Exploring Adaptive UHI Mitigation Solutions by Spatial Heterogeneity of Land Surface Temperature and Its Relationship to Urban Morphology in Historical Downtown Blocks, Beijing
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
The article explores the issue of UHI heterogeneity in Beijing in an interesting way. My attention is particularly drawn to the methodological approach.
Nevertheless, the text is filled with a few additions and changes that will improve the article. I recommend separating the Introduction from the Research Review. The research review should be more in-depth and discussed. Now some issues are very briefly summarized. In the context of the extensive methodological part and the presentation of the results, I see a contrast in this matter. Research on UHI and various approaches to this issue have already had a very good scientific record in the world.
Subsection 4.2. it definitely presents the results of the authors' research. I believe it should be included in the Results section.
However, the discussion can be supplemented with a few additional sentences, which will be the result of an extensive Review of research. It is worth being critical and self-critical of it.
Sincerely
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We appreciate you for reading our paper carefully and giving those valuable comments. We have studied the comments carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to your comments are listed as following:
Comment 1:
I recommend separating the Introduction from the Research Review. The research review should be more in-depth and discussed. Now some issues are very briefly summarized. In the context of the extensive methodological part and the presentation of the results, I see a contrast in this matter. Research on UHI and various approaches to this issue have already had a very good scientific record in the world.
Response 1:
Thanks to your comment, we have conducted a more in-depth and comprehensive literature review of of relevant studies to ensure that the value and shortcomings of this study can be revealed.
Comment 2:
Subsection 4.2. it definitely presents the results of the authors' research. I believe it should be included in the Results section.
Response2:
We agree with your comment and we have already presented contents of 4.2 in the results section in revised manuscript.
Comment 3:
The discussion can be supplemented with a few additional sentences, which will be the result of an extensive Review of research. It is worth being critical and self-critical of it.
Response 3:
We have supplemented the discussion section to ensure the integrity of the review section of this article. We validated our findings with previously done studies, and criticism and self-criticism have been presented to provide an outlook on future research directions.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks to the authors for their interesting article on adaptive mitigation solutions to urban heat in historical urban blocks. Beyond the analysis of UHI in relation with LST and morphology, they also provide interesting guidelines for planning and mitigating negative effects in Beijing historical blocks.
The paper is well written and clear. I would propose to accept it after some very little revisions, which are the following:
- Perhaps a reference to the Beijing case study should be made since the title.
- Pag 3. Figure 1, it would be nice to see the location of the three case studies (a-b-c) on the central map
- Table 2 is difficult to read because of formatting, please set it
- Table 4: at line 261 you refer to * in the legend but it doesn’t appear in the table, where there is only **.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We appreciate you for reading our paper carefully and giving those valuable comments. We have studied the comments carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to your comments are listed as following:
Comment 1:
Perhaps a reference to the Beijing case study should be made since the title.
Response 1:
Thank you for your comment, we have mentioned Beijing in the title.
Comment 2:
Pag 3. Figure 1, it would be nice to see the location of the three case studies (a-b-c) on the central map
Response 2:
I have added the location of these famous hutong streets on the central map in Figure 1.
Comment 3:
Table 2 is difficult to read because of formatting, please set it
Response 3:
Thank you for your suggestion, I have adjusted all cross-page tables to make it easier for reading.
Comment 4
Table 4: at line 261 you refer to * in the legend but it doesn’t appear in the table, where there is only **.
Response 4:
Thank you for your careful comment, I have removed the *in the manuscript, and as you mentioned, it does not appear in the correlation analysis table.
Reviewer 3 Report
Manuscript "Exploring adaptive mitigation solutions by spatial heterogeneity of urban heat island and its relationship to urban morphology in historical downtown blocks" revealed the thermal environmental characteristics of Beijing Old Town (BOT) and analyzed the LST impacts of multiple urban spatial morphological characteristics with higher spatial precision calculated from WorldView3.
I believe that the methods used in work are appropriate and well-chosen for the case and clearly described. The work presents a proper structure, and the contents do not repeat. This topic fits the scope of the journal. The topic is essential, and the authors refer to international literature and adequately describe the research methodology. Objectives are clear and achieved. English language and style are acceptable/minor spell check required.
Currently, there are some modifications required before publications.
- In this manuscript, the authors are dealing with UHI; meanwhile, the authors are mixing the terms of LST and UHI. Please modify your methodology and results in the section by explaining how the authors calculated the Urban heat island (UHI). LST represents the Land surface temperature, while UHI is an urban heat island not the same as LST. Both are different terms. I couldn't find enough information related to UHI. Please check this work. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/16/3177
- In the discussion section, the authors are continuously discussing the results section. Please make that section short. The lengthy discussion will make the reader bored.
- Also, instead of discussing your results there, please specify that section by examining your results with previously done studies and validating your finding with their results.
- Please add the proper citations for section 2.3, especially for all equations used in this manuscript.
- As a suggestion, I would recommend that the authors try with "Curve fit linear regression (https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/management/dss/curve_fit.html/) for section 2.5, "Relationship analysis methods." This allows the user raster to raster correlation and provides better and more precise results of LST changes with LULC transitions. Check this work. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/18/2987
- If possible, Please add a methodology flowchart for a better understanding of your analyses.
- Line 48, 50, 51, 57, and so on, please add a space between text and citation.
- Line 98. Can the authors add any reference etc. to track and know more about that "Urban Master Plan of Beijing (2016-2035)"
- Line 105. Same comment as above "Please add more details about Detail Regulatory Plan in the Functional Core Area of Beijing (Block 105 Level). "
- Figure 1. It's better to write names of Beijing's surrounding borders/Cities.
- Line 194. Please check with the abbreviation of Sum of the squared errors method (SEE). Is it correct?
- Line 214. Word "only" seems unnecessary here.
- Why are there some empty areas in figure 2 (a)?
- In the reference Section, DOIs' of all citations are missing. Please add the DOIs' correctly.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We appreciate you for reading our paper carefully and giving those valuable comments. We have studied the comments carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to your comments are listed as following:
Comment 1:
English language and style are acceptable/minor spell check required.
Response 1:
Thank you for your suggestions, I have polished the English expressions in the manuscript to ensure that readers will be able to read it fluently.
Comment 2:
In this manuscript, the authors are dealing with UHI; meanwhile, the authors are mixing the terms of LST and UHI. Please modify your methodology and results in the section by explaining how the authors calculated the Urban heat island (UHI). LST represents the Land surface temperature, while UHI is an urban heat island not the same as LST. Both are different terms. I couldn't find enough information related to UHI. Please check this work. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/16/3177
Response 2:
Thank you for your comment, LST is the main concern of this study, I have referred to the study you mentioned and corrected the unclear presentation of concepts in the manuscript.
Comment 3:
In the discussion section, the authors are continuously discussing the results section. Please make that section short. The lengthy discussion will make the reader bored.
Also, instead of discussing your results there, please specify that section by examining your results with previously done studies and validating your finding with their results
Response 3:
I have simplified the content of 4.2 and replaced them in the result section, and validated our findings by results of previous studies in the discussion section.
Comment 4
Please add the proper citations for section 2.3, especially for all equations used in this manuscript.
Response 4:
Thanks for your detailed comments, I've added citations for methods and equations in this section.
Comment 5：
As a suggestion, I would recommend that the authors try with "Curve fit linear regression (https://www.umesc.usgs.gov/management/dss/curve_fit.html/) for section 2.5, "Relationship analysis methods." This allows the user raster to raster correlation and provides better and more precise results of LST changes with LULC transitions. Check this work. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/12/18/2987
Response 5:
Thank you for your suggestion, I have discussed the advantages of this method and the prospect of its application for relative studies in the discussion, and I will take this method into consideration in my further research.
Comment 6：
If possible, Please add a methodology flowchart for a better understanding of your analyses.
Response 6:
Thank you for your comment, I have added a methodology flowchart in the manuscript.
Comment 7：
Line 48, 50, 51, 57, and so on, please add a space between text and citation.
Line 194. Please check with the abbreviation of Sum of the squared errors method (SEE). Is it correct?
Line 214. Word "only" seems unnecessary here.
Why are there some empty areas in figure 2 (a)?
Response 7:
Thank you for your careful comments, I have added spaces between texts and citations and doublechecked to make sure that there are no other similar problems.
The abbreviation of squared errors method was incorrect, I have corrected it to SSE.
I have deleted ONLY in Line 214, which is Line 278 currently.
The vacant positions in Figure 2 (Figure 3 in revised manuscript) belong to the other two images, I have replaced the figure with the complete one in the revised manuscript.
Comment 6：
Line 98. Can the authors add any reference etc. to track and know more about that "Urban Master Plan of Beijing (2016-2035)"
Line 105. Same comment as above "Please add more details about Detail Regulatory Plan in the Functional Core Area of Beijing (Block 105 Level). "
Response 6:
Thank you for your comment, I have added references for those documents and added the website addresses after their references so that readers can easily access information about these documents.
Comment 7：
Figure 1. It's better to write names of Beijing's surrounding borders/Cities.
Response 7:
I have shown the boundaries and names of the administrative areas around Beijing in Figure 1 in the revised manuscript.
Comment 7：
In the reference Section, DOIs' of all citations are missing. Please add the DOIs' correctly.
Response 7:
Thanks for the comment, I have added DOI for all the references
Reviewer 4 Report
The paper is consistent with MDPI - LAND and fits in with the overall journal scope. The paper focuses on exploring adaptive mitigation solutions by spatial heterogenity of urban heat island and its relationship to urban morphology. This is an important issue, and the authors are commended for their effort. The study aims to explore the effect of fine-texture morphological indicators on land surface temperature in old downtown areas by using imagery with high spatial resolution. The idea is to give the guidelines for adaptive green and blue infrastructure planning and vegetation design to urban planners and mangers to make decisions about mitigating the UHI effect in the old city renewal process.
The manuscript is an appealing paper, and it was a pleasure to review the manuscript.
The reviewer is interested in whether there are green roofs in the subject area and if so, how they were treated in the conducted analysis?
Figure 5 - better resolution is needed. A graphic scale should be added.
Since Figure 5 presents three selected blocks (each of them represents one detected block type) it is not clear whether the guidelines given in the figure are applicable to all blocks of a particular type or only to selected blocks and what do the measures in the circles represent.
The title of the Figure 5 needs to be supplemented.
In the future research it is proposed to include the element of wind since it can change the LST and is closely related to other indicators important for urban planning and design.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We appreciate you for reading our paper carefully and giving those valuable comments. We have studied the comments carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to your comments are listed as following:
Comment 1:
The reviewer is interested in whether there are green roofs in the subject area and if so, how they were treated in the conducted analysis?
Response 1:
Due to the unique policy and construction history of the study area, green infrastructures are mostly in the form of traditional green spaces, and the number of green roofs is very small, less than 10 green roofs covered with grass were found in the study area, and the size of these green roofs are so small that it is not meaningful to take them into additional consideration, so they were treated as one type of land cover (grassland) in our study. However, we agree with your comment about considering green roofs alone and have refined the need for additional consideration of green roofs in future studies for different areas in the discussion section.
Comment 2:
Figure 5 - better resolution is needed. A graphic scale should be added.
Response 2:
I've adjusted the layout of the graphics, upgraded their resolution, and added a graphic scale
Comment 3:
Since Figure 5 presents three selected blocks (each of them represents one detected block type) it is not clear whether the guidelines given in the figure are applicable to all blocks of a particular type or only to selected blocks and what do the measures in the circles represent.
The title of the Figure 5 needs to be supplemented.
Response 3:
Thank you for your comment. The guidelines given in the figures can be applied to all blocks of the corresponding type, and only one typical block of each type was chosen as an example in the figure to illustrate the different measures, which differ in priority, as reflected in the ordering of the serial numbers. The measures in the circles are schematic diagrams of the guidelines to help the reader understand the specific implications of the simulation. I have reformatted these diagrams and added notes for the reader's understanding.
Comment 4
In the future research it is proposed to include the element of wind since it can change the LST and is closely related to other indicators important for urban planning and design.
Response 4:
Thank you for your suggestion. Ventilation environment is indeed a key factor impacting urban thermal environment, and many relating indicators have close relationship with urban planning. We have discussed the importance of considering urban ventilation environment in the discussion section, and will take the element of wind into consideration in our future research.
Reviewer 5 Report
The paper is interesting and well-written.
Just a few minor remarks:
Please consider indicating sources of all tables and figures in the paper.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer：
We appreciate you for reading our paper carefully and giving those valuable comments. We have studied the comments carefully, and tried our best to revise the manuscript. The point to point responds to your comments are listed as following:
Comment 1:
Please consider indicating sources of all tables and figures in the paper.
Response 1:
Thank you for your suggestion. All tables and figures in the manuscript were taken or made by authors, and I have given credit to all sources in the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors,
In all respects, the article now presents itself very well in my opinion. I have no more comments,
Sincerely
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have addressed all my suggestions, and the manuscript is now significantly improved and acceptable for publication.
