Investigate the Difference of Cooling Effect between Water Bodies and Green Spaces: The Study of Fuzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors studied the cooling effects of water and green space on the surrounding environment in the city of Fuzhou. They quantified the cooling intensity and explored the correlation between cooling indicators and the internal and external spatial characteristics of the samples. And they concluded that the cooling effect of water is stronger than that of vegetation in most scenarios where more water body layout is advocated. The methodology used in this study appears reasonable, and the conclusions seem justified. The work indeed offers guidelines for future city planning and the mitigation of urban heat island effects. The following minor comments should be addressed before consideration for publication.

1. Although this study was focused on a specific city, the authors should provide more in-depth analyses on how it compares to other similar studies in terms of methodology, conclusions, and novelty. How reliable are the conclusions given the fact that there seem to be many sources of uncertainties?
2. There are many abbreviations in this work. A short nomenclature may be needed to give readers an easier understanding of the parameters being discussed.
3. There are many missing words and grammar errors. Authors must carefully revise the language of the paper. A few examples are:

Line 010: vital influence human health

Line 130: used to retrieval LST

Line 201: Analysis LST; Also Line 238.

Lines 406 – 411 appear to be a single sentence and it is very difficult to understand.

Line 439: the decreasing rate of LST is constantly decreasing

Lines 475 – 477

Line 486: The first “sentence” in the Conclusion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I have read this article. While the topic is most interesting, the paper presents some major limitations:

- The introduction is not very useful. Therefore, the introduction should be extended very carefully. The introduction section should be rewritten again. The introduction should highlight the study's novelty and motivation and put some literature without any useful explanation. You can use the following study to improve this part:

Aram, F., Higueras García, E., Solgi, E., & Mansournia, S. (2019). Urban green space cooling effect in cities. Heliyon. Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2019.e01339

- I would suggest the author improve their theoretical discussion and arrives at their debate or argument. In addition, the background introduction should be condensed. The literature review is not presented in a good structure.

- There are several grammatical errors in the paper. Proof-read suggested.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded to my comments adequately but still, there are several grammatical errors in the paper. Please edit the text.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.