Climatic Control of Urban Spaces Using Natural Cooling Techniques to Achieve Outdoor Thermal Comfort

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a case study with climatic control to achieve comfortable conditions  in outdoor open spaces of an Amphitheatre. The paper has a comprehensive review about outdoor thermal comfort. However, it is better to emphasize motivation and contributions. 

In terms of methodology, it is better to have several diagrams for clarifications. In addition, there is little introduction to settings with CFD simulation and TRNSYS. In addition, some formulas in results shall be moved to methodology where result section only focuses on results based on experiments. 

Regarding conclusion, it is also better to have discussions about limitations before conclusion. 

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1938878

Title: Climatic control of urban spaces using natural cooling techniques to achieve outdoor thermal comfort

 Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, our sincerest thanks for your comments on our manuscript. We think they have unquestionably contributed to improving the quality of the paper since it helped us take into account some issues which we did not thoroughly consider.

• The manuscript has been modified to address each of the excellent comments and recommendations raised.
• The authors have additional explanations.
• The 'tracked changes' tool has been used to clarify where manuscript revisions have taken place.

We feel the comments have greatly strengthened the revised manuscript, and we hope that this will comply with the remarks pointed out. We will now proceed to respond to each of them in detail.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript ID: Sustainability-1938878

Title: Climatic control of urban spaces using natural cooling techniques to achieve outdoor thermal comfort

Journal: Sustainability

 

The article addresses a topic of interest and relevance, but presents some methodological problems. The paper structure and content should be highly improved for a scientific publication:

Ø  The abstract is too generic. These is common knowledge. It is not enough. Abstract should be rewritten. What does this mean (TRNSYS) ? The abstract should consist of an easy to understand summary of the study, its methodology and obtained results. Please give the numerical results in this section. It should answer the following questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results?

 

Ø  Intro The objectives of the study were defined. But, It is difficult to understand the research questions and what is expected from the study. How do these studies set up the context for this? Given the number of studies in this research area;  what gap will this study fill in the literature?  For example, what is the contribution/novelty of this study? What kind of local and global knowledge the authors want to improve?

*In figure 2, it should be explained by giving the year in other pictures.

*I couldn't see the blue color in figure 3.

*Add linear scale to figure 6.

*Station 2 and 3 could have been given in figur 7.

Ø  Meto: Materials and Methods are  descriptive and provide any information related to the input data and the methodology used in the study. The method description is sufficient but should be added in the following.

     * Karışıklığı önlemek için çalışma akış şeması verilebilir.

*The CFD model should be explained in the method (page 15 line 482). Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and solar radiation software method should also be explained.

* Prepared  all scenarios should be explained in the method. I saw the script on page 17 . These should be added in detail to the method section.

 

Ø The discussion section is missing. Ø     Regarding the discussion, the authors should further compare their findings with references. As you included a very wide range of background information, a more structured illustration of these background literature references could be promoted to add another benefit to the paper. Link your findings with those from previous studies and this will also help make more broader conclusions. The results should be further elaborated to show how they could be used for the real applications in other similar climate regions. Well-known academic people in this field thermal comfort (Matzarakis A.; Nikolopoulou, M. & Lykoudis, S.; Gulyas, A; Mayer, H. & Höppe, P. 1987….). Please use the following references on thermal comfort,  water surface, green area, cover material and optimal design related to planning management. (*Irmak MA., Yilmaz S., Yilmaz H., Ozer S., Toy S., 2013. Evaluation of different thermal conditions based on THI under different kind of tree types – as a specific case in a Ata Botanic Garden in eastern Turkey. Global NEST Journal, 15(1) : 131-139. *Yilmaz, S., Külekçi, E. A., Mutlu, B. E., & Sezen, I. (2021). Analysis of winter thermal comfort conditions: street scenarios using ENVI-met model. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(45), 63837-63859).* Toy, S., & Yilmaz, S. (2010). Evaluation of urban-rural bioclimatic comfort differences over a ten-year period in the sample of Erzincan city reconstructed after a heavy earthquake. Atmósfera, 23(4), 387-402.

 

Discussion of the results has never been done and needs to be critically analyzed. The discussion section is very important for the results of the study.

 

The present work could be interesting for the future urban planning for suistanable cities. But this research has minor methodological flaws. Discussion should be added because it has not been done. Please, relevant literatures should be consulted and discussed. Results should also be explained in clear terms.  How will results affect urban design and planning? At this point, the paper will need to have revisions restructuring. At this point, the paper will need to have minor revisions restructuring. Therefore, I cannot recommend publication of the current version. But after corrections it is acceptable.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1938878. Title: Climatic control of urban spaces using natural cooling techniques to achieve outdoor thermal comfort

 Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, our sincerest thanks for your comments on our manuscript. We think they have unquestionably contributed to improving the quality of the paper since it helped us take into account some issues which we did not thoroughly consider.

• The manuscript has been modified to address each of the excellent comments and recommendations raised.
• The authors have additional explanations.
• The 'tracked changes' tool has been used to clarify where manuscript revisions have taken place.

We feel the comments have greatly strengthened the revised manuscript, and we hope that this will comply with the remarks pointed out. We will now proceed to respond to each of them in detail.

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is inspired by the well-known case of passive bioclimatic strategies used in Seville during EXPO92. The reference case is an example of great importance but is just shortly presented in the background part of the paper. It should be described more in-depth, primarily to support some following design choices and some thermal behavior, such as the evaporative cooling effect. The article should also be referenced more adequately.

English structure should be revised (i.e., grammar order for adjectives), as well as several paragraphs’ titles.

Some additional drawings should be added to support the case study description.

More in-depth, precise comments and suggestions can be found in the attached documents.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1938878. Title: Climatic control of urban spaces using natural cooling techniques to achieve outdoor thermal comfort

Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, our sincerest thanks for your comments on our manuscript. We think they have unquestionably contributed to improving the quality of the paper since it helped us take into account some issues which we did not thoroughly consider.

• The manuscript has been modified to address each of the excellent comments and recommendations raised.
• The authors have additional explanations.
• The 'tracked changes' tool has been used to make clear where revisions of the manuscript have taken place.
• English language and style has been revised in the whole manuscript.

We feel the revised manuscript has been greatly strengthened by the comments, and hope that this will comply with the remarks which were pointed out. We will now proceed to respond to each of them in detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This in-depth study explores the use of natural cooling methods to regulate metropolitan places' outside temperatures and provide outdoor thermal comfort. Despite some elements being missing, the entire work is nicely designed and the simulations are thorough. The work that is being provided is quite practical. I suggest some minor revisions should be made prior to acceptance.

#A list of abbreviations should be provided.

#Figure 1: please mark the photos with alb and c clearly.

#Lines 196-202 how were the temperatures measured? Details on the measurement of temperature should be added.

#Line 204 what does UHI mean? Urban heat island? If so, please revise about here to give its full name.

#Figure 7: what does 'average seasonal' mean? The average temperature reported by the meteorological station? If so, please revise this.

#Line 251 delta S should be the heat storage but not energy variation.

#Line 692, Table 9: please keep one decimal for the temperature values.

#Figures 19-20: please revise the cubic meter unit with 3 as the superscript.

#Please double check the entire manuscript so that minor typo mistakes could be fixed.

#Please give a thorough description of each simulation as well as specific simulation parameter values. A few contents might be offered as extra reading.

Author Response

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1938878. Title: Climatic control of urban spaces using natural cooling techniques to achieve outdoor thermal comfort

Dear Reviewer, 

First of all, our sincerest thanks for your comments on our manuscript. We think they have unquestionably contributed to improving the quality of the paper since it helped us take into account some issues which we did not thoroughly consider.

• The manuscript has been modified to address each of the excellent comments and recommendations raised.
• The authors have additional explanations.
• The 'tracked changes' tool has been used to make clear where revisions of the manuscript have taken place.
• English language and style has been revised in the whole manuscript.

We feel the revised manuscript has been greatly strengthened by the comments, and hope that this will comply with the remarks which were pointed out. We will now proceed to respond to each of them in detail.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

After revision, it is currently in a good format with added discussion and improvements in the article. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for the revision.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors 

the paper has been adequately amended and all the comments from the previous version have been addressed.

Nevertheless, the first pages need some corrections and clarifications, as marked in the pdf attached.

Please revise the conclusion that should be more generic as the numerical data should be encompassed in the discussion.

 

Some lines need a more in-depth review in terms of English grammar and syntax.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

First of all, we are grateful for this second opportunity to review the article. So, we would like to thank the reviewers as well as the editor for taking your time to help us with the paper.

We would like to apologize to the editor and the reviewer for the English expressions. We have attached on the last page of this document, the invoice of the review carried out by the company. This company guaranteed us that it was done by a native. We have requested a new revision of the same in the same company, and in addition, we have made a last reading. We are sorry that this happened again.

Please find below a detailed list of corrections/additions done to the manuscript so as to comply with all the relevant comments and recommendations raised by the reviewers. With the ‘tracked changes’ mode, you may see the location of these changes.

Sincerely,

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf