Analysis and Optimization of Thermal Environment in Old Urban Areas from the Perspective of “Function–Form” Differentiation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It would be beneficial if the authors write one or two sentences about the recommendations and limitations of the study within the abstract. The literature review section should be included to provide an overview of the previous studies on this very interesting topic. The introduction should not replace that section. The introduction can be restricted to 3-4 paragraphs that highlight the topic that you are investigating. However, the literature review must highlight the recent literature. The methodology is well elaborated. The findings are very comprehensive. Your discussion section is concrete, but I would say also very short. I would say it is more about the recommendation based on your study. Yes, they should be present and they are very relevant. However. You should also discuss your findings against previous similar studies.  In the conclusion, you may write about some limitations of your research and recommendations for further research.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of the paper is good, and the methodology is adequate with good flow of arguments.

 

There are few points that require some improvement as follows:

1)      The formatting of the outlined titles should be revised to reflect their level (Font size and format). For example, level 3 pops up stronger than level 2. There are even some Bulleted sub-titles that pops up stronger than other parent ones like “Summer heat island driving factors dominate the regional division”.

2)      The discussion part written as bullets is not coming out as a typical discussion would be expected, currying a debate and cross referencing and cross check of results against each other against other cases, and/or against literature. It rather includes bullets on further research which should be moved to the conclusion section.

3)      English requires moderate editing and revision. Some of these instances are possibly a result of literal translation and use of different vocabulary with different meanings. Like using building “intensity” instead of building “Density”. The authors are encouraged to thoroughly revise these as to add to the good quality of the research itself.

 

4)      For the sake of enhancing the paper’s general relevance, widening readers background, and applicability of case study findings to other cases and contexts, the authors are encouraged to also use references from sources and cases other than Chinese context.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is improved and satisfied for publication. The structure is improved by adding an adequate discussion. The entire manuscript is revised and adequate text relevant to specific sections is added. Grammar and writing style is improved. I just find two references that are not linked with the reference list. Just double check about it.