Simulation of Cooling Island Effect in Blue-Green Space Based on Multi-Scale Coupling Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The research work mainly deals with the cooling effect of the blue-green spaces on the basis of the multi-scale coupling model. It is an interesting study dealing the simulation of cooling effect of green and blue spaces. The authors need to incorporate the following issues before acceptance:
1. What is the research questions formulated? The novelty of the work should be mentioned at the end of the introduction. For example, in line 58, 66....and other places. There are number of studies carried out on the topics, these literatures can be incorporated in the present work:
# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104062
# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.105501
# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126630
# https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126630
I hope, these literatures can be very helpful to enrich the introduction of the paper.
2. Authors used LCZ scheme, but which scheme has been used? Which software? The LCZ should be presented in Table with their explanation.
3. The methods used in this study should explain the reason of applications? Why these methods were used?
4. Discussion should be written with proper literature to support the findings.
5. What are the limitations of the research work?

Overall: This is s good work, but it needs a little revision before acceptance.

Author Response

We are very grateful for your positive feedback. We have addressed your comments throughout the manuscript in our Response to Reviewers.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study aims to investigate the cooling effects of green and blue space in different LCZs by coupling two models at different scale-WRF for local scale and ENVI-met for micro scale. In general, this topic is worth exploring.

The whole study is a case study, using finer resolution result in WRF as the inputs for ENVI-met, and compare different strategies and their cooling benefits, e.g., green space only, blue space only, and green+blue spaces. The authors should emphasize directly evidence with more precise and detailed results obtained from higher resolution data in this paper. 

 

Overall, I found the paper well written and properly structured. Nevertheless, the innovation of this study, relative to previous studies, was not easy to spot and well presented in Introduction and Discussion. English should be improved, as there are few strange or unclear expressions.

 

Line numbers indicated below are the numbers shown in the word version of the manuscript.

General observations

1. In the introduction section, I recommend authors to relook the section and organize their work as guided in the specific observations detailed below for this section

2. Methodology requires to be enriched before the paper is accepted for publication

3. The authors have mixed up the data and method in the Data and Method sections, this need to be addressed before the paper is accepted

4. The discussion is not well presented

5. The conclusion is precise and concrete save for few typo errors

6. Citations and references need to be thoroughly relooked again, there is a lot of inconsistencies that need to be addressed before the paper is accepted

7. The paper is showing a little of grammatical errors that authors need to consider before the paper is accepted.

In addition to above mentioned comments which should be attempted in the revised version, some of the specific observations are:

Introduction

1. Introduction is a good summary. One suggestion, when authors indicate the limitation as low resolution for different models, please list the values as well.
2. Line 63-65, I did not understand why this information is important for the topic.

3. Grammatical errors in line 56, put a comma after the word uplift.
4. Grammatical error in line 50-52, the author, need paraphrase the statement to sound grammatically correct, in line 51, after the comma, the authors should paraphrase as follows. , the heat is greatly reduced instead of weakened.

Data and Method
1. Method section, the authors listed the experimental settings of WRF in detail, how about ENVI-met setting?
2. Validation of the models, only R² can be misleading, as when the pattern shows consistency, the deviations may be large. What is the root mean square deviation?
3. In line 102, the authors double spaced the word 'LCZ' and 'G'

4. Grammatical check in line 130, there should have a spacing between the word straightforward and the citations

Results and analysis
1. Grammatical error in sentence between line 284-288.

2. The authors should use the word 'assess' instead of ' ensure'

 

Discussion

1. The discussion section is well written save for few citation errors

2. Authors should put as spacing after the full stop in line 427

4. Justify the statement between line 455 and 461 with a relevant citations

8. Authors should justify information contained between line 472-476

9. Grammatical check in sentence between line 543-546.

Author Response

We thank you very much for your recognition of this work and recommendation for the publication of this manuscript. Our response to your comments please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

First of all, I need to say that my opinion is positive about this paper. I believe it needs to be published.

However, I had a tough time understanding what the authors had done. On one side you have a WRF model region of about 4410 km by 3420 km to simulate an area of 500 m by 500 m. The need for such a simulation area is lost in the paper. The steps of the analysis must be clearly explained. I am sure the authors know what they are doing but fail to convey that information to the reader.

The second point which needs clarification is about the study area. The authors lack clarity in what they mean by base, green, and water. Presumably, they are estimating the changes that would have occurred if they had converted the regions indicated to green and to water, but that has not been clearly stated.

In summary, this paper need a good overhaul in writing, and the authors may even add a flowchart to explain their procedure, but otherwise, I am happy with their results.

Author Response

We are very grateful for your positive feedback. We have addressed your comments throughout the manuscript in our Response to Reviewers.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form