Assessing the Impact of Land Use and Land Cover Changes on Surface Temperature Dynamics Using Google Earth Engine: A Case Study of Tlemcen Municipality, Northwestern Algeria (1989–2019)
, Djamal Bengusmia 3, Kacemi Malika 1 and Khadidja El-Bahdja Djebbar 4
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease correct your manuscript according to the attached file
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
In terms of language and structure, the manuscript appears to be well-written and organized, but needs to fix some minor spelling errors
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the manuscript
„ Assessment of Impact of Land Use Changes on Land Surface Temperature using a model in Google Earth Engine in a SemiArid Zone: Case Study in Tlemcen, Algeria”
The paper is well-composed. The topic iquite interesting, but the article needs improvement in several aspects.
The aim and novelty of the article should be better described. The article should have a scientific aim.
The methodology and results are not clearly presented. Maps on page 10 have the same colors in legend for different values. The maps are not comparable. The same for figure 6 and 7, 8.
The text editing should be corrected, there are incorrect spaces between words.
The article fits the scope of International Journal of Geo-Information.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) Why single date image has been used for the decadal study? How is it justified?
2) Figure 1 is not clear.
3) Tables 3, 4, and 5 could be combined together.
4) In Figure 2, the ‘output’ box is coming out of nowhere. The snapshot is not properly taken as some of the works are marked in red. It needs to be checked thoroughly for such mistakes.
5) Chronological order should be identical, either ascending or descending. Figure 3 shows maps in descending order, while Figure 4 and Table 6 are in ascending order.
6) The LULC classification is abrupt in some places. From 1999 to 2009, there was a 0.15% increase in urban areas, which increased by 10% in the next decade. Similarly, vegetation change is also inconsistent from 1989 to 2019. Authors should check the LULC classification; otherwise, give a proper explanation for it along with proper literature support.
7) Table 7 is inconsistent with the correlation in Table 10 and Table 12. There is a clear negative correlation of the NDVI with the LST. However, the mean temperature of vegetation (Table 7) is the same as that of urban.
8) The discussion section should be separated from the result. Sections 3.7 and 4 should be part of the discussion section.
9) The conclusion section needs to be written more briefly with recommendations for future work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for your efforts
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you once again for your help. We sincerely appreciate your assistance in enhancing the quality of our submission.
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of the manuscript
„ Assessment of Impact of Land Use Changes on Land Surface Temperature using a model in Google Earth Engine in a SemiArid Zone: Case Study in Tlemcen, Algeria”
Thank you for improving the article, the quality of the article has increased. However, there are a few things that still need improvement.
Maps on page 17,19 and 21 still have the same colors in legend for different values (map 5a - present green color for value 27.30-31.66, and map 5b green color for value 27.95-33.26). The maps are not comparable.
The text editing should be corrected, there are incorrect spaces between paragraphs.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Comment1: Maps on page 17,19 and 21 still have the same colors in legend for different values (map 5a - present green color for value 27.30-31.66, and map 5b green color for value 27.95-33.26). The maps are not comparable.
Response 1: Thank you for your observation. We have addressed the issue regarding the consistent use of colors in the legend for different values on maps 5a and 5b. The colors have been adjusted to ensure consistency and comparability between the maps.
Comment 2: The text editing should be corrected, there are incorrect spaces between paragraphs.
Response 2: Thank you for your feedback regarding the text editing. We have thoroughly reviewed the document and made necessary corrections to address the incorrect spaces between paragraphs. We hope this revised version meets your expectations.
Thank you once again for your help. We sincerely appreciate your assistance in enhancing the quality of our submission.
Authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1) There are several typographical and formatting errors in the manuscript that needs to be corrected.
2) In Figure 2 the text is too small. They need to be larger size for better readability.
Comments on the Quality of English Language-
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Comment1: There are several typographical and formatting errors in the manuscript that needs to be corrected.
Response 1: Thank you for bringing the typographical and formatting errors to our attention. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected the manuscript, and we hope this revised version meets your expectations.
Comment 2: In Figure 2 the text is too small. They need to be larger size for better readability.
Thank you for your feedback. We have made modifications to the write-up in the figure to enhance readability, and we have enlarged the figure in landscape format to ensure clarity.
Thank you once again for your help. We sincerely appreciate your assistance in enhancing the quality of our submission.
Authors
