Detection and Analysis of Forest Clear-Cutting Activities Using Sentinel-2 and Random Forest Classification: A Case Study on Chungcheongnam-do, Republic of Korea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work is interesting regarding the addressed theme and the region. However, there are still things to correct to make it publishable. Concerning the abstract, do not break it down into subtitles. Add a description of the problem that motivated the development of this study. Explain what was actually done rather than just listing the methodological approaches. The results should focus on the key message. For the keywords, choose a maximum of 6 among the most relevant. Additionally, in the introduction, forests should be placed in a global context, in terms of area and distribution. There is no logical sequence in the introduction between the developed paragraphs. It is better to first explain how the cutting areas are monitored by remote sensing, including the associated algorithms, and explain how the algorithm used in the study, as well as the indices, differ from others. Before discussing forests in Korea, first discuss forests in Asia, emphasizing their typology. The gap that the study aims to cover is not clearly outlined. There is a lack of hypothesis while some ideas are redundant. Regarding the study area, the description is too incomplete and lacks ecological (soils, climate, vegetation) and socio-economic context elements. In the methodology, it is important to provide the source of the forest definition and support various choices made with arguments. The issue of statistical analysis is not addressed in the methodology. Given that the core of the study relies on the validation of the algorithm used in the remote sensing data processing for monitoring cutting areas, it would have been important to compare it to other algorithms. In the results, try to structure them logically. Why are the regions compared to each other? The discussion should be broken down into methodological limitations, discussion of results, and implications. The conclusion is still unusually long.

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions; please see the attachment for the revised contents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review
Manuscript ID: forests-2885150
Title: Detection and Analysis of Forest Clear-Cutting Activities Using Sentinel-2 and Random
Forest Classification: A Case Study on Chungcheongnam-do, South Korea

Comments:

-Abstract: The document is crafted with clarity and conciseness, void of superfluous details.
However, it is strongly advised to omit the headings. such as:
Research Highlights (in line 15)
Background and Objectives (in line 14)
Materials and Methods (in line 16)
please do the same in lines 18 and 25…
Also, in line 12 do not start by saying “This study contibutes…” instead start by giving a
more general framework of what you want to describe. Then continue as you did in line 14
(This study provides…)

-In lines 49-50… Acknowledging recent advancements in remote sensing technology,
particularly the emergence of high spatial resolution spaceborne sensors like Pleiades’-HR
1A-1B (with very high spatial resolution), is crucial. These cutting-edge sensors have greatly
improved the capacity to capture detailed information from aerial platforms. Notably,
contemporary studies, such as the referenced paper (https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11212539),
leverage these advancements to collect precise data on diverse phenomena. Thus, it is
imperative to incorporate the latest research and technological capabilities when discussing
the efficacy of sentinel systems. The recommended paper will undoubtedly enrich the
introduction and discussion sections by offering valuable insights from the most recent
findings in this field. Here is the reference:
Abdollahnejad, A.; Panagiotidis, D.; Bílek, L. An Integrated GIS and Remote Sensing Approach for
Monitoring Harvested Areas from Very High-Resolution, Low-Cost Satellite Images. Remote
Sens. 2019, 11, 2539. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs11212539

-In lines 106-108: The intended statement was to emphasize the challenge of using Sentinel-2.
However, it should be noted that there exist airborne platforms and sensors with higher
spatial resolution, enabling the capture of such information such as Pleiades. Therefore, in
the general context of remote sensing, it is feasible. Rephrase accordingly.

-In the caption of Figure 1, please include explicit information about the representation of the
yellow and blue lines.

- Have the authors considered incorporating texture analysis into their study? I believe it could
greatly enhance the results, as texture analysis is adept at capturing changes in clear-cut
areas, potentially providing significant benefits.

-It would also be beneficial and interesting to explore the performance of alternative machine
learning algorithms, rather than solely focusing on random forest. Additionally, conducting
cross-analysis between these algorithms could provide valuable insights. Have you
considered this approach? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

-Another suggestion would involve repeatedly modeling the most crucial VIs.
Overall, the paper is meticulously designed. The English language is excellent, and the smooth
connection between sentences makes it both easy and engaging for the reader to follow and grasp
all the details. I eagerly anticipate how the authors will address my comments, and I'm eager to
review the manuscript again once all the changes have been implemented.

Author Response

We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions; please see the attachment for the revised contents.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have correctly integrated my comments. The manuscript is publishable!