Mitigation of Urban Heat Island Effects through “Green Infrastructure”: Integrated Design of Constructed Wetlands and Neighborhood Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
the manuscript tried to investigate the mitigation of the urban heat island effect through green infrastructure. although the topic is interesting, the study itself is not well organized, as well as not well aalyzed and written. Therefore, I think the manuscript can not accept in the current version. Detailed comments, please see below.
(1) introduction part needs to re-organized, you need to first tell us the research progress, gaps, and research questions of the study. then you can describe your study area a bit. such as the line 67-76, line83-90 page 2 need to put ahead.
(2) line 102, it is Beijing, please correct it. and a recent review paper is recommended to read: Critical review on the cooling effect of urban blue-green space: A threshold-size perspective
(3) method part is not so solid. the manuscript also describes the basic result of the work, no more analysis. (4) Discussion part is not good enough. please rewrite it.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an interesting and timely study on the effect of urban wetlands on the urban microclimate using satellite imagery. While the work is preliminary with many possible avenues for more sophisticated analysis, the results are still good. A few comments below need to be addressed however, especially a calculation error with respect to temperature differences.
Introduction: One issue with using evapotranspiration (or just evaporation) for cooling is the increase in humidity. This would be not a big issue in dry climates like in deserts, but it would be worthwhile to mention it in the literature review.
Figure 1: Would the authors be able to include a land cover classification map for this area? That would be more instructive than just a Google Earth image. Figure 2 could also be rolled into Fig 1 easily to reduce the length of the manuscript.
Section 2.2: What was the reasoning for selecting these particular days, and why May instead of say, July or August?
How was LST retrieved from satellite imagery? Which satellite product was used?
Fig 4: Please delineate the different areas here, it is difficult to see which part corresponds to which site. The caption should explain what the red circle is. Similar comments for Fig 5. You could just use the shape file from Fig 1 and superimpose it on these two figures.
Section 3.1: It is difficult to follow along with this discussion in the absence of a land cover map, as well as delineating the different sites. Please improve this.
Line 189: A difference of 7C actually translates into a difference of about 14F actually, not 44.6F. There’s a difference between converting temperatures and temperature differences: C/5 = (F-32)/9 and so dC/dF = 1.8. Please correct this at several places throughout the manuscript.
Line 202: This sentence is somewhat inaccurate because it mixes differences in surface temperatures with average air temperature, so it’s not an apples-to-apples comparison. Consider removing this as a 7-14C decrease in surface temperature would be considered a lot regardless of the air temperature.
Section 3.2: One reason that no abrupt cooling was observed was is that areas may have reached near-equilibrium by 10:30 PM. It’s possible that there is abrupt cooling right after sunset, but by 10:30 PM it tapers off. Why did the authors select 10:30 PM and not say, 8:30 PM? This goes back to which satellite product was used as well.
Conclusion: Considering moving the part about the survey data into the discussion, in general new information should not be put in the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have addressed all my comments and the work is fit for publication.
