Scenario-Based LULC Dynamics Projection Using the CA–Markov Model on Upper Awash Basin (UAB), Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is good, the authors evaluate the ‘’ Scenario-Based LULC dynamics Projection Using the CA–Markov Model on Upper Awash Basin (UAB), Ethiopia’’. It is an interesting and great contribution to the scientific community; however, the material method, discussion and references of the paper should be improved. Still there are many issues present in the manuscript which should be explained properly. The manuscript needs some minor revisions as given below:
· The text of this paper in general needs a thorough review, as there are multiple spelling and grammatical errors. Many sentences do not mean any sense. Moreover, there are several sloppy errors that should be fixed.
· Write the area in Km2 as well as % in abstract.
· Line 34, write the full name of LULC and then abbreviate.
· Introduction is too long and there are some unnecessary contents in the introduction of this article that can be deleted. It is suggested to modify them carefully and refine the main contents of the article again.
· Line 82, citation style does not match journal style, please set this.
· Line 73 to 87, please add the suitable reference.
· More research background and motivation should be added to the Introduction section. Although, I propose some new papers must be added in the reference list and text which will also help you to make it more intriguing such
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-21650-8, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2022.103117,
· Line 208, what means 206 ??
· Line 135, you says download Landsat image for the year 19970, but Landsat launched in 1972 ? How you get this image.
· Figure 2; You cannot write 1970
· In results, please write your area in Km2 as well as %.
· Your citation style does not match the journal style in various sections, set it in whole manuscript.
· Resolution of all figures should be improved.
· Figure 3b, show the line in this image, remove this.
· Please write results and discussion in 2 sections.
· In discussion section; Discussion: As per the instruction given by the journal “The findings and their implications should be discussed in the broadest context possible and the limitations of the work highlighted”.
· Write main results and future recommendation in conclusion.
· Reference does not meet to journal style, set these.
Overall, the study conducted is interesting but a major revision of the entire manuscript is essentially required for publication in this journal. Hence, I recommend reconsideration after a major revision of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript discusses the use of supervised MLC technique and CA-Markov model in land use retrieval and projection within a developing city in Ethiopia. The conclusions made are of no big surprise, that the urban and cropland areas increase. The theme of this manuscript is interesting, and it would be great if the authors can address the following problems / make corresponding changes:
Major problems
(1) In the Abstract, it was mentioned that increase in vegetation covers constitute to sustainable development, however the details and explanations were not explicitly provided and validated throughout the manuscript.
(2) Section 1 (Introduction): Lines 48-63 - The authors should also acknowledge the use of different machine learning approaches in LULC retrieval, for example the following articles:
https://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/13/16/3337/htm
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0048969722006519
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42452-019-1527-8
(3) Section 1 (Introduction) - Lines 56-57: "despite the spatial change, there is no identification" - it is not quite clear, can you derive the change / respective statistical figures in that case?
(4) Section 1 (Introduction) - Lines 63-64: "models that can reveal spatial projection and land class conversion quantity should be employed..."- how about model training in machine learning algorithms? Does that help? Also, what is the advantage of CA-Markov model against ML methods? ML methods were recently very hot in LULC retrieval studies.
(5) Section 1 (Introduction) - Lines 87-93: The authors should list out some concrete and specific examples and effectiveness of adopting scenario-based prediction.
(6) Lines 106-110: This approach has been practiced and adopted in emission / pollution control studies for many years, therefore it will be much better if the authors state clearly the new scientific ideas established / developed here?
(7) Section 2.3 - some technical descriptions should be added and expanded here. Also, for Line 159, what do you mean by "enhanced to enhance their visual quality?)
(8) Section 2.4 (Lines 161-169): The purposes of both supervised and unsupervised image classification are not clearly stated.
(9) For Section 2.9.2, are there any numerical descriptions? The description provided here is too brief.
(10) Lines 467-468: "However, cropland and...underestimated" - How do you know? Any numerical figures for supporting this claim?
(11) Lines 516-529: In view of this change and variation, are there any suggestions or plans specifically designed for that?
(12) After Line 560: Please kindly describe any future government plans and suggestions regarding these spatial changes captured by satellite images? How does local government deal with all these variations?
Minor problems
(1) Some typos were found, for example,
Line 60: are examples of
Line 104: urban expansion
Line 108: and 2060
Line 119: superscripted for km^2
Line 125: Cropland
Line 133: 45-year trajectory
Line 257: monitor
Line 284: ensuring that thet are...
Line 289: or when the factor value
Line 309: Therefore, before implementing the prediction map of 2030 and 2060,
Lines 318-319: What are N(n), Mm, Nm and Pm, as well as Pp? Define them appropriately.
Line 370: respectively, while shrubland and forest...
Line 507: (Table 9)
Line 509: and resulted in...
Line 540: will be mostly affected by these changes.
Lines 545-560: There are no brackets for all percentages.
(2) Lines 113-114: Need to be more specific for "water resource management and LULC development"
(3) Lines 128-131 have no connection with the goal of this manuscript.
(4) Table 1: For spatial resolution, either all figures should be corrected to 1 d.p., or all should be integers.
(5) Lines 174-175: For this method of classification, is there any proper scientific reference?
(6) Lines 222-225 in Section 2.6- Why only these factors are being considered? Is this set-up or consideration well-justified?
(7) Lines 231-232: Should also describe it as a "conditional probabilistic formulation".
(8) All equations (1), (2), (3) etc. should be positioned in the middle, and after Equation (1), we should have "shows the Markov chain...", and the (n+1) and (n-1) in Lines 235 and 236 should be underscripted.
(9) Please give full form of all abbreviations in Figure 1, as well as in all other figures.
(10) Line 391: How are health issues related? Explain.
(11) For Table 3, the Km2 should be km2
(12) A table line should be properly added to Table 5.
(13) y-axis of Figure 4 should be km2. Also, please give numerical figures within all the bars, that will be much clearer.
(14) Line 493: Table 8
(15) Figure 6: The labelling of y-axis of Figure should be km2, and it will be better to use different symbols rather than color to allocate the raw data points, so that they are easy to be distinguished.
Other than all these changes, I believe the manuscript has its scientific value to some extent.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
All comments are completed by authors. But in the end of manucript, you put 2 lists of references that is confusing. Please set the reference list.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Well done for implementing the majority of the concerns.
Line 360: Should be “Kstandard” and “Klocation” instead of “Klocation” and “Kstandard”
All the success!
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The modifications have made the revised manuscript much better, and the presentation is much more scientific when compared with the previous version. However, there are some more aspects to be improved or enhanced, or even updated:
Major point [3] of the review: "spatial structure of different classes of LULC change" - could the authors describe in details what do you mean by "spatial structure"?
Major point [4] of the review: The authors respond that "Predictions made by simple models, such as CA-Markov, are often better than those made by more complicated models based on ML algorithms." - any proper references or inter-comparisons could be made from recent research / academic studies?
Major point [6] of the review: "Compared to other studies in UAB, the scenarios presented in this study are different" - how are the scenarios in this current study different? It would be interesting if the authors can extend further.
New points to be addressed
(1) For references, only Lines 930-1048 in the revised manuscript should be kept, also please check the reference list and make sure the numbers here match / coincide with the numbers as stated in the main text of this manuscript. Further, some names of the authors were wrong - it's impossible for authors to have so many initials, for example Refs [2], [4], [5],[8], [9], [14], [15], [16] etc. please check once again, and make sure all author names here are correct.
(2) The tables and figures should be rearranged, so that they will be closer to the corresponding places / descriptions within the main text.
(3) Figure 5 in the revised manuscript looks a bit strange, it would be better to present in a better manner
(4) It would be better to adopt different colors for the lines / charts in Figure 6.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
