Urban Layout Optimization Based on Genetic Algorithm for Microclimate Performance in the Cold Region of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a Genetic Algorithm based approach in order to optimize Urban Layout for Microclimate Performance in Cold 4 Region of China. The paper is interesting, original, well-written and correctly structured. 

However, the Conclusion Section can be improved. Now it is not easy to understand the ideas. It should be clarify it. Additionally, It could be incorporated more conclusions extracted from the results.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the critical comment. We attached the response as follow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper presents a very interesting work investigating urban layout in an urban area in Shenyang to meet optimal values in terms of comfort level. This work has high potential for urban layout and development in those cities with similar characteristics that the case study set (Shenyang (China), a cold region).

However, there are some limitations which should be addressed before publication. The structure of the paper is not totally clear and makes it difficult for readers to properly follow the work presented. Furthermore, it is needed to make clear that this work could be only applied/extrapolated to those cities with similar climatological characteristics. Otherwise, those steps to do it should be provided.

What’s more, I miss that climate change issues are not mentioned in this work. It is well known that temperatures are continuously rising, and climatology as well, and this work has not mentioned anything about this. Could the proposed method assess this issue of climate change? Could sustainability aspects be also assessed?

I would suggest the following comments in order to make it easier to read and take the attention of a wide audience:

Abstract L 18-19: ‘defines’. The acronym ‘UTCI’ must be fully defined (What does it mean?) English needs to be improved. L 45-51: What are the results? L 49: The acronym ‘CDF’ must be fully defined (What does it mean?) L 67-69: References to different case studies are provided, but their results/contribution are not shown. L 67: “Ng” since his surname is not clear and can lead to misunderstanding of readers, I suggest also using author’s full name. L 77-80: Rewording. Additionally, It should be interesting to know what is known about micro and macro-level analysis: it could be two sub-sections within the Introduction section. L 81: “UTCI” what does it mean? Be careful, acronyms must be defined the first time it is used. L 105-107: Be careful, word style must be always the same throughout the paper. Figure 1: It is not clear the meaning of the last box’s text. Please, reword it. Table 2: This table must be improved. Building forms are not clear enough (graphical quality). L 166-170: Where is this algorithm mentioned and/or defined? L 169: Does this time period cover the most severe temperatures (8:00 am – 8:00 pm)? What about 10:00 pm? L 216-218: What is the main factor? I am sure that it is not only the street width, since both configurations are different in terms of buildings location L 281: reference is missed for the Galapagos algorithm. Additionally, further explanation should be provided. L 386-390: Rewording. Its meaning is not clear. 2. Research limitations Section: the limitations are not clear and/or presents. It is more about discussion rather limitations. Please, provide a limitations section. Methodology and Results sections have too much subsections which make it difficult to understand it. I suggest merge all those subsections that are possible and provide a summary table/figure at the end of each section (Methodology and Results) which allow readers to have a better idea about the methodology followed for this work and results obtained. Conclusion It is not clear what the contribution of this paper is. What are the policy implications? What are the main results of this work?

Author Response

Thank you so much for the critical comment. We attached the response as follow.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

First at all, I am very happy to see that the authors have deeply amended the initial version of the paper by following the proposed comments.

This new version is much clearer than the previous one; the scope and innovative contribution is well presented throughout the paper and the tittle is more appropriate. Additionally, the composition and organization of this new version is much appropriated and consistently organized, leading readers to better understand what issue, as well as its current status, author is discussing.

 

I think that this paper can already be published in its current version.