Spatio-Temporal Evolution of Surface Urban Heat Island Distribution in Mountainous Urban Areas Based on Local Climate Zones: A Case Study of Tongren, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript ID: sustainability-3862792
Title: Spatio-Temporal Evolution of Surface Urban Heat Island Distribution in Mountainous Urban Areas Based on Local Climate Zones: A Case Study of Tongren, China
Summary: Using the LCZ framework, this study analyzed a mountainous city’s spatio-temporal evolution. It found a net ecological deficit as built areas replaced natural ones. The UHI pattern shifted to multi-core, with industrial areas reaching 6.05°C. Key drivers transitioned from surface hardening to 3D morphology and ventilation, guiding climate-resilient urban planning.
Thank you, Editor, for the invitation to review this manuscript. It has a strong structure and valuable data. However, I have some guidance for the authors to improve it further. Please see my comments below.
The abstract is too extended and covers too many themes, which makes it confusing for readers. Please rewrite it to be approximately 180-200 words. The revised abstract should focus solely on the key points of your research.
The purpose of Line 61 ("In 2012, Stewart et al.") is unclear. Additionally, the sentence on Lines 99-101 ("Our methodology integrates...") is better suited for the Methods section rather than the Introduction. I also found several repeated sentences in the Introduction; please remove these redundancies. Also, I suggest adding a brief overview of the manuscript's structure at the end of the introduction to help guide readers and reviewers.
The current subsection title does not accurately reflect the research objectives. Please change it to "Methods and Materials."
I also suggest the author add an analysis of their contribution to the area in the discussion section.
Figures 2 and 3 are not clear. Please redraw them with a higher resolution to make the results and text more legible.
Additionally, the font size in the tables is too small. Please increase the font or present the data in a different format to improve clarity. The connection between the table data and the methods should also be made more explicit.
The Conclusions section should be revised and rewritten. It does not clearly highlight the main findings of the authors' work. The conclusions should present the novel contributions and innovations of this specific study.
I recommend that the author add a separate section on future research directions after the Conclusions. This would be beneficial for readers and could guide the authors' future studies. Thank you.
Author Response
Comments 1: The abstract is too extended and covers too many themes, which makes it confusing for readers. Please rewrite it to be approximately 180-200 words. The revised abstract should focus solely on the key points of your research.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We agree with the reviewer's view that the previous abstract was too lengthy and covered too many topics. We have comprehensively rewritten the abstract, removing secondary themes and details, and strictly keeping the word count within 200 words, emphasizing the research background, purpose, core methods, main findings and key conclusions. The revised abstract is now concise and to the point, aiming to provide a clear and focused overview of our research. The details have been marked on the revised original manuscript. Please review.
Comments 2: The purpose of Line 61 ("In 2012, Stewart et al.") is unclear. Additionally, the sentence on Lines 99-101 ("Our methodology integrates...") is better suited for the Methods section rather than the Introduction. I also found several repeated sentences in the Introduction; please remove these redundancies. Also, I suggest adding a brief overview of the manuscript's structure at the end of the introduction to help guide readers and reviewers.
Response 2: Thank you for the important feedback provided by the reviewers. Regarding the purpose of the citation in line 61 (Stewart et al., 2012), we have provided supplementary explanations, clearly stating that this citation is intended to lay the basic theoretical framework of the research or introduce key concepts. You are absolutely right. The sentences about methods in lines 99-101 have now been moved to the "Methods and Materials" section. We have carefully sorted out the introduction part, deleting all repetitive and redundant sentences to make the logic clearer and the language more concise. In addition, we have added a new paragraph at the end of the introduction, briefly outlining the structure of the paper to provide clear reading guidance for readers and reviewers. For details, please review the revised draft.
Comments 3: The current subsection title does not accurately reflect the research objectives. Please change it to "Methods and Materials."
Response 3: Thank you for your review comments. We fully agree with you. The title of this chapter has been modified to "Methods and Materials" to better conform to academic norms and more accurately summarize the content of this section.
Comments 4: I also suggest the author add an analysis of their contribution to the area in the discussion section.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable advice. We have supplemented a dedicated analysis in the discussion section, elaborating in depth on the theoretical contribution (supplementation or revision of existing theories) and practical significance (providing specific references for urban planning) of this research, and clearly pointed out the innovative aspects of this research compared with existing works, thereby highlighting our unique contribution to this field.
Comments 5: Figures 2 and 3 are not clear. Please redraw them with a higher resolution to make the results and text more legible.
Response 5: Thank you for the valuable comments from the reviewer. We have redrawn Figures 2 and 3 using higher-resolution raw data to ensure that all lines, data points and text annotations are clearly distinguishable. The new pictures have met the publication requirements.
Comments 6: Additionally, the font size in the tables is too small. Please increase the font or present the data in a different format to improve clarity. The connection between the table data and the methods should also be made more explicit.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have increased the font size of all tables and optimized the layout format of the tables (adjusting the row and column spacing) to significantly enhance their readability. At the same time, following your suggestions, we have strengthened the correspondence with the table in the "Methods and Materials" section, establishing a logical connection between the methods and the presentation of the results.
Comments 7: The Conclusions section should be revised and rewritten. It does not clearly highlight the main findings of the authors' work. The conclusions should present the novel contributions and innovations of this specific study.
Response 7: Thank you for your key comments. We have thoroughly revised and rewritten the conclusion section. The new conclusion no longer simply repeats the previous content, but directly and powerfully summarizes the most core findings of this study, and highlights the key problems solved by this study and its innovative contributions that distinguish it from existing research, truly playing a role in adding the finishing touch.
Comments 8: I recommend that the author add a separate section on future research directions after the Conclusions. This would be beneficial for readers and could guide the authors' future studies.
Response 8: Thank you for such a good suggestion. We have added an independent section on future research prospects at the end of the conclusion. Based on the limitations of this study and the new problems discovered, several specific and feasible future research directions have been proposed. This not only inspires readers but also provides a roadmap for our subsequent research.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article introduces the LCZ framework to study the evolution of urban heat islands in mountainous areas, linking topographic features, building forms, and thermal environment changes. This approach can provide direct guidance for urban planning and climate adaptation strategies, and is therefore valuable. However, the article has some issues:
- Although the article draws some conclusions, some (such as "water bodies have a significant cooling effect" and "industrial areas have high heat island intensity") are relatively general and have been verified in existing studies. New discoveries regarding the unique mechanisms of mountainous cities (including the karst mountainous city of Tongren) in moderating urban heat islands (such as topographic ventilation corridors, canyon effects, and the distribution of building heights on slopes) should be highlighted.
- Comparisons with plain or other mountainous cities could be considered to highlight the unique characteristics of Tongren and the transferability of the research findings. The discussion section could clearly highlight the improvements made to the LCZ method in this study to its applicability to mountainous cities.
- The results lack sufficient validation. The LST inversion and LCZ classification results lack independent ground-truth verification, and additional error assessment is recommended.
- Furthermore, some of the imagery in the article has cloud cover exceeding 10%, and the reliability of the inversion results needs to be clarified.
- The article contains many charts and graphs, the author can refine and identify the most important ones. Others can be placed in appendices, etc.
Author Response
Comments 1: Although the article draws some conclusions, some (such as "water bodies have a significant cooling effect" and "industrial areas have high heat island intensity") are relatively general and have been verified in existing studies. New discoveries regarding the unique mechanisms of mountainous cities (including the karst mountainous city of Tongren) in moderating urban heat islands (such as topographic ventilation corridors, canyon effects, and the distribution of building heights on slopes) should be highlighted.
Response 1: Thank you, reviewer, for this crucial comment. You are completely correct. Our initial conclusion indeed failed to fully highlight the new findings of this study regarding the thermal environment mechanism in karst mountain cities. We have rewritten and strengthened the conclusion section. In the conclusion section, we first briefly summarized the universal laws, and then focused on revealing the unique thermal environment regulation mechanism of Tongren as a karst mountain city, clearly pointing out the innovative findings of this study compared with existing research.
Comments 2: Comparisons with plain or other mountainous cities could be considered to highlight the unique characteristics of Tongren and the transferability of the research findings. The discussion section could clearly highlight the improvements made to the LCZ method in this study to its applicability to mountainous cities.
Response 2: Thank you for the valuable comment. We have expanded and clearly expounded on the theoretical contributions and practical value of this work in the "Discussion" section, highlighting our innovative aspects.We have added relevant content in the discussion section. Including the comparative analysis of plain cities studied by Liu.Y et al. Through comparison, the differentiated heat island characteristics of Tongren resulting from its unique urban layout and natural landforms have been more clearly clarified. Meanwhile, we list the adjustments and supplements made to the standard LCZ classification method in practice to adapt to high altitude differences and complex slope orientations, and discuss the significance of these improvements in enhancing the applicability of the method in mountainous areas.
Comments 3: The results lack sufficient validation. The LST inversion and LCZ classification results lack independent ground-truth verification, and additional error assessment is recommended.
Response 3: Thank you for your meticulous attention to the quality of the thesis. We fully agree with the reviewers' opinions. The reliability of the results needs to be strictly verified. We have supplemented the assessment and verification procedures. In the verification of the inversion results of surface temperature, this paper adopts the Landsat 8-9 OLI/TIRS Collection 2 Level-2 (C2L2) data as the surface temperature scientific product (ST_B10 band) processed and generated by the official algorithm. In this study, the data of this band was directly extracted as the inversion result, and its accuracy was guaranteed by the official algorithm of USGS. The data of Landsat 7 ETM+ Collection 2 Level-1 (C2L1) are the original data after radiometric calibration and geometric correction, excluding surface temperature products. This study employs a single-channel algorithm to invert surface temperature. To evaluate the reliability of the inversion results, the accuracy of the Landsat 7 C2L1 data inversion results was verified, and cross-validation was conducted with the Landsat 7 Collection 2 Level-2 surface temperature product (ST_B6 band) officially released simultaneously by USGS. In the verification of LCZ classification results, we conduct accuracy assessment by randomly generating verification points. We randomly generate several sampling points, manually interpret them by comparing with high-definition images (Google Earth), generate confusion matrices, and calculate the overall accuracy and Kappa coefficient. For specific details, please refer to the revised draft for your review.
Comments 4: Furthermore, some of the imagery in the article has cloud cover exceeding 10%, and the reliability of the inversion results needs to be clarified.
Response 4: Thank you for the valuable comment. We hereby clarify our data screening and processing procedures to ensure the reliability of the results. In terms of data source selection, we have strictly screened all available Landsat images and given priority to those with a cloud coverage of less than 10%. For images with cloud coverage higher than 10% in individual study areas, we also prioritize the selection of images with less cloud coverage in the study area. During the inversion process, we used the cloud mask products provided by the official to identify and exclude these areas from the analysis, ensuring that the pixels used for the final analysis are not contaminated by clouds. We have provided a more explicit explanation of the above data screening in the "Methods and Materials" section of the paper to demonstrate that our inversion results are based on high-quality, cloud-free effective pixels and the conclusions are reliable.
Comments 5: The article contains many charts and graphs, the author can refine and identify the most important ones. Others can be placed in appendices, etc.
Response 5: Thanks to the reviewers for their valuable suggestions. We have taken the reviewers' suggestions into account and have streamlined and optimized the charts and graphs in the article. We re-evaluated all the charts and retained the core charts that support the main conclusions in the main text. Move some supplementary charts and graphs to the appendix at the end of the paper and cite them in the corresponding positions in the main text. This makes the discussion in the main text more fluent and focused, while ensuring the integrity and repeatability of the research.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript uses remote sensing, GIS mapping, and LST inversion to investigate the spatio-temporal evolution of surface UHI intensity and LCZs in Tongren, China.
Comments and Suggestions:
1. In the background, explain why Tongren City was chosen as a case study beyond its designation as a climate-resilient pilot city. Discuss specific climatic or topographic features that make Tongren uniquely suited for this analysis.
2. Include additional references on recent advances in LCZ applications in similar geographic or climatic contexts.
3. Clarify why only three time points were selected. Including intermediate years might provide finer-grained insights into transitional phases, especially given the rapid urbanization in the study area.
4. Consider incorporating auxiliary thermal factors such as wind velocity or radiative heat fluxes.
5. Expand some technical details, such as the exact preprocessing steps for Landsat imagery and the rationale behind selecting specific LCZ parameters.
6. Provide a clearer justification for the choice of 400 meters as the grid scale, particularly regarding its suitability for capturing microclimatic variations in mountainous terrain.
7. Consider adding a table summarizing the primary conclusions drawn from each figure.
8. Address potential limitations more explicitly, such as the reliance on daytime LST data and the exclusion of nocturnal heat island dynamics.
9. Expand on the implications of the findings for other mountainous cities globally, possibly through a brief comparative discussion with existing studies.
Author Response
Comments 1: In the background, explain why Tongren City was chosen as a case study beyond its designation as a climate-resilient pilot city. Discuss specific climatic or topographic features that make Tongren uniquely suited for this analysis.
Response 1: Thank you for your suggestion. We have supplemented the content in the background of the introduction, clearly stating that the choice of Tongren City is not only due to its status as a policy pilot, but also because it is a representative of typical karst mountainous cities in southwest China. Its unique deep-cut canyon terrain and the band-like distribution of cities along mountains and rivers provide an extremely unique and ideal natural laboratory for studying the interaction between terrain, heat and urban forms and their impact on the thermal environment. This forms a sharp contrast with cities developed on flat terrain and can better reveal the unique mechanism of the heat island in mountainous cities.
Comments 2: Include additional references on recent advances in LCZ applications in similar geographic or climatic contexts.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable feedback.We have supplemented the references on the application of LCZ classification in similar complex terrain areas such as the mountainous regions in southwest China in recent years in the literature review section, thereby placing our research in a broader academic dialogue and highlighting the comparability or particularity of the results of this study with those of other mountain studies.
Comments 3: Clarify why only three time points were selected. Including intermediate years might provide finer-grained insights into transitional phases, especially given the rapid urbanization in the study area.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We chose the three time points of 2016, 2020 and 2023 mainly to capture the key stages in the urbanization process (planning period, rapid development period and stable period), and to ensure the data quality of each phase (low cloud coverage and consistent seasons). We agree that increasing the density of time series can provide more detailed insights. Given the limitations of data availability and consistency, we have elaborated on this point in the limitations section of the summary and will take the use of higher temporal resolution data for long-term series dynamic analysis as an important future research direction.
Comments 4: Consider incorporating auxiliary thermal factors such as wind velocity or radiative heat fluxes.
Response 4: Thank you for putting forward this very valuable suggestion. Wind speed and radiant heat flux are indeed key physical factors influencing the urban thermal environment. This study mainly focuses on the response relationship between the classification of underlying surface local climate zones (LCZ) based on remote sensing and GIS and surface temperature (LST), aiming to establish an assessment framework suitable for mountain cities. Incorporating wind field and heat flux simulations requires more complex models and ground observation data, which is beyond the current scope of this paper. We have clearly pointed out this limitation in the future outlook section of the summary and plan to conduct in-depth analysis of these factors in subsequent studies by combining more precise data.
Comments 5: Expand some technical details, such as the exact preprocessing steps for Landsat imagery and the rationale behind selecting specific LCZ parameters.
Response 5: Thank you for your suggestions. We have supplemented the relevant steps of data preprocessing in the "Methods and Materials" section and clearly explained why specific key parameters were selected as the core features of classification and their unique importance in characterizing the three-dimensional structure of mountainous cities. For details, please refer to the revised draft for your review.
Comments 6: Provide a clearer justification for the choice of 400 meters as the grid scale, particularly regarding its suitability for capturing microclimatic variations in mountainous terrain.
Response 6: Thank you for your valuable suggestions on our paper. We have added detailed reasons for choosing the 400-meter grid in this section. This is mainly based on two considerations: First, it should match the standard scale of LCZ classification (typically 100-500 meters), which can effectively characterize the spatial heterogeneity of the LCZ category; Secondly, considering the complex mountainous terrain and fragmented plots in the study area, this scale can achieve the best balance between capturing microclimate variations and ensuring the statistical sample size. If the scale is too small, the noise will be excessive; if it is too large, the key terrain and land use details will be smoothed out.
Comments 7: Consider adding a table summarizing the primary conclusions drawn from each figure.
Response 7: Thank you sincerely for this valuable suggestion you put forward. We fully agree with the importance of making research conclusions clearer and easier to understand. We have carefully considered the plan of adding a "Summary Table of Chart Conclusions". After careful evaluation, we believe that directly integrating the core conclusion of each figure into the corresponding "Results" section of the main text description and systematically summarizing it in concise words (rather than in table form) at the beginning can guide readers to understand the content of the text and images more naturally and coherently, avoiding the disconnection between the conclusion and the charts and the main text description. In this way, the same effect of a summary table is achieved - it not only ensures the smoothness of the logic but also greatly enhances the readability of the paper and the clarity of the conclusion. Thank you again, reviewers, for your inspiration. Your comments have prompted us to refine our paper even more perfectly.
Comments 8: Address potential limitations more explicitly, such as the reliance on daytime LST data and the exclusion of nocturnal heat island dynamics.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have added a paragraph at the end of the "Summary" section to specifically and explicitly discuss the limitations of this study. It is particularly emphasized that the thermal infrared remote sensing data used in the research is limited by the spatial resolution of the sensor and the transmission time, making it difficult to capture small-scale thermal environment changes and all-day dynamic features, especially the analysis accuracy of the heat island effect at night is limited. And once again emphasized the necessity of taking these aspects as the focus of future research.
Comments 9: Expand on the implications of the findings for other mountainous cities globally, possibly through a brief comparative discussion with existing studies.
Response 9: Thank you for the suggestions you pointed out in our article. We strongly agree that the universal value of research should be enhanced. Relevant content has been supplemented in the "Discussion" section, and our findings have been briefly compared with studies on other typical mountainous cities. Based on this, we summarized the commonalities and characteristics of thermal environment regulation in karst mountain cities, thereby significantly enhancing the extrapolation value and scientific significance of the conclusions of this study.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I find your manuscript highly interesting and valuable to the academic community. Below, I provide several suggestions for improving the structure, interpretation of results, and the clarity of the study’s objectives, materials, and methods. -The Key words you listed largely overlap with the words and concepts used in the title of the paper.Please consider replacing them with terms of the same or similar meaning.
These are the terms: local climate zone, spatio-temporal evolution, urban heat island effect.
-In the abstract, the following is stated: “(1) During the spatio-temporal evolution of LCZs in the study area, forest cover (LCZ-AB) increased net, whereas shrub and grassland (LCZ-CD) decreased, leading to a net ecological deficit. High-rise buildings (LCZ-1-4) replaced low-density residential areas (LCZ-6) along transportation corridors, and the industrial belt (LCZ-10) encroached upon natural spaces in the southern region, forming isolated ecological islands.” Please present these two sentences as two separate points, under different numbers, and treat them as distinct statements.
- The abstract is written in a rather confusing manner, with an excessive use of abbreviations that make it difficult to follow the main points you intend to convey. The results and the core essence of your research, which should be clearly and simply presented in the abstract, are not sufficiently emphasised. I kindly request that you fully restructure the abstract and simplify it, avoiding the overuse of abbreviations that obscure the key message. Furthermore, I encourage you to explicitly state both the general and specific objectives of your study within the abstract.
-Line 56- you mention urban heat islands. I kindly ask you to provide a brief explanation of this term in one or two sentences, as it is increasingly used in scientific literature related to climate change research.
- Lines 99–100 mention the methodology of the study. Please remove this sentence from the Introduction, as it is unnecessary and may cause confusion by introducing methodological details at this stage. The Introduction should familiarise readers with the research problem and highlight the main objectives of the study, which I found to be lacking. Therefore, I kindly ask you to expand the Introduction to include the key general and specific aims of your research.
-Please improve the quality and resolution of Figure 1 to ensure that the study area is more clearly visible.
-The same comment applies to Figure 3. If possible, please split Figure 3 into multiple separate images, as the results are difficult to discern in its current combined form.
-Lines 285–292 list the land cover types and building types, which is appropriate and corresponds well with Figure 4. However, I kindly ask you to expand this section by providing more detailed explanations and descriptions of the categories mentioned. Simply listing terms with numerous abbreviations and without further clarification may render the text quite confusing and unclear, which in turn can obscure the valuable results you have presented.
-The font size of labels and headings in Table 4 is very small, making the table difficult to read. Please increase the font size or reorganise the table to make the contained data more legible.
-The section of Figure 6 showing the map of the study area is unclear. Please increase the size and resolution of the image so that the details you wish to present are clearly visible.
-The discussion and conclusions are well written, and I have no suggestions for their improvement.
Kind regards!
Author Response
Comments 1: The Key words you listed largely overlap with the words and concepts used in the title of the paper. Please consider replacing them with terms of the same or similar meaning.
These are the terms: local climate zone, spatio-temporal evolution, urban heat island effect.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have changed the keywords as suggested. The new key words are: Classification of local climate zones; Land surface temperature; Thermal environment effect; Karst mountain city. New keywords can better reflect the specific content of the paper, avoid repetition with the title, and are conducive to paper retrieval.
Comments 2: In the abstract, the following is stated: “(1) During the spatio-temporal evolution of LCZs in the study area, forest cover (LCZ-AB) increased net, whereas shrub and grassland (LCZ-CD) decreased, leading to a net ecological deficit. High-rise buildings (LCZ-1-4) replaced low-density residential areas (LCZ-6) along transportation corridors, and the industrial belt (LCZ-10) encroached upon natural spaces in the southern region, forming isolated ecological islands.” Please present these two sentences as two separate points, under different numbers, and treat them as distinct statements.
Response 2: Thank you for your comments on our article. We agree with your point of view. Presenting it point by point can make the logic clearer. In the rewritten abstract, we have expounded these two findings as two separate sentences: (1) The net increase in forest coverage area leads to a decrease in shrub and grassland area, resulting in an ecological deficit. (2) The built-up area expands along transporta-tion routes, and industrial areas encroach upon natural space.
Comments 3: The abstract is written in a rather confusing manner, with an excessive use of abbreviations that make it difficult to follow the main points you intend to convey. The results and the core essence of your research, which should be clearly and simply presented in the abstract, are not sufficiently emphasised. I kindly request that you fully restructure the abstract and simplify it, avoiding the overuse of abbreviations that obscure the key message. Furthermore, I encourage you to explicitly state both the general and specific objectives of your study within the abstract.
Response 3: Thank you sincerely for pointing out this key issue. We have completely rewritten the abstract. The new abstract strictly adheres to the structure of "background - objective - method - core result - conclusion", significantly reducing the use of abbreviations, which enables the core findings and value of the research to be presented more clearly and directly. For details, please refer to the revised draft for your review.
Comments 4: Line 56- you mention urban heat islands. I kindly ask you to provide a brief explanation of this term in one or two sentences, as it is increasingly used in scientific literature related to climate change research.
Response 4: Thank you very much for your feedback. We have supplemented a brief definition of the Urban Heat Island Effect (UHI) near line 56 of the main text: The urban heat island effect refers to the phenomenon where the temperature in the city center is significantly higher than the natural environment of the surrounding suburbs. It is mainly caused by factors such as changes in the urban underlying surface and anthropogenic heat emissions.
Comments 5: Lines 99–100 mention the methodology of the study. Please remove this sentence from the Introduction, as it is unnecessary and may cause confusion by introducing methodological details at this stage. The Introduction should familiarise readers with the research problem and highlight the main objectives of the study, which I found to be lacking. Therefore, I kindly ask you to expand the Introduction to include the key general and specific aims of your research.
Response 5: Thank you for your valuable suggestions. We have removed the sentences about the methods in lines 99-100 from the introduction and moved them to the "Methods and Materials" section. We have also added a new paragraph at the end of the introduction, clearly and in detail elaborating on the overall and specific research goals of this study, so as to enable readers to have a clearer understanding of the core scientific problems that this study aims to solve.
Comments 6: Please improve the quality and resolution of Figure 1 to ensure that the study area is more clearly visible.
Response 6: Thank you for your comments. We apologize for the poor quality of our previous pictures. We have redrawn Figure 1, using a higher resolution and ensuring that all annotations are clear and readable. The modified picture can more clearly display the geographical location, topography and administrative divisions of the study area.
Comments 7: The same comment applies to Figure 3. If possible, please split Figure 3 into multiple separate images, as the results are difficult to discern in its current combined form.
Response 7: Thank you very much for this important suggestion you put forward. We fully agree that the clarity of Figure 3 needs to be improved. Based on the opinions, we have redrawn Figure 3 in high resolution to ensure that all details, lines and text annotations are clearly distinguishable, thereby fundamentally solving the problem of being "difficult to recognize". Regarding the suggestion of splitting, after careful consideration, we believe that maintaining the integrity of the graph is more beneficial. The main reason is that this graph aims to display continuous data from different periods side by side or make direct comparisons. Integrating them into one graph helps readers capture the overall evolution trend and spatial pattern at a glance, which is an overall effect that is difficult to achieve by splitting it into multiple sub-graphs. After significantly enhancing the resolution, the new Map 3 has achieved sufficient clarity while maintaining its core contrast logic, making it easy for readers to review. Thank you again for your valuable suggestions, which have prompted us to ultimately present a higher-quality composite image.
Comments 8: Lines 285–292 list the land cover types and building types, which is appropriate and corresponds well with Figure 4. However, I kindly ask you to expand this section by providing more detailed explanations and descriptions of the categories mentioned. Simply listing terms with numerous abbreviations and without further clarification may render the text quite confusing and unclear, which in turn can obscure the valuable results you have presented.
Response 8: Thank you very much for your important suggestions. We agree with you. We have significantly expanded the content of this paragraph. It is no longer just a simple list but has added one or two descriptive explanations for each important LCZ category, illustrating its typical appearance, materials, vegetation coverage, and other features, enabling readers to understand the underlying surface types it represents even if they are not familiar with the LCZ classification.
Comments 9: The font size of labels and headings in Table 4 is very small, making the table difficult to read. Please increase the font size or reorganise the table to make the contained data more legible.
Response 9: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have increased the font size of Table 4 and optimized the layout and row spacing of the table. In addition, we adjusted the overly wide table to a format that better conforms to the page norms to ensure that all the data within it is clear and easy to read.
Comments 10: The section of Figure 6 showing the map of the study area is unclear. Please increase the size and resolution of the image so that the details you wish to present are clearly visible.
Response 10: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We have re-output Figure 6 using a higher resolution. Make all the contents in the picture clearly recognizable.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have completed the requirements, and the paper can be published
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGood job, I have no further questions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAfter reviewing the revised manuscript and the authors' responses to my previous round of comments, I found that the authors adequately addressed the concerns raised, and the revisions have significantly improved the clarity and rigor of the work.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
thank you for providing correction to my suggestions.
Best regards
