Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article really highlights a very topical scientific issue concerning the regulation of regional thermal environments. After reviewing the manuscript as a whole, the impression is positive, but some statements require less categorical assertions. I have a few suggestions to strengthen the Introduction section: 

• please temper claims that effective techniques are lacking
• given the rapid growth in the number of studies on LST dynamics in recent years, the introduction to the manuscript would benefit from an expanded literature review that would more clearly highlight the results already achieved in urban, agricultural and environmental contexts. This would allow the study to be better positioned in the context of recent advances and its specific contribution to be more clearly articulated. 

The Discussion section requires some improvement. It would be beneficial if the authors could strengthen the discussion with recent studies, particularly those that have already been conducted. It would be worthwhile to clearly indicate where your results coincide/diverge and why (scale, season, metrics, climatic context, etc.).

As for the Сonclusions section, they generally repeat the Discussion section. It would be much better to clearly answer the research questions, support key messages with quantitative estimatesand and summarise the novelty of the study in a single paragraph.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Given that I am not a native speaker, I cannot guarantee that the text is 100% grammatically correct. 

Author Response

Thank you to the editor and reviewers. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments, as detailed below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors' use of the quadtree method essentially involves a reclassification of the original data. Firstly, this likely introduces new mixed categories (based on the 75% threshold). Secondly, what is the specific rationale for this approach? Are there inherent problems with using the original classification directly? This reclassification does not constitute a major breakthrough; it merely represents a shift from using original administrative boundaries to using grid cells for recalculating various metrics. Applying the quadtree method actually reduces the spatial detail of the original data, leading to less precision and accuracy in subsequent analyses. This method is not recommended for adoption. The paper's analysis of existing problems and its claimed contributions appear overly inflated. The proposed algorithmic innovation lacks scientific significance.

The datasets used (GLC_FCS30 and MOD11A2) inherently carry significant uncertainties. The study not only fails to analyze the impact of these uncertainties but further compounds the issue by employing statistical averages in its analysis. This is particularly concerning for land surface temperature (LST) data, which is influenced by numerous factors, with land surface change being a relatively minor contributor. The paper completely overlooks this aspect. Furthermore, the authors did not utilize time-series LST data to remove seasonal and weather influences to identify long-term trends. Consequently, all subsequent correlation analyses lack a reliable foundation and are essentially meaningless. It is recommended that the authors address these two major issues before proceeding with further research.

Furthermore, is there a reliable theoretical basis for assuming LST differences between ecological and agricultural spaces? If seasonal factors are proposed as an explanation, it should be noted that vegetation in ecological spaces also undergoes seasonal variations. Moreover, this study does not incorporate continuous temperature data, making any seasonal analysis unsubstantiated. Additionally, urban areas do not invariably result in higher LST - well-vegetated, sparsely built-up settlements or those under strong wind conditions may exhibit temperatures comparable to surrounding agricultural lands. Consequently, time-series temperature analysis remains essential for validating these relationships.

Specific Comments:

The distinctions between the definitions of the three spatial types and the characteristics of LST should be better introduced. For instance, isn't agricultural space a subset of ecological space?

Line 36: "Changes in LST directly reflect the evolution of land cover..." – Isn't LST more influenced by weather? Can it directly reflect land cover change? It would be more accurate to state that land cover change can influence LST. The causality is different.

Line 51: "...research has revealed that the spatial morphology of these three functional types is a critical factor in LST dynamics." – To support this conclusion, the influence of weather factors (e.g., precipitation, wind) – which are often more significant – must first be排除 (excluded/accounted for).

Lines 74-84: The problem analysis in this paragraph is somewhat vague and absolute. It lacks an adequate review of relevant research progress and fails to clearly connect these identified shortcomings to the specific research questions of this paper.

Table 1 lacks uncertainty analysis for the data. Large-scale classification products like these possess considerable inherent uncertainty. Using this data without addressing its uncertainties can amplify errors in the analysis. This requires specific attention. Please refer to works such as "Examining the reliable trend of global urban land use efficiency from 1985 to 2020 using robust indicators and analysis tools" and "How well do we really know the world? Uncertainty in GIScience."

The authors previously stated: "Specifically, there is a lack of effective techniques to delineate non-overlapping urban-agricultural-ecological spaces..." Yet, they now employ classification results with high uncertainty instead of using locally validated, higher-accuracy land classification data. The authors should explain this choice.

Analyzing the relationship between temperature and influencing factors at the county or 8000m scale is too coarse. Statistical averages struggle to reflect the environmental impacts within specific geographical contexts. The paper starts with 30m resolution data but conducts analysis at an 8000m scale, resulting in a significant loss of spatial detail.

Similarly, when analyzing urban-agricultural-ecological land use changes, aggregating the original 30m data into coarser grids further reduces precision.

For the LST analysis in Figures 6-9, relying solely on individual dates or annual averages is insufficient. Reliable trends generally require analysis of long-term time series data. LST is influenced by numerous factors (e.g., wind, rain) exhibiting high variability.

In Table 5, how are correlation coefficient absolute values greater than 1 explained? Furthermore, other values like 0.2 and 0.06 seem to hold little practical significance.

Author Response

Thank you to the editor and reviewers. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments, as detailed below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

General Comments

I have been invited to review this manuscript submitted by Zhang et al. for publication in Land. The paper aims to analyse the evolution of urban–agricultural–ecological spaces in the MRYR region, China, from 2000 to 2020 using a quadtree algorithm-based spatial identification method and land surface temperature (LST) data. Overall, the paper is written in a satisfactory manner, and the topic is both relevant and important, particularly in the context of land use planning and environmental sustainability. However, the introduction requires expansion to include a broader discussion of the global literature on the subject. Additionally, the figures are of relatively low resolution and should be improved for better readability. The labels within the figures are also somewhat difficult to follow and should be refined. Finally, the abstract and conclusion sections currently lack quantitative findings; the authors are encouraged to include their key quantitative results in both sections. Please find my specific comments below.

Specific Comments

Abstract

Line 14: The term “ecological spaces” is interesting and seems to refer to areas of natural vegetation (e.g., grasslands, shrublands) and forestlands. However, the term requires a clear definition either within the abstract or the introduction to avoid ambiguity.

Lines 15–16: The statement “yet existing studies are limited by the lack of effective methods for spatial identification and fragmentation quantification” is too broad. While this may be true for your study area, it is not entirely accurate at the global scale. Please revise or qualify this statement accordingly.

Introduction

Lines 46–47: Please clarify what is meant by “mitigate temperature”. Does this refer to reducing local warming effects or mitigating the rise in temperature trends?

Lines 93–97: These statements are more suited to the discussion or conclusion section, as they reflect interpretation rather than background. Please relocate them accordingly.

Materials and Methods

Line 130: Figure 1 would be better positioned after the paragraph ending at line 119 for improved narrative flow.

Line 131: Table 1 should be placed after the paragraph ending at line 128 for logical consistency.

Results

Line 256: Please correct the unit format to “km²”.

Lines 259–260: Consider including a change detection map illustrating land use and land cover (LULC) transitions or conversions, along with their corresponding area statistics.

Lines 313 and 315: The display order of Table 3 and Figure 6 should be interchanged for better continuity.

Line 359: Please ensure “km²” is used consistently.

Author Response

Thank you to the editor and reviewers. Your suggestions have been immensely helpful in improving the quality of our paper. We have carefully revised the manuscript based on your comments, as detailed below:

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has been well revised. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I would like to thank the authors for revising their manuscript following the reviewers comments and suggestions. The revised manuscript has considerably improved. I have one comment left for the authors to consider:

Lines 44-88: This paragraph in the introduction is now extremely lengthy. Consider breaking it down into 2-3 smaller paragraphs for readability purposes.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf