Remote Sensing and Field Measurements for the Analysis of the Thermal Environment in the “Bosco Verticale” Area in Milan City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Line 16-20: These sentences all contain statements introducing research methods, which are redundant and semantically repetitive. It is recommended to organize and modify them.
2. Line 26: The description of the research results in the abstract is too general, it is recommended to provide a specific description.
3. Line 57-65: The use of sentinel fixed band images to obtain LST is mentioned later, and it is recommended to point it out in the front.
4. Line 76: There is no punctuation at the end. It is recommended to supplement and check for similar issues.
5. Line 79-91: These lines are about research content, but they are written under subheading 2.1. Study area. The study area section should focus on the characteristics of the research area, and it is recommended to make modifications.
Line 93: "This area was selected, because it is an open area, with variable cover type materials and extended green surfaces." The reason for selecting this area is not sufficient, and it is recommended to supplement the reason.
7. Line 107: "Figure (a) presents the area of interest as it was designed in GIS." There is an issue of unclear reference in this sentence. In line 97, Figure 1 is mentioned, so when Figure (a) appears in this sentence, readers will directly assume it is (a) of Figure 1. However, based on the image, line 107 describes (a) of Figure 2. Suggest clarifying the description here.
8. Line 132: (Figure 2Error! Reference source not found. (b)) Please check here and check for similar errors throughout the text.
9. Line 140: Image Figure 2 (a) The study area and the cover type materials are unclear, it is recommended to adjust or replace them.
10. Line 141: Image Figure 2 (b) Suggest adding a scale bar.
11. Line 173: It is recommended to use sequential sorting numbers based on formulas
12. Line 196: After "[34]", "(7)" is added. It is recommended to delete it.
13. Line 211: Formula 11 is suggested to be adjusted to center.
14. Line 225: In 2.3 Downscaling LST images, it is recommended to add a description of the connotation of downscaling.
15. Line 230: "Also, 9 Sentinel-2 satellite images were also taken part in downscaling method." Adding 30 meters of accuracy to the 10 meter resolution should not be downscaling, and it is recommended to modify it.
16. Line 248-278:3.1: The use of averages to reflect differences between data and real data is limited. It is recommended to add box plots or violin plots to represent the relationship between upper and lower quartiles and median.
17. Line 275: It is recommended to use a line chart with turning points in Figure 3 to clearly observe and compare data at different time points; Additionally, the image size is too large, it is recommended to adjust it.
18. Line 296: "Different measuring heights (approximately 1.5 m above ground in case of Bosco Vertical area and 10 m in case of the meteorological stations across the city of Milan)." Are these data comparable for different measuring heights?
19. Line 324: From the data in Table 7, compared to the average value, the albedo of concrete is not considered "medium to low values". Why only discuss the relationship between the albedo of concrete and the surface temperature?
20. Line 429: The same problem as Line 248-278, and the small amount of data can easily lead to overfitting. It is recommended to use quantile regression or other regression to express the true fitting situation;
21. Line 469: Suggest adjusting the format of Title 3.4.
22. Line 508: In the current study, an open area inside a large urban environment was selected. It is recommended to supplement the causal relationship or directly focus on the research area in the first sentence of the conclusion.
23. Line 535: The starting space of the paragraph is inconsistent with other paragraphs. It is recommended to unify it and check the entire text for similar issues.
24. Line 544-552: It is recommended to add a summary conclusion between Finally and As future studies in the last paragraph of Conclusion.
25. Pay attention to ensuring that the format of the references matches the requirements of the journal. For example, there may be errors in the format of [12], with multiple blank lines between [42] and [43], and extra spaces in [50]. Please make modifications.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageModerate editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
There are few suggestions I would like to point out to:
Line 97: 'The whole area was designed in GIS environment and found to totally cover 18,665.9 m214 measurement points along the study area were selected' - What does 'designed' means here? Does it mean that area which is used to compare different types of measured data, was also transferred within some GIS application? Just, make to the reader, what is done and how. Also, add, what type of GIS application was used. Also, point out, why such thing is done.
Line 124: 'The TsHARP method was applied because it has already showed satisfactory results in the case of disaggregation procedure from MODIS to Landsat8 sensor [21].' - and you assume it would be proper selection in this sutdy? If so, point it out more clearer.
Line 132: 'Figure 2 Error! reference not found' - I believe this is word to pdf conversion error?
Figure 2: - image resolution is low - if editors don't mind?
Line 145: Could you just point out why split-window algorithms used in this study were selected. What ever reason is, just point it out, why.
Section 3.2: Stable stations
'stable' might not be proper therm here... 'automated', 'fixed position station'... if you want to compare them to in-situ measurements which you made
Also, if you are comparing measurement for same location using different tools (your in-situ measurements, meteorlogical stations) - make clear following: are all 'stable' stations has same hardware and sensors? State what are their locations and height (before you draw any conclusions further in text). Also did you made in-situ measurements at same locations where each 'stable' station is placed? Without that, comparison results does not make sense. You concluded that difference in results could be due to the station height and in-situ measurements you've performed. It would make sense if both measurements are made on same location.
Just be precise and state all data, conditions and possible 'flows' in this study before engaging actual Conclusion section.
Reader could conclude what has been made, at line 518 for the first time clearly.
Keep up good work
Regards
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease consult attached document
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is a very well-written manuscript, complete and informative. I especially appreciated the application to an urban feature like vertical greening because it is still under debate if this sort of architecture is just an 'architectural suggestion' or if it produces real effects on the local thermal environment.
The author's findings furnish a very interesting reply to the original question. They also give very interesting indications to architects about the project as a whole, where the very close relationships between the effects of urban green and the built materials are utilized.
The introduction is very exhaustive, and the methodology depicts the entire experimental design, allowing the reader to grasp fully the very important parts of the work and to reproduce similar studies in different environments.
The results are clearly and efficiently reported with very structured support of images and tables; I only suggest writing 'Results and discussion' because, in this chapter, a large part is devoted to the discussion.
The conclusions are firmly linked to the experimental outcomes and greatly help various scholars of different disciplines.
The literature presented is complete and well-focused on the experimental themes.
I have to remark that something happened in lines 132-133 (a reference not found, but I think that the images are the property of the author, but please check).
I strongly suggest publishing the paper in the present form (once done the small changes indicated).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. Line 23: The description of the research results in the abstract, "The results received the significance of the green presence inside the urban environment." is still too general, and it is recommended to add a specific description.
2. In Line 205-234: Downscaling LST images, there is still no additional description of the connotation of downscaling.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have satisfactorily responded to and corrected the issues raised in my review report. However, there is only one small minor issue related to the formal aspect of the document. This presents different types of line spacing. Therefore, and as a final element, I suggest unifying all the line spacing of the document.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
