The Possibilities of Orthophotos Application for Calculation of Ecological Stability Coefficient Purposes
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It would be useful to add the following information, to the article:
- What is the accuracy of the map data for determining CES?
- What specific terrestrial methods were used to determine CES?
- How were the boundaries of the cultures initially defined in Figure 1?
- Where is the coefficient A in the formula for calculating CES2?
- For what maximum extent of the territory is the CES calculation used?
- The specific contribution of the authors to the solved problem of determining/calculating CES using UAV.
- What are the conclusions/benefits of the experimental part of the solution?
Comments and recommendations:
It is necessary to consider the accuracy and quality of the acquired data using UAV technology to define the conditions of data collection.
The claim that terrestrial methods used for CES computing are costly and time-consuming cannot be accepted. The use of UAVs is practical only in the speed of data collection, subsequent evaluation and interpretation of them is not a simple process (shadows, vegetation, etc.), time and money consuming (SW, acquisition of UAV technology).
According to the results in Figure 7, it would be appropriate to divide area F into other areas, it is composed of permanent grassland and arable areas, which is confirmed by Figure 9.
The results published in the article only prove that the calculation of CES according to the mentioned authors differs, which is also mentioned in the conclusion of the article. No solution is given, the authors only state the fact, which impairs the quality of the article. It would be appropriate to add a novelty in the issue of CES calculation.
Author Response
Point 1: What is the accuracy of the map data for determining CES?
Response 1: The accuracy of the map varies from polygon 1 to polygon 2. While in the first polygon it was an accuracy of 3.3 centimeters of actual size per pixel, the second polygon was scanned with an accuracy of 2.5 centimeters of actual distance per pixel. These facts are given in lines 207 and 237.
Point 2: What specific terrestrial methods were used to determine CES?
Response 2: There were no used terrestrial methods to determine CES. The goal of article is to use other kind of method for CES determination. The terrestrial methods were only mentioned as methods usually used in the past.
Point 3: How were the boundaries of the cultures initially defined in Figure 1?
Response 3: Edit of this response is in final paper.
The examined locality includes several landscape features types, starting with the high built-up areas, segment A (determined by boundaries of the housing estate) represented by the settlement itself, the low built-up areas represented by the suburbs, segment D (determined by boundaries of cadastral area), respectively by the gardening areas, segment E (defined by boundaries of area used for gardening in cadaster of real estates) and various natural cultures types used for the recreational and agricultural purposes, segments B, C and F (differenced visually for segments B and C and by the boundaries of agricultural usage for segment F).
Point 4: Where is the coefficient A in the formula for calculating CES?
Response 4: Formula was corrected
Point 5: For what maximum extent of the territory is the CES calculation used?
Response 5: The extent of the territory is not decisive for the CES calculation, but the ratio of ecologically positive areas due to ecologically negative areas.
Point 6: The specific contribution of the authors to the solved problem of determining/calculating CES using UAV.
Response 6: The aim of the paper was to show the possibility of UAV for CES calculation, this kind of calculation has never been used in this way, CES can be calculated from orthophotoimages and this fact makes calculations of CES without terrestrial method possible. That makes the calculations faster and more accessible when there are no terrestrial data that can make simple land adaptation less difficult and faster. This may be helpful in the moment of increasing the number of active simple land adaptations.
Point 7: What are the conclusions/benefits of the experimental part of the solution?
Response 7: This is mentioned in the discussion and conclusion.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall
The manuscript titled "The Possibilities of Orthophotos Application for 3 Calculation of Ecological Stability Coefficient Purposes" discusses the calculation of Coefficient of Ecological Stability using UAVs. I believe that the paper needs serious revisions to reach the publication level as many issues are found, and the paper's structure is an issue. The objective of the article is not clear. I was reading the paper and not sure what is the main message and goal. It also does not express the novelty of the work. It seems that they are discussing classification methods, which were implemented by several papers. They also used the mavic pro DJI drone containing a high-resolution RGB camera, which is hard to use to distinguish between classes. Many articles usually use multispectral sensors with several bands, including the NIR band, to classify vegetation. I am not sure if they are trying to classify the image using cheaper sensors since multispectral sensors are expensive. If this is what the authors are trying to sell, then they should make it clear in the manuscript and the objectives. Thus, I suggest that the authors must have a clear objective. The introduction needs to present the story of the paper and what makes this paper novel, and what this is going to add to the literature.
The manuscript also misses many important research components. I couldn't find the results section. It seems that the results are integrated with the methods, and many paragraphs in the method section should be in the discussion. The study area was also missing. They need to add this section to explain the study area. Also, the manuscript requires English editing.
Abstract
The abstract needs to present the main objective, main results, and take-home message (conclusion). The abstract misses all these major components.
Introduction
The authors need to integrate the intro with the literature review. In the literature review, the authors discussed the CES calculations. These calculations were used in the paper, as shown in Table 8. So, I believe that these calculations need to be moved to the methodology section. The last paragraph in the intro needs to discuss the novelty of the paper and the objective.
Before the method section, they need to add a study are section.
Materials and methods
Fig 2 is not mentioned in the text.
Line 175. Change the word “chapter” with “section”
Line 187-189. I don’t think you need to mention LZZI and ILS.
Divide the data collection section into subsections, including Image Data Acquisition and Image Classification. Then, add a sub-section to explain how the CESs are calculated using the UAV image. Then, use the same order in the results section to discuss your results.
Fig 5 is also missing in the text.
Combine fig 7,8, and 9 in one figure.
Line 235-239. Need to be moved to the discussion.
Line 235. “The method of using UAV in the case of imaging a small area of polygons was much more effective 236 than with the use of civil aircraft” this is a well-known finding. We know that UAVs provide more details compared with aircraft. This could be discussed in the discussion, but I suggest explaining the disadvantages of the UAVs since they are not applicable for Large scall assessment. Thus, the selection between UAVs, aircraft, and satellite mainly depends on the purpose of the study. This means that it is incorrect to claim the UAV is the best option in all cases.
Line 256. For supervised classification, why ArcMap was used? Why not ENVI or Eirdas? They are more powerful software for image processing.
Line 258. “For correct elimination of graphic errors such as shadows, before Cluster Unsupervised Classification, Principal Component was used” why this method was used?
Line 264. “The result of the tool is a multiband raster with the same number of bands as the specified number of components one band per axis or component in the new multivariate” you are discussing the results in the method section? You need to have a result section. Results and discussion could be combined in one section, but results and methods cannot be integrated. You also mentioned “some number of bands” what do you mean? You used an RGB camera with the Mavic DJI drone. This means that only three bands (red, green, and blue). Do you mean the number of classified classes?
Line 270. What are the classified classes? Are they the same segment classes you mentioned earlier?
Line 313. Why “Figure 9 is bold.”
Line 321-339. Did you use the object base or pixel base classification for the segmentation? Object base oriented method is usually used for this. the e-cognition software is widely used. This part needs to be explained.
The results section is missing, and the discussion section is weak.
I believe the structure of the paper is an issue. A lot of work needs to be done to improve the paper.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: The abstract needs to present the main objective, main results, and take-home message
(conclusion). The abstract misses all these major components.
Response 1: Abstract was innovated and edited due to response requirements.
Point 2: The authors need to integrate the intro with the literature review. In the literature review, the authors discussed the CES calculations. These calculations were used in the paper, as shown in Table 8. So, I believe that these calculations need to be moved to the methodology section. The last paragraph in the intro needs to discuss the novelty of the paper and the objective. Before the method section, they need to add a study are section.
Response 2: The literature and review section was integrated with the introduction. The calculation formulas and their interpretation stayed in the section Literature and review due to aesthetic and functional purpose of paper sections. These formulas were also part of used theoretical background.
Point 3: Fig 2 is not mentioned in the text.
Response 3: The response was corrected.
Point 4: Line 175. Change the word “chapter” with “section”
Response 4: The response was corrected.
Point 5: Line 187-189. I don’t think you need to mention LZZI and ILS.
Response 5: Due to the proximity of Žilina Airport, it is necessary to maintain a radio connection with the control tower during the operation of the UAV in the CTR area. According to the attached map [1] and according to the currently valid ICAO map, the scanned area is partially interfering with the CTR of the LZZI airport, therefore it was essential to mention it within the flight conditions. The RUTKI point is used as one of the points within the instrument approach as well as the departure from the LZZI airport. The vector (RUTKI 1S / RUTKI 1A / RUTKI 2B) of this point leads in close proximity to the scanned area, for this reason the condition of UAV flights in the LZZI area was mentioned in the article. Detailed maps of approaches and departures from Zilina airport can be found in the AIP database in the attached link [2]
Point 6: Divide the data collection section into subsections, including Image Data Acquisition and Image Classification. Then, add a sub-section to explain how the CESs are calculated using the UAV image. Then, use the same order in the results section to discuss your results.
Response 6: Sections and sub-sections were created in logical order. Every section has its logical structure due to its point. There were no sub-sections needed, single parts in section were graphically differenced. Creation of new sub-sections would have missed the target..
Point 7:Fig 5 is also missing in the text.
Response 7: The response was corrected.
Point 8: Combine fig 7,8, and 9 in one figure.
Response 8: The Figures present different steps of processing and in some ways displaying the influence of processing. Combination of these figures would decrease their quality and informative value if they become smaller and their placement next to each other in this scale would be chaotic.
Point 9: Line 235-239. Need to be moved to the discussion.
Response 9: The response was corrected.
Point 10: Line 235. “The method of using UAV in the case of imaging a small area of polygons was much more effective 236 than with the use of civil aircraft” this is a well-known finding. We know that UAVs provide more details compared with aircraft. This could be discussed in the discussion, but I suggest explaining the disadvantages of the UAVs since they are not applicable for Large scall assessment. Thus, the selection between UAVs, aircraft, and satellite mainly depends on the purpose of the study. This means that it is incorrect to claim the UAV is the best option in all cases.
Response 10: The answer has been corrected and added in the "Discussion" section. Lines 417 – 427.
Point 11: Line 256. For supervised classification, why ArcMap was used? Why not ENVI or Eirdas? They are more powerful software for image processing.
Response 11: The ArcMap was chosen due to its historical usage on our Alma Mater and the programme is the closest and most familiar for the authors.
Point 12: Line 258. “For correct elimination of graphic errors such as shadows, before Cluster Unsupervised Classification, Principal Component was used” why this method was used?
Response 12: This method was used because of its high effectivity and it works semi-automatically. From the methods provided by ArcMap, this method is the most effective according to the authors references.
Point 13: Line 264. “The result of the tool is a multiband raster with the same number of bands as the specified number of components one band per axis or component in the new multivariate” you are discussing the results in the method section? You need to have a result section. Results and discussion could be combined in one section, but results and methods cannot be integrated.
Response 13: This is only “so-called” result. We described the possible outputs of the described method and the tense was meant as the processing description according to its online definition.
Point 14: You also mentioned “some number of bands” what do you mean? You used an RGB camera with the Mavic DJI drone. This means that only three bands (red, green, and blue). Do you mean the number of classified classes?
Response 14: This sentence presents the overall method description. In this paper section the same language was used as is used in the official source.
Point 15: Line 270. What are the classified classes? Are they the same segment classes you mentioned earlier?
Response 15: The response was corrected.
Point 16: Line 313. Why “Figure 9 is bold.”
Response 16: After editing all Figures are bold due to clarity.
Point 17: Line 321-339. Did you use the object base or pixel base classification for the segmentation? Object base oriented method is usually used for this. the e-cognition software is widely used. This part needs to be explained.
Response 17: The response was corrected.
References:
- https://aim.lps.sk/eAIP/eAIP_SR/AIP_SR_EFF_28JAN2021/pdf/aip/LZ_AD_2_LZZI_8-1_en.pdf?fbclid=IwAR0QNSUZO3l2k_h6ki_Lwj4mqCG6gdEkWMsPVKe7cl0SL7wRvGRZylO5b7s
- https://aim.lps.sk/eAIP/eAIP_SR/AIP_SR_EFF_28JAN2021/html/LZ-AD-2.LZZI-en-SK.html?fbclid= IwAR0MDFQCUdw4kVWC_HPRe6S4mDnAW_eFISKJ1XOepLOmsUX6ct3ZEKW_FBk
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear all,
It is a fact that Orthophotos has an extensive range of possibilities for its scientific application, as is the case of the ecological field.
The general idea of this work has potential, and some of the used methods and data treatment are also interesting.
However, this paper presents several flaws that should be revised:
- there are several errors in the use of the English language as well as formating issues of the document
- some of the images and tables are not correctly conducted - see table 6, for example
- the literature review section is quite confusing and hard to follow
- the discussion section is so short and does not have any references for similar studies/researches
- there are no study limitations and future research lines
Regards,
Author Response
Point 1: There are several errors in the use of the English language as well as formatting issues of the document some of the images and tables are not correctly conducted - see table 6, for example the literature review section is quite confusing and hard to follow the discussion section is so short and does not have any references for similar studies/researches there are no study limitations and future research lines
Response 1: The formatting and language errors were corrected. The tables were corrected. The discussion was reedited hand in hand with future research lines.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear all,
Overall, the work is quite improved according to my previous recommendations. Still, the abstract should present more of the main results of this research.
Best,
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 (Round 2) Comments
Point 1: Overall, the work is quite improved according to my previous recommendations. Still, the abstract should present more of the main results of this research.
Response 1: The abstract was modified and supplemented with the results of the manuscript in a more detailed form.
