Revealing Impacts of Trees on Modeling Microclimate Behavior in Spaces between Buildings through Simulation Monitoring
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript entitled “Revealing impacts of trees on modeling microclimate behavior in spaces between buildings through simulation-monitoring” conducted a field measurement campaign and simulations in order to analyse the multiple impacts of urban trees on microclimate, thermal comfort and façade temperature. This paper is likely to contribute to this field of study. However, I still have several comments or questions that need to be addressed before this paper could be accepted for publication.
1) Abstract section exceeds the words limit (> 200).
2) Overall English review, please proof read by an English native.
3) Figures are not cited as stated the journal template. E.g. (line 135): “Fig. 1” should be “Figure 1”. In addition, check the style of figure captions and table headings.
4) (Line 223). “PMV was calculated for a 35-year-old person (male) with 1.75m, 75 kg, a metabolic rate of 1.48 met (activity: walking at 1.21 m/s) and a clothing level of 0.9 clo (surface area: 1.91m2).” If the simulation was conducted considering four typical days of each season, why has the clothing insulation not been modified and adapted to each season? Is it realistic to keep it at 0.9 in the warmer season and the colder season?
5) Radiant temperature is an important parameter in the thermal perception and, therefore, in the calculation of the PMV. Was the mean radiant temperature measured? Since this field study was conducted outdoor, the mean radiant temperature needs special considerations. Authors should explain how it has been taken into account in this study.
6) Figure 10 shows colour maps of wind speed at 1.2 m. The minimum values are below 0 m/s. This issue should be explained and clarified in the manuscript.
7) In addition, Figure 10 shows colour maps of air temperature. The minimum value reported in the Figure is -0.30 Kelvin degrees, i.e. -272,85 Celsius degrees. These values need to be explained by the authors.
8) Check consistency of references style.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors investigated the impact of trees between buildings in terms of outdoor microclimate comfort and façade temperature. The topic is interesting and quite new. However, the authors should improve the methodology and include new data before the publication in the Journal.
In particular, I have some concerns about the methodology used in order to evaluate the impact of trees. The authors considered a specific case study, therefore the results could not be generalized. As the authors state, the results strongly depend on the solar radiation, whereas the authors take into account only 4 days for the comparison (one day for each season) and only one day was sunny. In my opinion, the results of the summer are not representative, because they are referred to a cloudy day. Therefore, in order to give robust results, the authors should simulate at least two day for each season (a cloudy day and a sunny day) and should discuss these results.
Some other detailed comments are included below.
1) The abstract should be more effective: The results shown in the abstract are too detailed and they are related to the specific situation, whereas a more general conclusion could be included.
2) Section 2. 2.The authors should check the data about the area of the campus (476 m2 is too low).
3) Section 2.3. The authors should include more details and picture of the measurement points. The picture could help the readers in order to understand the results in figure 5.
4) Section 2.4.1.
a. Why do the authors simulate data at 1.2 m whereas they measure at 1m?
b. In table 3 the albedo was measured in W/mK and the data are higher than 1. The authors should explain this parameter and the source of data.
c. Table 4. The authors should explain the parameters (there is no a list of acronyms) and the source of data.
5) Section 3. In Fig. 5, the authors should include the air temperature and solar radiation measured on the roof in order to explain the hourly trend of data. Moreover, the authors state that they give a two-month measurement campaign. Why did they take into account only a day in order to validate the model? They should take into account also a sunny day.
6) Section 3.7 should be rearranged based on the previous suggestions.
7) English language and style could be improved.
8) Finally, the conclusions should be revised according to the previous comments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have analysed this manuscript about the effect of trees on microclimate behaviour.
English expression is fine but there are some minor slips.
Line 486, correct with is “dominant”,
Line 499 to say reference and significance is perhaps redundant.
The study is interesting and well-crafted. The aim of the research is adequate because we have detected an increasing need for including trees in urban design but we do not have a real scientific confirmation.
There is no real need to give the software characteristics of the sensor used in the monitoring.
The physical principles underlying Envi-met are not given in the manuscript. I find this software not very adequate and it is impossible to validate it because it has so many variables outside of physics.
Some of the graphs could be rendered in a more detailed fashion.
The authors have developed a well-founded methodology. They explain in detail their flow charts; they discover what are the shortcomings of urban design in the controlled environment of their campus. This is however an idyllic location but I would prefer some of the studies to occur in disfavoured public areas of the city where it is unclear who is the owner of the land and how much is he able to invest.
The species of trees and their shapes are not well detailed in the article, we know that you cannot simply buy trees and put them where it suits you. After all, trees are living beings. It would be good if a short comment is added on these matters.
In the rest I do not find important difficulties. The review of literature is thoroughly and adequate.
The results might be expanded further by explaining some of the limits and problems in a more straightforward manner. Perhaps they could extend their methodology and ideas to other areas/cities.
Summary of evaluation: This article is interesting and necessary for retrofitting of urban facilities. I have identified no severe hindrances in the methodology and discussion. I believe that this article should be accepted for publication with only minor revisions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is one of the good quality works in recent year (I must have reviewed about 30 manuscripts for various international journals in the last year).
Having said that, there are few questions that warrant discreet explanation before it achieved a publishable level.
1/ Line 232 --
Please explain why 15th of the Month was chosen for March, June, September and December by a scientific rationale, for the more customarily and academic selection has been based upon Spring Solstice, Summer Solstice, Equinox and Winter Solstice which are 7 or so days later than the 15th day for good reason. Please explain the mismatch with justification, otherwise, it will be necessary to readjust the measurement/simulation for it reflects an ignorance of the basic knowledge of the subject matter.
2.1 / Table 4 (pp. 214, 216, 216) -
Explain and discuss the technical difference/performance of shading impact due to tree canopy of 25m and 15m trees in order to qualify as a useful and quantifiable contribution in the Discussion Section. Assuming it is measurable, how are such lessons an applicable knowledge for others to apply? Provide a photograph or the information of the tree species.
2.2/ Explain how one accounted for the permeability effects of tree canopy as a shading device. Depending on the tree species, health and prevailing weather condition, how could one estimate accurately the specific contribution towards shading by calculation, mapping, measurement and simulation?
2.3/ For asphalt ground, has the authors studied other types of ground cover materials as remedial solution for discussion, by for example, permeable tiles, to compliment the overall merit of the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The Authors have augmented the quality of the manuscript sufficiently.
