Urban Heat Island Mitigation and Urban Green Spaces: Testing a Model in the City of Padova (Italy)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper tries to test the applicability of the I-Tree CoolAir model as a tool for predicting air temperatures in relation to land use and canopy cover, taking the city of Padova as case study. It simulations of the air temperature variations and their spatial distribution were carried out using the I-Tree Cool Air model. The I-Tree CoolAir model is helpful for the research in the field of urban heat island (UHI).
However, there are some problems that need to be further improved:
1. The I-Tree Cool Air model is part of the I-Tree Hydro+, a software suite of process-based environmental models developed by the USDA Forest Service. It is much more the application of software than the method innovation. Because there are many related studies, the innovation of this study seems not strong. Please add a description of the differences between this study and existing studies.
2. To run the model, it provide a set of data describing topography and land cover, along with climate data at a chosen reference weather station in the study area (Figure 2). However, it is not clear how the data is applied in this figure, especially the climate data. Please describe the details.
3. The study shows that the model can potentially be used to compare different urban forest and urban greening planning scenarios, however further research is necessary to assess the reliability of the temperature predictions. Please describe the possibility of model improvement.
Author Response
This paper tries to test the applicability of the I-Tree CoolAir model as a tool for predicting air temperatures in relation to land use and canopy cover, taking the city of Padova as case study. It simulations of the air temperature variations and their spatial distribution were carried out using the I-Tree Cool Air model. The I-Tree CoolAir model is helpful for the research in the field of urban heat island (UHI).
However, there are some problems that need to be further improved:
- The I-Tree Cool Air model is part of the I-Tree Hydro+, a software suite of process-based environmental models developed by the USDA Forest Service. It is much more the application of software than the method innovation. Because there are many related studies, the innovation of this study seems not strong. Please add a description of the differences between this study and existing studies.
We thank the reviewer for comments and suggestions. We modified the introduction to include the suggested description.
- To run the model, it provides a set of data describing topography and land cover, along with climate data at a chosen reference weather station in the study area (Figure 2). However, it is not clear how the data is applied in this figure, especially the climate data. Please describe the details.
We changed figure 2 and reorganized the material and methods chapter to clarify the process.
- The study shows that the model can potentially be used to compare different urban forest and urban greening planning scenarios, however further research is necessary to assess the reliability of the temperature predictions. Please describe the possibility of model improvement.
Thank you for the suggestion. We inserted this comment at the end of the Discussion, but it will be an interesting topic for a further investigation.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper covers an important subject and shows well how the i-tree model could have very useful application in urban greening. There is not a lot wrong with the paper but a few observations which should be considered. Firstly, while you say that more research is needed to ground truth the application of the model, you do not mention, when you introduce it, whether and to what extent it has already been validated in other situations - not just in the USA but elsewhere. This would add some measure of confidence that it has potential. You might also mention if the software is open source etc and how it is actually applied - a diagram of the steps of data collection and input into the model would help understand this. You also mention the effect of different crops on the temperature effect - please clarify the opportunities within the QGIS to model a specific season (the orthophoto you used was taken in July so it should be accurate for your simulation but what if the only available one was eg winter?) to ensure the more realistic albedo is input into the model. It also seems possible to focus on the trees rather than all green elements, especially very low ones, to separate the effect of these on the UHI. Could you run some correlations to establish the relationships which are currently only presented using descriptive statistics, and to highlight the role of the areas with denser canopy?
Author Response
This paper covers an important subject and shows well how the i-tree model could have very useful application in urban greening. There is not a lot wrong with the paper but a few observations which should be considered.
We thank the reviewer for comments and suggestions that will allow enhancements and add clarity to the article.
Firstly, while you say that more research is needed to ground truth the application of the model, you do not mention, when you introduce it, whether and to what extent it has already been validated in other situations - not just in the USA but elsewhere. This would add some measure of confidence that it has potential.
Thank you for the suggestion. We added some sentences to cover also this aspect.
You might also mention if the software is open source etc and how it is actually applied - a diagram of the steps of data collection and input into the model would help understand this.
Thank you for the suggestion. A schematic illustration of the method has been added. The new figure 2 substitutes the previous one, hopefully responding also to your comment about its readability.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is good and can be accepted for print without major changes. The authors should supplement Figure 2 with a legend. Other maps should also be enhanced with cartographic markings. The problem raised is not very orginal. Nor do the authors point out innovative solutions. However, the indicated procedures of proceeding may be useful, which increases the potential interest of future readers.
Author Response
The article is good and can be accepted for print without major changes. The authors should supplement Figure 2 with a legend. Other maps should also be enhanced with cartographic markings. The problem raised is not very original. Nor do the authors point out innovative solutions. However, the indicated procedures of proceeding may be useful, which increases the potential interest of future readers.
We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. A revised version has been uploaded. In the revision we tried to point out some of the differences with previously published work.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
The general quality of the work is good. The topic is of constant interest and highly important in the era of rapid climate change.
Abstract:
The abstract needs to be structured. Otherwise, it takes much work to read it with understanding. Moreover, it needs to give more unnecessary detail here.
Keywords:
urban heat island/heat island would be a good addition here.
1. Introduction:
The theoretical framework is well-set and quite extensive. There are several old publications but of good quality and well-referred. However, there are many recent publications from the last six months that cover the topics of heat islands about greenery and modern ways to incorporate greenery in urban tissue and were not mentioned (for example, in Sustainability and IJERPH)
2. Materials and methods
The authors should reorganize the section so that there is a distinction between methods and materials - otherwise, it is hard to understand the exact method applied in the study. Moreover, a graph or schematic illustration would be beneficial to present the novelty of the applied method better.
3. Results.
The authors should improve the editing of lines 196-204.
Moreover, the section needs some introduction and a small summary of findings.
4. Discussion is limited mainly to the topic of study and should, in this case, cover various aspects of the problem like, for example, mortality due to heat
5. Conclusions are brief and should be developed.
Other:
Figure 2 is not readable - it may be possible to enlarge the maps.
Author Response
The general quality of the work is good. The topic is of constant interest and highly important in the era of rapid climate change.
Abstract: The abstract needs to be structured. Otherwise, it takes much work to read it with understanding. Moreover, it needs to give more unnecessary detail here.
Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have re-structured the abstract as indicated.
Keywords: urban heat island/heat island would be a good addition here.
We added the keyword
- Introduction: The theoretical framework is well-set and quite extensive. There are several old publications but of good quality and well-referred. However, there are many recent publications from the last six months that cover the topics of heat islands about greenery and modern ways to incorporate greenery in urban tissue and were not mentioned (for example, in Sustainability and IJERPH)
Thank you for the suggestion. We added recent publications regarding this topic.
- Materials and methods: The authors should reorganize the section so that there is a distinction between methods and materials - otherwise, it is hard to understand the exact method applied in the study. Moreover, a graph or schematic illustration would be beneficial to present the novelty of the applied method better.
We agree with your suggestions. Materials and methods have been revised and a schematic illustration of the method has been added.
- Results. The authors should improve the editing of lines 196-204.
Moreover, the section needs some introduction and a small summary of findings.
An introduction to this paragraph and a summary of findings have been added
- Discussion is limited mainly to the topic of study and should, in this case, cover various aspects of the problem like, for example, mortality due to heat
Thank you for the suggestion. The various environmental and health aspects of temperature reduction through the use of vegetation are mentioned and discussed in the introduction but they have not been addressed in this study because it was designed to test the applicability of the i-Tree Cool Air model
- Conclusions are brief and should be developed.
Thank you for the suggestion. Conclusions were revised.
Other: Figure 2 is not readable - it may be possible to enlarge the maps.
The new figure 2 substitutes the previous one, hopefully responding also to your comment about its readability.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
