PONE-D-23-36648

Thermal comfort perception among park users in Prague, Central Europe on hot summer days – a comparison of thermal indices

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kirschner,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jan 20 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Baojie He, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. In your Methods section, please provide additional information regarding the permits you obtained for the work. Please ensure you have included the full name of the authority that approved the field site access and, if no permits were required, a brief statement explaining why.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure: 

   "VŘ was supported by the Ministry of Agriculture of the Czech Republic, institutional support MZE-RO0423. AU was supported by the Czech Academy of Sciences programme “Strategie AV21 – Dynamická planeta Země”. "

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript." 

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed. 

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. We note that you have stated that you will provide repository information for your data at acceptance. Should your manuscript be accepted for publication, we will hold it until you provide the relevant accession numbers or DOIs necessary to access your data. If you wish to make changes to your Data Availability statement, please describe these changes in your cover letter and we will update your Data Availability statement to reflect the information you provide.

5. Please include your full ethics statement in the ‘Methods’ section of your manuscript file. In your statement, please include the full name of the IRB or ethics committee who approved or waived your study, as well as whether or not you obtained informed written or verbal consent. If consent was waived for your study, please include this information in your statement as well. 

6. We note that Figure 1 in your submission contain map/satellite images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (a) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (b) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figure 1 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.  

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

7. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The present manuscript rigorously investigates the correlation between the thermal comfort indices (WGBT, HI, PET and UTCI) and individuals' perception of thermal environments. It also explores the associations of gender, age, and other factors with thermal perception. While the manuscript represents a considerable investment of effort, in light of the prevailing extensive research focusing on the applicability of diverse indices, it is imperative that this study accentuates its innovative contributions to the field. In addition, several aspects/ questions should be addressed before considering to be published:

The manuscript would benefit from a more detailed exposition of the data analysis methodologies within the abstract. Furthermore, it is pertinent that the abstract's conclusions are specifically tailored to the summer season, rather than all seasons.

There is an omission of page numbers on the even-numbered pages.

Figure 1, it is imperative to enhance the presentation by incorporating the Sky View Factor (SVF) data for the three designated measurement points. Alternatively, the inclusion of photographs that vividly illustrate the environmental context of these points would be beneficial. Moreover, the figure, in its current form, falls short in terms of visual engagement and aesthetic quality. A thoughtful redesign is recommended, one that could benefit from adopting the advanced graphical methodologies as demonstrated in the following study: Huang, B.Z., Hong, B., Tian, Y., Yuan, T.T., Su, M.F., 2021. Outdoor thermal benchmarks and thermal safety for children: A study in China's cold region. Sci Total Environ 787. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.147603.

The simultaneity of the experiments conducted in the three parks warrants clarification within the manuscript. In cases of non-simultaneous testing, the inclusion of varied meteorological parameter charts is necessary.

Figure 2 exhibits non-compliance with standard graphical representation, especially regarding the labeling of axes, necessitating a revision.

The content within Lines 157 – 164 would be more appropriately positioned subsequent to the computation of indices or within the results section.

Lines 176 – 177, the addition of bibliographic references is required.

The classification of walking as a static activity, as mentioned in Lines 190 – 191, appears to be a misclassification.

The manuscript's tables should adhere to the three-line table format.

Clarification is needed on the specific height at which wind speed measurements were taken for the UTCI calculations.

An explanation is warranted as to why, despite having collected data on activity levels, gender, and age in the questionnaire, standard values were employed in the RayMan software for the computation of PET or UTCI. The potential impact of this choice on the study's conclusions should also be addressed.

In the application of Pearson correlation analysis, it is crucial to confirm whether a test for normal distribution was conducted.

Regarding the CCA analysis, considerations such as the nature of the data, sample size, and the presence of multicollinearity need to be addressed.

The CCA's findings raise questions, particularly the rationale behind correlating separate age categories (middle-aged, young) with thermal perception and the implications of a negative correlation between middle age and thermal perception.

All figures in the manuscript require enhancements to improve their visual quality.

Dividing the discussion section into well-defined subsections would enhance the clarity and structure of the manuscript.

In light of the prevalent focus on the applicability of thermal comfort indices, the manuscript would be enriched by incorporating strategies pertaining to local planning, design, or thermal adaptation of the users.

The following papers may be of interest:

Xiong, K., He, B.J., 2022. Wintertime outdoor thermal sensations and comfort in cold-humid environments of Chongqing China. Sustainable Cities and Society 87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.104203.

He, B.-J., Zhao, D., Dong, X., Xiong, K., Feng, C., Qi, Q., Darko, A., Sharifi, A., Pathak, M., 2022. Perception, physiological and psychological impacts, adaptive awareness and knowledge, and climate justice under urban heat: A study in extremely hot-humid Chongqing, China. Sustainable Cities and Society 79, 103685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103685.

Reviewer #2: General comments: I appreciate the author's efforts on the critical issue of selecting appropriate outdoor heat indicators for architects and planners in Central Europe. This article is a comprehensive and typical study of thermal comfort in Central Europe, as it comprehensively evaluates the applicability of 4 commonly used thermal indicators and considers the influence of multiple factors (gender/age/visit time/activity level, etc.) on the applicability of the indicators. However, there are still some errors in this article that require some modifications.

1. There are some errors in the number of respondents in Table1, e.g., in the Royal Preserve column, the total number of respondents is 187 when differentiated by week and weekend or men and women. But when differentiated by morning, afternoon and evening, the total number is 176. The same error occurs in the other two parks' respondent counts, so be sure to recheck the numbers and correct them.

2. In Fig.1, satellite images or aerial photos of the three parks can be added to help readers understand more detailed information about the sites (area, green space coverage, and surroundings, etc.).

3. In line 288, consider including a correlation analysis between wind speed and visitors' heat perception polls to determine if wind speed has an effect on visitors' heat perception? If the correlation is not strong, it suggests that the failure to account for changes in wind speed is the reason why the HI index is more competent for evaluating thermal comfort in Central European parks. A method for predicting the effect of a single meteorological factor on thermal perception can be found in this article: Factors influencing resident and tourist outdoor thermal comfort: A comparative study in China's cold region.

References:

Yu Tian, Bo Hong, Zhenqi Zhang, Shuang Wu, Tingting Yuan, Factors influencing resident and tourist outdoor thermal comfort: A comparative study in China's cold region, Science of The Total Environment, Volume 808, 2022, 152079, ISSN 0048-9697, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.152079.

4. In line 322, people's tolerance for heat is higher at night than during the day, mainly because nighttime does not have the strong solar radiation of daytime, which acts directly on the temperature receptors on the skin to produce a stronger sense of heat. Of course, there can also be some influence of psychological factors such as thermal history that lead tourists to perceive hotter environments as more comfortable at night. You can refer to this article: Perception, physiological and psychological impacts, adaptive awareness and knowledge, and climate justice under urban heat: A study in extremely hot-humid Chongqing, China.

References:

Bao-Jie He, Dongxue Zhao, Xin Dong, Ke Xiong, Chi Feng, Qianlong Qi, Amos Darko, Ayyoob Sharifi, Minal Pathak, Perception, physiological and psychological impacts, adaptive awareness and knowledge, and climate justice under urban heat: A study in extremely hot-humid Chongqing, China, Sustainable Cities and Society, Volume 79, 2022, 103685, ISSN 2210-6707, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2022.103685.

5. Line 349, a) and b) should be used to illustrate the pictures in Fig. 6, not left or right.

6. Line 349, according to the results of Fig.6, it cannot be directly concluded that the middle-aged group can tolerate the heat better than the young people, but it can only be directly stated that the middle-aged group can tolerate the heat better than the old people. If there is any data analysis that can support the conclusion that the middle-aged group is the group that can tolerate heat the best, please add it.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: Comments.docx

Thermal comfort perception among park users in Prague, Central Europe on hot summer days – a comparison of thermal indices

PONE-D-23-36648R1

Dear Dr. Kirschner,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Baojie He, Ph.D

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for addressing the concerns raised in my previous review. I have reviewed the revised manuscript and find it satisfactory. I have no further comments at this time. Thank you for your attention to my feedback.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********