Temporal and Spatial Evolution Characteristics and Its Driving Mechanism of Land Use/Land Cover Change in Laos from 2000 to 2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Let me first say that this is a fairly well-written and well-structured article, concise and as succinct as needed, as it avoids tedious and exhaustive descriptions. On the one hand, it demonstrates credibility with the scientific methods it uses and, on the other hand, it draws on rich and up-to-date literature with clear references to the last five years. I have minor comments before acceptance. 

- Line 54: Add some recent citations, for example:

** https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2022.103117

** https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14091977

- Please add an abbreviation table at the end of the manuscript to list all the acronyms used in the manuscript. Please also check the abbreviations to ensure they are all defined the first time they appeared.

Author Response

Thanks for reading and commenting, please check the responses in Word. Thank you again and have a great day!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The driving forces found in the paper are basically evident without further researches. For example, population growth may be a solid factor the trend. However, the degree of influences still are vague though the estimated model is appropriately specified. Further model specifications would be considered for sure. 

Author Response

Thanks for reading and commenting, please check the responses in Word. Thank you again and have a great day!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with land use and land cover changes and explore driving mechanism of LUCC in Laos from 2000 to 2020. The manuscript, in general, is well written and with the appropriate manuscript structure. The topic fits the scope of the journal, and the case is relevant. The manuscript describes applied research which has practical value, the results and methods used are clearly presented. I propose to accept the manuscript for publication in present form. I’ve found only one typo: line 112 the location is missing ‘ - 107°38’E and Figure 2 is not informative because of the combination of similar legend colours and small scale.

Author Response

Thanks for reading and commenting, please check the responses in Word. Thank you again and have a great day!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

"Temporal and Spatial Evolution Characteristics and Its Driving Mechanism of Land Use / Cover in Laos from 2000 to 2020"

An interesting study on the important issues of long-term land cover changes and the factors that influence them. However, the present form of the manuscript requires a number of corrections and additions.

Title: I have doubts about the correctness of the title. Are you sure the authors meant "Driving Mechanism of Land Use / Land Cover"? It seems to me that it is more about the analysis of the factors (causes) influencing changes in land use, and not the land use itself.

Abstract. "There is a lack of national-scale long-term time-series change process and mechanism exploration research on land use / land cover (LUC) in Laos."

Again, doubts about the style and precision of the statement. Can we investigate the "time-series change process and mechanism". This study is based on time-series data, but does not analyze time-series processes.

GLC_FCS30 - abstract use should be preceded by the full version of the name (Global Land Cover with Fine Classification System at 30m ”, it is not a very popular abbreviation.

Figure 1, Figure 4:
(PH: Phongsaly, LN: Luangnamtha, BK: Bokeo, OU: Oudomxay, LP: Luangprabang, HO: Huaphanh, XA: Xayaboury, VT: Vientiane Capital, XI: Xiengkhuang, VI: Vientiane, BL: Borikhamxay, KH: Khammuane, SV: Savannakhet, XB: Xaysomboon, SL: Saravan, XK: Xekong, CH: Champasack, AT: Attapeu)
The abbreviation explanations should be part of the legend, not the caption.

The scale of the map: in Figure 1, the same scale length (480 km), in the other drawings, the same length is 200 km. Which values ​​are valid?

The altitude scale in Figure 1 suggests that the lowest point of the country is 51 meters above sea level…. This is probably not true. Rather, 0 would be a valid value.

Formula (1), why "i" changes from 1 to 7?

Tables 4 and 5 - why "Impervious surfaces" marked as Y6 and as Y8?

Figure 4. The drawing preparation process looks bad. It needs to be rearranged, including the legend, and bringing the drawing to some "visual coherence".
Please explain the concept of "land-use dynamic degree"
keywords: timing analysis? related analysis?
probably the authors wanted to write: time-series analysis

The graphic and linguistic layer requires some refinement. There are a lot of minor imperfections in the text (missing dots, spaces). The text was probably prepared in a hurry.

Author Response

Thanks for reading and commenting, please check the responses in Word. Thank you again and have a great day!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

I have read the responses to the comments in the review, as well as the revised version of the article. The new version of the manuscript has been significantly improved as a result of taking into account the comments contained in individual reviews. The current version is in my opinion suitable for publication.