Evaluation of Urban Thermal Comfort and Its Relationship with Land Use/Land Cover Change: A Case Study of Three Urban Agglomerations, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

This research sounds good, but the way that its idea is developed should be improved.

First, the introduction has not been based on a story in which follow of arguments can be detected easily. Indeed, research objectives, knowledge gaps and background should be connected in that all of them follow a logical line.

Second, you have extracted good results based on your research objectives, but they have not been interpreted appropriately in the discussion. In other words, the relationship between the introduction, results, and discussion is not evident in your research.

Also, there are some issues regarding the format of the paper, which have been highlighted and noted in the manuscript pdf file.

Very best wishes,

Reviewer

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to review our manuscript. We have resubmitted the modified version. We greatly appreciate reviewers' careful and constructive comments on our manuscript.

please check the attachment

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The abstract needs to be improved.

All the acronyms should be defined the first time used.

In the Introduction section, some concepts should be properly defined. Moreover, some important references are missing.

In Section 2.1 critical information is missing in the characterization of each area: mean temperature, precipitation, etc...

The acronyms should only be defined once (the first time used). This should be checked and corrected throughout the document.

2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 - why were these years chosen?

Figure 2- several corrections are needed

Equation 4 should be better explained.

Fig 3 - more aggregated classes, i.e. fewer classes, would give a better idea of the changes.

Section 3.2- the definition of UHI is not an increase of temperature...is more complex. The authors should revise this. I think there is some confusion between temperature rise and the definition of UHI. This need to be corrected.

The discussion section does not make sense. The authors should compare this work with similar works in other areas.

The Conclusion section should be reformulated. The authors should give the main limitations of this work and their applicability to other areas.

Several sentences need to be improved (rewritten).

Several sentences need to be properly justified.

The reference list is quite poor and should be improved.

 

See all my comments in the PDF file attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to review our manuscript. We have resubmitted the modified version. We greatly appreciate reviewers' careful and constructive comments on our manuscript.

please check the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Overall, the topic of this paper is attractive to investigate the variation of urban thermal environments of three agglomerations in China. However, the English should be significantly improved and I have several technical concerns and hope authors can revise this paper critically.

The original findings presented in the abstract are far from attractive and such conclusions have been well identified in existing studies, particularly the one in line 14-16. Please authors revise it.

In the abstract, authors have not well presented the methods they adopted to show the thermal comfort and how to link thermal comfort with surface temperature. This is a key question.

Line 32-43, authors must know that the thermal challenges in cities are not only related to heat island. The global warming is a more critical issue since the temperature could easily reach 40 degree in summer during the heatwave period. Please refer Beating the urban heat: Situation, background, impacts and the way forward in China. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 161, 112350.

Introduction, line 58-59, I do not this research gap is solid. Please rewrite the content in line 54-60 to present a strong research gap. It would be great if authors can include thermal comfort in the research gap. An only consideration of the thermal environment is not new, but your paper title shows thermal comfort which is attractive.

Section 2.2, authors are encouraged to show the data resolution.

Subsection 2.3.2 I did not see the relationship between UTCI and THI. How do you calculate it? You must describe the data source well.

In the abstract, authors have mentioned that the urbanization is a big driver, but what kinds of factors do you consider as the divers. Please present it in the method section.

In the method section, authors have not presented the weather condition (air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed in 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020) and the cloud cover. Such factors can affect the surface temperature.

Author Response

Thank you very much for giving us an opportunity to review our manuscript. We have resubmitted the modified version. We greatly appreciate reviewers' careful and constructive comments on our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

It can be accepted in its current form.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Your approval and comment are crucial and helpful to the improvement of our paper. 

Best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

Authors.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the paper according to the reviewers’ comments. According to my previous comments:

• The abstract was slightly improved.

• The acronyms were defined the first time used.

• In the Introduction section, some important references were added.

• In Section 2.1 critical information was added in the characterization of each area: mean temperature, precipitation, etc...

• Section 2.2- more information regarding the data was added

• Figure 2 was improved

• The equation numbers were added to the text

• Equation 4- the dependent and independent variables were clarified.

• The discussion and Conclusions sections were improved.

However, some points still need to be improved:

• No quantitative results were added to the abstract

• 2005, 2010, 2015, 2020 - why were these years chosen? 5 years of interval? and MODIS data availability?

• Tables 1 and 2- a reference is missing

• My major concern still is the confusion between LST and UHI. The authors should consult the literature and state their relationship (and differences).

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. For your comments, we have modified them one by one and please see our responses in the attachment.

Your approval and comment are crucial and helpful to the improvement of our paper. 

Best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

Authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

N/A

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript.

Your approval and comment are crucial and helpful to the improvement of our paper. 

Best wishes to you.

Sincerely,

Authors.