Research on the Effect of Planting Design on the Thermal Comfort of Campus Sidewalk in Tunghai University, Taiwan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A very interesting paper, dealing with an important topic. It seems to me that there is a lot of potential for further research.
Best regards,
Reviewer

Below is a list of comments:
Line 45: In the reviewer's opinion, the phrase "In recent years" is not appropriate. Please specify which years (or range) you are referring to.
Lines 92-93: Is it worthwhile to refer to antiquity?
Lines 158-159: Only on campus? I think the work is universal and it is worth emphasizing this.
Lines 253-254: You write "approximately" and give very precise results (34.45), similarly in lines 264-265. In my opinion, the precision of the results is too high.
Figures 7, 8 and onwards: The figures are not very readable, and the labels are too small. Work on this, as it is very interesting.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

in general, the paper does not highlight the original contribution of the research, that, consequently, does not appear scientifically relevant. The use of the ENVI-met software to model the micro-climate and  environmental conditions of a urban context and to generate alternative design scenarios is common and already well documented in the scientific literature. The paper should stress the novelty of the proposed methodology/results and explain the innovations it can bring as a consequence.

Please take into consideration also the following comments:

- Section 2 Related Works: the paragraphs about urban micro-climate and Thermal comfort indicators are not relevant and can be intended just as premises;  the "2.3. Impact of planting design on thermal comfort" paragraph might be interesting if deepened and transformed in a state of the art of the subject, including more references to other research and case studies that have already been published or implemented.  That improvement of the section might be also useful to understand the original contribution of your research.  

- Section 3 Methodology: as you correctly state in line 163, transforming complex real-life scenarios into simplified mathematical models, conducting numerical computations, and deriving solutions to gain insights and make predictions is widely employed in micro-climate research. What the novelty of your application to the campus is, does not emerge. Please provide information about this fundamental aspect.

- Section 4 Results: the  characteristics of the built environment that can impact on the micro-climate parameters are not described (i.e. types and height of the buildings facing the street, type of surfaces, etc).  Figure 5 does not include a scale to understand the dimensions of the area. No information about the width and length of the roads is provided. Graphic schemes of the alternative solution, representing the section of the streets, could be useful.

- Section 5 Conclusions: the conclusion section is not anticipated by a discussion of the results. Please add a discussion section or develop the conclusions in order to underline and explain the scientific relevance of the results and to highlight the future development opportunities and provide elements that can bring more value to the research you propose in the paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Investigating the campus thermal environments should be an important topic in term of heat island mitigation and adaptation. I expect very interesting results from the title of this paper. However, after reading through it, I am disappointed. Authors failed to present the novel results and findings. Moreover, authors failed to present key issues on the campus. I guess authors should read Planning for heat-resilient education precinct.

The introduction is overall comprehensive and well-written, but authors failed to define the research gap and research problems.

It is meaningless to present the related work in the second section. Authors failed to catch the key solutions for mitigating urban heat island effects.

The ENVI-met setup accounts for a large proportion of the method section, but the validation is missing.

The result section is quite weak since it cannot present novel or new information.

I suggest the rejection of this paper.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for your work of revision according to my suggestions. I appreciated your efforts in producing the responses to my  observations and requests. I have founded that well argued. 

The only response I do not find completely satisfactory is number 3, about the scientific soundness and novelty of your methodology application to the specific area of the campus. I understand that campus design can benefit from the optimal plantation of trees, but the general value and transferability of your methods and means in comparison to the other Envi-met simulations of greening interventions in the built environment, widely documented in literature,  does not still emerge. 

Nevertheless, I find the paper acceptable i the present form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am not convinced for the acceptance of this paper. It should be rejected

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf