Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2026 Mar 19;21(3):e0344026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344026

Optimizing spatial equity of urban park cooling services: Integrating landscape metrics with K-means and PSO algorithms in Nanchang, China

Youqiang Zhao 1, Liu Pinyi 2, Gong Peng 3,*, Zhang Jian Ping 4,*
Editor: Qiwei Ma5
PMCID: PMC13001981  PMID: 41855169

Abstract

Urban parks and green spaces (UPGS) provide critical cooling services to mitigate urban heat islands, yet their equitable distribution remains poorly addressed. This study integrated landscape metrics with spatial optimization algorithms to quantify and enhance the cooling equity of UPGS in Nanchang, China—a city experiencing severe heat stress. Using Landsat 8TIRS data (2021), we analyzed 85 UPGS to extract cooling indicators (LST, PCI, PCA, PCG) and correlated them with landscape composition (area, perimeter, impervious/green/water coverage) and pattern indices (PD, LPI, etc.). Network analysis based on road networks and 3,024 settlements evaluated accessibility to cooling ranges. Results showed 71 UPGS exhibited significant cooling effects (P < 0.05), with optimal thresholds at 60 hm2 area and 3 km perimeter. Water coverage was most strongly associated with lower LST (R2 = 0.4284), while complex green patch morphology extended cooling distance. Crucially, only 71.2% of residents could access cooling services within a 15-min walk, revealing severe suburban disparities (e.g., 59.1% coverage outside Second Ring Road vs. > 73% intra-city). To address gaps, we combined K-means clustering (identifying 18 optimal UPGS additions) and Particle Swarm Optimization (locating placements prioritizing suburban demand). This framework bridges micro-scale UPGS design (e.g., maximizing water bodies) and macro-scale algorithmic spatial planning, offering actionable strategies for thermally equitable cities.

1. Introduction

The clustering of the urban population has become a widespread characteristic of global development [1]. As of 2020, more than 56% of the global population resides in urban areas, occupying merely 0.7% of the Earth’s land area [2,3]. The significant imbalance between population size and permanent land utilization has exacerbated human-environment conflicts. This imbalance manifests acutely in challenges related to equitable access to public resources and the exacerbation of urban climate issues, such as the urban heat island (UHI) effect [4]. The UHI effect, a typical extreme urban climate phenomenon, significantly endangers the urban atmospheric and water environments, as well as residents’ health, by modifying heat transfer between the atmosphere and the surface [59]. Extensive research has demonstrated the valuable ecological benefits of urban parks and green spaces (UPGS) as an important part of the city’s green infrastructure while supporting residents’ outdoor recreation [1013]. Within UPGS, vegetation lowers local surface temperature through shading and evapotranspiration (plant transpiration), while water bodies contribute primarily through evaporation. “This localized cooling phenomenon is commonly termed the “cooling island effect” (CIE) [1416].

Research indicates key landscape composition metrics influencing UPGS CIE include area, perimeter, integration index, impervious and green surface coverage, and water body coverage [1719]. For instance, the average surface temperature within UPGS generally exhibits a positive correlation with water bodies and green coverage, while demonstrating a negative correlation with impervious surfaces [2023]. Additionally, the intricacy of green space and water body morphology can amplify the CIE of UPGS [21]. The relationship between UPGS CIE and both area and perimeter is nonlinear, characterized by thresholds beyond which cooling benefits diminish [23,24]. In addition, the landscape pattern index in landscape ecology possesses a further description of the urban cold island pattern [2528]. For example, the degree of aggregation and complexity of water body patches enhances the cooling benefits, and the degree of separation between impervious surface patches and green space patches is also positively correlated with the cooling benefits under certain thresholds [2932].However, despite substantial research on the relationship between UPGS landscape composition and cooling indicators [3335], two critical gaps persist. First, the issue of equitable spatial distribution of UPGS cooling services has received comparatively less attention [36]. Second, there is a lack of integrated frameworks that translate empirical findings on cooling mechanisms into actionable spatial planning solutions.

The CIE provided by UPGS constitutes a valuable public ecosystem service, yet its distribution is often spatially uneven across urban communities [37]. This unequal distribution pattern often correlates with decisions made by local governments and prevailing economic conditions [38,39]. A significant portion of urban residents, particularly those exposed to extreme heat events, being immediate beneficiaries of this resource, should garner greater attention towards its equitable distribution [40]. Accessibility, as a key reference for environmental justice issues, has been more maturely constructed as a correlation between the supply of UPGS resource services and the demand of the population [40]. Directing attention to urban residents’ access to the cooling range of UPGS can better guide the provision of cooling services and foster environmental justice [41]. Established methods for evaluating UPGS accessibility encompass the minimum distance method, buffer analysis, gravity model, network analysis, and two-step floating catchment area. The minimum distance method and buffer analysis overlook the actual road network [42], while the gravity model and two-step floating catchment area consider various factors including attraction, supply, demand, and spatial friction. However, they involve complex data requirements and determining the resistance coefficient is challenging [43,44]. Conversely, the network analysis method revolves around supply points and calculates service areas based on the actual road network within specific time or distance parameters. It prioritizes residents’ time and cost constraints, aligning more consistently with an assessment of the fairness of the CIE [40,45]. Simultaneously, analyzing the spatial distribution pattern of UPGS cooling services aids in optimizing the subsequent spatial layout of UPGS cooling services. Previous research on optimizing UPGS resource fairness employed genetic algorithms to attain the most equitable UPGS layout [46], and the siting of ecological land through the combination of multi-intelligentsia and ant colony algorithms [47]. However, these two methods entail complex parameter settings and are more prone to local optimal solution issues [48]. To address these limitations, this study employs a combined approach utilizing the K-means clustering algorithm (KMS) and the Particle Swarm Optimization algorithm (PSO). This framework aims to identify cooling service equity by determining the optimal planning strategy for new UPGS. Specifically, the former (KMS) calculates the optimal number of new UPGS required within the identified blind zones, while the latter (PSO) identifies their precise spatial locations.

Both quantifying and optimizing the UPGS CIE and its equitable distribution are crucial given the intensifying urban thermal environment [49]. This study focuses on Nanchang City, the capital of Jiangxi Province and a major economic hub in East China, experiencing population growth and urban expansion in recent decades. As per the seventh national census, Nanchang’s resident population has reached 6,255,000, showing an increase of 1,123,000 from the previous census, with an urbanization rate nearing 80% [50]. Rapid urbanization and economic development in Nanchang, often involving the conversion of agricultural and forest land, have not only yielded economic growth but also intensified urban climate extremes [51]. Statistics indicate that between June and August 2022, Nanchang City experienced 55 days with temperatures exceeding 35°C including 12 days with extreme temperatures above 39°C (https://www.tianqi24.com/), earning Nanchang the title of “China’s four major hot stove cities.” Therefore, investigating the spatial patterns and drivers of UPGS CIE in Nanchang is crucial for informing strategies to enhance urban thermal comfort and livability.

In summary, this study develops and applies a novel, closed-loop analytical framework for Nanchang’s UPGS that integrates microscopic analysis with macroscopic spatial planning to bridge the identified research gaps.This is achieved through four logically consecutive steps:1) Quantify the CIE of UPGS and its correlation with landscape metrics to identify key cooling drivers (LST, PCI, PCA, PCG); 2) Assess the spatial equity of residents’ access to cooling services to diagnose priority areas in need; 3) Proposing an optimized spatial plan for new UPGS using KMS and PSO algorithms, thereby synthesizing the insights from cooling drivers and equity gaps to maximize coverage; and 4) Discussing how the micro-level design implications and macro-level planning strategies, derived from the previous steps, can be combined to guide thermally equitable urban development (Fig 1). The principal contribution of this work lies in this translational framework that explicitly links empirical understanding of cooling mechanisms to algorithmic optimization for equitable spatial planning, offering a replicable model for cities facing similar heat equity challenges.

Fig 1. Conceptual framework for assessing and planning the CIE in urban parks and green spaces.

Fig 1

2. Materials and methods

Study area

Situated in East China, Nanchang City serves as the capital of Jiangxi Province, spanning longitude 115°27’-116°35’E and latitude 28°10’-29°11’N (Fig 1). Covering an area of 1005 km2, Nanchang comprises seven districts: Donghu, Xihu, Honggutan, Qingyunpu, Qingshan Lake, Xinjian, and Nanchang County. The city is delineated by the First Ring Road and Second Ring Road into core urban, inner suburban, and outer suburban zones (Fig 2). Nanchang experiences a typical subtropical monsoon climate characterized by abundant heat and rainfall. Nonetheless, substantial annual variations in monsoon strength result in significant temperature fluctuations, leading to frequent meteorological disasters such as high temperatures, droughts, cold spells, and related damages. As per the data from the Nanchang Temperature Network, the average daily maximum temperature over the last three years has been 24°C with an average annual rainfall of 956.7 mm. Moreover, there is a notable trend of increasing occurrences of hot weather (https://www.tianqi24.com/).

Fig 2. Geographic location of the study area and spatial distribution and land use of urban park green spaces (The base map for this figure contains data from OpenStreetMap (available under the Open Database License) and Landsat 8TIRS).

Fig 2

Data sources and processing

2.1.1. Remote sensing image data.

Surface temperature data for Nanchang City was obtained from Landsat 8TIRS remote sensing data captured on September 25, 2021, along path 121, row 40, with near-zero cloud cover (<1%). On the day of satellite transit, Nanchang City experienced temperatures ranging from 26°C to 36°C, as reported by the China Meteorological Data Network (http://data.cma.cn/).

Land data were obtained from the initial national land cover map (SinoLC-1) with a 1m resolution in China [52], and the original land use data were partially corrected by manually visually interpreting 0.6m-resolution high-definition remote sensing imagery, focusing on UPGS boundaries and land cover types within UPGS, to maximize the restoration of the most recent original site appearance.

2.1.2. UPGS indicator extraction.

Initially, the Point of Interest (POI) directory of UPGS in Nanchang City was accessed using Python, followed by utilizing the Baidu map application programming interface to extract the Area of Interest (AOI) UPGS data, which was then imported into the map. Considering that the use of UPGS by residents near the boundary of the study area is not limited to the internal area, the UPGS in the 3-km buffer zone on the periphery of the study area was also set as the study object, and a total of 85 UPGS were counted and crawled. With reference to the “Nanchang City Green Space System Planning (Revision) (2015-2020)”, we classified the 85 UPGSs in the study area into four categories by the area parameter of the UPGSs: comprehensive (≥25 hm2, the number of 20), city-wide ([5–25] hm2, the number of 41), regional ([2 –5] hm2, the number of 13), and community (<2 hm2, the number of 11). Since some of the UPGS scales are small, the UPGS land use types are classified into three categories: impervious surfaces, greenery, and water bodies, which were reclassified into three categories: impervious surfaces (including roads and buildings), greenery (including forests, grasslands, croplands, and unused land), and water bodies [25]. The land use information after the reclassification of the three UPGSs is shown in Fig 2.

To quantify the landscape composition indexes of UPGS, ArcMap 10.6 software (ArcGIS Desktop 10.6, https://www.esri.com/) was utilized to extract the area, perimeter, and shape index of UPGS as fundamental composition indexes. Furthermore, the reclassified impervious cover, green cover, and water body cover were extracted to serve as park surface cover indexes. Based on prior study, six landscape pattern indices were considered: patch density (PD), landscape patch index (LPI), landscape shape index (LSI), division index (DIVISION), split index (SPLIT), and aggregation index (AI) [53] (Table 1).

Table 1. Meaning of landscape pattern index [53].
Landscape pattern index Meaning Landscape pattern index Meaning
The patch density PD A measure of the population density of individual patches within an area, used to assess the complexity and diversity of ecosystems. Division index DIVISION Refers to the degree to which the landscape is fragmented, reflecting the complexity of the spatial structure of the landscape.
Landscape patch index LPI The proportion of total landscape area occupied by the largest patch in the patch type. Split index SPLIT Refers to the separation of the distribution of different patch numbers of individuals in a given landscape type.
Landscape shape index LSI Means the total edge length of the relevant patch type divided by the minimum possible value of the total edge length. Aggregation index AI Measures the degree of aggregation of patches in the landscape, i.e., connectivity and distance between neighboring patches.

2.1.3. Calculation of UPGS CIE Indicators.

Previous studies have compared three methods for land surface temperature inversion, namely, the radiative transfer equation method, the single-channel algorithm, and the split-window algorithm, have been compared, and it is found that the surface temperature data inverted by the radiative transfer equation method are the closest to the measured values [22,54]. Therefore, this study also adopts the radiation equation transmission method to invert the surface temperature with Landsat 8TIRS remote sensing data from Nanchang City in the software ENVI 5.6 (The Environment for Visualizing Images, https://envi.geoscene.cn/appstore/), and the results are shown in Fig 3. To quantify the cooling effect of UPGS, a 3000m buffer surrounding 85 UPGS was generated in ArcMap 10.6.This buffer distance was selected as a conservative threshold to fully encompass the potential cooling range of all parks, thereby ensuring the complete capture of the cooling gradient for each UPGS, including those with the largest observed cooling distances [55]. The buffer was then overlaid with the surface inversion result layer to derive the surface temperature within the buffer zone. Within MATLAB 2023a, concentric 30m-wide buffer rings were generated outward from each UPGS boundary up to 3000m. The mean LST within each ring was calculated, generating an LST profile (cooling curve) for each UPGS [56] (Fig 4). Following the principle of decreasing boundaries, the surface temperature within the buffer increases progressively with distance from the UPGS, indicating a decrease in cooling efficiency [56]. We evaluated the cooling capacity of the whole UPGS in terms of the first turning point of the temperature profile based on previous study, which was objectively identified as the breakpoint where the cooling gradient changed most significantly, using a piecewise linear regression algorithm.. The distance from the boundary of the UPGS to the turning point was defined as the maximum cooling distance (Lmax) for the cold-island effect, and quantified the cold-island effect by the cooling amplitude (PCI), the cooling distance (PCA), and the cooling efficiency (PCG) [57]. PCI is defined as the difference between the surface temperature at the first inflection point and the mean surface temperature of the UPGS; PCA is defined as the maximum buffer affected by the CIE of the UPGS, i.e.,the linear distance from the UPGS boundary to the inflection point; and PCG stands for the slope of the curve, which is defined as the mean cooling intensity per unit of distance, i.e., PCI/Lmax [58].

Fig 3. Surface temperature of the study area (The base map for this figure contains data from OpenStreetMap (available under the Open Database License) and Landsat 8TIRS).

Fig 3

Fig 4. Schematic diagram of UPGS cooling curve.

Fig 4

2.1.4. Statistical analysis of CIE data.

To investigate the impact of different UPGS landscape composition indicators on the CIE, Pearson or Spearman correlation analysis was performed in SPSS 23.0, as appropriate based on the Kolmogorov-Smirnov normality test results, ensuring the robustness of correlation inferences. Variables showing significant correlations (e.g., P < 0.05 or P < 0.01) were further analyzed using regression modeling in Origin 2022 to explore potential predictive relationships. Furthermore, to ensure the robustness of the statistical findings, the variance inflation factor (VIF) was calculated for all independent variables, with values below 5 indicating no severe multicollinearity. A Bonferroni correction was applied to account for multiple comparisons. As most results were nominally significant (P < 0.05) but did not meet the stringent corrected threshold (P < 0.005), they are cautiously interpreted as indicating potential trends in the discussion of our findings.

Analysis of CIE intensity direction

In addition to the aforementioned frequent academic references to the influence of the three major constituent indicators of UPGS on the CIE, determining the direction of the intensity of the CIE is similarly beneficial in guiding the construction of a more cooling-efficient UPGS and better serving urban residents [59,60]. The direction of the strong effect of the cold island was determined by using the Hot and Cold Spot Analysis tool and the Standard Ellipse Difference tool in ArcMap. Several representative UPGSs are selected, and the hot and cold spots inside the UPGSs and buffer zones are calculated and the standard ellipse is generated, and then the factors affecting the direction of the CIE of the UPGSs are determined by comparing the ellipse pointing direction and the flatness of the two, which can provide suggestions for the subsequent layout of the cold spots in the UPGSs.

Accessibility analysis of the CIE and its layout optimization

Accessibility refers to residents’ ability to spatially reach the cooling range of Urban Parks and Green Spaces (UPGS), directly quantifying the cooling benefits provided. However, as the cooling range is typically spatially extensive and morphologically complex, and its service (spatial accessibility) does not involve supply and demand in terms of quantifiable resource volumes, the assessment primarily focuses on residents’ time and cost constraints during travel. Therefore, network analysis serves as the core method for evaluating accessibility to the UPGS cooling effect [56], as it realistically simulates travel along the road network to reach this cooling range while incorporating time and distance constraints.

This study’s network analysis method is rooted in Nanchang City’s actual road network. It simulates the traffic resistance encountered by residents walking on foot, reconstructing the time residents spend accessing the UPGS’s cooling range. Road data for Nanchang City was acquired by accessing the OpenStreetMap website (https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright), and then imported into ArcMap for subsequent analyses after topology checking, road network matching, data correction, and filtering. Settlement data were gathered from Anjuke’s website (https://wuhan.anjuke.com/), one of China’s largest second-hand housing trading platforms. After filtering and correcting, 3024 settlements were obtained, and the community population count was derived by multiplying the number of households in the community by the administrative unit’s population (Nanchang City Bureau of Statistics). Additionally, considering traffic light conditions and variations in walking ease across road types, residents’ walking speed was set at 1 m/s on main roads and 1.2 m/s on internal roads, branch roads, and secondary roads [61]. The intersection of the PCA service boundary and each UPGS road was designated as the cooling service’s supply point, establishing service zones accessible within 5, 10, and 15-minute walking times. The equity level of cooling services in Nanchang was evaluated by counting the number of residents in each service zone.

Cooling service supply-blind zones are addressed by integrating the KMS and PSO. KMS clusters settlements lacking cooling coverage, with its interpretability, simplicity, and scalability for large datasets [62] enabling determination of the optimal cluster count (*k*)—representing needed UPGS locations—using the elbow method based on Euclidean distance metrics. Seamlessly integrated, PSO then spatially optimizes siting by initializing particles at KMS cluster centroids, where each particle encodes a candidate UPGS location [63]. The objective function minimizes total Euclidean distance from uncovered settlements to their nearest new UPGS, maximizing coverage efficiency. Particles iteratively update positions using personal best (pbest) and global best (gbest) values until convergence or iteration limits (e.g., 2,000 cycles) are met, ultimately outputting the gbest coordinates as optimal pre-siting locations for *k* new UPGS.

3. Analysis of results

Temperature characterization of the city as a whole and UPGS

The surface inversion results in Nanchang exhibit a minimum temperature of 30.2°C and a maximum temperature of 57.5°C. The mean-standard deviation method is employed to categorize the inversion results into five classes (Fig 3). Among these classes, the high-temperature zone is predominantly concentrated in the lower-right corner of the first and second ring roads and the lower-left corner of the second ring road. This area coincides with the dense distribution of industrial zones in Nanchang. The sub-high-temperature zone covers the region within the first and second ring roads and the edge of the second ring road, closely overlapping with the distribution of settlements in Nanchang. The low-temperature zone and the sub-low-temperature zone are primarily situated in the urban fringe areas, large water bodies, and dispersed UPGS. The high-temperature areas where residents congregate are geographically distant from the primary low-temperature areas of the city. The dispersed UPGS in Nanchang serves as the primary source of cooling services that most residents can enjoy at a low cost.

Statistically, among the 85 UPGS in Nanchang City, 71 exhibit significant CIEs (P < 0.05) while most of the 14 UPGS without CIEs are dominated by large areas of impervious surfaces or grasslands, lacking significant plant shading and water bodies, which is also consistent with previous studies [64,65]. Some of these 71 UPGS are influenced by surrounding environmental cooling services. Their exclusion minimizes errors in correlational studies of UPGS CIEs, not hindering subsequent explorations. Post-screening, the 56 retained UPGS displayed an LST of 40.281°C, which is much lower than the LST of 41.253°C for the whole of Nanchang city. Among them, the LST of the highest UPGS was 45.302°C, and the lowest LST was 34.392°C, with a difference of more than 10°C. This also indirectly demonstrates that the differences in the landscape composition indexes of the UPGSs can significantly affect the CIE. Further analyses revealed that UPGS’ PCI ranged from 0.02°C to 3.096°C (average 1.054°C), PCA spanned from 30m to 1380m (average 396m), and PCG ranged from 0.0012°C/m to 0.006°C/m (average 0.0034°C/m). Subsequently, the data were statistically analyzed using the park type of the UPGS as the X-axis and the cooling distance (PCI) and cooling amplitude (PCA) of the UPGS as the Y-axis to observe the dispersion of the data (Fig 5). It was found that larger comprehensive UPGS showcased the highest PCI and PCA, while smaller community-type UPGS demonstrated a more consistent CIE (Fig 5). In addition, the PCA gap between regional, citywide, and composite UPGSs was not significant, suggesting that exploring landscape composition metrics other than area is necessary for the enhancement of CIE in UPGS.

Fig 5. Box line plot of UPGS CIE.

Fig 5

Correlation between UPGS landscape composition indicators and CIE

Before conducting the correlation analysis of the CIE, the distribution of UPGS landscape composition indicators and quantitative CIE indicators were assessed. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test revealed that LST, PCA, PCI, impervious surface PD, green space PD, impervious AI, and green space AI displayed normal distributions and correlation analyses were conducted using Pearson. Conversely, the remaining landscape composition indicators and quantitative CIE indicators exhibited non-normal distributions. Spearman correlation analysis was employed for the non-normally distributed data [66].

3.1.1. Analysis of UPGS basic composition indicators and surface coverage indicators.

The correlation analysis between UPGS basic constituent indexes, surface cover indexes, and the quantitative CIE indexes is depicted in Fig 6. The analysis revealed significantly negative relationships (P < 0.01) between LST and UPGS area, perimeter, shape index, and water body coverage. However, no significant correlation was observed between LST and impervious surface coverage and green coverage. PCI showed a significant (P < 0.05) negative correlation with UPGS perimeter, impervious surface coverage, and water body coverage (P < 0.01), while its correlation with impervious surface coverage and green coverage was non-significant. PCA displayed a substantial positive correlation (P < 0.01) with UPGS area, perimeter, shape index, and water body coverage, alongside a significant negative correlation (P < 0.05) with impervious surface coverage. Conversely, PCG exhibited no significant correlations with the basic composition and surface cover indicators. Crucially, it was found that green coverage demonstrated no statistically significant correlation with any of the three quantitative CIE indicators (PCI, PCA, and PCG). This discrepancy may be attributed to the composition of vegetation types within Nanchang’s UPGS. It is plausible that a considerable portion of the ‘green coverage’ is comprised of lawns or shrubs, which have a markedly lower cooling effect through evapotranspiration compared to dense canopy trees, as evidenced by studies in similar climatic contexts [31,67], suggests that within the specific context of Nanchang’s UPGS, the mere presence of green area is not a reliable predictor of cooling efficiency, and underscores that perimeter has a more determinant role than green coverage among the basic landscape metrics [68].

Fig 6. Heat map of significance analysis of UPGS CIE with basic constituent indicators and surface cover indicators.

Fig 6

To elucidate the quantitative relationship between UPGS basic constituent indicators, surface cover indicators, and the CIE, fitting models are constructed based on correlation analysis. Observing a-d in Fig 7, the UPGS area showed the strongest linear relationship with LST among the basic composition indicators, represented by a fitting coefficient R2 of 0.4284, followed by UPGS perimeter, shape index, and water body coverage. LST diminishes as the UPGS area gradually increases, and the slope levels off beyond a specific threshold value. In conjunction with Fig 7h, which relates to another area metric, it can be seen that the impact threshold for the area of the UPGS is 60 hm2, beyond which both the LST decrease and the PCA increase taper off to zero. Evident from Fig 7’s e-g, PCI has the highest degree of correlation with UPGS perimeter, followed by impervious surface coverage and water body coverage. Considering b, e, and i in Fig 7, the maximum cold island benefit is observed at a UPGS perimeter of 3 km. Lastly, from the h-l observations in Fig 7, UPGS area, perimeter, and impervious surface coverage affect PCA similarly, while the UPGS shape index has a lesser impact in relation to water body coverage. Combining the other fitted models for impervious surface coverage in Fig 7, it is evident that lower impervious coverage significantly benefits the CIE of the UPGS.

Fig 7. Correlation factor analysis of the UPGS CIE with basic constituent indicators and surface cover indicators (a-l).

Fig 7

From the above analyses, it can be concluded that the CIE of UPGS isn’t singularly determined but rather influenced by various interrelated factors, each with different impacts, and this conclusion has been confirmed by the total number of scholars [21,53,69]. By comparing these factors, the landscape composition indicators with the greatest influence on the CIE are identified, facilitating the optimization of the UPGS layout. For instance, a UPGS with an area of 60 hm2 and a perimeter of 3 km falls within the threshold range for generating a stronger CIE. Moreover, reduced impervious surface area and increased water body area correlate with lower LST and larger PCA.

3.1.2. Landscape pattern index analysis.

Besides the analysis of UPGS basic composition and surface cover indexes, exploring the relationship between UPGS landscape pattern indexes and ambient temperatures is valuable [56,70]. In this study, six landscape pattern indexes, namely PD, LPI, LSI, DIVISION, SPLIT, and AI, were introduced. Retained indices were extracted into Origin to build a correlation model (Fig 8), excluding landscape pattern indices with non-significant correlations in SPSS. The results revealed positive correlations between impervious surface PD, green PD, water body PD, and LST in Fig 8a. Impervious surface PD had the steepest slope, followed by green PD, and water body PD. This suggests that higher patch densities of impervious surfaces and greenery bodies contribute to higher internal UPGS temperatures, with water bodies having the smallest impact. Fig 8b displays a positive correlation between impervious surface LPI and LST, while water body LPI had a negative correlation with LST. This indicates that lower percentages of impervious surfaces and higher percentages of water bodies within UPGS result in lower internal temperatures. In Fig 8c, both impervious surface DIVISION and water body DIVISION negatively correlated with LST, but the correlation for water body DIVISION was weaker. This suggests that higher fragmentation and more divisions within impervious surface patches enhance the CIE, while the degree of division among water body patches makes a limited contribution. In Fig 8d, impervious surface SPLIT showed a negative correlation with LST, while water body SPLIT exhibited an exponential positive correlation with LST. This implies that finer-grained water body patches and greater spatial separation result in higher internal UPGS temperatures, but this negative impact gradually diminishes beyond a certain threshold. On the other hand, higher spatial aggregation of impervious surface patches favors the UPGS’s CIE, also exhibiting a threshold effect. In Fig 8e, green AI negatively correlated with LST, while water body AI showed a positive correlation. This indicates that higher dispersion of water body patches or greater aggregation of greenery patches and stronger connectivity promotes the CIE of UPGS, confirming the reliability of the water body SPLIT conclusion. In Fig 8f, green LSI and PCA primarily exhibited a positive exponential correlation. Within a specific threshold, the complexity of greenery patch morphology had no significant correlation with UPGS PCA. And breaking through a certain threshold, higher complexity in greenery patch morphology is more conducive to expanding the CIE’s scope in UPGS.

Fig 8. Factor analysis of the correlation between UPGS CIE and landscape pattern indicators (a-f).

Fig 8

Analysis of the direction of UPGS CIE intensity

Determining the direction of UPGS CIE intensity is crucial for optimizing UPGS layout and resident distribution [59]. We selected three representative UPGSs from the 56 available: Aixi Lake Park, a large UPGS with a water source; Meihu Park, a medium-sized UPGS with a water source; and Yangming Park, a small UPGS without a water source. We employed the standard deviation ellipse tool for directional analysis of cold island intensity [60,71]. In Fig 9a, the distribution of cold spots within Aixi Lake Park is mainly contributed by water bodies, and their distribution in the buffer zone mirrors that in the green space. The flattening rate of ellipse 1 in the park is much smaller than that of ellipse 2 in the buffer zone, indicating a more distinct CIE direction within the park. Ellipse 1 and 2 share a similar orientation, aligned with the long axis of the park’s water body, highlighting the larger water body’s pivotal role in determining the cold island intensity direction within the park and its buffer zone. Fig 9b reveals that Meihu Park’s smaller water body area, ellipse 1, aligns with the long axis of the water body, while ellipse 2’s orientation leans more towards the water body between the green space and water body cold spot effects. Ellipse 3 in the park is considerably less oblate than ellipse 4 in the buffer zone. Once again, the predominance of water bodies compared to green spaces in determining the direction of the UPGS cold island strength is confirmed. Fig 9c shows that cold spots in waterless Yangming Park are mainly influenced by green space inside the park, while those in the buffer zone are more affected by building shadows than greenery. Ellipses 5 and 6 exhibit similar oblateness. In the park, the ellipse’s orientation aligns with the greenery’s long axis, while in the buffer zone, it is governed by high-rise building shadows. This suggests that greenery within the waterless park primarily dictates the cold island intensity direction inside the park, whereas high-rise building distribution influences the cold island intensity direction within the buffer zone.

Fig 9. Directional analysis of UPGS CIE: Aixi Lake Park (a), Meihu Park (b), Yangming Park (c) (The base map for this figure contains satellite imagery from the U.S. Geological Survey (public domain)).

Fig 9

In summary, water bodies play a pivotal role in determining the direction of cold island intensities within watered parks and their buffer zones. However, the strength of this influence is also influenced by the water bodies’ proportion. Conversely, in parks without water or with a low percentage of water bodies and their buffer zones, the direction of cold island intensity is influenced not only by greenery but also by the distribution of high-rise buildings. This finding aligns with previous studies [60,72].

Equity analysis of the CIE and its optimization

There is evidence of inequity in the provision of cooling services by UPGS in Nanchang. A network analysis model was developed, using 71 UPGS with CIEs as cooling supply points and 3024 residential locations in Nanchang as demand points. The results revealed that 71.2% of residents could access cooling services in the UPGS’s PCA within a 15-minute walk, while the remaining 28.8% had to endure at least a 15-minute walk in hot weather to access the same cooling services (Fig 10a, Table 2). Additionally, 10.9% of residents had the convenience of accessing this cooling service without leaving their homes, and 15.6%, 29.7%, and 25.9% of residents could access it within 5, 10, and 15 minutes, respectively.To further evaluate the spatial equity of cooling service accessibility, we conducted a quantitative analysis using the Coefficient of Variation (CV), Global Moran’s I, and the Gini coefficient. The results indicate that the distribution of UPGS in central Nanchang exhibits a significant clustered pattern (CV = 167.96%, Moran’s I = 0.087) and a high level of inequality in resource allocation among neighborhoods (Gini = 0.58). These quantitative metrics collectively substantiate the severe spatial inequity in the distribution of cooling services. Detailed visualizations and computational reports are provided in the Supplementary Material.

Fig 10. (a) Spatial distribution of new UPGS points.

Fig 10

(b). Accessibility distribution of UPGS cooling services.

Table 2. Accessibility results for residents in the UPGS cooling service area.

Total population One ring region Second ring region Outside the second loop
Accessibility level 3817614 2038154 1312476 466984
Within PCA 415900
10.9%
284780
14.0%
113182
8.6%
17938
3.8%
Within a 5-min walk 594696
15.6%
374826
18.4%
185096
14.1%
34774
7.4%
Within a 10-min walk 1132716
29.7%
688422
33.8%
327994
25.1%
116300
24.9%
Within a 15-min walk 990070
25.9%
426124
20.9%
438952
33.4%
124994
26.8%
> 15-min walk 1100132
28.8%
548782
26.9%
360434
27.5%
190916
40.9%

(Note: The top half of each row of the data in the table represents the number of people and the bottom half represents the percentage of the population.)

Fig 10a also illustrates the spatial disparity in the distribution of UPGS cooling services across various parts of the city. While 14% of residents within the First Ring Road were directly situated in the PCA of UPGS, only 8.6% and 3.8% of residents inside and outside the Second Ring Road had direct access to cooling services, respectively. Moreover, within a 5-minute and 10-minute walk, residents within the First Ring Road held a significant advantage over those in both the Second Ring Road and outside it. Within a 15-minute walk, 73.1% of residents in the First Ring Road and 72.5% of residents in the Second Ring Road could reach the PCA of UPGS, whereas only 59.1% of residents outside the Second Ring Road could access cooling services. In other words, nearly 190,000 suburban residents lacked access to UPGS-provided cooling services during extreme hot weather.

To maximize the chance that urban residents will be able to enjoy the cooling services provided by the UPGS within a 15-minute walk we have set the 612 settlements in the study area that require more than a 15-minute walk to reach the PCA as the target to be optimized. Subsequently, we utilized the KMS algorithm in Matlab to cluster these 612 settlements, determining the optimal number of UPGS by minimizing the Euclidean distance from each settlement to the cluster centroid to which it belonged. After several iterations, we obtained the K-means clustering curve for optimizing UPGS in Nanchang (Fig 11a). The horizontal axis of the curve represents the number of new UPGS, the vertical axis represents the average farthest distance from the settlement to be optimized to the clustering center, and the slope of the curve indicates the impact of increasing the number of clustering centers on clustering effectiveness. The clustering curve reveals that the slope gradually flattens out when the number of new UPGS reaches 18, signifying that further increasing the number of UPGS will not significantly enhance clustering effectiveness. Therefore, this study considers a total of 18 new UPGS, taking into account the cost and the number of people covered, to enhance cooling services in Nanchang.

Fig 11. (a) K-means clustering curve of UPGS.

Fig 11

(b) PSO algorithm iteration interface.

The KMS algorithm addresses the issue of determining the number of new UPGSs but lacks specific location information for guiding actual planning. To overcome this limitation, we employed the general and robust PSO algorithm, recognized for its effectiveness in highly nonlinear and discontinuous scenarios [73].The PSO parameters were set following established standards in the literature [74]: a swarm size of 30 particles, an inertia weight of 0.729, and cognitive and social acceleration coefficients of 1.494. In the PSO algorithm implemented in Matlab, we utilized the spatial locations of the 18 UPGSs as the final output. Our optimization objective function combines the sum of the products of the minimum distances from settlements to the 18 particles and the maximum number of covered settlements. After nearly 2,000 model iterations, we obtained spatial information about the locations of the 18 new UPGSs (Fig 11b) (Fig 10b). To verify the robustness of the 18-site solution, the PSO algorithm was executed 20 times from different random initializations. This analysis confirmed that over 85% of the selected sites were consistently identified in more than 70% of the runs, demonstrating the stability and reliability of the optimization result. Of these, two new UPGSs were added within the first ring road, both situated at the boundary of the first ring road. Seven new UPGSs were introduced within the Second Ring Road, and the largest number of new UPGSs were placed outside the Second Ring Road, constituting half of the total new UPGSs. This further underscores the inequity of the UPGS CIE in Nanchang’s spatial distribution.To quantitatively validate the PSO-derived optimization scheme, we simulated the post-optimization cooling service scenario. The 18 proposed UPGS were assigned a PCA of 2853 m, the optimal coverage radius identified by the K-means and PSO algorithms. Re-running the network analysis revealed a dramatic improvement in 15-minute walking accessibility: population coverage increased from 71.2% to 92.5%, an absolute gain of 21.3% (Fig 10b). This provides quantitative and visual confirmation that the strategy successfully extends cooling services to a larger population, effectively filling prior service gaps. It is important to note that in practical application, the area of new UPGS is flexible and service ranges are dynamic. Moreover, addressing cooling access in peripheral suburbs with poor road connectivity remains a challenge, underscoring the need for complementary strategies focused on enhancing the transportation network itself.

4. Discussion

Factors affecting the cooling island effect of UPGS

Numerous studies have demonstrated that UPGS mitigates the UHI effect, and we also found that 71 out of 85 UPGS have a significant CIE in our study based on the CIE of UPGS in Nanchang City. The cooling characteristics were categorized into UPGS basic constituent indexes, surface cover indexes, and landscape pattern indexes for separate analysis.

Within the basic composition indicators of UPGS, it has been confirmed that the UPGS area exhibits a positive correlation with the CIE, and the cooling effect of UPGS strengthens with an increase in area [17]. However, the UPGS area threshold varies across different regions. Within this threshold, an increase in UPGS area significantly enhances the cooling island effect, but this enhancement effect gradually diminishes once the threshold is exceeded [75,76]. This study also confirms that the area threshold for the CIE of UPGS in Nanchang is 60 hm2, which closely aligns with the results of a study on the area threshold for parks in Xiamen, China [76]. Additionally, compared to existing quantitative studies on the UPGS perimeter and its relationship with the CIE, the perimeter threshold for the optimal CIE determined in this study is 3 km. This is smaller than the 3.6 km threshold in Changzhou City, China, and larger than the 2.5 km threshold in Changchun City, China [77]. These variations likely arise from distinct regional climatic conditions and urban morphological contexts. Factors such as the average urban fabric density, prevailing wind patterns, and dominant vegetation types within UPGS can modulate how cooling effects scale with park size and shape, leading to these location-specific thresholds [78]. The relationship between the UPGS shape index and the CIE remains controversial. Some studies suggest that a larger surface area of contact between the UPGS and the external environment contributes more to the CIE [22]. In contrast, other studies argue that a larger contact surface increases the likelihood of heat exchange between the UPGS and the external environment. In this study, we found a negative correlation between the UPGS shape index and both LST and PCA. This indicates that a smaller contact surface between the UPGS and the external environment is more favorable for the CIE. When combining the UPGS area, perimeter, and shape index, it becomes evident that a smaller shape index within the area and perimeter thresholds results in a stronger CIE.

The ground cover type within UPGS has varying effects on the CIE. In this study, impervious surface coverage was found to be negatively correlated with the CIE, meaning that lower impervious surface coverage results in smaller PCI and larger PCA in UPGS. This finding aligns with a study in a Mexican city [20] but contradicts a study in Changzhou City, China [77]. On the other hand, the positive correlation between water cover and the CIE of UPGS in this study has also been supported by the most relevant studies, which have concluded that water contributes the most to the CIE among the three cover categories [17,30]. Additionally, a crucial finding of this study is the absence of a statistically significant correlation between overall green coverage and the three quantitative CIE indicators. This suggests that in Nanchang’s context, the mere presence of green area is not a reliable predictor of cooling efficiency. Several factors may explain this result. First, the “green coverage” in many UPGS of Nanchang may be dominated by less effective lawn areas [31], which possess a much lower cooling capacity compared to trees. Second, the resolution of Landsat thermal infrared data may be insufficient to capture the fine-scale cooling variations generated by different vegetation structures. Most importantly, our analysis of landscape pattern indices (Fig 8) revealed that the complexity and aggregation of green patches (LSI, AI) showed a stronger association with the cooling range (PCA) than green coverage itself. This implies that for enhancing the CIE, how green spaces are arranged and structured within a UPGS may be more determinant than how much green area is present.

Currently, quantitative research on landscape pattern indexes and their relationship with the CIE in UPGS has received limited attention. Determining the number of dimensions for landscape pattern indices can be challenging due to their diversity [58]. In this study, we introduced six categories of landscape pattern indices similar to those used in previous work and compared our findings with existing studies. We reached partially similar conclusions, revealing that lower impervious surface patch density, a smaller percentage of impervious surface coverage, and greater impervious surface aggregation are more favorable for the CIE in UPGS [48,63]. Moreover, a higher percentage of water body patches, increased separation, and finer-grained surface temperatures in UPGS were associated with lower temperatures. This could be explained by the greater number of water body patches with larger contact areas within UPGS, facilitating heat exchange and resulting in more significant cooling benefits [79]. Additionally, a higher degree of aggregation and more complex morphology of green space patches were found to enhance the range of temperature reduction in UPGS, consistent with a related study conducted in Beijing, China [70].

In this study, we also explored the direction of the CIE’s intensity within parks by extracting highly representative UPGSs. The findings are valuable for guiding the directional layout of surface cover types within UPGSs and urban residential locations, optimizing the cooling services provided by UPGSs at the landscape composition indicator level. Our study revealed that water bodies within watered UPGSs play a crucial role in determining the directionality and intensity of the cooling island effect within parks and buffer zones. However, the strength of this effect is also influenced by the proportion of the UPGS area occupied by water bodies. In areas with a larger water body area, the directionality of the CIE strength aligns with the long axis of the water body, and this directionality is more pronounced. Conversely, in areas with small or no water bodies, the directionality can be influenced by green cover and high-rise building layouts. These findings are consistent with a previous study [60].

Inequity in the distribution of the UPGS cooling island effect

There has been limited academic discussion on the equity of residents’ access to the cooling range provided by UPGS, but this study highlights the unequal access to cooling services for urban residents. We assessed residents’ accessibility to UPGS cooling services using network analysis and found that 71.2% of residents in the study area can reach the UPGS cooling range within a 15-minute walk, while 28.8% cannot access equivalent cooling services within the same timeframe. This inequality is particularly pronounced across different urban areas. Urban residents within the First Ring Road have better access to cooling services than those in the Second Ring Road and much better access than those outside the Second Ring Road. For instance, 73.1% of urban residents within the First Ring Road and 71.3% within the Second Ring Road can access UPGS cooling services within a 15-minute walk, whereas nearly half of the residents outside the Second Ring Road lack access to the same level of cooling during extremely hot weather. Similar spatial accessibility inequities in cooling services have been observed in other cities worldwide [40,57,80].

The pronounced spatial inequity in cooling access is not a random outcome but is rooted in complex socio-urban processes. Similar to patterns observed in other cities [38,39], the historical trajectory of urban development in Nanchang has likely prioritized green infrastructure investment within the core urban areas, leading to a legacy of under-provision in newly developed or peripheral zones. Furthermore, the distribution of UPGS is closely intertwined with urban land economics, where higher land values in the city center can paradoxically both justify and constrain green space creation, while suburban expansion often occurs without commensurate investment in public amenities. Lastly, prevailing urban planning policies, which may have previously emphasized economic development over environmental justice, have played a critical role in shaping this unequal landscape.

Optimization of the UPGS CIE and its distribution

This study focuses on optimizing the urban cooling island effect through a combined approach that considers both micro and macro perspectives. While existing research primarily emphasizes micro-level optimization of UPGS cooling effects by enhancing landscape pattern indicators [56], our approach is more comprehensive, encompassing a wider range. We summarize optimization strategies for the cooling island effect by analyzing the correlation between quantitative indexes of cooling and UPGS landscape composition indicators, including basic composition indexes, surface coverage, and landscape pattern indexes. Additionally, we explore the directionality of the UPGS CIE, which can help improve cooling services for UPGS residents.

Optimization from a macro perspective has been less frequently mentioned, and some studies have less frequently taken the residents’ perspective and proposed specific practical guidance for the mitigation of urban thermal environments [80]. In this study, after revealing the unfairness of the CIE in urban UPGS through the network analysis method, and comparing PSO with other commonly used location-allocation optimization algorithms in related fields, namely the Genetic Algorithm (GA) and Ant Colony Optimization (ACO). The analysis revealed that while GA is a powerful global search tool, its performance is often highly dependent on the fine-tuning of operators (e.g., crossover and mutation rates) and it can be susceptible to premature convergence. ACO excels in combinatorial optimization problems; however, its computational load increases significantly when confronted with facility location problems characterized by a vast solution space [81]. In contrast, the PSO algorithm offers a simpler implementation process, requires fewer parameters to adjust, and exhibits faster convergence. This, coupled with its inherent synergy with K-means clustering, renders it more suitable for urban-scale planning scenarios.

Research limitations and future directions

Beyond the research findings, this study has several limitations. Firstly, the limited resolution of the remote sensing image data obtained from Landsat 8TIRS introduces uncertainty when assessing the cooling effect of UPGS, particularly for smaller parks where the cooling contribution of key elements like water bodies or tree clusters might be obscured. In the future, supplementing remote sensing data with field temperatures measured by unmanned aerial vehicles equipped with infrared thermal cameras could improve accuracy. Secondly, this study relies on a single Landsat image from a late-summer day. While this captures a typical scenario of high heat stress, the snapshot nature of the data means our accessibility model represents a static picture. It does not account for seasonal variations in vegetation (e.g., reduced evapotranspiration in winter) or diurnal shifts in both park usage and cooling intensity. Future work should incorporate multi-temporal satellite imagery and ground measurements to investigate the dynamics of cooling services across different timescales. Thirdly, while we have utilized population data specific to residential areas, we have not segmented the population based on socio-economic status or vulnerability. By treating the population as a homogeneous group, our equity analysis likely masks critical disparities. For instance, elderly or low-income residents, who are often more vulnerable to heat and have constrained mobility, might experience effective “access gaps” even if they reside within the nominal 15-minute service area [82]. Our Gini coefficient and coverage rate, therefore, represent a baseline of spatial equity that may not fully reflect the experienced inequity among different social groups. Additionally, our focus has been solely on assessing the equity of UPGS cooling access for urban residents, without considering variations in cooling effectiveness among different UPGSs, potentially leading to supply-demand imbalances [83]. Lastly, there remains considerable arbitrariness in determining the locations of additional UPGSs, and we have not precisely accounted for supply pressure and construction area considerations for each additional UPGS.

5. Conclusion

This study investigated the factors influencing the UPGS CIE and developed strategies for the critical but often overlooked issue of equitable access to this service in Nanchang, China.We quantified and analysed the correlation between the cooling island effect of UPGS and landscape composition indicators in Nanchang, China, and proposed a strategy to optimise the cooling island effect of UPGS under a micro perspective. We found that UPGS with an area of 60 hm2 and a perimeter of 3 km can produce an efficient CIE; increasing water body coverage and decreasing the impervious surface coverage can reduce surface temperature and expand the cooling range; reducing the density and percentage of impervious surface patches, increasing the percentage and separation of water body patches, and increasing the degree of aggregation and morphological complexity of green patches can effectively reduce the UPGS’s CIE. The direction of the UPGS cold island intensity is strongly influenced by the area of the water body, the direction of the long axis of the water body, and the distribution of high-rise buildings. In addition, we quantified the accessibility of urban residents to the cooling range of the UPGS by network analysis and found that the level of cooling services enjoyed by urban residents within the First Ring Road is greater than that of residents in the Second Ring Road and much greater than that of urban residents outside the Second Ring Road. Nearly half of the urban residents outside the second ring road do not enjoy cooling services from the UPGS within a 15-minute walk. To address this inequity, we used a combination of the KMS algorithm and the PSO algorithm to calculate the spatial point information of 18 UPGSs that take into account the cost and the maximum coverage. This strategy increases the population coverage within a 15-minute walk from 71.2% to 92.5% and optimizes the spatial pattern of the urban UPGS cooling island effect from a macro perspective. Theoretically bridging a critical gap in cooling equity research, this work practically enables enhanced thermal resilience through spatially optimized UPGS planning.

Supporting information

S1 File. Supplementary material.

(ZIP)

pone.0344026.s001.zip (29.1MB, zip)
S2 File. Renamed_1fc36.

(ZIP)

pone.0344026.s002.zip (96.3MB, zip)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Jim CY. Green-space preservation and allocation for sustainable greening of compact cities. Cities. 2004;21(4):311–20. doi: 10.1016/j.cities.2004.04.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Nations U. Revision of world urbanization prospects. New York, NY, USA. 2018;799. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhao M, Cheng C, Zhou Y, Li X, Shen S, Song C. A global dataset of annual urban extents (1992–2020) from harmonized nighttime lights. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2022;14(2):517–34. doi: 10.5194/essd-14-517-2022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Mears M, Brindley P, Maheswaran R, Jorgensen A. Understanding the socioeconomic equity of publicly accessible greenspace distribution: The example of Sheffield, UK. Geoforum. 2019;103:126–37. doi: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2019.04.016 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zhou M, Chang M, Lai AQ. Impacts of future land use on meteorological conditions over the Pearl River Delta region. China Environmental Science. 2017;37(8):2896–904. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Fu H, Chen J. Formation, features and controlling strategies of severe haze-fog pollutions in China. Sci Total Environ. 2017;578:121–38. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.10.201 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Cumming GS, Buerkert A, Hoffmann EM, Schlecht E, von Cramon-Taubadel S, Tscharntke T. Implications of agricultural transitions and urbanization for ecosystem services. Nature. 2014;515(7525):50–7. doi: 10.1038/nature13945 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Tan J, Zheng Y, Tang X. The urban heat island and its impact on heat waves and human health in Shanghai. Int J Biometeorol. 2010;54:75–84. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shahmohamadi P, Che-Ani AI, Etessam I, Maulud KNA, Tawil NM. Healthy Environment: The Need to Mitigate Urban Heat Island Effects on Human Health. Procedia Engineering. 2011;20:61–70. doi: 10.1016/j.proeng.2011.11.139 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Gao Z, Zaitchik BF, Hou Y, Chen W. Toward park design optimization to mitigate the urban heat Island: Assessment of the cooling effect in five U.S. cities. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2022;81:103870. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2022.103870 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Zhao Y, Gong P. Optimal site selection strategies for urban parks green spaces under the joint perspective of spatial equity and social equity. Front Public Health. 2024;12:1310340. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1310340 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Heidt V, Neef M. Benefits of urban green space for improving urban climate. Ecology, planning, and management of urban forests: International perspectives. New York, NY: Springer New York. 2008. p. 84–96. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Chang C-R, Li M-H, Chang S-D. A preliminary study on the local cool-island intensity of Taipei city parks. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2007;80(4):386–95. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2006.09.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Taha H. Urban climates and heat islands: albedo, evapotranspiration, and anthropogenic heat. Energy and Buildings. 1997;25(2):99–103. doi: 10.1016/s0378-7788(96)00999-1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Frey CM, Rigo G, Parlow E. Investigation of the daily urban cooling island (UCI) in two coastal cities in an arid environment: Dubai and Abu Dhabi (UAE). City. 2009;81(2.06). [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Qin Y, Ghalambaz S, Sheremet M, Baro M, Ghalambaz M. Deciphering Urban Heat Island Mitigation: A Comprehensive Analysis of Application Categories and Research Trends. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2024;101:105081. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.105081 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Cheng X, Wei B, Chen G, Li J, Song C. Influence of Park Size and Its Surrounding Urban Landscape Patterns on the Park Cooling Effect. J Urban Plann Dev. 2015;141(3). doi: 10.1061/(asce)up.1943-5444.0000256 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sun R, Chen L. Effects of green space dynamics on urban heat islands: Mitigation and diversification. Ecosystem Services. 2017;23:38–46. doi: 10.1016/j.ecoser.2016.11.011 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Gallopín GC. Cities, Sustainability, and Complex Dissipative Systems. A Perspective. Front Sustain Cities. 2020;2. doi: 10.3389/frsc.2020.523491 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Jauregui E. Heat island development in Mexico City. Atmospheric Environment. 1997;31(22):3821–31. doi: 10.1016/s1352-2310(97)00136-2 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.García-Haro A, Arellano B, Roca J. Quantifying the influence of design and location on the cool island effect of the urban parks of Barcelona[J]. J Appl Remote Sens. 2023,17(3):034512. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Du H, Cai W, Xu Y, Wang Z, Wang Y, Cai Y. Quantifying the cool island effects of urban green spaces using remote sensing Data. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;27:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2017.06.008 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lei JR, Chen ZZ, Wu TT. Spatio-temporal evolution and interrelationship between thermal environment and landscape patterns of Haikou City, 1989~ 2015. China Environmental Science. 2019;39(4):1734–43. [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Yu Z, Yang G, Zuo S, Jørgensen G, Koga M, Vejre H. Critical review on the cooling effect of urban blue-green space: A threshold-size perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020;49:126630. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126630 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Qiu K, Jia B, Cheng J. Cool island effect of urban parks and its influencing factors within the Fifth Ring in Beijing. Chinese Journal of Ecology. 2017;36(7):1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gu Z. A review on the methodology of urban park cool island impact mechanism research (in Chinese). Chin J Landsc Arch. 2016;9:113–5. [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Kong F, Yin H, James P, Hutyra LR, He HS. Effects of spatial pattern of greenspace on urban cooling in a large metropolitan area of eastern China. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2014;128:35–47. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.04.018 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Song Y, Song X, Shao G. Effects of Green Space Patterns on Urban Thermal Environment at Multiple Spatial–Temporal Scales. Sustainability. 2020;12(17):6850. doi: 10.3390/su12176850 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lv H, Yang Y, Zhang D, Du H, Zhang J, Wang W, et al. Perimeter-area ratio effects of urbanization intensity on forest characteristics, landscape patterns and their associations in Harbin City, Northeast China. Urban Ecosyst. 2019;22(4):631–42. doi: 10.1007/s11252-019-00850-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Maimaitiyiming M, Ghulam A, Tiyip T, Pla F, Latorre-Carmona P, Halik Ü, et al. Effects of green space spatial pattern on land surface temperature: Implications for sustainable urban planning and climate change adaptation. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. 2014;89:59–66. doi: 10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2013.12.010 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Richards D, Fung T, Belcher R, Edwards P. Differential air temperature cooling performance of urban vegetation types in the tropics. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020;50:126651. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126651 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Rakoto PY, Deilami K, Hurley J, et al. Revisiting the cooling effects of urban greening: Planning implications of vegetation types and spatial configuration. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2021;64:127266. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2021.127266 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ren Z, He X, Zheng H, Zhang D, Yu X, Shen G, et al. Estimation of the Relationship between urban park characteristics and park cool island intensity by remote sensing data and field measurement. Forests. 2013;4(4):868–86. doi: 10.3390/f4040868 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Zhang J, Gou Z, Lu Y. Outdoor thermal environments and related planning factors for subtropical urban parks. Indoor and Built Environ. 2019;30(3):363–74. doi: 10.1177/1420326x19891462 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Li X, Zhou W, Ouyang Z. Relationship between land surface temperature and spatial pattern of greenspace: What are the effects of spatial resolution?. Landscape and Urban Plann. 2013;114:1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.02.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wang C, Wang Z-H, Wang C, Myint SW. Environmental cooling provided by urban trees under extreme heat and cold waves in U.S. cities. Remote Sensing of Environ. 2019;227:28–43. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2019.03.024 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Shih WY, Mabon L. Thermal environments of Taipei Basin and influence from urban green infrastructure. City and Planning. 2018;45(4):283–300. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Volin E, Ellis A, Hirabayashi S, Maco S, Nowak DJ, Parent J, et al. Assessing macro-scale patterns in urban tree canopy and inequality. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2020;55:126818. doi: 10.1016/j.ufug.2020.126818 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Wilson B. Urban Heat Management and the Legacy of Redlining. J Am Planning Association. 2020;86(4):443–57. doi: 10.1080/01944363.2020.1759127 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Xiao Y, Piao Y, Wei W, Pan C, Lee D, Zhao B. A comprehensive framework of cooling effect-accessibility-urban development to assessing and planning park cooling services. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2023;98:104817. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104817 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Tan PY, Samsudin R. Effects of spatial scale on assessment of spatial equity of urban park provision. Landscape Urban Plann. 2017;158:139–54. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.11.001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Zhao M, Yao Z, Mao D. Spatial accessibility analysis of urban green space under walking condition in Xinxiang main urban area based on i2SFCA. J Nanjing Forestry UniversitY. 2022;46(1):227. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Hillsdon M, Panter J, Foster C, Jones A. The relationship between access and quality of urban green space with population physical activity. Public Health. 2006;120(12):1127–32. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2006.10.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Song ZN, Chen W, Che QJ. Measurement of spatial accessibility to health care facilities and defining health professional shortage areas based on improved potential model—a case study of rudong county in Jiangsu province. Scientia Geographica Sinica. 2010;30(2):213–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Miyake KK, Maroko AR, Grady KL, Maantay JA, Arno PS. Not just a walk in the park: methodological improvements for determining environmental justice implications of park access in New York City for the promotion of physical activity. Cities Environ. 2010;3(1):1–17. doi: 10.15365/cate.3182010 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Li X, Li X, Ma X. Spatial optimization for urban green space (UGS) planning support using a heuristic approach. Applied Geography. 2022;138:102622. doi: 10.1016/j.apgeog.2021.102622 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Hu H, Zeng Y, Zhang H. Integration of a site selection model with the multi-agent system and the ant colony algorithm and its application to Changsha. Resources Science. 2011;33(6):1211–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Gómez O, Barán B. Relationship between genetic algorithms and ant colony optimization algorithms[C]//Proceedings of CLEI2004. Latin-American Conference on Informatics. 2004: 766–76. [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Ward K, Lauf S, Kleinschmit B, Endlicher W. Heat waves and urban heat islands in Europe: A review of relevant drivers. Sci Total Environ. 2016;569–570:527–39. doi: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.06.119 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Zhang X, Estoque RC, Murayama Y. An urban heat island study in Nanchang City, China based on land surface temperature and social-ecological variables. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2017;32:557–68. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2017.05.005 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.He B-J. Potentials of meteorological characteristics and synoptic conditions to mitigate urban heat island effects. Urban Climate. 2018;24:26–33. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2018.01.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Li Z, He W, Cheng M, Hu J, Yang G, Zhang H. SinoLC-1: the first 1 m resolution national-scale land-cover map of China created with a deep learning framework and open-access data. Earth Syst Sci Data. 2023;15(11):4749–80. doi: 10.5194/essd-15-4749-2023 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Chen J, Wang L, Ma L, Fan X. Quantifying the scale effect of the relationship between land surface temperature and landscape pattern. Remote Sensing. 2023;15(8):2131. doi: 10.3390/rs15082131 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Zeng-hui KAN, Chao-shun LIU, Zhi-jun LI. Retrieval of land surface temperature based on Landsat-8 thermal infrared data and heat island effect analysis over the Taihu Lake region. J East China Normal University (Natural Science). 2016;:129-138,168. [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Zhang J, Zhang H, Qi R. A study of size threshold for cooling effect in urban parks and their cooling accessibility and equity. Sci Rep. 2024;14(1):16176. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-67277-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Chen M, Jia W, Yan L, Du C, Wang K. Quantification and mapping cooling effect and its accessibility of urban parks in an extreme heat event in a megacity. J Cleaner Prod. 2022;334:130252. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130252 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Peng J, Dan Y, Qiao R, Liu Y, Dong J, Wu J. How to quantify the cooling effect of urban parks? Linking maximum and accumulation perspectives. Remote Sensing of Environment. 2021;252:112135. doi: 10.1016/j.rse.2020.112135 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sun R, Chen A, Chen L, Lü Y. Cooling effects of wetlands in an urban region: The case of Beijing. Ecological Indicators. 2012;20:57–64. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2012.02.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Yang C, Zhang T, Hu C. Spatial-temporal characteristics of the cooling island for blue-green space and its driving factors in Suzhou, China. Resour Environ Yangtze Basin. 2021;3:677–88. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Zhao R, Shen X, Tian G, et al. The influence of landscape characteristics of a park green space on the park cool island effect in Zhengzhou City. Acta Ecol. 2020;40(9). doi: 10.5846/stxb201904230827 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Rastogi R, Thaniarasu I, Chandra S. Design implications of walking speed for pedestrian facilities. J Transp Eng. 2011;137(10):687–96. doi: 10.1061/(asce)te.1943-5436.0000251 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 62.MacQueen J. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations[C]//Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability. 1967;281–97.
  • 63.Clerc M. The swarm and the queen: towards a deterministic and adaptive particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of the 1999 congress on evolutionary computation-CEC99 (Cat. No. 99TH8406). IEEE. 1999;1951–7. [Google Scholar]
  • 64.Jaganmohan M, Knapp S, Buchmann CM, Schwarz N. The Bigger, the Better? The Influence of Urban Green Space Design on Cooling Effects for Residential Areas. J Environ Qual. 2016;45(1):134–45. doi: 10.2134/jeq2015.01.0062 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 65.Potchter O, Cohen P, Bitan A. Climatic behavior of various urban parks during hot and humid summer in the mediterranean city of Tel Aviv, Israel. Intl J Climatol. 2006;26(12):1695–711. doi: 10.1002/joc.1330 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 66.Schober P, Boer C, Schwarte LA. Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesth Analg. 2018;126(5):1763–8. doi: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000002864 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 67.Quan S, Li M, Li T, Liu H, Cui Y, Liu M. Nonlinear effects of blue-green space variables on urban cold islands in Zhengzhou analyzed with random forest regression. Front Ecol Evol. 2023;11. doi: 10.3389/fevo.2023.1185249 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 68.Qiu K, Jia B. The roles of landscape both inside the park and the surroundings in park cooling effect. Sustainable Cities and Society. 2020;52:101864. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2019.101864 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 69.Algretawee H. The effect of graduated urban park size on park cooling island and distance relative to land surface temperature (LST). Urban Climate. 2022;45:101255. doi: 10.1016/j.uclim.2022.101255 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 70.Feng YY, HU TG, Zhang LX. Impacts of structure characteristics on the thermal environment effect of city parks. Acta Ecol. 2014;34(12). doi: 10.5846/stxb201306101641 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 71.Chen Y, Cao Y, Wu Y, Chen L, Fang W. Spatial distribution characteristics of crop germplasm resources using spatial statistics. Biodiversity Science. 2017;25(11):1213–22. doi: 10.17520/biods.2016376 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 72.Zhao R, Shen X, Tian G, et al. The influence of landscape characteristics of a park green space on the park cool island effect in Zhengzhou City. Acta Ecol. 2020;40(9). doi: 10.5846/stxb201904230827 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 73.Liu Z, Zhang W, Wang Z. Optimal planning of charging station for electric vehicle based on quantum PSO algorithm(C)//Zhongguo Dianji Gongcheng Xuebao(Proceedings of the Chinese Society of Electrical Engineering). Chinese Society for Electrical Engineering. 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 74.Li-ping Z, Huan-jun Y, Shang-xu H. Optimal choice of parameters for particle swarm optimization. J Zheijang Univ-Sci A. 2005;6(6):528–34. doi: 10.1631/jzus.2005.a0528 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 75.Yu Z, Guo X, Jørgensen G, Vejre H. How can urban green spaces be planned for climate adaptation in subtropical cities?. Ecological Indicators. 2017;82:152–62. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2017.07.002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 76.Hua L, Sun F, Chen J. Quantifying the cool-island effects of urban parks using Landsat-8 imagery in a coastal city, Xiamen, China. Acta Ecol Sin. 2020;40:8147–57. [Google Scholar]
  • 77.Wang X, Feng X, Chen K, et al. Study on the cooling effect of urban parks base on the case of Changzhou, Jiangsu, China. China Environ Sci. 2021;41(8):10.19674. [Google Scholar]
  • 78.Norouzi M, Chau H-W, Jamei E. Design and site-related factors impacting the cooling performance of urban parks in different climate zones: a systematic review. Land. 2024;13(12):2175. doi: 10.3390/land13122175 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 79.Wiens JA, Stenseth NChr, Horne BV, Ims RA. Ecological mechanisms and landscape ecology. Oikos. 1993;66(3):369. doi: 10.2307/3544931 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 80.Aboulnaga M, Mostafa M. Mitigating Heat Islands Effect in Mega Cities through Districts’ Prioritisation for Urban Green Coverage Applications: Cairo – Egypt as a Case Study. Renew Energy Environ Sustain. 2019;4:5. doi: 10.1051/rees/2019002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 81.Naser MZ, Naser AZ. The firefighter algorithm for optimization problems. Neural Comput & Applic. 2025;37(16):9345–400. doi: 10.1007/s00521-025-11074-z [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 82.Duan Y, Wagner P, Zhang R, Wulff H, Brehm W. Physical activity areas in urban parks and their use by the elderly from two cities in China and Germany. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2018;178:261–9. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.06.009 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 83.Shi M, Chen M, Jia W, Du C, Wang Y. Cooling effect and cooling accessibility of urban parks during hot summers in China’s largest sustainability experiment. Sustainable Cities Society. 2023;93:104519. doi: 10.1016/j.scs.2023.104519 [DOI] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Qiwei Ma

9 Oct 2025

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Nov 23 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic 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'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Qiwei Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf .

2. Please note that PLOS One 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/plosone/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.

3. We note that your Data Availability Statement is currently as follows: [All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files.]

Please confirm at this time whether or not your submission contains all raw data required to replicate the results of your study. Authors must share the “minimal data set” for their submission. PLOS defines the minimal data set to consist of the data required to replicate all study findings reported in the article, as well as related metadata and methods (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-minimal-data-set-definition).

For example, authors should submit the following data:

- The values behind the means, standard deviations and other measures reported;

- The values used to build graphs;

- The points extracted from images for analysis.

Authors do not need to submit their entire data set if only a portion of the data was used in the reported study.

If your submission does not contain these data, please either upload them as Supporting Information files or deposit them to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories.

If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent. If data are owned by a third party, please indicate how others may request data access.

4. We note that Figures 2,3, 9 & 10 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 2,3, 9 & 10 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

5. We are unable to open your Supporting Information file [Supplementary material.rar]. Please kindly revise as necessary and re-upload.

6. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: This study addresses the important and timely issue of equitable access to urban park cooling services, using a combination of remote sensing, landscape analysis, and optimization algorithms. However, the manuscript suffers from several critical omissions in the methodology and a lack of depth in the analysis of the results, which undermine the validity and impact of the findings. The manuscript requires substantial revision to clarify its methods, strengthen its analysis, and fully demonstrate the impact of its contributions before it can be considered for publication.

1. The method for identifying the cooling distance (PCA) is not clearly defined. The study states it is the distance to the "first turning point" of the temperature profile, but the algorithm or criteria used to objectively identify this point from the data are not described. This is a fundamental step in the analysis, and its ambiguity makes the results difficult to replicate or validate.

2. The selection of a 3,000m buffer zone for analyzing the cooling effect appears arbitrary. The authors must provide a justification for this specific distance, referencing prior literature or a sensitivity analysis.

3. The study uses a single Landsat image from one specific day (September 25, 2021). The Discussion or Limitations sections must more thoroughly address the constraints of this single temporal snapshot, as urban heat island effects and park cooling services exhibit significant diurnal and seasonal variability.

4. The correlation analysis found that green coverage was not significantly related to the quantitative CIE indicators. This is a counter-intuitive and important finding that is underdeveloped in the results section and requires more prominent discussion.

5. The Discussion effectively compares the identified park size/perimeter thresholds with those from other studies, but it should go further to explore why these differences might exist.

6. The manuscript identifies significant spatial inequity in cooling service access, but the Discussion lacks a deep exploration of the potential underlying causes, such as historical development patterns, land value, or urban planning policies.

Reviewer #2: 1. Overall Assessment

This manuscript addresses a timely and important issue — the spatial equity of urban park cooling services — by integrating landscape metrics with K-Means and Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) algorithms. The study aims to identify cooling inequities in Nanchang, China, and propose an optimized spatial plan for new urban parks to enhance thermal equity.

The topic is relevant to urban climatology, spatial planning, and environmental justice, and the combination of remote sensing with spatial optimization algorithms is conceptually innovative. However, the current version suffers from significant logical inconsistencies, methodological weaknesses, insufficient quantitative validation, and unclear presentation.

Substantial revisions are necessary before the paper can be considered for publication.

2. Major Comments

(1) Research logic and objectives are not clearly articulated

The introduction mixes three distinct threads — (a) cooling island effect (CIE) mechanisms, (b) spatial equity evaluation, and (c) optimization via algorithms — without clearly stating the main research question or hypotheses.

The study claims to “quantify and enhance cooling equity,” but it is unclear whether the focus is on empirical assessment, model development, or policy implications.

→ Recommendation: Reorganize the Introduction to clearly state:

The research gap (inequity in UPGS cooling access),

The main objectives and hypotheses,

The novelty (integrating landscape metrics with optimization algorithms).

(2) Methodological framework lacks rigor and transparency

Indicators definition: The cooling indicators (LST, PCI, PCA, PCG) are insufficiently explained; their mathematical expressions, physical interpretations, and prior validation references are missing.

Statistical analysis: Pearson/Spearman correlations are performed, but multicollinearity, significance correction (e.g., Bonferroni), and regression diagnostics are not reported. The claim that “water coverage most effectively reduced LST (R²=0.4284)” is overstated and does not imply causation.

Algorithmic process:

The parameters of K-Means (e.g., k selection via elbow method) and PSO (particle number, inertia weight, convergence criteria) are described only qualitatively.

The PSO objective function and convergence validation are absent.

No sensitivity or robustness analysis was conducted to verify the stability of the 18-site solution.

→ Recommendation: Add detailed algorithmic formulations, parameter tables, and reproducibility information.

(3) Quantitative results and spatial interpretations are inconsistent

The relationship between green coverage and CIE is reported as “insignificant,” which contradicts well-established empirical findings. Possible causes such as vegetation type composition or remote sensing resolution limits are not discussed.

Accessibility analysis reports that 71.2% of residents can access cooling services within 15 minutes, but the equity dimension is evaluated only by coverage rate, not by distribution inequality metrics (e.g., Gini coefficient, Moran’s I).

The optimization results (18 new parks) lack quantitative validation of improvement — e.g., before/after comparison of accessibility or spatial equity indices.

→ Recommendation: Provide statistical metrics demonstrating how PSO optimization improves equity relative to the base scenario.

(4) Discussion and Conclusion are largely descriptive

The discussion mostly repeats results and lacks critical comparison with prior studies using other optimization methods (e.g., GA, ACO, 2SFCA).

Policy implications are only briefly mentioned; the paper would benefit from a section linking the findings to urban planning or climate adaptation strategies.

Limitations are acknowledged but superficially. The influence of seasonality (single-date imagery), population heterogeneity, and land-use constraints on accessibility results should be more deeply analyzed.

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: 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.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 19;21(3):e0344026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344026.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 1


12 Dec 2025

Academic Editor

Response: 1.We have made targeted revisions in accordance with the template to ensure greater compliance with the publication requirements of your journal.

2.The code used in our study has also been included in the supporting information and is reusable.

3.We have submitted all the original data necessary for reproducing your research results.

4.Figures 2 and 3 both adopt Landsat satellite base maps (http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/) and vector data downloaded from OpenStreetMap(https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright), which have been further processed in GIS (https://www.esri.com/); Figure 10 uses vector data downloaded from OpenStreetMap, also processed further in GIS. These data can be found in the "From OpenStreetMap and Landsat" folder of the Supplementary material(2). In addition, Figure 9 has been replaced with a base map re-downloaded from the U.S. Geological Survey Earth Resources Observation and Science Center (USGS EROS, http://eros.usgs.gov/#). All the aforementioned figures have been annotated in the manuscript, and we confirm that they are similar but not identical to the original images that may involve infringement.In addition, the aforementioned data can be fully used for scientific research paper studies and for personal legitimate use with proper citation; however, they are restricted from personal sharing and can only be obtained through the aforementioned websites.

5.The supporting information has been revised and re-uploaded.

Reviewer #1

1.The method for identifying the cooling distance (PCA) is not clearly defined. The study states it is the distance to the "first turning point" of the temperature profile, but the algorithm or criteria used to objectively identify this point from the data are not described.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have clarified the PCA determination method in Section 2.2.3. The first turning point of the temperature profile was objectively and consistently identified using a piecewise linear regression algorithm that detects the breakpoint where the cooling gradient changes most significantly. The specific MATLAB algorithms have been provided in the Supplementary Material file "3 Matlab algorithms and some results

2.The selection of a 3,000m buffer zone for analyzing the cooling effect appears arbitrary. The authors must provide a justification for this specific distance, referencing prior literature or a sensitivity analysis.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have clarified the rationale in the manuscript (Section 2.2.3). The 3000m buffer was chosen as a conservative and sufficient distance to ensure it would capture the complete cooling gradient of every park in our study. This distance was selected because it exceeds the maximum observed cooling distance (PCA of 1380m) among all UPGS, thereby ensuring that no cooling effect data were truncated for any park during our analysis.

3.The study uses a single Landsat image from one specific day (September 25, 2021). The Discussion or Limitations sections must more thoroughly address the constraints of this single temporal snapshot, as urban heat island effects and park cooling services exhibit significant diurnal and seasonal variability.

Response:We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment regarding the temporal scope of our study. We have fully addressed this point by adding a dedicated paragraph in the 'Research Limitations and Future Directions' section (4.4). The selection of a single Landsat scene was necessitated by two practical constraints in satellite data analysis: first, the inherent challenge of obtaining multiple, high-quality (e.g., cloud-free) images for a specific city over time, and second, the intensive computational and analytical workload of our methodology applied to 85 parks. Therefore, we strategically selected the September 25, 2021 image as it represents a typical day during the peak of the hot season in Nanchang and has minimal cloud cover (<1%), providing an optimal and representative snapshot for analyzing the most critical period of cooling demand. Our study thus establishes a crucial baseline for spatial equity during periods of high heat stress. We explicitly acknowledge in the manuscript that future research incorporating multi-temporal data would be valuable to explore seasonal dynamics.

4.The correlation analysis found that green coverage was not significantly related to the quantitative CIE indicators. This is a counter-intuitive and important finding that is underdeveloped in the results section and requires more prominent discussion.

Response:We thank the reviewer for highlighting the importance of this counter-intuitive finding. In Section 3.2.1 (Results), we have now explicitly framed this as a "crucial" and "counter-intuitive" finding to ensure it receives proper prominence. We also offer a preliminary attribution to the composition of vegetation types (e.g., prevalence of lawns) and guide the reader to the full discussion in Section 4.1. In Section 4.1 (Discussion), we have added a dedicated and comprehensive paragraph to explore this result in depth. As the reviewer suggested, we systematically discuss potential causes, including:The functional composition of vegetation (e.g., the dominance of less effective lawn areas versus trees) [31].The potential limitations of Landsat thermal infrared data resolution.Most importantly, we leverage this finding to propose a novel insight: that the spatial configuration of green patches (as evidenced by our landscape pattern analysis in Figure 8) may be a more decisive factor than simple green coverage. This shifts the perspective from "how much" green to "how" it is arranged.

5. The Discussion effectively compares the identified park size/perimeter thresholds with those from other studies, but it should go further to explore why these differences might exist.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment, which has helped us strengthen the discussion. Following this suggestion, we have expanded our discussion of the differing thresholds in Section 4.1. We now propose that the specific optimal values for park area and perimeter are not universal but are instead shaped by the local context. To this end, we have added a discussion on how regional climate patterns and urban morphology—such as differences in urban density, wind flow, and vegetation types between cities—likely contribute to these observed variations, thereby explaining why a single threshold may not apply across all urban environments.

6.The manuscript identifies significant spatial inequity in cooling service access, but the Discussion lacks a deep exploration of the potential underlying causes, such as historical development patterns, land value, or urban planning policies.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this crucial comment, which has helped us significantly strengthen the socio-political relevance of our work. In direct response, we have added a dedicated paragraph in the Discussion (Section 4.2) that provides a deeper exploration of the underlying causes for the observed spatial inequity. This new paragraph explicitly discusses the role of historical urban development patterns, land value economics, and urban planning policies in creating the cooling service 'supply blind zones' we identified, thereby directly addressing the reviewer's suggestion and framing our spatial findings within their broader institutional and historical context.

Reviewer #2

(1) Research logic and objectives are not clearly articulated

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this crucial feedback. In direct response, we have refined the concluding paragraph of the Introduction to explicitly articulate the logical sequence that connects the three core components of our study, while preserving the clarity of our four specific research objectives. We have now framed the objectives to show a clear progression: from identifying key cooling drivers (Step 1), to diagnosing spatial equity gaps (Step 2), to synthesizing these insights for algorithmic optimization (Step 3), and finally to deriving integrated planning strategies (Step 4). This revision establishes a coherent 'diagnosis-to-solution' framework, ensuring the logical flow is now unmistakable.

(2) Methodological framework lacks rigor and transparency

Response: We thank the reviewer for these critical comments, which have greatly enhanced the transparency of our study.

Indicators Definition: In direct response, we have created an expanded table (Table X) that now provides the precise mathematical expressions, physical interpretations, and prior validation references for each of the four cooling indicators (LST, PCI, PCA, and PCG). This ensures their definitions are now complete and unambiguous.

Statistical Analysis: Concurrently, in Section 2.2.4, we now report that VIF analysis confirmed the absence of severe multicollinearity (VIF < 5) and that the Bonferroni correction was applied. Findings are carefully framed, with those not surviving the strict correction interpreted as 'potential trends'. We have also rephrased conclusions throughout the manuscript to describe statistical associations based on R² and avoid causal claims.

K-means Clustering: The process of determining the optimal number of UPGS (k=18) by minimizing the Euclidean distance to cluster centroids is detailed in Section 3.4 and is fully implemented in the provided Supplementary Material.

PSO Parameters & Formulation: We have now specified the PSO parameters (swarm size, inertia weight, acceleration coefficients) following established standards in the revised Section 2.2.4 [74]. The convergence was ensured by the 2000-iteration process illustrated in (Fig. 11b).

Robustness Analysis: As requested, we conducted a sensitivity analysis by running the PSO 20 times from different random seeds. The results, now reported in Section 2.2.4, show high consistency, with over 85% of sites being stable across runs, which verifies the robustness of our 18-site solution.

(3) Quantitative results and spatial interpretations are inconsistent

Response: We thank the reviewer for this critical observation. Part 1):The relationship between green coverage and CIE is reported as “insignificant”:In direct response to the concern regarding the "insignificant" relationship between green coverage and the CIE, we have thoroughly revised the manuscript to not only highlight this finding but also to provide a deep and systematic interpretation.The specific modifications are as follows:In Section 3.2.1 (Results), we have now explicitly framed this as a "crucial" and "counter-intuitive" finding to ensure it receives proper prominence. We also offer a preliminary attribution to the composition of vegetation types (e.g., prevalence of lawns) and guide the reader to the full discussion in Section 4.1. In Section 4.1 (Discussion), we have added a dedicated and comprehensive paragraph to explore this result in depth. As the reviewer suggested, we systematically discuss potential causes, including:The functional composition of vegetation (e.g., the dominance of less effective lawn areas versus trees) [31].The potential limitations of Landsat thermal infrared data resolution.Most importantly, we leverage this finding to propose a novel insight: that the spatial configuration of green patches (as evidenced by our landscape pattern analysis in Figure 8) may be a more decisive factor than simple green coverage. This shifts the perspective from "how much" green to "how" it is arranged.

Part 2):Accessibility analysis reports that 71.2% of residents can access cooling services within 15 minutes, but the equity dimension is evaluated only by coverage rate, not by distribution inequality metrics (e.g., Gini coefficient, Moran’s I):In the first paragraph of Section 3.4 of the paper, we added descriptions of the Gini coefficient and Moran’s I. However, due to space limitations, we have placed the supporting materials in the supplementary section, as detailed below:We first used the Thiessen polygon tool in ArcGIS to convert park green spaces into point data, and then applied the Thiessen polygon tool again to perform spatial division, obtaining the Thiessen polygon pattern of park green spaces in the study area (Figure 1). Next, we used the field calculator to compute the coefficient of variation for the spatial distribution of park green spaces, which measures the degree of spatial variation of park points within the Thiessen polygons.The calculated coefficient of variation (CV) was 167.96%, which is greater than 64% (Table 1). This indicates that the park green spaces in the main urban area of Nanchang exhibit a clustered spatial distribution, confirming an imbalanced distribution of park green spaces across the area.

Table 1 Coefficient of variation

Formula for coefficient of variation Standard deviation (S) Mean (V) Coefficient of variation (CV)

CV=S/V 20584392.33m2 12255473.92m2 167.96%

Fig 1 Tyson polygon of green space in parks in the main urban area of Nanchang City

Secondly, using the global spatial autocorrelation tool in ArcGIS, we calculated the global Moran’s I for 67 neighborhoods in the main urban area of Nanchang to analyze the spatial correlation characteristics of park green spaces at the neighborhood level. The results show that Moran’s I is 0.086847, which is greater than 0, indicating a positive spatial correlation in the distribution of park green spaces within the study area. Additionally, the z-score is 1.704590, and the p-value is 0.088271, meaning the probability of this clustered pattern occurring randomly is less than 10%. This further confirms that the distribution of park green spaces exhibits a clustering trend.

Table 2 Global Moran I Summary.

Moran's I index Expected index Variance Z-score P-value

0.086847 -0.015152 0.003581 1.704590 0.088271

Fig2 Moran's index of green space in parks in the main urban area of Nanchang City

Finally, we introduced the Lorenz curve to visualize the equity of the distribution of green space resources relative to the population in each neighborhood. A flatter curve suggests a more equal distribution of green space resources, while a steeper curve indicates greater inequality (Figure 3). As shown in the figure, the Lorenz curve is relatively steep, with Area A being significantly larger than Area B, indicating a poor supply-demand balance between park green spaces and population at the neighborhood level.Furthermore, based on the Lorenz curve, we applied the Gini coefficient formula to calculate the area ratio of different regions represented by the curve.  The Gini coefficient was used to assess the fairness of park green space distribution among the neighborhood populations. The calculated Gini coefficient for green space resource distribution across neighborhoods in Nanchang’s central urban area is 0.58, which is greater than 0.5. This suggests a considerable disparity in the allocation of park green space resources among the neighborhoods in Nanchang’s central urban area.

Fig 3 Lorentz curve

Part 3): *The optimization results (18 new parks) lack quantitative validation of improvement — e.g., before/after comparison of accessibility or spatial equity indices: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this crucial suggestion. In direct response, we have now conducted a comprehensive quantitative validation of the optimization results through a before-and-after comparison, which is detailed in the revised manuscript as follows:A new quantitative validation has been added to Section 3.4. We have integrated a paragraph describing the simulation process, where the 18 proposed UPGS were assigned the optimal cooling service range (PCA) of 2853 meters derived from our algorithms. The results of this simulation demonstrate a substantial improvement: the population coverage within a 15-minute walking distance increased from the original 71.2% to 92.5%, an absolute gain of 21.3%. This provides the direct quantitative comparison requested. The key finding of this validation has been incorporated into the Conclusion. To highlight the significance of this result, we have now stated the coverage improvement in the conclusion, reinforcing the practical efficacy of ou

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

pone.0344026.s004.docx (139.5KB, docx)

Decision Letter 1

Qiwei Ma

22 Jan 2026

Dear Dr. Zhao,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’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 Mar 08 2026 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 plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

  • A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic 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'.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Qiwei Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

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.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions??>

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available??>

The PLOS Data policy

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: No

**********

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

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The manuscript is well-structured and provides valuable insights into UPGS cooling effects. Several revisions are suggested: Streamline the introduction to highlight research gaps and contributions. Clarify data limitations and statistical test rationale. Enhance figure readability and include a sensitivity analysis.

Expand policy implications discussion.

Review language and formatting for consistency. These changes will strengthen the manuscript for publication

**********

what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: 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.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

PLoS One. 2026 Mar 19;21(3):e0344026. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0344026.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 2


9 Feb 2026

Response to the Editor

Thank you very much for your attention. First, the reviewers have not requested us to cite any specific papers. Second, we have carefully checked all the references cited in the paper, and all are in order.

Response to Reviewer #2

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. First, we have streamlined certain narratives in the second and final paragraphs of the Introduction, with greater emphasis on the research gaps and our contributions. Second, we have added explanations for the selection of statistical tests in Section 2.2.4, while the limitations of the data have already been elaborated in detail in Section 4.4. Furthermore, discussions on relevant policies involve certain practical complexities in the Chinese context, and we would appreciate your understanding in this regard.Finally, we have rechecked the consistency of language and formatting per your comments and made partial revisions to the manuscript.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

pone.0344026.s005.docx (11.4KB, docx)

Decision Letter 2

Qiwei Ma

15 Feb 2026

Optimizing Spatial Equity of Urban Park Cooling Services: Integrating Landscape Metrics with K-Means and PSO Algorithms in Nanchang, China

PONE-D-25-41975R2

Dear Dr. Zhao,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support .

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 onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Qiwei Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Qiwei Ma

PONE-D-25-41975R2

PLOS One

Dear Dr. Zhao,

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS One. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now being handed over to our production team.

At this stage, our production department will prepare your paper for publication. This includes ensuring the following:

* All references, tables, and figures are properly cited

* All relevant supporting information is included in the manuscript submission,

* There are no issues that prevent the paper from being properly typeset

You will receive further instructions from the production team, including instructions on how to review your proof when it is ready. Please keep in mind that we are working through a large volume of accepted articles, so please give us a few days to review your paper and let you know the next and final steps.

Lastly, if your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

You will receive an invoice from PLOS for your publication fee after your manuscript has reached the completed accept phase. If you receive an email requesting payment before acceptance or for any other service, this may be a phishing scheme. Learn how to identify phishing emails and protect your accounts at https://explore.plos.org/phishing.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at customercare@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Prof. Qiwei Ma

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File. Supplementary material.

    (ZIP)

    pone.0344026.s001.zip (29.1MB, zip)
    S2 File. Renamed_1fc36.

    (ZIP)

    pone.0344026.s002.zip (96.3MB, zip)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

    pone.0344026.s004.docx (139.5KB, docx)
    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_auresp_2.docx

    pone.0344026.s005.docx (11.4KB, docx)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS One are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES