Analysis on Seasonal Variation and Influencing Mechanism of Land Surface Thermal Environment: A Case Study of Chongqing

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

The paper clearly address scientific problem, methods used and shows scientific results which are included in it.

Since my primary scope are IT sciences (applied on urban climate data acquisition and development of UMNS/WSN) and paper focuses on data analisys, I can only provide feedback on is overall quality - which is in my opinion high.

So I would like to recommend this paper for publishing.

Regards.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

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

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; in fact, the introduction should be clearly stated research questions and targets first. Then answer several questions: Why is the topic important (or why do you study on it)? What are the research questions? What has been studied? What are your contributions? Why is it to propose this particular method? This study's major defect is the debate or argument is not clearly stated in the introduction session.

I would suggest the author improve your theoretical discussion and arrives at your debate or argument. In addition, the background introduction should be condensed. The literature review is not presented in a good structure, and at the end of LR, you should come out with a paragraph to conclude your discussion, in this paragraph, you can highlight the novelty of your study also, it means what the LR has done and what you want to do. The literature review must highlight the novelty and contribution of the study, but these sections, which the authors provided only are related works and not literature review. Authors must carefully revise these sections.

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

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Based on Landsat and other supplementary data, this study investigated changes and driving factors of UHI in Chongqing. There are some questions to be addressed:

 

1. The author said that “most studies have been conducted using annual summer temperature or  annual average temperature data” (Line 58). However, images of two period have been used in this study, which may not represent the dynamics of UHI in Chongqing during 2010 – 2020, a period in 2015 should be added to improve representativeness.
2. In Line 154, the author said that “using the superposition analysis function of a GIS to obtain the proportions of the areas”, what “a GIS” mean in this sentence?
3. Does the author tests the different radius sets of the Equal Sector Analysis, will the different radius affect the result?
4. The principal component analysis transforms the original multifaceted indicators into a few integrated indicators with good representativeness, but how can we know which original factor exert major impact to urban thermal environment?
5. As the land surface temperature data will be resampled to 500 m in analysis, why Landsat data was used instead of MODIS data at first? The LST retrieve process may introduce new error.
6. The author investigates the influence of POI density to urban heat island. But the definition of POI density hasn’t be defined in this study. Besides, as some types of POIs may not exert influence on urban thermal environment, the author should explain what kind of interesting point are included.
7. In discussion, the author should underline the similarity and dissimilarity between this and prior studies, especially the new findings in this study.
8. Table 3, 5, unit is missing. If the variables are not dimensionless, unit is required.
9. Need to elaborate on how the total factor was computed in Table 7.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

See the attached file for my comments

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

What is the 'thermal environment'--no definition is offered in the opening paragraphs. 

The rest of my comments all state the findings are self-evident or a limited return on the investment needed to read the manuscript: for example   

'They found that the characteristics of the 62 thermal environment varied with the characteristics of the climate'; is this not self-evident?

[34] is not a convincing source, not least as it is 7 years old;

 
222 again, this statement seems blindingly obvious; 

347 once more, this seems unremarkable; 

"It follows that 371 under the combined effect of the multiple factors that human economic development and 372 the expansion of impervious surfaces were the main causes of the increase in the urban 373 surface temperature, while natural factors such as vegetation, water bodies, and topography were the main contributors to alleviating the phenomenon of rising LST, among 375 which the most influential factor was topography". This is not a significant observation.  

One finding with which I can completely agree: "However, due to the limitations of the data acquisition, 450 follow-up studies still need to be improved"

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have responded to my comments adequately. I have no further comments.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

It is customary to at least go through the motions of engaging with reviewers, who get nothing from the labor expended in the evaluation. A brief cheery note might be appropriate to a hostess after a party but is a rude response to an academic colleague. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx