Investigating the Trends and Drivers between Urbanization and the Land Surface Temperature: A Case Study of Zhengzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A brief summary

This paper is a contribution to a detailed study of the relationship between LST and urban intensity in a city, using multi-ring and multi-scale grid methods. The research design, particularly the use of the multiscale grid method, is an interesting improvement.

 

General concept comments

There remains ambiguity in how the concept of urban intensity is operationally defined, and the analytical design needs to be improved. The conclusions seem to be simple and need more explanation of their meaning and implications. The terminology lacks uniformity and seems to have the potential to unsettle the reader in terms of scientific integrity.

 

 

Specific comments（line number: comment on it）

20: It is unclear what is four in "four Landsat". It should be clearly stated here.

 

22 and many other lines: The terms "urban intensity" and "urbanization intensity" seem to be used without distinction. I do not understand the reason for this. If there is no difference, please unify the terms.

 

26: I don't understand what you mean by the size description here. Please explain clearly.

 

26-27: It doesn't look like the text explains what "ready-made solutions" refers to. Could you please explain it clearly?

 

57: I think a clearer explanation or point needs to be made as to why this city needs further study.

 

116: Why is the land cover data used only one in the spring? In my opinion, to properly evaluate the relationship between LST and land cover type on four seasons, the two types of data should be of the same seasons. I would like to point out the need to improve the experimental design in this regard. Alternatively, the author should explain clearly why one season of land cover data can be used to evaluate the relationship between the four seasons.

 

141and followings: I do not understand why the authors treat distance from the city center directly as urban (urbanization) intensity. In order to show the relationship between LST and urban intensity regarding the distance from the city center, I think it is necessary to generate data on the proportion of each land cover type for each distance zone. First, the relationship between LST and urban land cover should be shown by distance, and then the correlation between LST and proportion urban land cover by distance zone should be analyzed. Currently, the analysis and discussion in this line and the following lines simply show the LST in relation to the distance from the city center, and do not provide an understanding of the trend of LST in relation to urban intensity. This method will cause difficulties even if others try to follow it.

 

143, 174-175: You have given several place names in the city, including the city center, but the reader cannot recognize the locations on the map. Therefore, your methods, results, and interpretations cannot be specifically verified. Please consider indicating those place names clearly on the figure 1.

 

185: What is the "temperature" here, is it LST? If so, why are you using different words to describe the same thing? If necessary, please explain. If not, please use the same word for the better scientific understanding.

 

197: What is the “urban intensity” here?  Is it different from “urbanization intensity" that is used before this line? If so, please explain why are you using different words? If not, please use the same word for the better scientific understanding.

 

224: I think "autumn" in this line should be winter.

 

234-236: There seems to be no explanation given as to how the authors obtained or calculated the results described in these lines. 

 

304: The term "planned city of Zhengzhou" appears here for the first time. What is the purpose of using this term for the first time here? What is its definition?

 

342: The interpretation developed in the paragraph beginning with this line lacks evidence. The fact that there are many green areas or deciduous broadleaf trees in the fringe has not been shown as results.

 

367-373 Are the same sentences repeated? I am wondering if there is a reason for this.

 

377-378: I don't understand why the terms surface temperature and LST are mixed up in consecutive sentences. If they refer to the same object, shouldn't they be used in the same term for scientific clarity?

 

407-411: The author writes that urban planners should consider spatial scale. But I do not understand it specifically. I would like to see a clear or specific description of what urban planners should do or can do for reader's better understanding.

 

412-413: This sentence beginning with “For example" seems to be difficult to understand. I would like the authors to write clearly and understandable.

 

420-433: In the conclusion the authors seem only to repeat the results and discussion of this paper briefly. I believe that the authors should assert in the conclusion what scientific contribution this paper has made. I would like the authors to write about the scientific contribution and novelty.

 

433-434: I think it is difficult to understand what the author means by "best scale". What is it the BEST for ...? Could you add a few more words and clearly explain what the best scale is for?

 

(End of the review report)

 

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This research reflects a fascinating study about UHI with a particular reference to Zhengzhou. There are several approving findings from the present study that could support decision-makers. I have the following minor comments that can help in developing this manuscript. 

 

1- The Introduction needs to be restructured to show the research problem and the gap in the literature. That should come before the research design discussed in the last paragraph (Page 2, Lines 65–73). I would also recommend that the research objective comes before the research design. The paragraphs in the introduction should have the following sequence of paragraphs:

• Intro about the topic
• The gap in the literature
• Research problem
• Research questions
• Research aims/purpose
• Research design/method (in brief)
• Novelty/added value  
• Research structure (if possible)

2- Materials and Methods, the case study needs more elaboration reflecting on why this case was selected.  

3- The Discussion section is well written. However, I would recommend linking the findings from Zhengzhou City to previous studies that handle the UHI in other cities in arid zones. 

4- The Conclusion needs to be rewritten, not in the form of a summery of the main results rather than a summary of the main findings and concluded remarks. The paragraph in this conclusion section is seen as a summary of the results section. The conclusion should have a paragraph or more that suggests future research based on the shortcoming or research limitations. The shortcoming topics discussed on Page 11, Lines 412–417, are very generic. The prospective studies mentioned in the discussion section on Page 11, Lines 416–417, need to move to the conclusion section. I believe measuring UHI's impact can be investigated using various tools. This study used only satellite images. Having limited tools is also one of any research limitations. As such, the present study should discuss the limitations of using satellite images. 

5-References, most of the references in the introduction do not refer to recent references; we have only nine references listed in the introduction from the last five years.The following recent references and more can be used to support the introduction and discussion: 

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031699  

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031048

https://doi.org/10.3390/su14031538

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

With the rapid urbanization, the changes of the urban thermal environment had become a hot topic. To some extent, the work done by the authors is significant for reducing the negative effect of urban thermal environment. However, this work is common. And the manuscript needs to be major revised before the publish. My concerns and comments are as follow:

1. The first issue is the language of the text; this manuscript is weak in terms of language and expression. Also, first person narrative (language) should not be used in academic studies. And there are a number of complex sentences, these sentences will affect the readability of the paper. I advise to benefit from a professional language editing service.

2. The description of materials and methods is not clear. Mainly reflected in the following aspects:

  2.1 There is no reference in the description of the study area. It should be added in the revised manuscript.

2.2 It is unnecessary to describe the data used in the study by a lot of words, a summary table of the data would be better.

2.3 Why choose the data obtained in 2017 rather than the latest year (2021).

2.4 There is no evaluation of land use classification accuracy.

2.5 The specific information about landscape indices such as which aspect of landscape pattern they express should be mentioned in the manuscript.

2.6 Why choose 240m, 360m, 480m, and 960m as basic analysis unit.

2.7 Due to the differences of each landscape indices’ unit, thus, it is necessary to normalize the independent variables before building regression model. However, this part is not mentioned in the manuscript.

3. A repeated sentence in line 180-181.

4. Obviously, the authors have a good knowledge of the study area, while as a reader not familiar with the study area, it is hard to find the local position mentioned in the manuscript such as Erqi district, Huiji district, Jinshui district et al. Especially in the case without the legend in the figure.

5. In line 208-209, the author's description of Figure 4a and b does not match the actual figure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In Figure 4, the unit of the X axis is km and the name of the axis is urban intensity. There seems to be a discrepancy between the dimension of the unit and the name of the axis. And that can be confusing. Of course, the reviewer understands the author's idea that the distance from the city center is an alternative indicator of the urban (urbanization?) intensity. However, such dimensional inconsistency confuses the reader. The reviewer would like to suggest that the X axis be named "distance from the city center" and that "urbanization intensity" be used in the title of the figure. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The revised version of this manuscript has been double-checked. It has been noted that the authors have taken into account my comments and have provided appropriate responses. 

Author Response

Dear Review,

We sincerely appreciate your comments on the manuscript. It has been a great help to us in our work.

Best Regards

All Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

I think my comments and suggestions have been revised in the revised version, and there are no other suggestions.

Author Response

Dear Review,

We sincerely appreciate your comments on the manuscript, which bring our work more in line with the standards of academic papers.

Best Regards

All Authors