Spatiotemporal Change of Urban Ecologic Environment Quality Based on RSEI—Taking Meizhou City, China as an Example

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on Landsat TM/OLI and MODIS remote sensing data, this paper extracts total primary productivity (GPP), land surface temperature (LST), humidity component (Wetness), and  bare soil index (SI), which represent the remote sensing ecological index (RSEI) evaluation indicators. On the whole, the structure is reasonable, the thinking is clear, and has certain practical significance. Some suggestions:

（1）     Introduction: What are the advantages of the RSEI index over other indexes?

（2）     Line181-182: Are these calculation methods applicable to Meizhou City? Are parameters localized?

（3）     Line265: The spatial distribution analysis should focus on the poor areas.

（4）     Line424: policies? This study aims to analyze the relationship between human activities and the quality of the ecological environment. Which indicator can reflect the impact of policies on RSEI?

（5）     The paper lacks classical and latest references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is very well structured and clear. The only two parts that could be improved are:

- section "2.3.7 Correlation analysis between ecological environment quality and POI ":  the criterion for the choice of POIs is rather obscure and generic. Considering that this choice can in some way influence the results, it needs to be explained much better, also providing more information on the weight of each category in the total.

- Section "4 Discussions": as above, it would be interesting for the authors to make some remarks on the qualitative criteria for the choice of POIs in the general context of the research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

My recommendation about the manuscript is Reconsider after Major Revision. 

1) The authors should provide a new study area figure. An elevation map is not a study area map. 

2) Please check line 70 there is a parenthesis issue. 

3) What is POI? No explanation of the Point of Interest. 

4) For the used data set: The authors should provide more detailed information. 

5) Please check the equation number (Line 201). 

6) The information between lines 210 and 214 is not clear. 

7) What are the 5,6, and 8 in equations 1,2,3,4? 

8) How can the authors explain the decrease in the excellent category between 2013 and 2018? 

9) Land use and land cover maps are essential for this study. Unfortunately, they are missing. The authors should provide LULC maps for 2008, 2013, and 2018 by using classification methods. I am sure LULC spatial distribution and change information will help us to understand the study. 

10) The authors should provide detailed information for figure 4. How did they get these results (significantly, obviously, moderately, and slightly for worse and better categories)? 

11) For the whole study, the accuracy assessment section is missing. What about the accuracy of GPP, LST, humidity, and dryness components? The authors did not discuss these and they did not discuss the RSEI accuracy. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

My recommendation after the first revision is to Accept in present form.