How Do Land Use/Cover Changes Influence Air Quality in Türkiye? A Satellite-Based Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study investigates the link between land use/land cover (LULC) changes and air pollution across Türkiye using satellite data from 2018 to 2024. The manuscript is well written overall and the presented results provide actionable, data-driven insights for sustainable urban planning and environmental policy, supporting efforts to combat air pollution and its impacts on public health and climate in rapidly developing regions. However, few adjustments are needed before being considered for publication, and I would be ready to assess the revised version again after applying the following adjustments:

Writing style:

• Limit the use of unnecessary abbreviations in the abstract
• Limit the use of first person pronouns (our, we) throughout the manuscript.

Introduction and Methodology:

• Line 63-88 are rather unusual in academic writing. Use a more standard style.
• Make sure to summarize the research gap and clearly state the aims
• Similarly, try reducing the reliance on bullet points in your methodology and use a more straightforward descriptive writing style.

Results and discussion:

• Line 459-460: When you state that “Our study found that urban expansion and industrial activities caused a significant increase in NO2 and CO2 emissions” ad that “similar observations were observed in metropolitans and heavily industrialized regions post COVID-19 lockdown, as increased human activities resulted in increased NO2, CO, SO2, and aerosol optical depth” use a relevant recent reference to support this such as:
• Hossin, M. A., Haque, A., Saha, O. R., Islam, R., & Shimin, T. I. (2025). A spatiotemporal analysis of air pollutants during and after COVID-19: A case study of Dhaka Division using Google Earth Engine. DYSONA-Applied Science, 6(2), 411-421. https://doi.org/10.30493/das.2025.500496

Figures and Tables:

• There are too many figures, try merging some or even omit unnecessary figures (to supplementary material) (e.g: Fig 13 and 14 can be made into one figure with two maps… et cetera)
• Many of the maps lack units in the legend (e.g. Fig. 8,9,10 etc)
• What does the negative values refer to in the aforementioned maps.
• Fig 13 and 14: Use a white background for better contrast
• 21 need reproduction (some areas are obscured)
• Enhance the captions of all figures and tables. A good caption should include enough information for readers to understand the general-purpose of a figure or table. Add a decent definition of abbreviations and define the main features.

Add a limitation section to your discussion and how you would suggest overcoming these challenges in future research.

Please provide a detailed response to each of these comments and how you tackled them in the following revised draft.

Author Response

Responses to Esteemed Reviewer 1

This study investigates the link between land use/land cover (LULC) changes and air pollution across Türkiye using satellite data from 2018 to 2024. The manuscript is well written overall and the presented results provide actionable, data-driven insights for sustainable urban planning and environmental policy, supporting efforts to combat air pollution and its impacts on public health and climate in rapidly developing regions. However, few adjustments are needed before being considered for publication, and I would be ready to assess the revised version again after applying the following adjustments:

• Dear esteemed reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on feedback from you and the other reviewers, We have made point-by-point and line-by-line revisions to the paper.

Writing style:

 Limit the use of unnecessary abbreviations in the abstract

• Dear reviewer, unnecessary abbreviations in the abstract were removed.

 Limit the use of first person pronouns (our, we) throughout the manuscript.

• Dear reviewer, first person pronouns (our, we) were removed throughout the study.

Introduction and Methodology:

 Line 63-88 are rather unusual in academic writing. Use a more standard style.

• Dear reviewer, the subsection between 63-88 was revised and written in standard style.

 Make sure to summarize the research gap and clearly state the aims

• Dear reviewer, the research gap was summarized and the aims were clearly stated, please see the revised text in red color.

 Similarly, try reducing the reliance on bullet points in your methodology and use a more straightforward descriptive writing style.

• Dear reviewer, bullet points in the methodology section were removed and a more straightforward descriptive writing style was used.

Results and discussion:

 Line 459-460: When you state that “Our study found that urban expansion and industrial activities caused a significant increase in NO2 and CO2 emissions” ad that “similar observations were observed in metropolitans and heavily industrialized regions post COVID-19 lockdown, as increased human activities resulted in increased NO2, CO, SO2, and aerosol optical depth” use a relevant recent reference to support this such as:

 Hossin, M. A., Haque, A., Saha, O. R., Islam, R., & Shimin, T. I. (2025). A spatiotemporal analysis of air pollutants during and after COVID-19: A case study of Dhaka Division using Google Earth Engine. DYSONA-Applied Science, 6(2), 411-421. https://doi.org/10.30493/das.2025.500496

• Dear reviewer, this knowledge was added, and the reference was cited, thank you for the suggestion.

Figures and Tables:

 There are too many figures, try merging some or even omit unnecessary figures (to supplementary material) (e.g: Fig 13 and 14 can be made into one figure with two maps… et cetera)

• Dear reviewer, Fig 13 and 14 were merged, thank you for the suggestion.

 Many of the maps lack units in the legend (e.g. Fig. 8,9,10 etc)

• Dear reviewer, units were added to the captions, thank you.

 What does the negative values refer to in the aforementioned maps.

• Dear reviewer, negative values for NO₂, SO₂, O₃, CO, HCHO, AI, etc., derived from TROPOMI/Sentinel-5P data may occur due to factors such as sensor noise or cloud cover interference. These periods were examined using the CSV file, and the negative values were adjusted.

 Fig 13 and 14: Use a white background for better contrast

• Dear reviewer, white background was used for better contrast.

 

 Fig. 21 need reproduction (some areas are obscured)

• Dear reviewer, that figure was excluded from the text, along with a few other figures as recommended by reviewers, and also by the authors’ decision to reduce the number of figures, thank you.

 Enhance the captions of all figures and tables. A good caption should include enough information for readers to understand the general-purpose of a figure or table. Add a decent definition of abbreviations and define the main features.

• Dear reviewer captions were reviewed and revised, thank you.

 Add a limitation section to your discussion and how you would suggest overcoming these challenges in future research.

• Dear reviewer, limitations section was added to the Discussion section, thank you.

 Please provide a detailed response to each of these comments and how you tackled them in the following revised draft.

• Dear reviewer, we did our best according to your valuable recommendations, you may see detailed responses below your comments and track revisions in the main text in red color, thank you so much.

 

Sincerely

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper „How Do Land Use / Cover Changes Influence Air Quality in Türkiye? A Satellite-Based Assessment“explores several remote sensing data sets to assess the recent relation between LULC and air pollutant concentrations in Turkey. In general, the paper has a good concept, sound methodology, and a clear presentation of results. However, to improve the transparency and readability of the results, certain corrections need to be made. There are several issues that require further work and discussion. These include:

- It is very hard to determine what pollutant concentrations are involved since there are no units anywhere. Somewhere, the values are minus or zero, so further clarification is needed.

- Everywhere, concentrations and changes are described as “high”, “low”, “increasing”, or “decreasing”. It is relative, and it is not at all clear whether, for example, “high” means in relation to standards and levels defined according to the impact on people and the environment.

- Limitations should be part of the Discussion, and more attention should be paid to each of the analyzed pollutants, especially in relation to the obtained values ​​and specificities of the analyzed study area.

- A map showing the study area with the cities and provinces mentioned in the paper is missing, so that the results can be tracked.

I believe working on these segments can greatly enhance the quality of the manuscript.

Author Response

Responses to Esteemed Reviewer 2

 The paper „How Do Land Use / Cover Changes Influence Air Quality in Türkiye? A Satellite-Based Assessment “explores several remote sensing data sets to assess the recent relation between LULC and air pollutant concentrations in Turkey. In general, the paper has a good concept, sound methodology, and a clear presentation of results. However, to improve the transparency and readability of the results, certain corrections need to be made. There are several issues that require further work and discussion. These include:

• Dear esteemed reviewer, I appreciate you allowing me to improve the manuscript. I hope you will find the current revised version acceptable. Based on feedback from you and the other reviewers, we have made point-by-point and line-by-line revisions to the paper.

- It is very hard to determine what pollutant concentrations are involved since there are no units anywhere. Somewhere, the values are minus or zero, so further clarification is needed.

• Dear reviewer, units were added to the captions, thank you.

- Everywhere, concentrations and changes are described as “high”, “low”, “increasing”, or “decreasing”. It is relative, and it is not at all clear whether, for example, “high” means in relation to standards and levels defined according to the impact on people and the environment.

• Dear reviewer, the descriptions of “low” or “high” are made in comparison to other months of the year and other provinces. In the manuscript file, the terms “increasing” or “decreasing” as well as “high” and “low” have been adjusted to indicate comparisons with other provinces or other months.

- Limitations should be part of the Discussion, and more attention should be paid to each of the analyzed pollutants, especially in relation to the obtained values and specificities of the analyzed study area.

• Dear reviewer, limitations section was added to the Discussion section, thank you.

- A map showing the study area with the cities and provinces mentioned in the paper is missing, so that the results can be tracked.

 

• Dear reviewer, the map was added accordingly, thank you.

 

- I believe working on these segments can greatly enhance the quality of the manuscript.

 

• Dear reviewer, we did our best according to your valuable recommendations, you may see detailed responses below your comments and track revisions in the main text in red color, thank you so much.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “How Do Land Use / Cover Changes Influence Air Quality in Türkiye? A Satellite-Based Assessment” investigates the relationship between land use/land cover (LULC) changes and six major air pollutants (SO₂, NO₂, CO₂, O₃, HCHO, and AI) across Türkiye between 2018–2024. Using multi-source satellite data (Sentinel-5P TROPOMI, MODIS, Landsat) combined with NDVI, land surface temperature (LST), and spatial statistical methods, the authors assess spatial–temporal pollutant variations and their link to urban expansion, industrial activities, agricultural practices, and deforestation. The study highlights the mitigating role of green infrastructure, the intensification of pollution in metropolitan and industrial areas, and seasonal patterns of pollutant behavior. The results are intended to guide sustainable land management and urban planning policies.

Please find below some comments: 

-The introduction lacks reference to several key international and regional studies on the LULC–air quality relationship. The authors should highlight knowledge gaps more clearly and justify how this paper advances the current state of the art.

-The list of research questions should be replaced by a concise final paragraph clearly stating the objective of the study.

-At the beginning of the methodology, I recommend including a graphical workflow (methodological framework) to provide readers with an overview of how datasets, methods, and analysis steps are connected. This will improve clarity and help the reader follow the logic of the study.

-Figures (1–12) are currently too small and difficult to interpret. Consider reducing the number of main figures and enlarging the most relevant ones to better support your findings. The less critical figures can be moved to a supplementary annex/appendix.

-The discussion needs to be expanded and deepened, especially in terms of Comparisons with similar international case studies (e.g., LULC and air quality research in Europe, India, and China).

- Highlighting the strengths and novelty of the present study (long temporal coverage, integration of multiple pollutants, spatial modeling with GWR, seasonal interpretation, etc.).

-Addressing limitations not only in data but also in policy applicability (e.g., transferability to other countries with similar land–pollution dynamics).

-The conclusions should be reorganized into a single, concise section rather than being split into 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. This section should summarize the main findings, implications, and recommendations in a more fluid way without subdividing into limitations and policy implications. These can instead be integrated into the discussion.

-The study only considers SO₂, NO₂, CO₂, O₃, HCHO, and AI. The exclusion of PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀, which are critical to air quality and public health, is a major limitation. At least, this omission should be emphasized more strongly in the limitations.

 -While comparisons with 82 ground stations are mentioned, the results of this validation (e.g., correlation coefficients, RMSE) should be presented more clearly, preferably in a table. This would increase confidence in the satellite–ground integration.

-The GWR model is mentioned, but more detail is needed about its performance (R², statistical significance across regions). Otherwise, it remains unclear how strong the LULC–pollution associations are.

-The seasonal findings (NO₂ and SO₂ in winter; O₃, AI, HCHO in spring–summer) are interesting and should be linked to specific policy recommendations (e.g., stricter winter heating regulations, summer traffic restrictions, agricultural burning bans).

-Current recommendations are too general (green infrastructure, emission control). It would be valuable to quantify the expected improvements (e.g., forest cover increase by X% reduces NO₂ by Y%). Even indicative values from literature could strengthen this section.

-The manuscript would benefit from a clearer novelty statement (e.g., "This is the first nationwide LULC–air quality study in Türkiye combining six pollutants with six years of high-resolution satellite data").

-Although the authors mention a 5–15% uncertainty, the paper should elaborate on how this affects interpretations (e.g., are the observed seasonal trends robust despite uncertainty?).

Author Response

Responses to Esteemed Reviewer 3

The manuscript titled “How Do Land Use / Cover Changes Influence Air Quality in Türkiye? A Satellite-Based Assessment” investigates the relationship between land use/land cover (LULC) changes and six major air pollutants (SO₂, NO₂, CO₂, O₃, HCHO, and AI) across Türkiye between 2018–2024. Using multi-source satellite data (Sentinel-5P TROPOMI, MODIS, Landsat) combined with NDVI, land surface temperature (LST), and spatial statistical methods, the authors assess spatial–temporal pollutant variations and their link to urban expansion, industrial activities, agricultural practices, and deforestation. The study highlights the mitigating role of green infrastructure, the intensification of pollution in metropolitan and industrial areas, and seasonal patterns of pollutant behavior. The results are intended to guide sustainable land management and urban planning policies.

Please find below some comments: 

• Dear esteemed reviewer, thank you for your valuable feedback. Based on feedback from you and the other reviewers, We have made point-by-point and line-by-line revisions to the paper.

-The introduction lacks reference to several key international and regional studies on the LULC–air quality relationship. The authors should highlight knowledge gaps more clearly and justify how this paper advances the current state of the art.

• Dear reviewer, new literature survey part was added to the Introduction section, based on feedback from you, thank you.

-The list of research questions should be replaced by a concise final paragraph clearly stating the objective of the study.

• Dear reviewer, bullet points were removed and the list of research questions were replaced by a concise final paragraph clearly stating the objective of the study.

-At the beginning of the methodology, I recommend including a graphical workflow (methodological framework) to provide readers with an overview of how datasets, methods, and analysis steps are connected. This will improve clarity and help the reader follow the logic of the study.

• Dear reviewer, the workflow was added, thank you.

-Figures (1–12) are currently too small and difficult to interpret. Consider reducing the number of main figures and enlarging the most relevant ones to better support your findings. The less critical figures can be moved to a supplementary annex/appendix.

• Dear reviewer, Figures (1–12) were enlarged, thank you.

-The discussion needs to be expanded and deepened, especially in terms of Comparisons with similar international case studies (e.g., LULC and air quality research in Europe, India, and China).

• Dear reviewer, the discussion was expanded and deepened, especially in terms of Comparisons with similar international case studies, thank you.

- Highlighting the strengths and novelty of the present study (long temporal coverage, integration of multiple pollutants, spatial modeling with GWR, seasonal interpretation, etc.).

• Dear reviewer, the discussion was expanded and deepened, and the strengths and novelty of the present study was highlighted, thank you.

-Addressing limitations not only in data but also in policy applicability (e.g., transferability to other countries with similar land–pollution dynamics).

• Dear reviewer, the limitations sub-section was improved according to your recommendations, thank you.

-The conclusions should be reorganized into a single, concise section rather than being split into 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3. This section should summarize the main findings, implications, and recommendations in a more fluid way without subdividing into limitations and policy implications. These can instead be integrated into the discussion.

• Dear reviewer, the conclusion section was reorganized according to your recommendations, thank you.

-The study only considers SO₂, NO₂, CO₂, O₃, HCHO, and AI. The exclusion of PM₂.₅ and PM₁₀, which are critical to air quality and public health, is a major limitation. At least, this omission should be emphasized more strongly in the limitations.

• Dear reviewer, thank you, we followed your recommendations and mentioned these parameters in limitations section, thank you.

 -While comparisons with 82 ground stations are mentioned, the results of this validation (e.g., correlation coefficients, RMSE) should be presented more clearly, preferably in a table. This would increase confidence in the satellite–ground integration.

• Dear reviewer, the RMSE calculation was performed using TROPOMI data for five atmospheric parameters to assess the agreement between satellite-based measurements and ground-based observations. The results of this validation have been integrated into the Validation section of the manuscrpit

-The GWR model is mentioned, but more detail is needed about its performance (R², statistical significance across regions). Otherwise, it remains unclear how strong the LULC–pollution associations are.

• Dear reviewer, correlation analysis was conducted between urban area size and air pollution parameters, and it was determined which pollutants increase in regions where urban expansion is more pronounced. The findings, along with the visual representations, were incorporated into the manuscript to provide a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between urban growth and air quality.

-The seasonal findings (NO₂ and SO₂ in winter; O₃, AI, HCHO in spring–summer) are interesting and should be linked to specific policy recommendations (e.g., stricter winter heating regulations, summer traffic restrictions, agricultural burning bans).

• Dear reviewer, thank you, required knowledge was added to the discussion section.

-The manuscript would benefit from a clearer novelty statement (e.g., "This is the first nationwide LULC–air quality study in Türkiye combining six pollutants with six years of high-resolution satellite data").

• Dear reviewer, thank you, a statement regarding the novelty of this research was added at the end of the introduction section.

-Although the authors mention a 5–15% uncertainty, the paper should elaborate on how this affects interpretations (e.g., are the observed seasonal trends robust despite uncertainty?).

• Dear reviewer, thank you, required knowledge was added at the end of the methodology section.

Sincerely

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accepted in the present form

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made all suggested corrections. I have no further comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article is now ready to be considered for publication.