Revealing Land-Use Dynamics on Thermal Environment of Riverine Cities Under Climate Variability Using Remote Sensing and Geospatial Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is a very interesting case study, which presents implications of land-use dynamics on thermal environment of riverine cities using RS and GIS methods. Although some questions have not been well addressed, my suggestion is major revision at this stage.

 

1. Introduction: Although authors presented some important information on this topic, the section seems to lack enough recent progress. I hope you can provide more information or specific findings from different scholars. 

 

2. Materials and Methods: The research methods section is presented in great detail. However, I would suggest some key information given with adequate references. By the way, some graphs and tables could be placed in the results section, which is currently less convenient to read.

 

3. Results and Discussion: The discussion section needs to be in-depth and could be a separate section. At present the authors have only preliminarily analyzed the results obtained, which do not have a lot of innovative. What gain of knowledge is achieved by such results? 

 

4. An in-depth discussion of the findings of the study is a very interesting landing point, such as comparing the differences in change in different cities, the influencing factors and their significance for landscape planning.

 

5. More references are needed to support the study. 

 

6. The type of the reference should be revised according the rule of journal.

 

7. Some grammatical errors and irregular English writing can be found in the full text. I suggested that authors seek a native speaker to improve them.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical errors and irregular English writing can be found in the full text. I suggested that authors seek a native speaker to improve them.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

General Comments : This paper is a very interesting case study, which presents implications of land-use dynamics on thermal environment of riverine cities using RS and GIS methods. Although some questions have not been well addressed, my suggestion is major revision at this stage:

Comments 1: Introduction: Although authors presented some important information on this topic, the section seems to lack enough recent progress. I hope you can provide more information or specific findings from different scholars.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive view. We also revised the introduction section to enhance its clarity and conciseness, emphasizing the problem statements, relevant previous research on the employed techniques, the identified research gap, the proposed approach, and the objectives within the context of land-use dynamics and thermal environmental management.

Comments 2:  Materials and Methods: The research methods section is presented in great detail. However, I would suggest some key information given with adequate references. By the way, some graphs and tables could be placed in the results section, which is currently less convenient to read.

Response 2: Thank you for your constructive feedback. The figures and tables have been relocated to the Results section, and one figure (Figure 12) has been transferred to the supplementary material to improve readability and accessibility for the audience.

Comments 3:  Results and Discussion: The discussion section needs to be in-depth and could be a separate section. At present the authors have only preliminarily analyzed the results obtained, which do not have a lot of innovative. What gain of knowledge is achieved by such results?.

Response 3: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have made a separate part for the discussion section to include a more comprehensive analysis and critical evaluation of the results, emphasizing their innovative contributions and the specific advancements in knowledge related to land-use dynamics and thermal environmental management in riverine urban environments, as outlined in lines 479 to 567.

Comments 4:  An in-depth discussion of the findings of the study is a very interesting landing point, such as comparing the differences in change in different cities, the influencing factors and their significance for landscape planning.

Response 4: We have incorporated a more in-depth analysis and critical evaluation of the results in the discussion section, highlighting their innovative contributions and the specific advancements in understanding land-use dynamics and thermal environmental management. This analysis also contextualizes the findings within prior studies conducted in Islamabad and comparable riverine urban environments globally, as outlined in lines 479 to 567.

Comments 5:  More references are needed to support the study.

Response 5: We have incorporated numerous references into the Introduction and Discussion sections, addressing both your feedback and that of other reviewers.

Comments 6:  The type of the reference should be revised according to the rule of journal.  

Response 6: Thank you for this insightful comment. We adhere to the journal's guidelines, ensuring that the overall citation rate does not exceed 10%, while keeping the author's self-citation rate within or below 15%.

Comments 7:   Some grammatical errors and irregular English writing can be found in the full text. I suggested that authors seek a native speaker to improve them.  

Response 7: Thank you for your feedback. The entire manuscript has been thoroughly revised to enhance readability and improve the quality of English, ensuring it meets the standards required for publication in the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language.

Point 1: Some grammatical errors and irregular English writing can be found in the full text. I suggested that authors seek a native speaker to improve them.

Response 1:  We sincerely appreciate your time and the constructive feedback provided during the major revision process, which has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of the discussion section and improving the overall language. Your dedicated efforts in helping us refine our work for resubmission to the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information are deeply appreciated.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presenting the impact of land-use dynamics on the thermal environment of cities using remote sensing and geospatial techniques is relatively well-written. The issues discussed are logically arranged and fairly well-documented. The figures and thematic charts are clear and necessary in the context of the topics presented. 

The introduction covers both theoretical issues and describes the study area, which I find sufficient. The description of materials and methods includes the basic data necessary to understand the methodological approach chosen by the authors. It also presents selected data and preliminary calculations that allow for the proposed research calculations. The presentation of results and the accompanying discussion is very interesting. Usually, these two sections are presented separately, but in this text, I believe they should be presented together, without changes. The conclusions at the end reflect the conducted research and provide an appropriate summary of the text. 

Overall, I like the article. In this context, I am missing a paragraph that clearly mentions the limitations of the adopted methodology (the research techniques used). I suggest adding such a paragraph within the discussion section—however, this does not negate the cognitive value of the text. 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

General Comments: The article presenting the impact of land-use dynamics on the thermal environment of cities using remote sensing and geospatial techniques is relatively well-written. The issues discussed are logically arranged and fairly well-documented. The figures and thematic charts are clear and necessary in the context of the topics presented.

Comments 1: The introduction covers both theoretical issues and describes the study area, which I find sufficient. The description of materials and methods includes the basic data necessary to understand the methodological approach chosen by the authors. It also presents selected data and preliminary calculations that allow for the proposed research calculations. The presentation of results and the accompanying discussion is very interesting. Usually, these two sections are presented separately, but in this text, I believe they should be presented together, without changes. The conclusions at the end reflect the conducted research and provide an appropriate summary of the text.

Response 1: We sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback. In response to Reviewer 1's comments, the discussion section has been restructured to incorporate a dedicated subsection that provides a more comprehensive analysis and critical evaluation of the results. This revision emphasizes the contributions of Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) changes in understanding Land Surface Temperature (LST) dynamics for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020, as well as for the entire period from 2000 to 2020. Additionally, the analysis includes the natural influence of shifting rainfall patterns in riverine urban settings and underscores the study's significance for policymakers. Proposed management strategies are also discussed in detail, as outlined in lines 480–567.

Comments 2:  Overall, I like the article. In this context, I am missing a paragraph that clearly mentions the limitations of the adopted methodology (the research techniques used). I suggest adding such a paragraph within the discussion section—however, this does not negate the cognitive value of the text.

Response 2: We appreciate your constructive feedback. We have included an argument of the limitations of the adopted methodology at the end of the discussion section, highlighting the constraints of the techniques used and proposing directions for future research, as detailed in lines 568 to 589.

Comments 3:  Please improve the clarity of the text in all images and check whether the image title in line 186 of Figure 4 corresponds to the image content.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback. We have revised all figures, ensuring the use of distinct symbols and colours to enhance clarity and readability.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language.

Point 1: The quality of English does not limit my understanding of the research.

Response 1:  Your constructive feedback during the major revision process has been invaluable. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to helping us improve our work for submission to the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The title of this paper is ambiguous. Are the authors trying to say “Revealing something using some techniques”?

The methods in the Abstract are described too briefly, and the results section is somewhat disorganized, with some redundant content, while the key findings are not highlighted. Perhaps the author should first present the changes in land surface temperature and air temperature, followed by an explanation of their main causes.

The introduction is a bit too long, and I suggest the author condense it.

Why didn’t the authors include a location map of the study area?

Figure 2 contains a lot of information, but the key points are not sufficiently emphasized.

In section 2.2.2, although I can understand the steps, the authors should briefly explain the steps of Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) Retrieval and Classification first, before introducing the calculation methods of these indices.

The authors should not present any results, even intermediate ones, in the methods section. For example, Lines 222–235 present a lot of results, which do not belong in the methods section. Moreover, this section does not include an evaluation method for remote sensing interpretation accuracy, nor does it present any relevant results.

This paper includes too many equations, and the author should try to reduce redundancy in the methods section. Additionally, the formatting of "where" under the equations is inconsistent.

In Table 6, I’m unsure how the authors derived this table using the methods described earlier. Additionally, this table shouldn’t appear here.

Lines 281–287, Figures 7 and 8 are in another subsection, even though they shouldn’t be in the methods section at all.

Lines 292–294 contain a sentence that clearly should not belong here. Similar issues occurred very frequently throughout this paper.

This paper is highly disorganized, with severe mixture of methods and results. The placement of figures and tables is also very poorly managed. Where are the figures and tables mentioned in section 3.1? Why aren’t they placed alongside the corresponding main text?

In 3.1 Spatiotemporal LULC Dynamics and Driving Factors, how did the authors reveal these driving factors? The methods section provided no relevant information.

3.4 Assessing Spatiotemporal Land-cover Warming and Cooling Conditions, this subheading lookss more like a methods title than a results one.

Why isn’t Figure 12 placed in section 3.5? Additionally, the figure caption is very confusing. I had to carefully read the main text to understand that Figure 12 shows air temperature, although I feel this figure and the corresponding analysis are not necessary.

Figures 12 and 14 show monthly data, while Figure 13 shows annual data. Why doesn’t Figure 13 include monthly data?

What do the abbreviations in Figure 14 mean?

In line 548, this paragraph reads more like a discussion rather than results.

The conclusion is too long, and the key points are not sufficiently emphasized. In fact, this problem is prevalent throughout the entire paper. More important, what about the accuracy of this study? No relevant information was provided.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language should be further improved.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

Comments 1: The title of this paper is ambiguous. Are the authors trying to say “Revealing something using some techniques”?

Response 1: We appreciate your valuable feedback. We have revised the title to enhance clarity and eliminate ambiguity. The updated title is: Revealing Land-Use Dynamics on Thermal Environment of Riverine Cities Under Climate Variability Using Remote Sensing and Geospatial Techniques.

Comments 2:  The methods in the Abstract are described too briefly, and the results section is somewhat disorganized, with some redundant content, while the key findings are not highlighted. Perhaps the author should first present the changes in land surface temperature and air temperature, followed by an explanation of their main causes.

Response 2: We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback. In response, we have revised the abstract to highlight the employed methodology and key findings, ensuring compliance with the journal's word count limitations. Regarding your suggestion to first present changes in land surface temperature, followed by an analysis of their primary drivers—including contributions from LULC changes and the influence of climatic shifts corroborated by rainfall patterns and LULC observations—we have reorganized the main manuscript into a narrative structure that sequentially presents the results in alignment with these recommendations.

Comments 3: The introduction is a bit too long, and I suggest the author condense it.

Response 3: Thank you for your positive view. We revised the introduction section to enhance its clarity and conciseness, emphasizing the problem statements, relevant previous research on the employed techniques, the identified research gap, the proposed approach, and the objectives within the context of land-use and thermal dynamics.

Comments 4: Why didn’t the authors include a location map of the study area?

Response 4: We apologize for the inconvenience. However, we have provided Figure 1, which illustrates the global aridity map, highlighting Pakistan's location within the arid to semi-arid region (Kamerman, 2020). Panels (b) and (c) depict the capital city of Islamabad, marked by a red polygon in northeastern Pakistan, using Landsat-8 imagery (RGB; 7, 5, 2), along with the city's key water resources and infrastructure.

Comments 5: Figure 2 contains a lot of information, but the key points are not sufficiently emphasized.

Response 5: We have provided Figure 2, which presents the methodology utilized in this study, outlining the key components, including the problem statement, data collection process, data analysis techniques, and the final output.

Comments 6: In section 2.2.2, although I can understand the steps, the authors should briefly explain the steps of Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) retrieval and classification first, before introducing the calculation methods of these indices.

Response 6: We appreciate your valuable feedback. This section has been revised to begin with the retrieval and classification of Land Use/Land Cover (LULC), followed by an introduction to the calculation methods of the spectral indices, as outlined between lines 182 to 197.

Comments 7: The authors should not present any results, even intermediate ones, in the methods section. For example, Lines 222–235 present a lot of results, which do not belong in the methods section. Moreover, this section does not include an evaluation method for remote sensing interpretation accuracy, nor does it present any relevant results.

Response 7: The methodology section has been revised to exclusively include the techniques employed, with any preliminary results relocated to the results section, as specified between lines 310 and 320.

Comments 8: This paper includes too many equations, and the author should try to reduce redundancy in the methods section. Additionally, the formatting of "where" under the equations is inconsistent.

Response 8: We appreciate your valuable feedback. We have moved all spectral indices equations to the supplementary material, along with their corresponding references, while retaining the remaining content related to LST and the associated steps in the main text.

Comments 9: In Table 6, I’m unsure how the authors derived this table using the methods described earlier. Additionally, this table shouldn’t appear here.

Response 9: We incorporated the necessary steps employed to calculate the findings presented in Table 6, between lines 440 and 452.

Comments 10: Lines 281–287, Figures 7 and 8 are in another subsection, even though they shouldn’t be in the methods section at all.

Response 10: We appreciate your valuable feedback. The content in lines 281-287 has been removed and incorporated into the Results section, as reflected in lines 381-383 and 407-410. Additionally, the figures and tables have been relocated to the Results section, with one figure (Figure 12) moved to the supplementary material to enhance readability and accessibility for the audience.

Comments 11: Lines 292–294 contain a sentence that clearly should not belong here. Similar issues occurred very frequently throughout this paper.

Response 11: We thank you for your valuable feedback. The content in lines 292-294 has been revised to include a reference to the original author of the methodology, as this section pertains to the methodology. The entire manuscript has been thoroughly revised to enhance the quality of the English language and address recurring issues throughout the document.

Comments 12: This paper is highly disorganized, with severe mixture of methods and results. The placement of figures and tables is also very poorly managed. Where are the figures and tables mentioned in section 3.1? Why aren’t they placed alongside the corresponding main text?

Response 12: Apologies for any inconvenience caused. By the journal's guidelines, figures and tables are placed after their first citation. Consequently, the figures and tables have been relocated to the Results section, with one figure (Figure 12) moved to the supplementary material to improve readability and accessibility for the audience. Additionally, all references to figures and tables have been removed from the Methodology section to prevent the need for reallocation during the journal's review process.

Comments 13: In 3.1 Spatiotemporal LULC Dynamics and Driving Factors, how did the authors reveal these driving factors? The methods section provided no relevant information.

Response 13: In light of the addition of a discussion section, the title has been modified to "3.1. Spatiotemporal LULC Dynamics" to reflect the focus on key findings. The analysis then proceeded to examine the driving factors, incorporating population data from 2000 to 2020 (see lines 169-175 in data collection), in conjunction with previously published research within the study area.

Comments 14: 3.4 Assessing Spatiotemporal Land-cover Warming and Cooling Conditions, this subheading lookss more like a methods title than a results one.

Response 14: Thank you for your valuable feedback. The title has been modified to "3.4. Spatiotemporal Land-cover Warming and Cooling Conditions ".

Comments 15: Why isn’t Figure 12 placed in section 3.5? Additionally, the figure caption is very confusing. I had to carefully read the main text to understand that Figure 12 shows air temperature, although I feel this figure and the corresponding analysis are not necessary.

Response 15: By the journal's guidelines, figures and tables are placed after their first citation. Consequently, the figures and tables have been relocated to the Results section, with Figure (12) moved to the supplementary material as Figure (A1). Additionally, all references to figures and tables have been removed from the Methodology section to prevent the need for reallocation during the journal's review process.

Comments 16: Figures 12 and 14 show monthly data, while Figure 13 shows annual data. Why doesn’t Figure 13 include monthly data?

Response 16: Figure 13, which corresponds to Figure 12 in the revised section, depicts the mean annual land-based air temperature derived from data presented in Figure (A1) in comparison with the mean LST values obtained from LST imagery across the entirety of Islamabad during the study period. The consideration of monthly LST data is emphasized for future work to mitigate limitations and strengthen the robustness of future studies in the study area.

Comments 17: What do the abbreviations in Figure 14 mean?

Response 17: Abbreviation is the mean rainfall, so we revised and edit the figure 14, which corresponds to Figure 13 in the revised section.

Comments 18: In line 548, this paragraph reads more like a discussion rather than results.

Response 18: In response to the inclusion of a discussion section, we have integrated this paragraph, along with other relevant sections, to provide a more comprehensive analysis and critical evaluation of the results. This section emphasizes the innovative contributions and specific advancements in understanding land-use dynamics and thermal environmental management, as detailed in lines 479 to 567.

Comments 19: The conclusion is too long, and the key points are not sufficiently emphasized. In fact, this problem is prevalent throughout the entire paper. More important, what about the accuracy of this study? No relevant information was provided.

Response 19: Thank you for your insightful feedback. The conclusion has been revised to provide a more concise summary of the key findings and their significant implications for future studies. Additionally, an accuracy assessment was already conducted, as detailed in the supplementary materials (Table A2), and the LST findings have been compared and discussed in relation to relevant previous research in the discussion section.

Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language.

Point 1: The English language should be further improved.

Response 1:  We greatly appreciate the time and effort dedicated to thoroughly evaluating our manuscript, as well as the constructive feedback provided during the major revision process. Your insights have been invaluable in improving the structures of the manuscript, quality of the discussion section, and enhancing the overall clarity and language of the manuscript. We are grateful for your support in refining our work for resubmission to the ISPRS International Journal of Geo-Information.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have revised the article based on the my comments. I think it can be accepted.