Integrating ANNs and Cellular Automata–Markov Chain to Simulate Urban Expansion with Annual Land Use Data
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Perhaps the ideas of Roger White, Guy Engelen and Inga Ulgee could be cited as earlier work on the dynamic modelling of urban developments.
Other wise I think this is clear and useful research into the probable patterns of urban growth.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The present study focuses on simulating urban expansion in Auckland by utilizing the land use dataset. An integrated methodology is applied by using Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), cellular automata (CA), and Markov Chain (MC) approaches. The readability of the present paper is low, there are many wrong word choices and grammars issues, that must be fixed. The paper needs professional language editing. The background of the topic is presented vaguely and the literature investigation is weak, which should be strengthened. The authors mention the relationship between rapid urban expansion and unsustainable urban development as a result of the effects of land-use policies. Though land use and transportation are interdependent, therefore, this must be assessed in the background (e.g., https://doi.org/10.3390/su131810158, http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1434678 and https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23430-9_41), I also suggest evaluation of the results deeper by considering the interdependence between land use and transportation, because you also used many transport components in the data for modeling. The methodological reasoning is supported with literature well but a better organization is required in order to express the research direction and literature gap for the readers. The study aim can be elaborated, as well I suggest presenting the paper organization at the end of the introduction. I find the evaluation of the results poor, what we learned with these results in terms of land use planning and its connections is unclear, what is the fundamental gain of this study for the studied area? What are suggestions for urban planners and decision-makers?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The presented results of our own research can be considered interesting. On the other hand, it seems that the most optimal solution is related primarily to the quality of data, about which the authors write.
Comparison of results with those obtained for the region of Auckland, New Zealand, may seem somewhat questionable.
Readability of the article should be improved:
- The notation of the same abbreviations should be standardized (abstract),
- Table 2 also contains percentages of individual area, which was not indicated in the description, also presentation of data in the table should be improved in terms of editing (column 0.4-0.2).
- Lack of clarity in the text lines 68-72, 272,
- Table 3 contains the MLP-MDDA method?
- The title of the subchapter 4.3 needs to be modified or a reference to the text needs to be introduced, allowing for clear understanding of the chapter title and the content itself, especially in lines 359-365,
- In the conclusion, expand the section - lines 389-392,
- All abbreviations used should be explained in the text.
- Editing errors should be corrected e.g. line 346
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors improved the paper, the revision is satisfactory. Please, remove the introduction representation (1) while introducing the paper organization in the end of first section, it does not make sense there. As well, I suggest a language re-control of revised parts before publishing.
Author Response
Please see that attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
