Spatial and Seasonal Variation and the Driving Mechanism of the Thermal Effects of Urban Park Green Spaces in Zhengzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Thank you for sharing your work.

The present study investigated the thermal regulation of various park types in Zhengzhou, China, across different seasons by quantifying vegetation characteristics and analyzing landscape patterns.

I have thoroughly read the manuscript and recommended a careful revision for the manuscript. My suggestions can be found below.

1. The authors may want to add the novelty in the Abstract and Discussions sections. 

2. The term "Boosted regression trees" was not mentioned in the other sections of the manuscript. The authors should consider revising or removing it.

3. Line 39, “ By 2014, China had an urban population accounting for 54.8% of the total population, with an annual growth rate of 1.02% [2]”. Considering that this data is from ten years ago and it is now 2024, it becomes challenging to determine why the authors relied on outdated information.

4. Line 66-72, is there a correlation between this study and urban morphology?

5. The motivation of the study should be emphasized in the Introduction section.

6. The Introduction section should be revised to focus on the study objectives.

7. Line 109, if the authors mentioned the Yellow River and Huai River, you are suggested to show the two rivers in the Figure 1.

8. In Figure 1, the sample points are not the clear in the figure d, e, f.

9. The LST derived from the Landsat series data lacks proper calibration and correction. The meteorological station in the study area can help improve the credibility of the research.

10. Line 154, Table 1 caption is missing. It is recommended that the manuscript be thoroughly reviewed by the 15 authors.

11. The inclusion of additional contemporary studies is advised in the References section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper employs remote sensing data and field survey data, using correlation analysis, classification regression, and other methods to reveal the seasonal characteristics of LST in Zhengzhou and to explore the relationship between the vegetation characteristics and landscape patterns of 123 parks in Zhengzhou and LST. The results can provide a basis for urban green space decision-making. While the paper has practical significance, the review section contains some statements that are not detailed enough and need further improvement. Additionally, the materials and methods section are significantly lacking, making it difficult to understand the specific experimental process. Detailed comments are as follows:

 

Lines 21-22: The abstract needs to include a general summary of the research methods and research content.

 

Lines 76-80: To my knowledge, studies have already explored the impact of internal vegetation characteristics of parks on cooling benefits, contrary to the authors' claim that internal changes within parks have been ignored. Please carefully consider this statement and the novelty of this paper.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112135

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.uclim.2024.101819

 

Line 117: Were the 123 parks studied selected from a larger pool of parks? What were the selection criteria? The text mentions that parks were divided into different types. Were these parks chosen through stratified sampling? What is the detailed number of parks in each category?

 

Lines 134-142: Were the sampling points used for field surveys? Why was the survey area set to 2.5 hectares? Some small parks are less than 2 hectares in size. Could 805 sampling points be selected from a total of 123 parks? What information was collected from the sampling points? These details are insufficiently introduced in the text. The materials and methods section should provide a detailed description of the experiment to the extent that the experiment can be replicated based on the article. Also, the distribution of sampling points is not visible in Figure 2. A dedicated subsection may be needed to introduce the content of Figure 2.

 

Line 182: The units and detailed calculation formulas for the 14 VCI indicators and 10 LM indicators in Table 2 should be presented. For example, was the ground cover considered when calculating the Shannon index?

 

Line 203: The paper uses Pearson correlation analysis, but it is unclear whether the data follow a normal distribution.

 

Lines 481-483: The authors suggest that various types of trees and shrubs should be planted in theme parks to enhance species diversity. Firstly, it is unclear whether the researchers' calculation of diversity includes herbaceous plants. Secondly, plant diversity in urban green spaces may not always be better, whether considering cooling benefits or other ecological and aesthetic benefits. In the study of edge effects, there is also a threshold for the impact of biodiversity on cooling benefits. This statement may be somewhat arbitrary and needs careful consideration by the authors.

 

Lines 506-519: The urban mountain and water environment may affect LST, and this factor is not considered in the manuscript. This content may need to be added to the limitations section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, please find below the comments:

- Abbreviations aggravate the readability of the manuscript, please provide full terms

- Figure 3 is not clear (doen not make a points as regards comparison)

- Average temperature points taken should be explained, both for parks and urban areas

- Are the recommendations as regards preferred vegetation types derived from the research? This issue should be further elaborated.

- It is an unusual recommendation to change bigger (older) trees for younger (smaller). Further justification needed.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

minor issues detected, proofreading needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am pleased to note that all the comments have been thoroughly addressed by the authors.

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and the opportunity to improve our work. We are grateful for your contribution to this process.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the thorough answer to the comments. Authors have incorporated most of the comments. However, there are still some minor problems.

Lines 100-102: The authors claim that one of the innovations of the article is its focus on Zhengzhou as a typical city.However, the manuscript does not articulate why Zhengzhou is representative.  Additionally, the manuscript does not explain how being less affected by topography and airflow can causally relate to the exploration of the drivers of LM and VCI for LST in different types of urban parks.

Lines 156-163: The standard unit for sampling is 2.5 hectares, with one sampling point established for every 2.5 hectares. However, the text does not specify the investigation range for each sampling point.

Lines 344-345: The horizontal axis scale in Figure 6 does not align with the text, and a legend indicating the significance should be added.

Lines 576-590: The current conclusions mainly summarize the research findings but fail to distill the core conclusions. There is a need to emphasize the innovation and substantive contribution of the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your feedback and the opportunity to improve our work. We are grateful for your contribution to this process.