The Estimation of a Remote Sensing Model of Three-Dimensional Green Space Quantity and Research into Its Cooling Effect in Hohhot, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is potentially an interesting paper but it is so badly written I cannot judge its quality. Here are examples of somne of the errors from the abstract alone. I stopped reading after that - the whole manuscript needs to be revised by a native English speaker. When this has been done I would be happy to look at it again.
Title - The estimation of the remote sensing model of 3D green quantity and the research to its hypothermal effect in Hohhot, China - this does not make sense. Incorrect use of the definite article (e.g. The estimation, and the research). Green space quantity. Research into.
Lines 10-12 - 3D green quantity is an important factor to evaluate the ecological effect of urban green and it is very significant to master its basic situation accurately and to research its hypothermal effects so as to operate the urban green scientifically and effectively. This sentence makes no sense.
Line 12 - this essay. This paper.
Line 13 NDVI, VFC - do not use acronyms without giving the full terms first
Line 19 - common arbor. Do you mean common trees?
Line 26 - in the researching area is mainly collective. In the research area. Mainly collective? What does that mean?
In future please ensure that your manuscripts are checked by a native English speaker before submission so as not to waste reviewers' time.
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your letter and for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The estimation of a remote sensing model of three-dimensional green space quantity and research into its cooling effect in Hohhot, China”(ID:land-1866295).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.
The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: Title - The estimation of the remote sensing model of 3D green quantity and the research to its hypothermal effect in Hohhot, China - this does not make sense. Incorrect use of the definite article (e.g. The estimation, and the research). Green space quantity. Research into.
Response 1: We have carefully examined the title of the paper and found that there were indeed problems.The title of the paper should be changed to “The estimation of a remote sensing model of three-dimensional green space quantity and research into its cooling effect in Hohhot, China”.
Point 2: Lines 10-12 - 3D green quantity is an important factor to evaluate the ecological effect of urban green and it is very significant to master its basic situation accurately and to research its hypothermal effects so as to operate the urban green scientifically and effectively. This sentence makes no sense.
Response 2: As Reviewer suggested, We deleted this sentence and renewed the significance of cooling effect of green space.
Point 3: Line 12 - this essay. This paper.
Response 3: As Reviewer suggested, we changed all the "this essay" in the paper to "This paper".
Point 4: NDVI, VFC - do not use acronyms without giving the full terms first
Response 4: We are very sorry for our negligence of do not use acronyms without giving the full terms first. we carefully checked the writing method of the paper on NDVI, etc., and revised it.
Point 5: Line 19 - common arbor. Do you mean common trees?
Response 5: We are very sorry for our incorrect writing. The arbor is really meant to tree. We revised the paper to correct all of the tree's in the text.
Point 6: Line 26 - in the researching area is mainly collective. In the research area. Mainly collective? What does that mean?
Response 6: The question is also a misrepresentation. There is have a big problem with our writing.
We are very sorry for the mistakes we correspond to writing that wasted your precious time and caused you trouble. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions. Thank you especially for also giving us the opportunity to modify it, This time we used the MDPI' s English editing service. This time, we used the English editing service of MDPI, which is of great help to the English expression of the article. Special thanks to you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We marked the changes in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed the manuscript entitled “The estimation of the remote sensing model of 3D green quantity in Hohhot and the research to its hypothermal effect”. The concept of the paper is interesting. However, I just have some comments:
- Abstract
The abstract could use more introductory language which speaks to why this assessment is needed. What exactly is the significance of this issue? It could also describe the methodology used before the results are presented. I would like to hear more about what are the implications of the study towards the end of the abstract.
- Introduction
The introduction could also be structured better, and the literature explained in relation to the aim of this study needs to be clearer. The wording in the literature review cites what was done or the aim of the studies but the result and impact were not always clear. I would like to ask the authors to extend this section by adding some new references.
- Materials and Methods
Why Hohhot is selected for this study? Why not other cities?
Research design and methodology are missing. I would like to see the figure for this section. How data is assessed and the method chosen for this study?
Why use NDVI for this research, why not others?
- Results
The discussion needs to be clearer and more concise.
Please compare the result with previously published studies, and how your study results are better than the previous one, please elaborate
Figures should be clear in the revised version.
Recommendation: Major revision
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your letter and for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The estimation of a remote sensing model of three-dimensional green space quantity and research into its cooling effect in Hohhot, China”(ID:land-1866295).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.
The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: Abstract. write more about what are the implications of the study towards the end of the abstract.
Response 1: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We increase the significance of studying the cooling effect of green space and why the assessment is needed. We increase the methodology before the results and implications of the study.Revised portion are marked in red in the paper. Corresponding to the line10-33 in the paper.
Point 2: Introduction.extend this section by adding some new references.
Response 2: As Reviewer suggested that,We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. The results and the impact of what was done were added to the literature review. Some new references are also added to expand the content of this section. Corresponding to the line48-115 in the paper.
Point 3: Why Hohhot is selected for this study? Why not other cities?
Response 3: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, We added the information to explain Why Hohhot is selected for this study. Corresponding to the line129-132 in the paper.
Point 4: The figure for this section. How data is assessed and the method chosen for this study.
Response 4: As Reviewer suggested that we add the figure2 to explain how data is assessed and the method chosen for this study.
Point 5: Why use NDVI for this research, why not others?
Response 5: For this question, we added a paragraph from line156-170 of the paper, explaining why this research chose 8 vegetation indices. include: NDVI, VC, SAVI, MSAVI, EVI, ARVI, DVI, CVI. These eight vegetation indices are the common ones, each with its unique sensitivity to reflect the soil, atmospheric scattering, and vegetation conditions. However, through the unilinear regression analysis, multiple linear regression analysis, collinear diagnosis, nonlinear regression analysis and error analysis of these eight vegetation indexes and 3D-GSQP, we finally learned that only CVI is the vegetation index suitable as the parameter of 3D-GSQP regression model.
Point 6: The discussion needs to be clearer and more concise. compare the result with previously published studies, and elaborate how the study results are better than the previous one.
Response 6: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion.It is jointly divided into four parts. (1)The Discussion section is presented in compare the result with previously published studies. We found that the increase of green space volume can more directly lead to the decrease of local temperature, when studying the effect of green space cooling. In the process of urban construction, the government can pay more attention to the volume index of green space. On this question, we added a picture to the article to show the same green space area, with different three-dimensional green amount, which eventually led to different cooling effect. Corresponding to the line480-497 in the paper.(2)We added to the relationship between VC and 3D-GSQP found in the paper, further demonstrating that 3D-GSQP can be used as an indicator to further evaluate the level of greening and the ecological effect of green space. We have also added a graph to illustrate the problem. Corresponding to the line499-506 in the paper.(3)We add a paragraph explaining the limitations of the paper. Corresponding to the line508-515 in the paper.(4)We add a paragraph to illustrate the future research direction of the paper.Corresponding to the line516-522 in the paper.
Point 7: Figures should be clear in the revised version.
Response 7: It is really true as Reviewer suggested that figures are not clear enough. We checked the figure in the paper one by one, and modified the unclear ones to improve the resolution , namely: Figure 1,3,4 and 7.
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. After revising it according to your suggestions, the quality of our paper has been greatly improved. Special thank you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We marked the changes in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
even if the work and its topic are interesting, there is still issues that sould be improved before the acceptance:
- the literature review should be expanded and more references should be added
- a scheme/figure summarizing the used methods could be helpful for the reading follow the steps used by the research team
- the discussion should be expanded - add similar studies and researches to this sections in order to confront the obtained results and create a more powerfull debate on the topic
- the study limitations and future research lines sgould be highlighted
Best regards,
Author Response
Dear Editor:
Thank you for your letter and for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “The estimation of a remote sensing model of three-dimensional green space quantity and research into its cooling effect in Hohhot, China”(ID:land-1866295).Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our researches. We have studied comments carefully and have made correction which we hope meet with approval. Revised portion are marked in red in the paper.
The main corrections in the paper and the responds to the reviewer’s comments are as following:
Point 1: The literature review should be expanded and more references should be added.
Response 1: As Reviewer suggested that，We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. The results and the impact of what was done were added to the literature review. Some new references are also added to expand the content of this section. Corresponding to the line48-115 in the paper.
Point 2: A scheme/figure summarizing the used methods could be helpful for the reading follow the steps used by the research team.
Response 2: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we add the figure2 to explain how data is assessed and the method chosen for this study .
Point 3: The discussion should be expanded - add similar studies and researches to this sections in order to confront the obtained results and create a more powerfull debate on the topic.
Response 3: We have re-written this part according to the Reviewer’s suggestion. (1)The Discussion section is presented in compare the result with previously published studies. We found that the increase of green space volume can more directly lead to the decrease of local temperature, when studying the effect of green space cooling. In the process of urban construction, the government can pay more attention to the volume index of green space. On this question, we added a picture to the article to show the same green space area, with different three-dimensional green amount, which eventually led to different cooling effect. Corresponding to the line480-497 in the paper.(2)We added to the relationship between VC and 3D-GSQP found in the paper, further demonstrating that 3D-GSQP can be used as an indicator to further evaluate the level of greening and the ecological effect of green space. We have also added a graph to illustrate the problem. Corresponding to the line499-506 in the paper.
Point 4: the study limitations and future research lines could be highlighted.
Response 4: Considering the Reviewer’s suggestion, we add a paragraph explaining the limitations of the paper. Corresponding to the line508-515 in the paper. And we add a paragraph to illustrate the future research direction of the paper.Corresponding to the line516-522 in the paper.
Thank you very much for your valuable advice. After revising it according to your suggestions, the quality of our paper has been greatly improved. Special thank you for your good comments.
We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made some changes in the manuscript. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. We marked the changes in red in revised paper.
We appreciate for Reviewers warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.
Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestion.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been substantially improved. The result is a very interesting paper which makes an important contribution to the literature. There are some very minor errors which need to be corrected, but otherwise it is fine. For example:
line 14 - In this paper
arbor is the wrong word - change to tree (8 occurrences)
line 484 - plant hollow doesn't make sense - replace with hollow trees
Reviewer 2 Report
It is considered that the new version presented by the authors gives an adequate answer to the main questions previously presented.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors properly revised the work accordingly previous suggestions
