Remote Sensing Technologies for Mapping Ecosystem Services: An Analytical Approach for Urban Green Infrastructure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My primary concern with the manuscript lies in its structure. The presentation of results leans too heavily on technical aspects, focusing on keywords and geographic locations without offering deeper insights. To enhance the manuscript's value, it is recommended to integrate the results with the current  discussion section. This integration should aim to elucidate more specific and impactful findings.

 

Additionally, the  the section currently labeled as the conclusion seems more akin to a discussion. It is crucial to ensure that the conclusion is directly derived from your results. In the conclusion, emphasize three key insights that stand out from your analysis, serving as the core takeaways for the reader.

 

When addressing the discussion, avoid extensive explanations of technical terms. If a brief explanation is necessary, limit it to a single sentence. For instance, provide a concise description of Landsat or NDVI when first mentioned, and consider placing important term definitions in the introduction.

 

Please address the following minor errors for clarity and completeness:

- In Table 1, clearly define "ecosystem services."

- In Table 2, specify what the symbols (1), (2), and (3) denote.

- Review "Tab.23 in row 198" for accuracy and relevance.

- Ensure that NDVI is fully named at its first mention, before using the acronym in subsequent references.

 

These suggested modifications aim to bolster the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution, ensuring it provides a thorough and insightful examination of the topic.

 

--- 

 

This revision aims to address the feedback comprehensively, focusing on structural improvements and clarity in presentation.

Author Response

Comments 1: [My primary concern with the manuscript lies in its structure. The presentation of results leans too heavily on technical aspects, focusing on keywords and geographic locations without offering deeper insights. To enhance the manuscript's value, it is recommended to integrate the results with the current  discussion section. This integration should aim to elucidate more specific and impactful findings.]

Risposta: [Dear Reviewer, thank you for your thorough and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and suggestions, which have been invaluable in guiding our revisions. We have restructured the manuscript to better integrate the results with the discussion section, completely reorganizing it to provide deeper insights and impactful findings. In particular, we have clarified the main aspects of the analysis of results about the research objectives and the division into three phases. We have analyzed the temporal trends and influence of authors and investigated and compared methodologies across different scales and approaches. These suggested modifications aim to bolster the manuscript's clarity, coherence, and scholarly contribution, ensuring a thorough and insightful examination of the topic.]

Comment 2: [Additionally, the section currently labeled as the conclusion seems more akin to a discussion. Ensuring that the conclusion is directly derived from your results is crucial. In the conclusion, emphasize three key insights that stand out from your analysis, serving as the core takeaways for the reader.]
Response 2: [We have revised the conclusion to ensure it is directly derived from our results. The revised conclusion now emphasizes three key insights that emerged from our analysis, serving as the core takeaways for the reader. These insights are linked to the results and discussions presented earlier in the manuscript, thereby providing a concise and impactful summary of our findings.]

 

Comments 3:[When addressing the discussion, avoid extensive explanations of technical terms. If a brief explanation is necessary, limit it to a single sentence. For instance, provide a concise description of Landsat or NDVI when first mentioned, and consider placing important term definitions in the introduction.]
Response 3:[When necessary, brief explanations have been limited to a single sentence. Additionally, important term definitions have been placed in the introduction to enhance clarity and readability for the reader.]

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for this informative and comprehensive literature review on UGIs. My only suggestion is to consider including climate change benchmark events (e.g., Paris Accords) for reference on Figure 4 and key events in remote sensing on Figure 6. 

Author Response

Comment 1:[Thank you for this informative and comprehensive literature review on UGIs. My only suggestion is to consider including climate change benchmark events (e.g., Paris Accords) for reference on Figure 4 and key events in remote sensing on Figure 6. ]

Response 1:[Dear Reviewer,thank you for your positive feedback and for recognizing the comprehensive nature of our literature review on UGIs. We appreciate your suggestion to include climate change benchmark events, such as the Paris Accords and key events in remote sensing. We agree that these additions would provide valuable context and enhance the clarity and relevance of the figures. We will incorporate these benchmark events and key milestones in our revisions to improve the overall impact and informativeness of the manuscript.]

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-organised and presented paper which is useful to guide researchers and planners in the earth observation satellites and data which may be suitable for different tasks, urban green infrastructure and mapping and monitoring ecosystems. Thank you.

One comment is a question about the use of Greek characters in the Annex tables - is this intentional or accidental?

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your positive feedback on our paper. Regarding your comment about the use of Greek characters in the Annex tables, we apologize for any confusion this may have caused. The inclusion of Greek characters was unintentional. We will review and correct the tables to ensure clarity and consistency.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions and comments:

GI plays an important role in coping with climate change and providing ecosystem services. Meanwhile, with the progress of computer technology, mapping and monitoring ecosystem services in cities by remote sensing has become an important approach to study the function of GI. This paper provides an overview of the current state of knowledge on remote sensing technologies for mapping and monitoring latent UGI ecosystem services, particularly for heat wave risk mitigation and adaptation. It can be said that the topic selection has certain important value, and the research method design is reasonable, and reflects a relatively rich workload. However, in general, there are many deficiencies in the results and discussion part, and it is suggested to be reconsidered again after major revision. Specific suggestions are as follows:

1. lines 80-87: After reading this part, it is difficult to connect the existing academic gaps summarized by the author with the research to be carried out in this paper. In other words, the significance and importance of this study are not clearly stated. Why did the author do it? What compensations and innovations can be made to the existing shortcomings of the academic community? You need to explain that, not just directly tell the readers what you're going to do.

2. line 93: Please specifically show the contents of the table through literature review, to clarify the current research progress related to GI and its ES. It is not common to use tables and figures in the Introduction part. Moreover, the table is very complicated, not easy to read, and the effectiveness of obtaining information is relatively poor.

3. line 117: Please explain why you chose this database and not others? Is this search engine any better or more reliable for the issue you're studying?

4. lines 118-121: What are the key words? What detailed analysis was performed? How are the authors associated with the study identified? Please refine this part of the research methodology and move the content in section 2.3 that is relevant to this part here instead of outlining it briefly here and then elaborating on it in an inappropriate location.

5. line 258: Why 5 articles? Is that enough for a review (even for a total of 38)? Or, please fully state that these 10 articles in the first two stages are typical and important enough, not just because they are cited the most.

6. line 262-263: I don't think the environmental design process and methodological approach framework mentioned in title 3.2 can be revealed only by the research time and geographical distribution of the articles under the three objectives. The presentation of the results section is too simple, and the figures are too rough to reflect the depth and breadth of the research.

7. line 302: The discussion section is conducted from the aspects of "regional scale" and "urban scale", but how does this relate to the three objectives of the Methods and Results section? The discussion did not do a good job of revealing the different problems from the results, so it can be said that the two are separated, and therefore the logic of the discussion part is not visible. It is suggested to follow the unified logic, gradually focus on the search content in the method part, present the characteristics of the review articles in the results part, and point out the problems revealed by the characteristics of the existing articles under different research objectives in the discussion part.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your detailed feedback and valuable suggestions. We appreciate the time and effort you put into reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered your comments and made substantial revisions to improve the quality and clarity of our paper. Below, we provide detailed responses to each of your specific suggestions.

Comments 1: Lines 80-87: Clarifying Academic Gaps and Study Significance

Response 1: [We have revised this section to clearly articulate the significance and importance of our study. We now explicitly state the existing academic gaps and how our research aims to address them. We emphasize the compensations and innovations our study brings to the field, providing a stronger rationale for the study.
We added a paragraph that discusses the current limitations in the field of remote sensing for UGI ecosystem services and how our research contributes to filling these gaps by offering innovative methodologies and insights.]

Comment 2:Line 93: Use of Tables in the Introduction
Response 2:[We have removed the table from the Introduction and instead provided a comprehensive summary of the current research progress related to GI and its ecosystem services within the text. This makes the information easier to read and more effective in conveying the necessary background.]

Comment 3: [Line 117: Choice of Database]
Response 3: Now in line 176 we have highlighted the motivation of the choice of DB

Comment 4: Lines 118-121: Keywords and Methodology Details 
Response 4: [We have refined the description of our research methodology, including the specific keywords used and the detailed analysis performed]

Comment 5: Line 258: Justification for Selecting Articles
Response 5: [We have completely reformulated this section to ensure greater clarity. The focus on a reduced number of articles reflects the funnel approach of our scoping review, which starts with the aim of providing a general overview and then delves deeper into a set of articles considered most relevant. These articles were selected based on key metrics from the first general analysis to further explore methodologies and approaches. This approach allows us to provide a more detailed and impactful analysis.]

Comment 6: Lines 262-263: Depth of environmental design process and methodological approach
Response 6: We have enriched the presentation of the results section, providing more detailed analyses and improved figures. This enhances the depth and breadth of our research findings.

Comment 7: Line 302: Discussion section logic and structure
Response 7: We have restructured the discussion section to align more closely with the thee objectives outlined in the methods sections. This ensures a coherent and logical flow, connecting our findings with the broader research objectives and revealing the underlying issues more effectively.

We hope these revisions meet your expectations and improve the manuscript's overall quality. Thank you again for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

I have now completed the review of the manuscript titled “Remote Sensing technologies for mapping ecosystem services: an analytical approach for Urban Green Infrastructure” which aim to provide a detailed overview of the current state of knowledge in remote sensing technologies for mapping and monitoring ecosystem services of a potential UGI, specifically for mitigation and adaptation of the heat wave risk.

The abstract has the following issues

While the abstract mentions the importance of data-driven approaches for decision support, it doesn't delve into the challenges related to data quality and reliability. Poor-quality data could lead to erroneous conclusions and ineffective decision-making.

 

Although the abstract aims to provide an overview of remote sensing technologies for mapping and monitoring ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures, it focuses specifically on mitigation and adaptation of heat wave risks. This limited scope may overlook other important climate-related challenges that UGIs could address.

The abstract suggests a shift from empirical and qualitative approaches to analytical ones, emphasizing the importance of data implementation. However, it doesn't discuss the potential challenges or barriers associated with this transition, such as the need for specialized expertise, technological infrastructure, and financial resources.

The abstract focuses on technical aspects such as remote sensing and modeling but overlooks the role of stakeholders in UGI design and implementation. Failure to engage stakeholders, including local communities and policymakers, could hinder the acceptance and success of UGI projects.

The introduction has the following issues

The introduction discusses the creation of Urban Green Infrastructures (UGIs) as new ecosystems for urban areas but doesn't provide clear guidelines or criteria for designing these infrastructures, potentially leading to ambiguity and inconsistency in implementation.

 

While the introduction acknowledges the need for smarter and faster adaptation measures to combat climate change, it doesn't delve into the potential challenges or uncertainties regarding the long-term effectiveness of these measures, which could affect their sustainability and impact on UGI design.

 

The introduction emphasizes the importance of data-driven approaches for UGI design but doesn't address the limitations or risks associated with relying solely on data, such as data inaccuracies or biases that could influence decision-making processes.

 

Although remote sensing is highlighted as a valuable tool for assessing urban ecosystems and their services, the abstract points out the limitations of using satellite data at the urban scale, which may not provide sufficient detail for guiding climate-proof design strategies. This scale mismatch could potentially hinder the effectiveness of UGI planning and implementation.

Adding latest works, pl add Crop Water Requirements with Changing Climate in an Arid Region of Saudi Arabia; Remote Sensing technologies for mapping ecosystem services: an analytical approach for Urban Green Infrastructure; Planetscope Nanosatellites Image Classification Using Machine Learning.

The introduction mentions the need for site-specific methodologies and climate performance requirements for UGI design but doesn't explicitly discuss the importance of stakeholder involvement in decision-making processes. Neglecting stakeholder perspectives could lead to UGI designs that fail to address community needs and preferences.

The Materials and Methods has the following issues

The section introduces the scoping review method but lacks a detailed explanation of its application, potentially leading to ambiguity regarding the process and outcomes of the review.

The section outlines the research objectives related to UGI design and climate adaptation, it lacks specificity in defining how these objectives were determined and why they are relevant, which could affect the validity and comprehensiveness of the study.

 

The division of the study into five stages is mentioned, but the section does not provide sufficient detail on each stage's methodology, potentially hindering transparency and reproducibility of the study.

 

The section describes using the Scopus search engine for identifying relevant studies, it lacks clarity on the specific search terms and criteria used, making it difficult to assess the rigor of the study's data collection process.

 

The section mentions refining search strings based on key words' occurrence, it doesn't provide details on how this refinement process was conducted or its rationale, which could lead to questions about the comprehensiveness of the literature search.

 

The section briefly mentions the analysis of results but lacks specific information on the analytical methodologies employed or the criteria used to evaluate the relevance of the identified studies, potentially undermining the reliability and validity of the findings.

 

The section does not address potential biases in the selection and synthesis process, such as publication bias or language bias, which could impact the comprehensiveness and representativeness of the study's findings.

Results Section

The section provides a general overview of research trends related to remote sensing technologies for Green Infrastructure (GI) but lacks in-depth analysis of specific methodologies and their evolution over time, potentially limiting insights into the field's development.

The section mentions the geographical distribution of articles, it lacks detailed analysis of regional differences in research focus or methodology adoption, which could overlook important regional trends or disparities in research priorities.

 

The section outlines methodological approaches for environmental design processes using satellite data, it fails to provide comprehensive coverage of all relevant methodologies, potentially leaving out important techniques or tools used in the field.

 

The section mentions integrating remote sensing data with demographic information, it lacks critical evaluation of the challenges or limitations associated with this integration, potentially overlooking biases or inaccuracies in the analysis.

 

The section briefly touches upon socio-economic benefits of UGI, it lacks detailed exploration of the economic or social implications of remote sensing technologies in UGI planning and design, potentially overlooking important aspects of sustainability and equity.

 

 

The section concludes without discussing potential future directions or emerging trends in the field, missing an opportunity to provide insights into the evolving landscape of remote sensing technologies for UGI planning and climate adaptation.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor polishing is required.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you for your detailed feedback on our manuscript titled “Remote Sensing Technologies for Mapping Ecosystem Services: An Analytical Approach for Urban Green Infrastructure.” We appreciate your effort in reviewing our work.

Comment 1:[Abstract]
Response 1: - The challenges related to data quality and reliability are addressed in the discussion and conclusion sections, as these aspects are not the primary focus of our article.

 - The scope of our study intentionally focuses on heat wave hazards to ensure the comparability of studies. Moreover, heat waves are a predominant concern in urban areas, aligning with our research preliminaries and assumption

   - The potential challenges or barriers associated with the transition to analytical approaches are discussed in the discussion and conclusion sections.

   - The role of stakeholders, while important, is not the primary goal of our paper. Our focus is on state-of-the-art methodologies independent of community involvement.

Comment 2:[Introduction]
Response 2: - The goal of our paper is to provide a literature review, not design solutions, which is why we did not include specific guidelines for UGI design.
   - An ecosystem-based and data-driven approach ensures the effectiveness of adaptation measures. This is stated at the beginning of the introduction, addressing potential challenges and uncertainties regarding their long-term effectiveness.
  - We consider satellite data, which is evidence-based and accurate, addressing concerns about data inaccuracies or biases.
- Our focus on the urban scale is intentional, as it aligns with our research field and addresses a gap in the application of methodologies.

Comment 3: [Material and Methods]
Response 3:  - This section has been completely restructured to provide a clearer explanation of the scoping review method and research objectives.

   - Detailed descriptions of the methodologies for each stage of the study are now included to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

   - Specific search terms and criteria used in the Scopus search engine are clarified, along with details on the refinement process.

Comment 4: [Results]
Response 4:  - The Results section has been rewritten to include an in-depth analysis of specific methodologies and their evolution over time.

   - The integration of remote sensing data with demographic information is critically evaluated, addressing potential biases or inaccuracies.

-The primary objective of our study is to analyze remote sensing technologies for mapping and monitoring ecosystem services of urban green infrastructures, focusing specifically on mitigating and adapting to heat wave risks. While the socio-economic benefits of UGI are important, they are not within the specific scope of this research.

We believe these revisions have significantly improved our manuscript and addressed the concerns raised. Thank you again for your valuable feedback

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

Title 3.1: Too long, please shorten it.

The first two paragraphs in the results section seem unnecessary.

Your text contains some typos. Please correct them.

 

Figure 4: The text is unreadable. Please improve the resolution in this and other figures.

 

 

Author Response

Comment 1:

• Title 3.1: Too long, please shorten it.

  R: Thank you for the suggestion. We have shortened the title of section 3.1 to make it more concise.

Comment 2:

• The first two paragraphs in the results section seem unnecessary.

  R: We have not removed the paragraphs because they are fundamental for understanding the transition from a broader analysis of key terms to a more specific discussion on applications and methodologies. However, we have significantly reduced and compacted them to make them clearer and more concise.

Comment 3:

• Your text contains some typos. Please correct them.

  R: We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and corrected all detected typos. Thank you for pointing this out.

Comment 4:

• Figure 4: The text is unreadable. Please improve the resolution in this and other figures.

  R: We have improved the readability of Figure 4, which is very important. Additionally, we have attached all figures at the highest resolution possible and hope that this will not be compromised. Thank you for bringing this to our attention

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggestions and comments:

I have thoroughly reviewed the authors’ responses and revisions to the previous round of review comments and found that the authors have addressed the raised issues effectively. The completeness and logic of the article have been significantly improved, and the figures and tables are more abundant. However, there are still some minor issues that I believe should be addressed before publication. The specific comments and suggestions are as follows:

1. In response to the review comments, the authors have added detailed descriptions of existing research and its shortcomings in the introduction, greatly enhancing the background of the study. However, this section currently reads somewhat lengthy. It would be advisable to streamline the presentation of existing research while retaining the summary of the gaps, thus keeping the introduction to a reasonable length.

2. Expressions such as "In the second phase the keywords of search strings are more closely aligned with the concept of remote sensing for GI design at urban scale. This phase emphasizes the key role of interoperable analytical tools for ecosystem services modelling and scenario-based simulations." could be more concise and clear by directly stating the keywords used in the search.

3. Are there any studies conducted on multiple scales among all the research? If so, please indicate this in section 3.2 (Applications and methodologies) within the results categorized by scale.

4. In response to the seventh review comment from the previous round, this version of the manuscript has added results for different research scales in the results section, making the logic clearer and more coherent, and aligning well with the discussion section. Additionally, the discussion section has been supplemented with more detailed explanations, enriching the study's revealed content and outcomes, thereby greatly enhancing the value of the article.

Author Response

Thank you for your thorough review and positive feedback on our revisions. We appreciate your suggestions and have made the following changes to address the remaining issues:

Comment 1:

• Streamline the presentation of existing research in the introduction to keep it to a reasonable length.

  R: We have revised the introduction to streamline the presentation of existing research. We have retained the summary of the gaps while condensing the detailed descriptions to enhance readability and maintain a reasonable length.

Comment 2:

• Make expressions more concise and clear by directly stating the keywords used in the search.

  R: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have applied this feedback to the results description section, which was previously too lengthy and difficult to read. This revision has improved the clarity and conciseness of this part. 

Comment 3:

• Indicate if there are studies conducted on multiple scales in section 3.2 within the results categorized by scale.

  R: We have updated section 3.2 (Applications and Methodologies) to indicate that none of the identified studies span multiple scales. Instead, all studies focus on individual scales of application. We have categorized the results accordingly and analyzed each scale independently, which aligns with our research objectives and questions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript missed control on several points and unable to addressed the issues.

Author Response

All suggestions were carefully followed and addressed point by point in the last phase of the review. However, this feedback lacks specific details on what remains unsatisfactory. To make the necessary improvements, more precise guidance on the issues mentioned is needed. If more specific feedback can be provided, it will be followed accordingly.

Thank you