Planning Strategies of Wind Corridor Forests Utilizing the Properties of Cold Air
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The aim of the manuscript is to provide planning strategies for wind corridor forest implementation considering urban conditions, by analysing wind corridor characteristics. Even if this aim is very interesting and ambitious, I regret to inform that I cannot recommend the publication of the manuscript, being affected by serious issues.
The main shortcoming is that it is not well written, there are too many English errors, so it does not match with the standard minimum requirements for a scientific journal. Apart from the Introduction, which is sufficiently clear, the rest of the manuscript needs significant improvements, in particular Sec. 2 which is very hard to be read.
A deep analysis of the results is missing, too. Section 3 contains just a rough description of tables/ figures, but deep insights are not provided, while comparisons with other results from literature are limited. Results from the KLAM model are presented, but not critically analysed. What about the uncertainty associated with these results? Were these results validated?
In the following, a not exhaustive list of specific comments to be addressed in a future revised version of the manuscript is reported.
Line 36: “may leading”. Check the English style.
Line 42: “plays” instead of “play”.
Line 45: “consists” instead of “consist”.
Line 56: “function” instead of “functions”.
Line 59: Who strived ?
Line 72: “Lands” without capital letter
Line 78-79: This sentence is not clear, you are using the word “forest” too many times.
Line 95: change “than” with “from”.
Line 113: “and fields has undergone”. There is a grammar error so I do not understand what you mean.
Figure 1: Caption is missing. There is only the following unclear sentence “This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting”.
Line 119-121: “Overall … exacerbate”. This sentence is obvious, and in any case does not fit well in this subsection (Study area).
Lines 132-135: the words “wind corridors” are repeated too many times. Try to improve the readability.
Line 132-143: This paragraph is rather cryptical. You say that “analysis of wind corridors” are “analysis of wind corridors, but this is obvious!
Line 172: what does it mean that forest type map are divided into 3, 2, and 1 grade ?
Sec 2.2.1: The English style is poor. And the section does not explain how current condition of wind corridor forest are analysed.
Line 175-177: The syntax of this sentence is wrong.
Line 175: Add a reference to the formula od NDVI.
Line 179: “This study searched …”. Bad expression.
Lines 188-190: the word “areas” is repeated too many times.
Lines 194-195: This sentence is obvious.
Line 199-203: I guess you mean the KLAM model and not KALM! In any case you should add more details about this model, since it is not sufficient to say that it is developed in Germany. Moreover, it is not a climate model as you say at line 202.
Table 1 can be removed, since the numbers included are also reported in the text at lines 230-233.
Line 278: It is not a good idea to start a section repeating its title (overall conditions of wind corridor forest).
Table 3 can be removed, since the numbers included are also reported in the text at lines 283-292.
Lines 306-307: “average wind speed showed wind speed”. Try to improve the readability avoiding to repeat the same words.
Lines 308-310 and Figure 7: Sincerely I do not understand what you mean with “after 180 minutes”. After starting from what ?
I do not provide specific comments for Sections 4 and 5, since they must be rewritten from scratch according with the general comments.
Author Response
We upload a word file that replies to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper analyzes present wind corridor forest and the characteristics of wind corridor and provides the planning strategies for different plans in each zone and set out planning strategies by wind corridor forest type in Sejong. The methodology applied may be used for other cities.
The main objectives are clearly stated, as well as the justification and added value of the paper.
The literature review is extensive and recent.
The data and the methods are clear.
The results are presented and are adequately summarized in the conclusions.
The English language must be revised by an editorial service or by a native speaking person.
This paper maybe considered for publication after the following minor corrections:
Minor corrections:
Include, in Figure 1, a larger map with lat/lon coordinates and a zoom-in figure to the present map. Also, identify relevant locations mentioned in Paragraph starting in Line 102, for example, Haengbok City.
Line 105 – Re-write ‘km2’ as ‘km2’ and, also, in subsequent occurrences in the article.
Line 123 – It is written: ‘Figure 1. This is a figure. Schemes follow the same formatting.’ Re-write the legend of the figure to mention what it really shows.
Figure 2 – The legend says ‘Haengbok City’ but within the figure it is written ‘Hangbok City’. Correct!
Line 177 – Replace ‘formula’ by ‘Equation’.
Author Response
We upload file that replies to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall very nice paper by the authors. The concept of urban forests and wind corridors is useful, and the authors provide a nice way to use it for planning purposes. This study was conducted in a new, planned city so it may not be applicable everywhere, but it is still useful. Some comments below need to be addressed first however to clarify some things.
Please proofread, minor typos here and there.
Introduction: Climate change and UHI are generally seen as separate (though related) issues. They do differ in scale and mechanism though. In the present study, the authors are essentially discussing UHI at small scales (both space and time). Therefore, a discussion of climate change is not warranted. Cities are hot even without climate change (the phenomenon was first explored in pre-industrial London). I recommend the authors to remove this discussion and stick to UHI.
Like 37: Should that be micrograms? Instead of the pound sign?
Throughout the discussion, the authors use the term “cold air”. This is subjective – at what point can air be called cold or hot? I think “colder air” would be a better term to use as it clearly implies that it is colder/cooler than in the developed parts of the city.
Fig 1: The labels 1-11 are difficult to read in white. Use something more contrasting like red. Also, a land cover map as discussed in the preceding paragraph would be useful instead of just putting the values in the text.
Line 125: Please show a wind rose diagram, if possible.
What do Levels 2, 3, etc. land cover maps mean? What do the levels here refer to, for the readers not familiar with Korean regulations?
Line 172: Getting very confusing here. What are A, B, and C?
Line 202: Is it valid to use the KALM model for wind flow, given that it was developed for calm (no wind) conditions?
One issue that the authors do not address is the effect of varying wind direction: the present analysis is only for calm conditions, but as the authors pointed out, there can be several instances where the wind direction varies. This does not have to be modeled for now, but some comment on it should be made, maybe looking into work such as:
Mohammed, A., Pignatta, G., Topriska, E., & Santamouris, M. (2020). Canopy Urban Heat Island and Its Association with Climate Conditions in Dubai, UAE. Climate, 8(6), 81.
Sen, S., & Roesler, J. (2020). Wind direction and cool surface strategies on microscale urban heat island. Urban Climate, 31, 100548.
Liu, N., & Morawska, L. (2020). Modeling the urban heat island mitigation effect of cool coatings in realistic urban morphology. Journal of Cleaner Production, 264, 121560.
Author Response
We upload file that replies to the reviewer's comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors addressed most of the raised issues and the paper is significantly improved when compared to the former version. Nevertheless, I think some of my major concerns were only partly addressed and further revision is required. In particular, I think that the quality of the English is still not adequate to the standards of a scientific publication (see specific comments, but there are also other parts to be improved).
As regards answer to Q5, the syntax used is wrong (see also specific comments, lines 165-166) so I cannot judge if the authors properly addressed my comment.
As regards answer to Q8, I recommend to add more details about the physical equations on which KLAM model is based.
As regards answer to Q12, the lack of model validation is the weak link of this manuscript. As a good compromise, in order not to waste your work, I suggest to add in sec 2.2.2 a paragraph in which you explain that, although not validated in the present work, KLAM is quite robust and affordable (please add relevant references).
Specific comments
Line 45: Is it really necessary to add the German term?
Line 88: Avoid writing “this study” twice consecutively.
Lines 111-113: “Although, the prevailing wind direction was different depending on the location of observation stations, but northeast, northwest, and southwest winds were dominant”. There is something wrong in the English, so it is not clear the meaning of this sentence.
Line 114: “which is winds slower”. Bad English
Line 129…: “Further, based on the analysis, the planning strategies is established for preserving the urban forests that perform the wind corridor and selecting the areas that need to be complemented by wind corridor forests”. This sentence is hard to be read. Please rephrase.
Line 163: “wind corridor forest” is repeated twice.
Lines 165-166: “Since the higher density, the higher cold-air generation ability, so WGF was classified into three grades according to the density levels of the forest type map.” The syntax of this sentence is completely wrong.
Lines 174-175: “The closer the value is to 1, the better the vitality and density of vegetation”. The syntax needs improvements.
Line 198: The authors insist in defining their model KALM, but in each website (e.g. http://www.zamg.ac.at/docs/produkte/klimainformation/klam.pdf) it is called KLAM_21 (in fact at line 285 authors properly call it KLAM).
Line 292: “360minutes after the simulation stared, the highest value was 2.15 m/s, appeared at Sejong Lake Park”. The syntax needs improvements. I do not understand “stared”. Do you mean “started”? The same issue at line 299.
Line 317: “were the highest”. Highest what ?
Lines 323-324: Change “we selected the types of which composition is important for each district” with “we selected the most relevant composition for each district”.
Line 329: “the fastest” what?
Lines 330-333: The English style is very poor.
Line 351: Please modify the sentence: “and that of Jongchon-dong was also favourable” with “moreover, Jongchon area was also favourable”.
Line 384: “By planning WSFs should be planned in vulnerable districts”. Bad English, I do not understand what you mean.
Lines 423-425: Bad English, I do not understand what you mean.
Line 426-435: I think it is useless to repeat all these numerical values in the Conclusions. Try to summarise the main findings.
Author Response
submit to file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed my comments. The work is a good first pass through this concept - ultimately, non-calm conditions are the most common and worth considering.
Author Response
submit to file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
I found that the authors properly addressed my previous comments. Now the manuscript is suitable for publication after the following minor corrections have been addressed.
Line 178: Change “Closer to the value 1 means better vitality and density of vegetation” with “A value of NDVI closer to 1 means better vitality and density of vegetation”
Line 205: Change “German Meteorological Agency” with “German Weather Service”
Line 219: This equation needs clarification. Is u the velocity vector or the horizontal velocity component? In the first case, write it in bold (e.g. u).
Line 225: “The layer-averaged horizontal velocity is expressed vectors u and v”. There is something wrong in this sentence. Moreover (see also previous comment), are really u and v vectors or velocity components?
Line 479: “the fastest of highest value”. Bad English
Author Response
upload the word file
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
