution of this study in the existing literature in the introduction, especially the uniqueness and application prospects in the study of regional wind environment.

2. Scientificity and rigor of research methods

You used field surveys and computational fluid dynamics numerical simulation methods to evaluate the wind environment of villages and streets in the Hanjiang River area. This method is scientific, but the author may need to improve it in the following aspects:

(1) Data source and description: Please further describe the method and source of obtaining field surveys and meteorological data to ensure the reliability and repeatability of the data.

(2) Parameter setting of numerical simulation: In the numerical simulation part, I suggest that the author further refine the parameter setting and boundary conditions of the simulation, and provide corresponding model verification results to ensure the accuracy of the simulation results.

3. Interpretation and discussion of research results

The research results show that more than 80% of the outdoor wind environment in the Han River area in summer is less than 1m/s, and the wind environment in winter and summer is poor. The appropriate values ​​of building density, building height, and street width are proposed. These conclusions have certain practical application value, but it is recommended to further discuss the following points:

(1) Comparison with existing studies: The author should increase the content of the discussion section and conduct comparative analysis with existing related studies to highlight the uniqueness and contribution of this study.

(2) Applicability and limitations of the results: I suggest that the applicability and limitations of the research results be explained in the discussion, especially the applicability under different regions and climatic conditions, to enhance the breadth and practical application value of the research.

4. Clarity of conclusions and operability of suggestions

Your study proposed appropriate values ​​of building density, building height, and street width, and made relevant suggestions. These suggestions have certain practical guiding significance, but it is recommended to further clarify the following points in the conclusion:

(1) Specific implementation methods of the suggestions: I suggest that the specific implementation methods and steps of these suggestions be explained in detail to improve their operability.

(2) Future research direction: Although the author has mentioned some breakthrough research issues that need to be further solved, I suggest adding some details or content to support future research directions and provide references for subsequent research.

5. Literature citation and academic norms

The number of latest literature cited in the article is relatively small. The author needs to increase the latest literature citations in related fields to enhance the academic depth and authority of the article. At the same time, please ensure that the format of all cited literature meets the requirements of the journal.

6. Other suggestions:

For the introduction part, the subtitles should be added to make the structure clearer

For some figures, the descriptions should be more rigorous, such as the accuracy and completeness of scope about Chinese map;Figure 1, 2, 4, etc.

Please examine every figures.

For method, the process of the survey should be added with more detailed information, for example, is there any pilot survey.

For the title, author use "Hang River", but others of this manuscript, authors used Hangjiang River, please clarify them. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

1.Summary 

Thank you for your professional comments on our articles. We use this feedback to improve the quality of our manuscripts. As you may be concerned, there are several issues that need to be addressed. Based on your suggestions, we have revised our previous manuscript. I have sent you a PDF of the revised Manuscript, with the corrections underlined in yellow, and the location of the corrections in the revised manuscript indicated in the response below for your review, as follows.Please see the attachment.

2.Response to Reviewer comments:

Comments 1:[ 1. Innovation and importance of the study

The authors' study has made a detailed analysis of the outdoor wind environment of villages and streets in the Hanjiang River area by combining field surveys and computational fluid dynamics simulations, which is innovative and important. However, I suggest that the authors further elaborate on the unique contribution of this study in the existing literature in the introduction, especially the uniqueness and application prospects in the study of regional wind environment.]

Response 1:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised it to address this issue. We have added a description of uniqueness and application prospects to 1 Introduction 1.1 Background. (See page 2, lines 11-16 in the revised version.)

Comments 2:[ 2. Scientificity and rigor of research methods

You used field surveys and computational fluid dynamics numerical simulation methods to evaluate the wind environment of villages and streets in the Hanjiang River area. This method is scientific, but the author may need to improve it in the following aspects:

(1) Data source and description: Please further describe the method and source of obtaining field surveys and meteorological data to ensure the reliability and repeatability of the data.

(2) Parameter setting of numerical simulation: In the numerical simulation part, I suggest that the author further refine the parameter setting and boundary conditions of the simulation, and provide corresponding model verification results to ensure the accuracy of the simulation results..]

Response 2:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised the draft to address this issue.

(1) In the revised draft, we have added clarifications on the collection of meteorological data and statistics. (For details, please refer to page 5, lines 6-14 and 21-28 of the revised draft.)

(2) We have added contents about boundary conditions and parameter settings in the revised draft, and the simulation verification has been carried out in the second part of the simulation verification of the actual measurement and the selected points of the simulation under this condition, and the additions, which can increase the reliability of the simulation.

(For details, please refer to page 8, lines 25-38 and page 9, lines 8-20 of the revised draft.)

Comments 3:[ Interpretation and discussion of research results

The research results show that more than 80% of the outdoor wind environment in the Han River area in summer is less than 1m/s, and the wind environment in winter and summer is poor. The appropriate values ​​of building density, building height, and street width are proposed. These conclusions have certain practical application value, but it is recommended to further discuss the following points:

(1) Comparison with existing studies: The author should increase the content of the discussion section and conduct comparative analysis with existing related studies to highlight the uniqueness and contribution of this study.

(2) Applicability and limitations of the results: I suggest that the applicability and limitations of the research results be explained in the discussion, especially the applicability under different regions and climatic conditions, to enhance the breadth and practical application value of the research.]

Response 3:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. In response to this issue, we have revised the paper.

(1) We have added a statement of uniqueness and contribution to the conclusion section of the revised manuscript, which provides a comparison with existing studies. (For details, please refer to lines 36-40 on page 23 of the revised manuscript.)

(2) We have added a section on applicability and limitations in the revised manuscript.4 Conclusion 4.2 Improvement Strategies and Prospects section is added at the end to explain the future research directions and shortcomings of this study. (For details, please refer to lines 43-52 on page 24 of the revised draft)

Comments 4:[ Clarity of conclusions and operability of suggestions

Your study proposed appropriate values of building density, building height, and street width, and made relevant suggestions. These suggestions have certain practical guiding significance, but it is recommended to further clarify the following points in the conclusion:

(1) Specific implementation methods of the suggestions: I suggest that the specific implementation methods and steps of these suggestions be explained in detail to improve their operability.

(2) Future research direction: Although the author has mentioned some breakthrough research issues that need to be further solved, I suggest adding some details or content to support future research directions and provide references for subsequent research]

Response 4:(in yellow):We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have made revisions to address this issue.

(1) We have added section 4.2 Improvement Strategies and Prospects to the Conclusion section of the revised draft and have made recommendations for improvements that are appropriate for the area. (See page 23, lines 46-53, and page 24, lines 1-35, of the revised draft.)

(2) We have added 4 Conclusion 4.2 Improvement Strategies and Prospects section in the revised draft to address the future research direction and added some existing references at the end to support the future research direction and to provide reference for the subsequent research. (See page 23, lines 40-46 in the revised draft for details)

Comments 5:[ Literature citation and academic norms

The number of latest literature cited in the article is relatively small. The author needs to increase the latest literature citations in related fields to enhance the academic depth and authority of the article. At the same time, please ensure that the format of all cited literature meets the requirements of the journal.]

Response 5:We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. We have revised it to address this issue. Thanks to your valuable comments, we have carefully reviewed the literature and made additions to the revised draft.

Source:

1. Di Song, Ming Lu, Jun Xing,Impact of spatial layout on vertical wind conditions and comfort levels in high-rise residential buildings in Shenzhen,Urban Climate,Volume 55,2024,101949,ISSN 2212-0955,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2024.101949.
2. Junliang Cao, Shaoxiang Cao, Zhipeng Ma, Lin Liu,Diffusion characteristic of air pollutant from district heating source driven by urban wind field and layout optimization,Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics,Volume 239,2023,105462,ISSN 0167-6105,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jweia.2023.105462.
3. Nasim Eslamirad, Francesco De Luca, Kimmo Sakari Lylykangas, Sadok Ben Yahia,Data generative machine learning model for the assessment of outdoor thermal and wind comfort in a northern urban environment,Frontiers of Architectural Research,Volume 12, Issue 3,2023,Pages 541-555,ISSN 2095-2635,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foar.2022.12.001.
4. H. Sousa, M. Glória Gomes, F. Marques da Silva, A. Tomé,Systematization of spatial functional layouts and pedestrian wind comfort assessment for an ultra-thin triangular free form shell structure,Building and Environment,Volume 246,2023,110951,ISSN 0360-1323,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.110951.
5. Xintong Ma, Chi Kwan Chau, Joseph Hung Kit Lai,Critical factors influencing the comfort evaluation for recreational walking in urban street environments,Cities,Volume 116,2021,103286,ISSN 0264-2751,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2021.103286.
6. Yihan Wu, Steven Jige Quan,A review of surrogate-assisted design optimization for improving urban wind environment,Building and Environment,Volume 253,2024,111157,ISSN 0360-1323,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2023.111157.
7. T. Tse, Xuelin Zhang, A.U. Weerasuriya, S.W. Li, K.C.S. Kwok, Cheuk Ming Mak, Jianlei Niu,Adopting ‘lift-up’ building design to improve the surrounding pedestrian-level wind environment,Building and Environment,Volume 117,2017,Pages 154-165,ISSN 0360-1323,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2017.03.011.
8. Wenxin Li, Cheuk Ming Mak, Yunfei Fu, Chenzhi Cai, K.T. Tse, Jianlei Niu,The impact of twisted wind on pedestrian comfort around two non-identical-height buildings in tandem arrangement: a wind tunnel study,Building and Environment,Volume 262,2024,111847,ISSN 0360-1323,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2024.111847.
9. Yaxing Du, Cheuk Ming Mak, Yantong Li,A multi-stage optimization of pedestrian level wind environment and thermal comfort with lift-up design in ideal urban canyons,Sustainable Cities and Society,Volume 46,2019,101424,ISSN 2210-6707,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101424.
10. Xiaoyu Ying, Xiaoying Qin, Liying Shen, Chunyang Yu, Jia Zhang,An intelligent planning method to optimize high-density residential layouts considering the influence of wind environments,Heliyon,Volume 9, Issue 1,2023,e13051,ISSN 2405-8440,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e13051.
11. Tong Ma, Tian Chen,Outdoor ventilation evaluation and optimization based on spatial morphology analysis in Macau,Urban Climate,Volume 46,2022,101335,ISSN 2212-0955,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101335.

Comments 6:[ 6. Other suggestions:

For the introduction part, the subtitles should be added to make the structure clearer

For some figures, the descriptions should be more rigorous, such as the accuracy and completeness of scope about Chinese map;Figure 1, 2, 4, etc.

Please examine every figures.

For method, the process of the survey should be added with more detailed information, for example, is there any pilot survey.

For the title, author use "Hang River", but others of this manuscript, authors used Hangjiang River, please clarify them...]

Response 6:We think this is a good suggestion. We agree with your comment and adopt it. In response to this issue, we have revised it. The introduction has been adjusted and the content has been divided into two subheadings; we have also adjusted the pictures; and the title Hanjiang has also been revised. We apologise for our carelessness, and we sincerely thank the reviewers for their enthusiastic work and hope that the corrections will be approved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I believe that the manuscript has been improved with the incorporation of my comments. I now consider it suitable for publication.

Author Response

Dear reviewers：
    We would like to thank you for your professional review work on our paper, as well as your constructive comments and valuable suggestions on the manuscript. Your valuable comments have made my research more rigorous. Once again, thank you for your hard work and valuable time.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am very grateful to all the authors for their careful and rigorous revisions to their manuscripts. 

There are still some comments:

There are  "Hang River" and  "Hanjiang River" in title and other sections. Please check that they are the same river or two different rivers.

What are the research gaps in the study? Could you please elaborate them in abstract and conclusion parts?

The texts in Figure 4 are still overlapped so much that it is difficult to read.

Please check all the figures again to keep the fronts uniform. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf