Local Climate Zones to Identify Surface Urban Heat Islands: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments to the Author 

Find my comments below: 

 

Evaluation 

The study of this paper has reviewed the surface urban heat island (SUHI) studies based on local climate zones (LCZs) using the PRISMA method. The number of publications, the distribution of study areas, the methodologies of LST estimation and LCZ mapping, and the application of used software, were reviewed in this paper. These aspects are important but not the most important. The motive and target of the paper are not clear. This review lacks opinions, conclusions and perspectives; and only represents the results of bibliometrics.

 

The following are the questions and some suggestions for this manuscript:

 

1)   The title of this review is “Local Climate zones to identify Urban Surface Heat Islands: a Systematic Review”, but the key words for paper selection are “Surface”, “Urban” and “Local climate zone/zones” (Line 86-91). Most articles read in the systematic review focus on the relationship between LCZ and LST, but not the identification of SUHI. Please, clarify. Moreover, the correct term is “Surface urban heat island”, but not “Urban surface heat island”. This should be revised.

 

2)   Line 127: In my opinion, the exact number of articles in this study area is larger than the number presented in this figure. Please verify.

 

3)   Line 142-153: I think the weight of the publication year is too high. For this reason, some key articles were omitted in Table 1, such as [1]. Moreover, I think the influence of [1] is 35.7, but it was not shown in this list;

 

4)   In my opinion, most topics in section 3 (line 116-425) are not major concerns for readers. Please concise it with 1-2 paragraphs.

 

5)   Line 333-337: It’s not reasonable to classify the LCZ mapping methods based on software applications.

 

6)   Here are some suggestions for further paper revision, I hope it will be useful: a) reselect the articles carefully, and classify current articles into several categories according to the research questions and objectives; b) please rewrite the introduction: clarify your motive and objectives, and emphasize the advantages of LCZs in SUHI study; c) In my opinion, there were some important topics worth discussing: 

l  The variations of relationship between LCZ and LST across different Spatio-temporal scales;

l  Do current LCZ mapping methodologies were accurate enough for SUHI studies; and is the procedure of quality control reasonable for LST study. Moreover, is it necessary to study LST with level 1 and 2 LCZ mapping;

l  How to quantify the SUHI intensity based on the LCZ scheme, and are current methodologies suitable for SUHI identification in regions with different backgrounds.

 

 

1. Bechtel, B.; Demuzere, M.; Mills, G.; Zhan, W.; Sismanidis, P.; Small, C.; Voogt, J. SUHI Analysis Using Local Climate Zones—A Comparison of 50 Cities. Urban Climate 2019, 28, 100451, doi:10.1016/j.uclim.2019.01.005.

 

Author Response

Please, check the attached document, which contains both answers for Reviewers 1 and 2.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The review article on using LCZ to identify SUHI.

Authors used Scopus database and WosViewer software for some analysis.

My major concern is that results are not fully clear presented. My suggestion is to cluster the analysis in 3-4 major results subchapters, because it is hard to follow it the present format. For example, one chapter should be related to bibliometrics analysis (WosViewer), where only "technical" discussion should be placed (relevance of sci. production, geographical scope, etc.). Other chapters should be related to the findings that authors got from the full screening of the articles, regarding the methods for calculations, etc.)

 

 

Author Response

Please, check the attached document, which contains both answers for Reviewers 1 and 2.

Best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has improved after revision. Several minor comments that I hope can help to further improve the manuscript are as follows:

Line 58−67: I would like to suggest that the authors add some sentences to clarify more specifically the gaps in earlier reviews of LCZ before highlighting the purpose of this manuscript. Despite being mentioned in lines 72–74, it is insufficient.

Line 73–76 and line 101: Urban Heat Islands → UHIs. Surface Urban Heat Islands → SUHIs.

Line 82: Please indicate the time frame of the literature search in this study.

Line 270: Please define the parameters of these formulae.

Line 285: I would like to suggest that the authors clarify the benefits and drawbacks of the SUHI assessment approach based on the LCZ scheme in comparison to other methodologies, as well as highlight the challenges of SUHI calculation based on LCZ.

Author Response

All the answers to Reviewer 1 are in the document attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf