Spatio-Temporal Differentiation Characteristics and Driving Factors of Urban Thermal Environment: A Case Study in Shaanxi Province, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study presents an analytical study of the characteristics of spatiotemporal differentiation as well as the determining factors of the urban thermal environment in the climatic context of Shaanxi in China. The creation of a model illustrating urban thermal differentiation (UTD) resulted from an evaluation of the spatiotemporal characteristics of UTE across different regions. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Geo-explorer model alongside natural and socioeconomic variables served to elucidate the dynamic spatiotemporal distribution of UTE. The findings revealed that both the UTD and Geo-explorer models effectively approximate the spatiotemporal uniqueness and shifting patterns of UTE.  As such, I can recommend the paper for publication after the authors address the following comments.

1.     Section 2.1. Study area, lines 104-106: the authors are suggested to provide details information about the case study.

2.     Section 2.1, figure 1: the authors should enhance the figure's clarity and legibility, particularly the legend.

3.      In point 2.2. Data Sources and Processing, lines 112-113: the authors are suggested to correct station numbers « and 17, 16, and 17 urban background ».

4.     Section 2.2. Data Sources and Processing, the authors are suggested to present more details concerning the factors used for the elaboration of this study (description or in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, ...).

5.     Equations should be rewritten and organized for better reading; the parameters should be explained in detail for a well understanding. After an equation, the text should start in lowercase (lines 141, 155, and 186.).

6.   How can other researchers use the developed model?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Differentiation Characteristics and Driving Factors of Urban Thermal Environment: A case study in Shaanxi Province, China” (ID: sustainability-2540917). We are grateful for the detailed comments and suggestions, those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction, revised portion are marked red in the paper, we believe that it will provide you and your reviewers with the best explanation of the changes that we have made. The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments are as flowing:

 

Reviewer#1: This study presents an analytical study of the characteristics of spatiotemporal differentiation as well as the determining factors of the urban thermal environment in the climatic context of Shaanxi in China. The creation of a model illustrating urban thermal differentiation (UTD) resulted from an evaluation of the spatiotemporal characteristics of UTE across different regions. Furthermore, the inclusion of the Geo-explorer model alongside natural and socioeconomic variables served to elucidate the dynamic spatiotemporal distribution of UTE. The findings revealed that both the UTD and Geo-explorer models effectively approximate the spatiotemporal uniqueness and shifting patterns of UTE.  As such, I can recommend the paper for publication after the authors address the following comments.

 

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments that helped us improve the manuscript.

We have provided a track change version of the manuscript for an easy spotting of all the changes made. Thanks for your constructive remarks.

 

Comment 1: Section 2.1. Study area, lines 104-106: the authors are suggested to provide details information about the case study.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have added details information about the forest and farmland areas in Shaanxi Province in 2019, please see section 2.1, line 106-110. Meanwhile, we have revised the last sentence in section 2.1 and added the reference, please see line 110. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 2: Section 2.1, figure 1: the authors should enhance the figure's clarity and legibility, particularly the legend.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We have revised the figure 1, including the legend font size and legend color, please see line 111. The modified portions of the figure are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 3: In point 2.2. Data Sources and Processing, lines 112-113: the authors are suggested to correct station numbers « and 17, 16, and 17 urban background ».

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have carefully checked the station numbers in urban background, the number of 17, 16, and 17 in the SSA, CSA, and NSA are correct. Thank you again for your carefully reviewing and help us improve the quality of our manuscript.

 

 

Comment 4: Section 2.2. Data Sources and Processing, the authors are suggested to present more details concerning the factors used for the elaboration of this study (description or in the form of tables, diagrams, graphs, ...).

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. To further detailed describe the data used in the study, we have added a detailed list of data collection, please see line 153. The modified portions of the Table 1 are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 5: Equations should be rewritten and organized for better reading; the parameters should be explained in detail for a well understanding. After an equation, the text should start in lowercase (lines 141, 155, and 186.).

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. We have rewritten and organized the Equations, and the parameters were further explained in detail for a well understanding. Meanwhile, according to the reviewer’s suggestion, we also revised the text in lowercase after the equation, please see line 150, 154-155, 165, 196, 198, and 202-203. The modified portions are marked red in the revised manuscript. Thank you again for your carefully reviewing and help us improve the quality of our manuscript.

 

 

Comment 6: How can other researchers use the developed model?

Response: thank you for pointing this out. The thermal environment differentiation model was developed in this study, which aims to use landscape pattern method to evaluate the spatial pattern of regional thermal environment. Considering that the infection index describes the aggregation degree or expansion trend of different patch types in the landscape, a comprehensive evaluation of the thermal environment based on urban heat island is conducted by considering the infection index, urban heat island type and area. In addition, this model has been proposed and applied for the first time in this article. Therefore, we agree with the reviewers’ opinions that on the one hand, it is necessary to compare the given model with similar models, and on the other hand, conduct experiments in different experimental areas to further verify the accuracy and applicability of the model.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for your warm work earnestly, and we would be more than happy to improve the paper again, given there will be any further comments and suggestions.

       Again, thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Line 13.-  “Urban thermal environments (UTEs) are among the most serious problems caused by 13 rapid urbanization and global warming.” 

In my opinion, this sentence should be changed. The UTEs are not the problem per se, as can be interpreted from this ruling. The problem may be changes in them, its behaviour, its thermal increase, its analysis or any other aspect related to them.

 

Line 35.- It is not clear to me what "TA dense" means.

 

Line 36.- .- The acronym of Urban Thermal Comfort should be UTC not UTO as it appears in the text.

 

Figures 1,4, 5.- Figure legends are difficult to read and the figures titles must be written correctly.  

 

 

Lines 109 to 117: More details should be presented on how the AT data are measured.

Since much of that study focuses on the AT data, details on how these measurements are taken, the heights at which they are taken, the characteristics of the sensors, etc. should be presented.

 

Line 118: “Four season observations were used and  the analysis was conducted for the daytime.”

 

Why only during the day? The night is also relevant for the analysis and limiting the study to daytime only means not knowing the real and reliable behavior of the UTE.

In my opinion the analysis should also cover the night if possible. The night introduces its own dynamics on AT, due to different winds, night cooling, etc that can provide relevant results. 

If it is not possible to perform this study for the night, the analysis performed in this article is limited in scope and the conclusions should reflect this.          

 

General comments:

-         Multiple typescripts throughout the text need to be corrected.

-        Figures format must be corrected.

Moderate editing of English language should be performed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Differentiation Characteristics and Driving Factors of Urban Thermal Environment: A case study in Shaanxi Province, China” (ID: sustainability-2540917). We are grateful for the detailed comments and suggestions, those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction, revised portion are marked red in the paper, we believe that it will provide you and your reviewers with the best explanation of the changes that we have made. The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments are as flowing:

 

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments that helped us improve the manuscript.

We have provided a track change version of the manuscript for an easy spotting of all the changes made. Thanks for these constructive remarks.

 

Comment 1: Line 13. “Urban thermal environments (UTEs) are among the most serious problems caused by rapid urbanization and global warming.” In my opinion, this sentence should be changed. The UTEs are not the problem perse, as can be interpreted from this ruling. The problem may be changes in them, its behavior, its thermal increase, its analysis or any other aspect related to them.

Response: Thank you for your advice. We agree with your opinion that this sentence should be changed. We have revised this sentence to make the meaning more precise. Please see line 13-14. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 2: Line 35.- It is not clear to me what "TA dense" means.

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. We carefully checked this sentence and decided to delete the words of “and dense of” for meaning clear. Please see line 35. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

Comment 3: Line 36.- . The acronym of Urban Thermal Comfort should be UTC not UTO as it appears in the text.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We have carefully checked the spelling of this sentence and word again, and the abbreviation is indeed incorrect. We have revised this spelling error, please see line 36. Thank you again for your carefully reviewing and help us improve the quality of our manuscript. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 4: Figures 1,4, 5.- Figure legends are difficult to read and the figures titles must be written correctly.

Response: Thanks for this suggestion. Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we have revised figures 1,4,5 figure legends and figure titles to make the figures easier to understand, please see line 111, 224-225, 226-227. The modified portions of the figure are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 5: Lines 109 to 117: More details should be presented on how the AT data are measured. Since much of that study focuses on the AT data, details on how these measurements are taken, the heights at which they are taken, the characteristics of the sensors, etc. should be presented.

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. In order to further explain “how the AT data are measured”, we added a sentence to explain the work flow of the meteorological observation stations, please see line 118-121. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 6: Line 118: “Four season observations were used and the analysis was conducted for the daytime.” Why only during the day? The night is also relevant for the analysis and limiting the study to daytime only means not knowing the real and reliable behavior of the UTE.

In my opinion the analysis should also cover the night if possible. The night introduces its own dynamics on AT, due to different winds, night cooling, etc that can provide relevant results.

If it is not possible to perform this study for the night, the analysis performed in this article is limited in scope and the conclusions should reflect this. 

 

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful advices. We agree with you that the study should include the daytime and night to reveal the real and reliable behavior of the UTE in Shaanxi province. As the reviewer notes that due to its own dynamics on AT, such as different winds, night cooling, etc, which can provide relevant results for night UTE. However, Shaanxi Province is a major agricultural province, with non-major urban populations accounting for 79.7%. the non-urban population is characterized by gong to bed early and getting up early, and people’s activities are mainly concentrated in the daytime, so people are more sensitive and concerned about the thermal environment during the daytime, and conversely, they are not sensitive to the thermal environment at night. Based on this, this study focuses on the spatial and temporal distribution of the thermal environment during the daytime, and its influencing factors. The spatial distribution characteristics of thermal environment at night and its influencing factors are not considered. However, the reviewers helped us point out a good research direction, the next step of the study, not only need to analyze the thermal environment changes during the day, but also need to analyze the thermal environment changes at night, in order to comprehensively understand the characteristics of the thermal environment changes in the study area. Considering this shortcoming of the article, at the end of the article, the authors emphasized the limitations of this study and the future research direction, please see line 364-367. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 7: Multiple typescripts throughout the text need to be corrected. Figures format must be corrected.

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. According to reviewer’s comments, authors have carefully checked and revised the multiple typescripts and figures format in our manuscript. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comment 8: Moderate editing of English language should be performed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion, and the entire manuscript has been edited by Sekhar Somenahalli again, and the modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for your warm work earnestly, and we would be more than happy to improve the paper again, given there will be any further comments and suggestions.

       Again, thank you very much for your valuable and thoughtful comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I really appreciated this manuscript, both as written and for the interesting approach.

The main issue is well-focused and of great actuality.

All the chapters of the paper are well-organized and extremely informative.

I have only one main concern that refers to a passage in line 57 when the authors say that "land surface temperatures are often correlated with AT". I agree with them, but this is a critical point that necessitates a more deep explanation and the two references they placed are not sufficient to support their reasons.

Some minor modifications are requested.

I place major for these reasons, but the overall approach is very good.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for the opportunity to revise our manuscript entitled “Spatiotemporal Differentiation Characteristics and Driving Factors of Urban Thermal Environment: A case study in Shaanxi Province, China” (ID: sustainability-2540917). We are grateful for the detailed comments and suggestions, those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction, revised portion are marked blue in the paper, we believe that it will provide you and your reviewers with the best explanation of the changes that we have made. The main correction in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’ s comments are as flowing:

 

We thank the reviewer for the constructive comments that helped us improve the manuscript.

We have provided a track change version of the manuscript for an easy spotting of all the changes made. Thanks for these constructive remarks.

 

Comment 1: I really appreciated this manuscript, both as written and for the interesting approach. The main issue is well-focused and of great actuality. All the chapters of the paper are well-organized and extremely informative. I place major for these reasons, but the overall approach is very good. Some minor modifications are requested.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments. All of your comments are important and will guide us in our thesis writing and scientific research. We thank the reviewer for the positive comments, and we have revised the article in response to minor problems. Please see line 118-121, 155-156, 202-203, 364-367, etc. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your kindly help to improve our manuscript.

 

 

Comment 2: I have only one main concern that refers to a passage in line 57 when the authors say that "land surface temperatures are often correlated with AT". I agree with them, but this is a critical point that necessitates a more deep explanation and the two references they placed are not sufficient to support their reasons.

Response: Thank you for your valuable and thoughtful comments. In order to deep explanation this point, we added references 19 and 20 to support the idea. The references revealed that the

air temperature and LST displayed greater agreement in magnitude, and the relationship between the air temperature and LST are usually influenced not only by the type of land, but also the seasonal evolution, in different season, the correlation between air temperature and LST varied greatly. Overall, summer and winter have the best correlation, while autumn and spring have weaker correlation. The modified portions of the text are marked red in the revised manuscript. Once again, thank you very much for your kindly help to improve our manuscript.

 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper. We sincerely hope that this revised manuscript has addressed all your comments and suggestions. We appreciated for your warm work earnestly.

       Again, thank you very much.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors:

Thanks for the changes made. I think the article can be published in its current form.

Reviewer 3 Report

I'm fully satisfied with the improvements performed by the authors. My main question has been properly replied adding the supporting literature.

I suggest publishing it in the present version