Features of Assessment and Formation of the Aeration Regime of Residential Development on the Sloping Lands of the Russian Arctic

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper seems to provide significant information and to rely upon meaningful data. However, it cannot be published in its current form.

Generally speaking, it seems the adaptation of a much longer work to the paper format. It is too long and could be significantly shortned, as well as be made more ordered and consequential. It was very hard to reach the end.

Moreover, in the adaptation process, crucial information was probably deleted. As a result, it is often difficult to understand general and particular subjects of the analysis. Input and output data are not clearly identified, nor the physical correlation between is effectively explained (at least in qualitative terms). The doubt that the term ‘aeration’ is referred to indoor spaces (as usually is), courtyards and/or opens space such as driveway remains through large part of the paper.

Additional remarks are reported below.

Internal references to citations, figures, tables, etc. are often wrong and should be thoroughly checked.

The abstract is quite long.

I’d choose different keywords.

The resolution of most figures is too low. Moreover, many figures could be substituted with tables, or merged.

In line 81, please avoid cumulative citations and report the contribution of each paper.

Limit the use of ‘such’ to emphasize tools or references, e.g. such advanced software packages as (line 23), such researchers as (lines 41, 85, 93, etc.).

In line 127, please report why sloping lands are slopes with a gradient of more than 52‰.

In Fig. 2, a color scale is missing. A source of data should probably by cited.

In Fig. 3 (which is erroneously numbered Fig. 1), the text is difficult to read. Sloped areas could be more clearly identified. Again, a source of data should probably by cited.

Fig. 4, which is erroneously numbered Fig. 2, could be substituted by a table.

In Fig. 5 (which is erroneously numbered Fig. 3), the text is difficult to read.

In line 201, Tab 1 is erroneously referred to as Tab. 5, isn’t it? Check format of the table.

Renumber properly all figures.

Fig. 7 (numbered 5) is difficult to read due to poor resolution. Moreover, are the authors allowed to use it?

The concept in lines 218-220 should be more clearly and extensively explained. It is not clear to me whether a urban planning should be adopted to limit wind velocity around persons outdoor (or in the courtyard) below 4 m/s, and how this affect building aeration, which I understand is related to the indoor environment.

In Tab. 2, the max gradient should be 9-29% and not 90-290%. Check column units. Is building density the fraction of soil coverage? A fraction as high as 0.95 (or 95%) seems quite high in view of the following figures. Courtyard should not be enclosed.

In line 247, Tab 3 is erroneously referred to as Tab. 8.

Fig. 8 (numbered 6) is difficult to read due to poor resolution. Moreover, it should be clearly explained in the text. The identification of parameters such as x2 and k is unclear to me. Moreover, I am not able to correlated the sketch in the Figure with data in Tab. 3.

Symbolds in eq. (2) are confusing and should be more clearly defined in the text.

Fig. 10 (numbered 8) is ineffective and could be substituted by a table resuming the 84 cases.

The meaning and usefulness of the figure numbered 7 is unclear. Probably it can be deleted.

The analysis of data is extremely long and should be shortened significantly, merging charts in single figures, avoiding repetitions. The attention is lost well before reaching the end of the section, where the meaningful results are more effectively reported.

Fig. 11 (numbered 10) is difficult to read due to poor resolution. It is also ineffective and could be substituted by a table.

Fig. numbered 14 can be merged with Fig. numbered 15.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your comments, which have helped us to greatly improve the manuscript!

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper seems to provide significant information and to rely upon meaningful data. However, it cannot be published in its current form.

Generally speaking, it seems the adaptation of a much longer work to the paper format. It is too long and could be significantly shortned, as well as be made more ordered and consequential. It was very hard to reach the end. Moreover, in the adaptation process, crucial information was probably deleted. As a result, it is often difficult to understand general and particular subjects of the analysis. Input and output data are not clearly identified, nor the physical correlation between is effectively explained (at least in qualitative terms). The doubt that the term ‘aeration’ is referred to indoor spaces (as usually is), courtyards and/or opens space such as driveway remains through large part of the paper.

Thanks a lot for the comments. The study was quite large, so the article turned out to be long and unfortunately nothing can be removed from it so that it does not affect the essence of the study. The term aeration in this study refers only to the outer space of the yard area of residential development. Internal aeration was not considered.

Additional remarks are reported below.

Internal references to citations, figures, tables, etc. are often wrong and should be thoroughly checked.

Thanks a lot for the comment, all inaccuracies have been checked and corrected.

The abstract is quite long.

In the abstract, I tried the main theses of the study. Since the study presented in this article is quite large and filled with details, the abstract also turned out to be large, but remains within the acceptable number of characters for this article.

I’d choose different keywords.

The selected keywords reflect the main key points of the study.

The resolution of most figures is too low. Moreover, many figures could be substituted with tables, or merged.

Thanks for the comment. We will fix it.

In line 81, please avoid cumulative citations and report the contribution of each paper.

Thanks a lot for the comment. Сumulative references have been corrected, and each citation has been checked for compliance with the cited author.

Limit the use of ‘such’ to emphasize tools or references, e.g. such advanced software packages as (line 23), such researchers as (lines 41, 85, 93, etc.).

Thanks for the comment. Made edits to the article (lines 23, 41, 85, 93, etc.).

In line 127, please report why sloping lands are slopes with a gradient of more than 52‰.

In the article there is a link to my research, in which I justified the choice for research (line 135).

In Fig. 2, a color scale is missing. A source of data should probably by cited.

A color scale has been added to the drawing, as well as a scale ruler (line 140)

In Fig. 3 (which is erroneously numbered Fig. 1), the text is difficult to read. Sloped areas could be more clearly identified. Again, a source of data should probably by cited.

Photogrammetric images of ASTER GDEM were used as a source of relief data, which is indicated in line 130. The allocation of the slope territories took place on the basis of my previous studies, which are referenced in the article earlier (source №35).

Fig. 4, which is erroneously numbered Fig. 2, could be substituted by a table.

Thanks for the comment, the error has been fixed (line 161).

In Fig. 5 (which is erroneously numbered Fig. 3), the text is difficult to read.

Thanks for the comment. The readability of the image will be improved.

In line 201, Tab 1 is erroneously referred to as Tab. 5, isn’t it? Check format of the table.

Thanks for the comment. Inaccuracy corrected (line 211)

Renumber properly all figures.

Thanks for the comment. All pictures are renumbered.

Fig. 7 (numbered 5) is difficult to read due to poor resolution. Moreover, are the authors allowed to use it?

Picture number 7 is necessary to understand the structure of the theoretical model. The readability of the image will be improved.

The concept in lines 218-220 should be more clearly and extensively explained. It is not clear to me whether a urban planning should be adopted to limit wind velocity around persons outdoor (or in the courtyard) below 4 m/s, and how this affect building aeration, which I understand is related to the indoor environment.

In my research, we are talking exclusively about the external aeration regime. Adjustment of the aeration regime of the external space (reduction of the share of uncomfortable zones) is proposed to be carried out by urban planning methods.

In Tab. 2, the max gradient should be 9-29% and not 90-290%. Check column units. Is building density the fraction of soil coverage? A fraction as high as 0.95 (or 95%) seems quite high in view of the following figures. Courtyard should not be enclosed.

Thanks for the remark, the units were really mixed up. The study used ppm, not percentages. The density was calculated by dividing the total floor area of all buildings in the area (including the site) by the area of the building site (line 244).

In line 247, Tab 3 is erroneously referred to as Tab. 8.

Thanks for the comment. Inaccuracy corrected (line 260)

Fig. 8 (numbered 6) is difficult to read due to poor resolution. Moreover, it should be clearly explained in the text. The identification of parameters such as x2 and k is unclear to me. Moreover, I am not able to correlated the sketch in the Figure with data in Tab. 3.

The description of the parameters x1,x2, x3, etc. is described in detail in Chapter 3, as well as in Figure 7 (line 277).

Symbolds in eq. (2) are confusing and should be more clearly defined in the text.

Thanks for the comment. Description of symbols added to the text (line 308).

Fig. 10 (numbered 8) is ineffective and could be substituted by a table resuming the 84 cases.

The figure demonstrates a systematic approach to research and is necessary to understand the formation of 84 research cases.

The meaning and usefulness of the figure numbered 7 is unclear. Probably it can be deleted.

Picture number 7 presents a theoretical model of the aeration regime of residential development in the sloping territories of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation and demonstrates how and at what levels the incoming parameters of the aeration regime affect residential development. The outgoing factor is also shown in the picture.

The analysis of data is extremely long and should be shortened significantly, merging charts in single figures, avoiding repetitions. The attention is lost well before reaching the end of the section, where the meaningful results are more effectively reported.

A detailed analysis is necessary to understand the research methodology.

Fig. 11 (numbered 10) is difficult to read due to poor resolution. It is also ineffective and could be substituted by a table.

The figure shows the general appearance and interface of the script for calculations. The screenshot of the program shows the simplicity of the program interface and the possibility of its use by urban planners.

Fig. numbered 14 can be merged with Fig. numbered 15.

Thanks for the comment. Inaccuracy corrected (line 524)

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript attempts to investigate the aeration regime of the residential development on the sloping lands of the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation. Great efforts have been done in this manuscript; A total of 84 cases 321 were conducted through CFD simulation method to determine the share of discomfortable zones, 4 morphotypes, 4 types of exposures and grading of slopes. the paper succeeds to position its objectives and findings in the literature context regarding the state of the art. However, the references are not updated also not enough to cover the previous studies on this scope. The approach and methodology presented would be very interesting for readers working in the associated field and the conclusions derived from the study are also offering some useful insights. I do not have any further comments or suggestions for improvement of this paper. An excellent contribution to knowledge in the associated field.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your positive feedback and comments!

In our study, we relied on domestic and foreign research in this area, including over the past 5 years. Also, additional research on this topic was conducted by the authors earlier, in the article "Sustainable development of the slope lands of the Russian Arctic: a study of the relationship between aspects of slopes, wind regime and wind comfort of residential premises". The reference to it (No. 34) is given in line 106. All references are checked for correctness and correspond to the list of references.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

My response is minor revision, flag selections are the same of my previous review and the Commento to authors is as follows:

/The authors replied to part of this reviewer’s remarks and the paper was improved./

/In their interest, the authors should make clear in the abstract that aeration is just external aeration, also specifying which types of outer space are involved. Otherwise, both interested or uninterested readers could be misled./

/Generally speaking, both abstract and paper remain very long. The authors are convinced that they cannot be shortened without loss of contents. However, I am also convinced that the length of the paper will cause loss of readers, as it will discourage most of them to reach the end (and, therefore, to cite the paper). Provided that the contents are completely necessary, I’d again suggest moving repetitive data in an appendix and exploiting tables./

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you one more time for your comments, which have helped us to greatly improve the manuscript!

/In their interest, the authors should make clear in the abstract that aeration is just external aeration, also specifying which types of outer space are involved. Otherwise, both interested or uninterested readers could be misled./

Thanks for the comment. Сlarification added (line 21)

/Generally speaking, both abstract and paper remain very long. The authors are convinced that they cannot be shortened without loss of contents. However, I am also convinced that the length of the paper will cause loss of readers, as it will discourage most of them to reach the end (and, therefore, to cite the paper). Provided that the contents are completely necessary, I’d again suggest moving repetitive data in an appendix and exploiting tables./

Many thanks for the comment, but unfortunately we do not see the possibility to reduce the article without losing the main meaning of the study.