Simulating Spatiotemporal Changes in Land Use and Land Cover of the North-Western Himalayan Region Using Markov Chain Analysis
, Shabir Ahmad Bangroo 1,2, Wei Guo 3,*, Gowhar Meraj 4, Gebiaw T. Ayele 5, Nasir Bashir Naikoo 1, Shahid Shafai 6, Perminder Singh 1, Mohammad Muslim 7, Habitamu Taddese 8, Irfan Gani 9 and Shafeeq Ur Rahman 10,11,*
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
“This study has been carried out in the Baramulla district of the Jhelum basin, western Himalayas, to assess its current and future LULC changes and drivers responsible for future policy decisions.” The study performed LULC classification of the study area using satellite images for the years 2000, 2010, and 2020 and a supervised classification method. Then “the land-use transition matrix, Markov chain model, and CA-Markov model were used to determine the spatial patterns and temporal variation of LULC for 2030.”
The authors state that “no prior research has applied the CA-Markow model to forecasting LULC in the region under study.” As such, the manuscript presents a case study and a straightforward application of established methodology, hence, its scientific contribution is limited.
Methodology:
The manuscript completely neglects to provide any details regarding the classification phase of the methodology. Only in the abstract that it is mentioned “we performed LULC classification of the study area using the maximum likelihood supervised classification” (lines 37-38). However, no further details are provided in the body of the manuscript on the classification phase of the study. Some details are very critical to the validity of temporal analysis for detecting changes in LULC, specifically:
- The source and number of ground control points, the procedure, and the results (error) of georeferencing the images of the 3 dates to ground control points and among themselves.
- The pre-processing techniques applied to the images of the 3 dates, specifically the topographic correction that would reduce differences in brightness of identical materials caused by topographic slope and aspect.
- The details on the training samples and the reference (validation) data (consistency, number, and location) throughout the 3 epochs.
The implications of ignoring these details cast doubts on the validity of the methodology. Considering the large area of the study site (about 7000 km2) then changes in LULC types in the order of few km2 or even tens of km2 can be easily attributed to error caused by possible spatial mismatch between the images of the 3 dates rather than actual changes, or to inappropriate corrections to the pixel values.
The authors must include these information, or clearly indicate the lack of such information early in the manuscript rather than mentioning it in the last few lines of the whole manuscript; “the research region is in a hilly place where the ground varies in height, which influences the images' pixel value and may lead to inaccurate classification results” (lines 490-491).
The authors must also consider the accuracy of the spatial georeferencing, the accuracy of spectral classification (averaging about 80%) in their analysis of the results, especially when dealing with changes in areas of small magnitudes (e.g., up to 40km2) as this would be less than 0.5% of the whole area and well within the errors range of spatial and thematic accuracies.
Structure and text:
Section 1: the literature review has inflated the list of references by citing literature that is only tangential to the theme of the manuscript.
Section 2 MUST be edited to include REFERENCES in all of its paragraphs, equations, and figures.
Section 3 must be re-edited and streamlined to remove duplication, redundancy, and maintain an effective flow.
Section 4 must be edited to limit the discussion to the findings of the study and to the stated objectives.
Typographical/writing slip-ups
Line 32-35: unclear /confusing; rephrase
Line 73: wrong citation style for 2 literature, none of them is in the list of References
Line 77-79: describe what is included in the “Traditional methods” and “conventional methods”. What are the differences between “Traditional” and “conventional” methods?
Lines 111-278: (Section 2) Include REFERENCES in ALL of it subsections and paragraphs, equations and figures.
Section 2.1: what is the size of the study area?
Line 129: change to “DEM”
Line 131: Identify source/reference for the table and/or its contents
Line 136: “downloaded from the website of USGS” repeated later; replace with “used”
Line 137: what was the resolution for Landsat 2000?
Line 140: what is the resolution for ASTER DEM?
Line 141: need a reference and description for “The national natural resource management system (NNRMS)”. Which nation is it related to?
Line 148: No detail provided for the “aerial photos, and topographic maps”
Line 149-150: the sentence “Standard topographic maps using a 1:50000 scale were used for DEM in the ArcGIS 10.2 software” is vague, incomplete, and uninformative; rephrase.
Line 163-164: Figure 2 is redundant and has no relevance to the manuscript. No source
Line 167: “Changes in LULC are shown to be related to..” shown by whom? Where? Indicate the reference and/or rephrase.
Line 208: indicate the reference for equation 3
Line 233: the unit for a 5x5 filter is “pixels” not “m”
Line 242: change to “Kquantity”
Lines 250-261 are out of context (in the wrong location), they are more related to Section 2.3.1
Lines 267 273: MUST indicate the REFERENCE(s) for the model and equations.
Line 281: change “combined” to “used”
Line 286: what is meant by “spatial classification”? How are “aerial photos” relevant here? Did you mean “areas”?
Line 302: insert “for” between “data validation”
Line 304: change “achieved” to “calculated” or “obtained”
Line 305: insert “(Table 3)” at the end of sentence.
Line 307: the number in the last column of the last line should be corrected.
Line 311: add “and 6” at the end of the line
Line 313-314: repeated sentence, delete
Line 310-314: the whole paragraph is confusing and repetitive, requires editing and re-writing.
Line 330: delete the repeated phrase “and a proportion of 53.57 percent.”
Line 336: Table 5 is missing the unites for its variables
Line 338: Table 6 is missing the unites for its variables
Line 339: delete “below”
Line 358-360: the sentence is vague, clarify!
Line 336: Table 5 is missing the unites for its variables
Line 373: Table 7 is missing the unites for its variables
Line 374: Table 8 is missing the unites for its variables
Line 376: the sentence “The agricultural LC was also got reduced.” is out of context, not clear if it is related to the previous tables or to Table 9.
Line 376: change to “represent”
Line 385: Table 9 is missing the unites for its variables
Line 387: Table 10 is missing the unites for its variables
Lines 389-392: repeated.
Line 401: what is intended by saying “there was a 10-year gap between 2020 and 2030”. It is obvious there is 10-year “time/period/span” between 2020 and 2030.
Line 408: “Significant differences” is vague, quantify!
Line 410: “Both good and bad things happened to LC” is not an appropriate scientific language
Line 415: “in a negative way” is not appropriate scientific language
Line 417-418: The cause and effect are confused in the sentence “Due to a decrease in agricultural, snow, plant, and wooded areas, the area under horticulture and built-up classes grew”. Reverse the order!
Lines 420-424 are out of context, they are more relevant/fitting in Section 1
Lines 424-425: the statement that “There was a transition from agricultural land to apple orchards in several areas” is not supported/mentioned by the previous sections and can’t be detected by the adopted methodology.
Lines 425-426: the statement “agricultural land was transformed into a residential neighborhood” is not supported/mentioned by the previous sections and can’t be detected by the adopted methodology.
Lines 429-437: No case/discussion had been made to link the dynamics of the study area to those of north Kashmir. What is the relevance to the study area and the study findings?
Line 504: delete “Please add:”
Author Response
Reviewer 1
|
Reviewers comment |
Reply |
|
The manuscript completely neglects to provide any details regarding the classification phase of the methodology. Only in the abstract that it is mentioned “we performed LULC classification of the study area using the maximum likelihood supervised classification” (lines 37-38). However, no further details are provided in the body of the manuscript on the classification phase of the study. Some details are very critical to the validity of temporal analysis for detecting changes in LULC, specifically: - The source and number of ground control points, the procedure, and the results (error) of georeferencing the images of the 3 dates to ground control points and among themselves. - The pre-processing techniques applied to the images of the 3 dates, specifically the topographic correction that would reduce differences in brightness of identical materials caused by topographic slope and aspect. |
The pre-processed images were classified into different classes based on the re-quirement of the study area. Eight major LULC classes viz., agriculture, horticulture, forest, urban, waterbody, fallow land, other vegetation, and snow were identified for mapping the area (Table 2). Maximum likelihood classification was used to map all the land use/cover classes. Prior to choosing the training samples, a thorough empirical investigation of the local toposheet, Google Earth photos, and satellite data was conducted. The minimal number of training samples for the majority of the classes was 100. With the use of GPS and local guides, a field survey was carried out in several locations, encompassing all of the LULC classes, to verify the correctness of any questionable places on the ground. Due to mountainous topography, rough terrain and steep slopes, few areas were not accessible |
|
Line 32-35: unclear /confusing; rephrase
|
Spatial variabilities and drivers of land use and land cover (LULC) change over time are crucial for determining the region's economic viability and ecological functioning. |
|
Line 73: wrong citation style for 2 literature, none of them is in the list of References
|
References removed |
|
Line 77-79: describe what is included in the “Traditional methods” and “conventional methods”. What are the differences between “Traditional” and “conventional” methods?
|
Traditional methods (cartography) for LULC analysis are not adequate for multi-dimensional environmental studies because of the greater complexity of data and less accuracy of these methods |
|
what is the size of the study area? |
The study area (7000 Km2) is in the northmost part of India, sharing a boundary with Pakistan, and is located at an altitude of 1060 to 5200 m.a.s.l. |
|
Line 129: change to “DEM” |
DEM |
|
Line 131: Identify source/reference for the table and/or its contents |
References added |
|
Line 136: “downloaded from the website of USGS” repeated later; replace with “used”
|
Removed later |
|
Line 137: what was the resolution for Landsat 2000?
|
30 m |
|
Line 140: what is the resolution for ASTER DEM?
|
The advanced space-borne thermal emission and reflection radiometer (ASTER) DEM having resolution of 30 m was downloaded from (https://terra.nasa.gov/)for ortho-rectification |
|
Line 141: need a reference and description for “The national natural resource management system (NNRMS)”. Which nation is it related to?
|
The national natural resource management system India (NNRMS) |
|
Line 148: No detail provided for the “aerial photos, and topographic maps”
|
Already mentioned in line no. 150 Standard topographic maps using a 1:50000 scale were used for DEM in the ArcGIS 10.2 software. |
|
Line 149-150: the sentence “Standard topographic maps using a 1:50000 scale were used for DEM in the ArcGIS 10.2 software” is vague, incomplete, and uninformative; rephrase.
|
Standard topographic maps using a 1:50000 scale were used for DEM in the ArcGIS 10.2 software for accurate reflection of the relief and topography |
|
Line 163-164: Figure 2 is redundant and has no relevance to the manuscript. No source Line 167: “Changes in LULC are shown to be related to..” shown by whom? Where? Indicate the reference and/or rephrase.
|
Removed the figure |
|
Line 208: indicate the reference for equation 3
|
Reference added |
|
Line 233: the unit for a 5x5 filter is “pixels” not “m”
|
Changed |
|
Line 242: change to “Kquantity”
|
Changed |
|
Lines 250-261 are out of context (in the wrong location), they are more related to Section 2.3.1
|
Shifted to 2.3.1 |
|
Lines 267 273: MUST indicate the REFERENCE(s) for the model and equations.
|
Reference added |
|
Line 281: change “combined” to “used”
|
Done |
|
Line 286: what is meant by “spatial classification”? How are “aerial photos” relevant here? Did you mean “areas”?
|
After the spatial classification, the aerial photos of each class and their area percentage were measured |
|
Line 302: insert “for” between “data validation”
|
Done |
|
Line 304: change “achieved” to “calculated” or “obtained”
|
Obtained |
|
Line 305: insert “(Table 3)” at the end of sentence |
Done |
|
Line 307: the number in the last column of the last line should be corrected.
|
81.0 |
|
Line 311: add “and 6” at the end of the line
|
Added |
|
Line 313-314: repeated sentence, delete
|
Deleted |
|
Line 310-314: the whole paragraph is confusing and repetitive, requires editing and re-writing.
|
Rephrased |
|
Line 330: delete the repeated phrase “and a proportion of 53.57 percent.”
|
Deleted
|
|
Line 336: Table 5 is missing the unites for its variables Line 338: Table 6 is missing the unites for its variables
|
Units added |
|
Line 339: delete “below”
|
Deleted |
|
Line 358-360: the sentence is vague, clarify!
|
The rows of table represent the land-use change rate during the 2000-2010, while the columns represent the land-use status and transfer during that period |
|
Line 336: Table 5 is missing the unites for its variables Line 373: Table 7 is missing the unites for its variables Line 374: Table 8 is missing the unites for its variables
|
Units added |
|
Line 376: the sentence “The agricultural LC was also got reduced.” is out of context, not clear if it is related to the previous tables or to Table 9.
|
Deleted |
|
Line 376: change to “represent”
|
Done |
|
Line 385: Table 9 is missing the unites for its variables Line 387: Table 10 is missing the unites for its variables
|
Added |
|
Lines 389-392: Repeated.
|
Removed and modified |
|
Line 410: “Both good and bad things happened to LC” is not an appropriate scientific language
|
Removed |
|
Line 415: “in a negative way” is not appropriate scientific language
|
This research found that changes in agricultural land were related to urbanization and horticultural land use |
|
Line 417-418: The cause and effect are confused in the sentence “Due to a decrease in agricultural, snow, plant, and wooded areas, the area under horticulture and built-up classes grew”. Reverse the order! |
The expansion of horticultural and built up class was related to decrease in snow, vegeataion and agricultural land use. |
|
Lines 420-424 are out of context, they are more relevant/fitting in Section 1
|
During the previous two decades, the world's population has grown exponentially, which has led to an expansion of urban areas, leading to decrease in agricultural lands [48]. |
|
Lines 424-425: the statement that “There was a transition from agricultural land to apple orchards in several areas” is not supported/mentioned by the previous sections and can’t be detected by the adopted methodology |
Modified |
|
Lines 425-426: the statement “agricultural land was transformed into a residential neighborhood” is not supported/mentioned by the previous sections and can’t be detected by the adopted methodology.
|
Additionally, agricultural land was transformed into built up area |
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This study looks at a method to predict land use/land cover change. I think the application of a quantitative model is a useful extension to academic discourse, especially demonstrating how you used actual data to "ground truth" your model output. I also appreciated your connection to socio-economic observations and the contextualization of your model results and remotely sensed imagery observations using socio-economic realities on the ground in the region.
I have two concerns with the paper. Both are editorial. The paper, especially the first several sections, needs a significant amount of proofreading and copy editing. I struggled to understand sections of the paper, especially the abstract and introduction. Once I reached section 2, it was much easier to read. There are awkward word choices in the paper, along with many instances of passive voice. For example, the first sentence of your abstract, "Quantification, spatial variability, and drivers of land use and land cover (LULC) change over time are essential for the economic sustainability of the region governing climate change and ecosystem functioning." is extremely awkwardly written. Is Quantification essential for the economic sustainability of a region? I'm not sure what you mean here. There are many other examples of editorial issues.
My other concern is with the organization of the paper. I think some sections do not seem to be in the correct order as I read the paper. For example, if I was writing this paper, I would put section 2.3.2 before 2.3.1. I have two reasons for this suggestion. First chronologically, Ullman's work comes before Markov's work. Second, the CA Markov model is an evolution of Markov's original model. It seems more logical to me. As you proofread the paper, I would suggest you make sure each section logically flows from the previous section. This is primarily a copy/paste exercise.
Overall, I enjoyed the paper and I think it contributes to the academic discourse on LU/LC Change. Best of luck on your future work.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
|
Reviewers comment |
Reply |
|
the first sentence of your abstract, "Quantification, spatial variability, and drivers of land use and land cover (LULC) change over time are essential for the economic sustainability of the region governing climate change and ecosystem functioning." i |
Spatial variabilities and drivers of land use and land cover (LULC) change over time are crucial for determining the region's economic viability and ecological functioning. |
|
My other concern is with the organization of the paper. I think some sections do not seem to be in the correct order as I read the paper. For example, if I was writing this paper, I would put section 2.3.2 before 2.3.1. I have two reasons for this suggestion. First chronologically, Ullman's work comes before Markov's work. Second, the CA Markov model is an evolution of Markov's original model. It seems more logical to me. As you proofread the paper, I would suggest you make sure each section logically flows from the previous section. This is primarily a copy/paste exercise. |
Changed as per your suggestion; please check the track-changing file. |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
The effort of simulating spatiotemporal changes in land use and land cover using machine learning and remote sensing data is interesting and would bring a significant contribution in this field.
Besides that, manuscript needs serious improvement.
Fig.1. Size of the maps should be increased. At this moment they’re too small to read anything from them.
It is a good idea to describe environmental drivers (DEM, Aspect, soils … ) if you used them in LULC change prediction as drivers.
Subsection 2.3. If you wrote, that LULC change depends on “socio-economic factors and biophysical features”, but in simulation used only partially biophysical features, maybe it is a good idea to add them in simulation? In my opinion any economical and demographic spatial information will have good impact on results.
Also I can’t see any information about LULC classification. From subsection 2.2. I guess you used supervised classification based on “NNRMS” classification system? Or you used already prepared LULC data? In case of supervised classification, you should describe this step more.
Also, strange results from table 4 and figure 4. Dynamic of urban class from maps and table significantly differs. From maps its area is increased from one timestep to another, while from the table it decreased. In my opinion, such increase in urban area in this area is a little strange.
I wish that my comment would be helpful in improving the quality of this research.
Thank you.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
|
Reviewers comment |
Reply |
|
Fig.1. Size of the maps should be increased. At this moment they’re too small to read anything from them. |
Done |
|
It is a good idea to describe environmental drivers (DEM, Aspect, soils … ) if you used them in LULC change prediction as drivers. |
Environmental drivers are mentioned in almost every section |
|
If you wrote, that LULC change depends on “socio-economic factors and biophysical features”, but in simulation used only partially biophysical features, maybe it is a good idea to add them in simulation? In my opinion any economical and demographic spatial information will have good impact on results. |
Thanks for the valuable suggestion. I think this suggestion can form the base for future research |
|
Also I can’t see any information about LULC classification. From subsection 2.2. I guess you used supervised classification based on “NNRMS” classification system? Or you used already prepared LULC data? In case of supervised classification, you should describe this step more. |
Maximum likelihood classification was followed |
|
Also, strange results from table 4 and figure 4. Dynamic of urban class from maps and table significantly differs. From maps its area is increased from one time step to another, while from the table it decreased. In my opinion, such increase in urban area in this area is a little strange. |
The changes have been made in the table. It was a topographical error. Thanks for you all valuable suggestions |
|
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have indeed addressed most of the referees’ comments in the revised version. This is reflected on a more coherent and more informative manuscript.
However, the manuscript has NOT been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Land.
I have listed in the following what I have observed. While I hope that the authors would address all of these comments, I do urge them to RE-READ the whole manuscript as one unit and have a COMPLETE RE-EDITING exercise to bring the whole manuscript into one cohesive, informative and easy-flowing manuscript with a consistent writing style.
Typographical errors:
Extra periods “.” or at the wrong place on lines 32, 59, 145, 311, 415, and 426.
Lines 116-125: use the correct format.
Line 148: “Standard topographic maps using a 1:50000 scale were used for DEM in the ArcGIS 10.2 software” is still confusing and incorrectly structured. I assume you mean “Standard topographic maps at 1:50000 scale were used to generate the DEM for the area using the ArcGIS 10.2 software”.
Lines 236-250: the section is a repeat of section 2.3.1; DELETE!
Line 273: Change “m” to “pixels”.
Line 291-304: the text is a repeat for 223-234, make sure to delete the lines after you move them around.
Correct figure numbers (after you have removed Figure 2) on lines 279, 306, 325, 339, and 450.
Correct equation numbers on lines 312-316.
Line 329: the sentence “After the spatial classification, the aerial photos of each class and their area percentage were measured” is still confusing and incorrectly written. If I have to guess what’s on your mind, then I would assume that you meant “After the spectral classification, the area of each class and their area percentage were measured”.
Line 349: Missing “.” At the end of sentence.
Lines 378, 380: Unites are still missing on the two columns in Tables 5 and 6.
Line 418: Line 376: the sentence “The agricultural LC was also got reduced.” is out of context, and it is still in the manuscript despite that you reported being deleted.
Line 431: change “The” to “the”
Manuscript Structure
Section 2.2.1
“The pre-processed images” (Line 164) there was no mention/discussion on pre-processing the images, what types of pre-processing were done? What are the outcomes of these pre-processes? What is the accuracy of the georeferencing?
Missing Reference(s) for: Section 2.1, Figure 1, Table 1, and Section 2.3.1, 2.3.2 (1st paragraph).
The manuscript MUST not be published without including the list of and the citation to all references for its methodology.
Author Response
|
Reviewers comments |
Reply |
|
I have listed in the following what I have observed. While I hope that the authors would address all of these comments, I do urge them to RE-READ the whole manuscript as one unit and have a COMPLETE RE-EDITING exercise to bring the whole manuscript into one cohesive, informative and easy-flowing manuscript with a consistent writing style.
|
Thank you for the valuable suggestions. The necessary changes have been made in the manuscript. |
|
Typographical errors: Extra periods “.” or at the wrong place on lines 32, 59, 145, 311, 415, and 426.
|
The errors have been fixed |
|
Lines 116-125: use the correct format.
|
The problem is being fixed using correct format |
|
Line 148: “Standard topographic maps using a 1:50000 scale were used for DEM in the ArcGIS 10.2 software” is still confusing and incorrectly structured. I assume you mean “Standard topographic maps at 1:50000 scale were used to generate the DEM for the area using the ArcGIS 10.2 software”.
|
Standard topographic maps at 1:50000 scale were used to generate the DEM for the area using the ArcGIS 10.2 software |
|
Lines 236-250: the section is a repeat of section 2.3.1; DELETE!
|
Deleted |
|
Line 273: Change “m” to “pixels”.
|
Changed |
|
Line 291-304: the text is a repeat for 223-234, make sure to delete the lines after you move them around.
|
Thanks for the suggestions sir. The lines 223-234 are as The cell values were written in the columns. The pixel values represent LULC and LULC change data derived from satellite images. The Markov model could be represented by the set of states L= (L0, L1, L2, L3….. Ln), predicting that the current state is Lc which gets changed to state Ld at the adjacent step with the transition probability denoted by Pij. The state Lc+1 in the system could be obtained by the previous step Lc using the formula [45]. The Line 291-304 are as follows Classification results of the Landsat images in 2000 and 2020 were used to determine the potential area of LC change. Figure 4 represents the classification results of Landsat images in 2000, 2010, and 2020. Table 2 shows the LULC statistics for the three periods. These tables and figures show that the study area has been classified into eight major LULC classes: agriculture, horticulture, forest, fallow, snow, vegetation, water bodies, and construction. After the spatial classification, the aerial photos of each class and their area percentage were measured. The results showed that forests covered the most significant area across the years, with an area proportion of 26.15%, 24.50%, and 24.31% in 2000, 2010, and 2020, respectively. Agriculture was the second most dominant LC, with an area coverage of 22.30, 21.29, and 20.04%, with a declining pattern in 2000, 2010, and 2020, respectively. The study area is known as the horticultural belt of the North-Western Himalayas, and the proportion of area coverage proportion increased gradually from 3.92 to 5.77% between 2000 and 2010. The proportion of construction area increased at an incredible pace from 2000 to 2020, with a percentage of 9.71% in 2000, 13.17% in 2010, and 14.11% in 2020, showing the urbanization and improvement in the economic condition of the inhabitants. Dear reviewer I think there is no repetition in these lines Dear |
|
Correct figure numbers (after you have removed Figure 2) on lines 279, 306, 325, 339, and 450.
|
Corrected |
|
Correct equation numbers on lines 312-316.
|
Done |
|
Line 329: the sentence “After the spatial classification, the aerial photos of each class and their area percentage were measured” is still confusing and incorrectly written. If I have to guess what’s on your mind, then I would assume that you meant “After the spectral classification, the area of each class and their area percentage were measured”.
|
Correction added |
|
Line 349: Missing “.” At the end of sentence.
|
Added |
|
Lines 378, 380: Unites are still missing on the two columns in Tables 5 and 6. |
Added |
|
The agricultural LC was also got reduced |
Deleted
|
|
Line 431: change “The” to “the”
|
Changed |
|
Section 2.2.1 “The pre-processed images” (Line 164) there was no mention/discussion on pre-processing the images, what types of pre-processing were done? What are the outcomes of these pre-processes? What is the accuracy of the georeferencing?
|
It was a typo error. We used Landsat legacy data that is pre-processed at the source with pixel level horizontal accuracy. We have now deleted the pre-processing and also changed the sub section title. We thank you for helping us to correct our manuscript. |
|
Missing Reference(s) for: Section 2.1, Figure 1, Table 1, and Section 2.3.1, 2.3.2 (1st paragraph).
|
We have added all the missing references. We thank the worthy reviewer for helping us to improve our manuscript |
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for authors, the manuscript have significantly improved from the last revision. Besides this, some some changes should be done.
Fig. 1. Still unreadable. Maybe you should increase the resolution of the provided maps
Table 4. Please, check you "changes in the area". Some LC have wrong values (for example "Forest" should have "-").
L373. What is the "Pasture" LC?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
|
Fig. 1. Still unreadable. Maybe you should increase the resolution of the provided maps |
We have revised figure 1. There were some additional map insets that were deemed not necessary as per the objectives of this research was concerned. In the revised manuscript, we have revised the figure 1 accordingly. Thank you once again |
|
Table 4. Please, check you "changes in the area". Some LC have wrong values (for example "Forest" should have "-"). |
It was a typo error, we have now corrected it. Thank you once again. |
|
What is the "Pasture" LC? |
Changed |
|
|
|
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
