Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI
by
  • Diego Peruchi Trevisan1,
  • Mayara Herrmann Ruggiero1 and
  • Luiz Eduardo Moschini1
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this paper, the authors present a very interesting topic. However. The introduction  and methodology parts are not well structured and not addressed the topic in a good way. So, the authors are encouraged to revise these parts.

General comments:

  • Need to add and cite more recent papers about different techniques used for land use/land cover changes to enrich the readers' information
  • Please provide clear novelty of this research in Introduction
  • I didn't see in the paper how the authors validated their results of land cover /land use (training points and number of locations, accuracy of classifications)? please describe these points.

Minor comments:

  • Line 12 land use and land cover should be Land use / land cover.
  • Line 140, explain the 4 main steps involved in this study.
  • I recommend to re-organize the explanation of figure 7 in agreement with the figure itself. 

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thanks for all your considerations. We reviewed our paper in its totality, considering all the recommendations. To help, we also highlight in red color all the modifications. As recommended for the Journal, we also inserted the shapefiles to be available for the readers and supplementary materials . We hope to present a complete text in this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors The paper is concise, robust and publishable in its current form   Sincerely yours

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thanks for all your considerations. We reviewed our paper in its totality, considering all the recommendations. To help, we also highlight in red color all the modifications. As recommended for the Journal, we also inserted the shapefiles to be available for the readers and supplementary materials . We hope to present a complete text in this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments for the review

Evaluation of the environmental naturalness: A case study in the Tietê-Jacaré Hydrographic Basin – SP, Brazil

General thoughts:

The authors undertook interesting research, but several elements should be improved or clarified.

  1. In the Summary, the authors announce that the article will talk about changes in the structure of the landscape using the urbanization index. Meanwhile, Chapter 2.1 - Study area - (lines 108-115) begins with a discussion of the water status in the study site. There is no consistency here. Chapter 2.1 Study area should begin with general aspects specific to the research facility, and the water aspect should be presented as one of the elements of the description. It does not seem to me necessary for an international reader to give the full wording of the state laws (lines 109-110).
  2. The Introduction (lines 75-80) also mentions the process of forest degradation caused by changes in the forest code. The final part of the Introduction (lines 102-105) also mentions changes to the landscape through the urbanization index. Thus, the introduction prepares the reader for an article on landscape changes. Meanwhile, Chapter 2.1 - Study area (lines 108-115) mainly refers to the waters of the research facility. The introduction therefore does not fulfill its role. The Introduction should clearly state what the Authors will deal with in their article. Or else chapter 2.1 - Study area should be structured differently.
  3. The Introduction (verses 76-77) mentions the bad effects of the amendment to the Brazilian Forest Code. This thread needs to be developed. For example, in the Conclusions section, suggestions for improving the situation in the field of forest land protection should be presented. Maybe the authors should propose an amendment to the Brazilian Forest Code in some aspects? It should also be added in which aspects the forest code has been amended and how it relates to forest degradation and deforestation (what provisions in the code cause this?).
  4. In verse 141, the term "manipulate the data" would be better replaced by "process the data", for example.
  5. In Chapter 2.2 Methodology, the description of Table 2 should be expanded. It should also be clarified (verses 162-163) what "the types of land uses" means and "the land uses themselves". Describe which specific indicators are included in the next columns of Table 2.
  6. The authors use the terms "Land use" and "Land cover" jointly in the text (also in chapter 3.1 Land use and land cover analysis). These terms should not be used interchangeably. Nor should they be considered together. Here we need to refer to the real estate cadastre for land use. The article should separate them: what is included in "Land use" and what is included in "Land cover". If necessary, the combination of these terms should be justified.
  7. Moreover, in chapter 3.1 Land use and land cover analysis, the authors state that: "It was found nine classes of land use and land cover:", and then mention only seven of them by name.
  8. In chapter 3.1 Land use and land cover analysis, in lines 228-232, it would be better to express the changes in percentages rather than in hectares. It would then be more transparent. Alternatively, you can leave the values in hectares and add the percentage.
  9. In Table 5, in addition to the hectare values, columns with the percentage changes must be added.
  10. There is a mistake in the numbering of the chapters: the Discussion section is number 5 and should be number 4.
  11. In the Discussion section (between lines 381 and 382) it is advisable to add an additional paragraph. It should at least in a few sentences refer to analogous studies conducted for Europe, such as, for example:

- Moravcova, J.; Koupilova, M.; Pavlicek, T.; Zemek, F.; Kvitek, T.; Pecenka, J. Analysis of land consolidation projects and their impact on land use change, landscape structure, and agricultural land resource protection: Case studies of Pilsen-South and Pilsen-North (Czech Republic). Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 13, 1–13. [CrossRef]

 

- Busko, M., Szafranska B.; Analysis of changes in land use patterns pursuant to the conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use in the context of the sustainable development of the Malopolska region. Sustainability; ISSN 2071-1050. — 2018 vol. 10 iss. 1 art. no. 136, s. 1–22. DOI: 10.3390/su10010136

 

- Van Dijk, T. Scenarios of Central European land fragmentation. Land Use Policy 2003, 20, 149–158. [CrossRef]

 

- Cristache, S.-E.; Vut, a, M.; Marin, E.; Cioaca, S.-I.; Vu¸ta, M. Organic versus Conventional Farming—A Paradigm for the Sustainable Development of the European Countries. Sustainability 2018, 10, 4279. [CrossRef]

 

- Szafranska, B.; Busko, M.; Kovalyshyn, O.; Kolodiy, P.  Building a spatial information system to support the development of agriculture in Poland and Ukraine. Agronomy. ISSN 2073-4395. — 2020 vol. 10 iss. 12 art. no. 1884, s. 1-14. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4395/10/12/1884/pdf

 

- Tarasovičová, Z.; Saksa, M.; Blažík, T.; Falťan, V. Changes in agricultural land use in the context of ongoing transformational processes in Slovakia. Agriculture. 2013, 59, 49–64.] [CrossRef]

 

Authors may also introduce other examples of articles relating to Europe or other parts of the world. Introducing European literature will significantly increase the attractiveness and international character of the article.

 

  1. In chapter Conclusions one should criticize the obtained result 2.72% (line 392). Authors should assess whether the change is a high value or a minor change. It should also take into account the uncertainty of the measurement methods used (possible random errors in determining the value of the area with the adopted methods). It should be remembered that the values adopted for the analyzes do not come from precise land registers.
  2. The chapter Conclusions is too general. More specific solutions should be proposed in the chapter Conclusions. For example, indicate whether legislation needs to be amended (for example, the Brazilian Forest Code?). If so, to what extent and how?

Author Response

Dear reviewers, thanks for all your considerations. We reviewed our paper in its totality, considering all the recommendations. To help, we also highlight in red color all the modifications. As recommended for the Journal, we also inserted the shapefiles to be available for the readers and supplementary materials . We hope to present a complete text in this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your revised version. However, I have still some recommendation and suggestion to improve you manuscript.

  • Please describ in detail the classification algorithm  used for land use /land cover , also provide the number of pixel used for each class consiedred in this study  and the confusion matrix.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, we would like to thank you for your questions. Like the last version, we also highlight in red color all the modifications. We hope to present a complete text in this revision.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend the article for printing.

Author Response

We would like to thank you for your recommendations.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf