PCLM-D-24-00290

Mapping urban dynamics in Greater Sydney – a scalable multi-decadal local climate zone classification approach

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Sharma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 17 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Kenawy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please note that PLOS Climate has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, we expect all author-generated code to be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

2. Figures 1, 3 and 4: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions.

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps:

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov)

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl)

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The paper "Mapping urban dynamics in Greater Sydney – a scalable multi-decadal local climate zone classification approach" provides a valuable contribution by presenting a novel multi-decadal Local Climate Zone (LCZ) classification for Sydney from 1990 to 2020. Using machine learning and remote sensing, this study successfully tracks urbanization patterns, revealing significant shifts towards denser urban development over time. The methodology and accuracy metrics are well-explained, making this approach scalable for other cities globally, and offering valuable tools for urban planning and climate adaptation strategies.

However, some aspects of the article could be improved. First, the discussion should elaborate on the broader relevance of LCZ studies, particularly regarding the analysis of thermal behavior within urban spaces. Understanding LCZ dynamics can provide critical insights into urban microclimates and their implications for public health and urban resilience. These insights can also inform the creation of biophilic urban designs that prioritize integrating natural elements into cityscapes. To strengthen this perspective, the authors should incorporate references, which discusses urban morphological DNA, and the critical analysis of biophilia concepts in urban settings. Please see and add the following works: https://doi.org/10.15446/rcdg.v31n2.91309; https://doi.org/10.54517/esp.v8i3.1869

Moreover, the article would benefit from a more detailed discussion of the study’s limitations and future directions. For example, while the methodology effectively captures temporal changes, there is room to address potential biases from reliance on Landsat imagery, particularly in older datasets. The discussion could explore integrating more advanced techniques, such as deep learning models or higher-resolution datasets like Sentinel imagery, to enhance classification accuracy and applicability. Expanding on these limitations and suggesting specific methodological advancements for future research would significantly enhance the study’s contribution.

By addressing these points, the article could further emphasize the utility of LCZ mapping in designing sustainable and resilient urban environments, offering a robust foundation for urban planning and climate resilience initiatives.

Reviewer #2: I congratulate the authors for the clarity of the paper that is extremely well organized.

I found all the sections of the paper extremely well suited and capable to attract the attention of a wide range of scholars from different disciplines.

The issue investigated is very actual, and the paper furnish an interesting inside for planners to increase the potential of intervention in the regeneration of the urban environment.

I have no specific suggestions and, in my opinion, the paper is worthy of investigation in the present version.

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is good and addresses an interesting topic but needs revision.

1. The abstract does not contain quantitative results, please improve this.

2. The introduction in general needs improvement.

3. The methodology needs significant improvement.

- A table should be provided for the data used in the study with an explanation of its details.

- Please explain the methods used in an orderly manner and do not merge them with the data.

- You should be direct in writing the methodology.

4. The results contain references, interpretations and analysis of them, although you separated the discussion from them. You should be direct in writing the results only.

5. The discussion needs improvement and to be organized in an organized manner in its approach by dividing it into branches and thus discussing each part of the results properly. In addition, it should not contain figures that you can discuss the figure by referring to them.

5. The abstract should be rewritten and express the conclusions of the manuscript, the implications and the future of the study topic.

Reviewer #4: The manuscript “Mapping urban dynamics in Greater Sydney – a scalable multi-decadal local climate zone classification approach” presents a case study for multitemporal LCZ mapping. The topic is highly relevant, since little attention has been put on time resolved LCZ products. The manuscript is formally correct, well written in good scientific English, and generally well organized. The results are presented in suitable and clear figures and language, and the perception of literature is very good.

Yet, there are a few points which I suggest addressing before publication

First, relatively little detail is given regarding the multitemporal mapping procedure. While much emphasis is put on the generation of multi-temporal training data, less detail is given regarding the classification algorithm. The manuscript states that the classification is done according to [16], but (only) from the acknowledgments it becomes clear, that a different code of Matthias Demuzere has been used instead. This is relevant, since many of the features used in the LCZ-generator [16] are not available for previous timesteps. While it is stated that Landsat data and band ratios are applied, it would be worthy elaborating a bit more on the methodology and comparing the result with those from the full feature set using the LCZ generator for 2020. Also, the shortcomings resulting from this reduced data availability could be discussed a bit more.

Second, the chapters 4 and 5 are somewhat redundant and contain summary elements as does the abstract. I suggest to slightly rearranging them and turn 5 into conclusions with less repetition of background motivation and methodology.

Finally, it was decided to not apply any temporal filtering. This is in line with the aim to create a robust and transferable method, since such filtering always requires a priori knowledge. Yet it also has disadvantages, since for two (statistically independent) classifications with an OA of 70 % each, for two subsequent time steps less than 50 % of the pixels remains the same even without any land cover change. Here, certainly a higher consistency is achieved by the TA selection process, yet the effect of this on the transition deserves some more discussion – e.g. it could be checked how frequently a pixel turns into another class and subsequently turns back in the original class as a measure for the temporal robustness and consistency. Generally, the transition rates can be assumed to be overestimated.

Minor points:

L 79 ff -> WUDAPT is the community program, not LCZ.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: Yes:  Hélder S. Lopes

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PCLM-D-24-00290R1

Mapping urban dynamics in Greater Sydney – a scalable multi-decadal local climate zone classification approach

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Sharma,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 27 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ahmed Kenawy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

Reviewer #4: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria ? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: I don't know

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: After the revisions made, the paper can be accepted for publications. All comments have been addressed.

Congratulations.

Reviewer #2:

1. The abstract does not contain quantitative results, please improve this.

✔� Addressed.

2. The introduction in general needs improvement.

❌ The authors did not adequately address this comment. They only reworded some sentences without making substantial improvements.

3. The methodology needs significant improvement.

- A table should be provided for the data used in the study with an explanation of its details.

- Please explain the methods used in an orderly manner and do not merge them with the data.

- You should be direct in writing the methodology.

⚠� Partially addressed.

4. The results contain references, interpretations and analysis of them, although you separated the discussion from them. You should be direct in writing the results only.

➡� Please remove all references from the results section.

5. The discussion needs improvement and to be organized in an organized manner in its approach by dividing it into branches and thus discussing each part of the results properly. In addition, it should not contain figures that you can discuss the figure by referring to them.

❌ This comment was not addressed.

5. The abstract should be rewritten and express the conclusions of the manuscript, the implications and the future of the study topic.

❌ This important comment was not taken into account.

Reviewer #3: 

I think the study benefits from the additional random transition analysis. If you cannot accommodate it in the main text, you could still put it in the appendix.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes:  Benjamin Bechtel

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Mapping urban dynamics in Greater Sydney – a scalable multi-decadal local climate zone classification approach

PCLM-D-24-00290R2

Dear Mr. Sharma,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Mapping urban dynamics in Greater Sydney – a scalable multi-decadal local climate zone classification approach' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Ahmed Kenawy, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************