Calculation and Expression of the Urban Heat Island Indices Based on GeoSOT Grid

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper addresses an important technical issue in the expression of UHI indices.

Overall, I think it is well considered, but please reconsider the following points.

pp.1 line 18

I agree with the assertion that the proposed method provides more detail than discrimination method, but verification is not enough to say “the proposed method has higher accuracy ”.

pp.1 line 31

The reference 1 and 2 are not suitable since they are case studies.

It is better to cite classical research paper.

pp.9 line 257

I think “which is the same as the change trend of the UNI indices” is an exaggerated expression.

Figure 8

Please add direction and scale in the figures.

Figure 8, 9 and 10

The resolution is low and the legend is unreadable.

Author Response

    We gratefully appreciate the reviewer for his/her insightful comments. In the revised manuscript, we have tried our best to carefully address your suggestions and comments, including the high-accuracy conclusions, references, and figures. Please see the response attachment for details. The authors hope that you will be satisfied with the revision.

    The “Track Changes” function has been used as demanded, and the revised texts corresponding to your suggestions are highlighted in Yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled "Calculation and Expression of the Urban Heat Island Indices based on GeoSOT Grid” aimed to develop a model that integrates urban heat island (UHI) information with the GeoSOT (Geographic Coordinate Subdividing Grid with One Dimension Integer Coding on 2n Tree) grid and subsequently designed the calculation method of UHI indices and expression method of UHI spatial form on this basis. The model was applied in two districts (Dongcheng and Xicheng) in Beijing.

The experiment is interesting and it is appropriate to be published in “Sustainability”. However, there are some academic problems in terms of the structure and the language.

 Below are some comments:

1) The authors get editing help from someone with full professional proficiency in English.

2) You have to follow the MDPI template. The study are and datasets must come after the introduction.

3) Page 3, lines 118-122. Re-write the paragraph.

4) Page 11, lines 283-316. You have to discuss the disadvantages of the proposed method.

Author Response

    We gratefully appreciate the reviewer for his/her insightful comments. In the revised manuscript, we have tried our best to carefully address your suggestions and comments, including （the readability., the study area and data preprocessing, and disadvantages of the proposed method）. Please see the response attachment for details. The authors hope that you will be satisfied with the revision.

    The “Track Changes” function has been used as demanded, and the revised texts corresponding to your suggestions are highlighted in Yellow.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx