An Assessment of the Impact of Land Use and Land Cover Change on the Degradation of Ecosystem Service Values in Kathmandu Valley Using Remote Sensing and GIS

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study evaluates the impacts of land use and Land cover (LULC) on the ecosystem service value (ESV) of Kathmandu valley using remote sensing and GIS Techniques. This study is a routine study and the use of methodology is very much common. The academic contributions and innovations of this study are missing. I suggest you revise this manuscript significantly so that scientific contribution should be exhibited.  My comments and questions are as follows:

Abstract

The first sentence is very much confusing, if possible, rephrase it or remove it. I suggest you revise and summarize the following sentence (lines 22-24) “Kathmandu valley provided US$ 122.84 million and US$ 97.54 million of ecosystem value in 1989 and 23 2019 respectively”.  

These facts are based on your results or general, if general then no need to give such information in this section. You have to be specific in the abstract section.

“Significant domestic migration, combined with inadequate urban planning and a lack of proper implementation of laws for the conversion and fragmentation of farmlands, influenced aggressive urbanization, and ESV of Kathmandu valley”.

Overall, I suggest revising your abstract significantly.

Introduction

I suggest you revise this sentence, “The influence of anthropogenic activities…. Line 45-47.

The same issue with this sentence you have to revise it and it is a too large sentence,” By tracking 49 changes to the earth's surface on local….49-53

Paragraphs 2 and 3 should be merged with the example of your study area. A lot of redundant information in both paras. Overall, the main contribution of your work is missing.

Materials and Methods

Study area

Need reference for such information mentioned in two sentences from lines 109-112.

The Figure 1. How did you apply manual editing? What does it mean?

The caption should be just “Methodology used in this study.

Why you did not use Landsat 7 data for the year 2009?

Table 1 information is not matching with your text, as in the table you acquired images in 2010, but in the above paragraph, you mentioned 2009.

I am a bit confused that you have mentioned a reference in the study area caption. It is not a good practice to put references in such maps, I suggest you prepare it with better resolution.

Line 141: To avoid data error or …. Should be backspaced

Table 2: Major Land Use and Land Cover types; you have to explain on what basis you have mentioned descriptions of land cover types.

Accuracy Assessment

How did you match your Landsat images with Google earth images for validation? Need explanations about data with dates.

You also need to mention the image's dates instead of months.

Result

I suggest using only one form of representation of your result, for example, a map with a table or graph. There are some sentences that are hardly understandable. I suggest you write small sentences with coherence.in some parts, your results are so mixed, and hard to understand.

Discussion

I suggest you rewrite your discussion section. Mostly, you have mentioned redundant results information in this section. You have to concise your section significantly with some past studies examples.

Conclusion

I suggest you mention the scientific contribution of your study, which is missing.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript reports the trend of the LULC and variation of ESV in Kathmandu valley using remote sensing data and GIS methods for thirty years from 1989 to 2019. Detailed studies are presented providing the analyses of satellite images. The results reported represent a new insight into variation in ecosystem service values. This is an important topic which deals with sustainable use of land resources.

The title and abstract are appropriate for the content of the text. Furthermore, the manuscript is well constructed and analyses are well performed. In abstract, the authors summarized the main research question and key findings. The description of study subject and results are detailed and correct. Data collected are interpreted accurately and the results support the conclusion. The manuscript reads well. The figures are clear and readable and support the findings.

Overall, this is a clear, concise, and well-written manuscript that has implications for the theoretical basis and development of relationship between urban planning and conservation of natural ecosystems. In my opinion, the manuscript is suitable for publication in Sustainability in present form. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Researchers,

Your work is really beautiful, I read it with great pleasure, but there are a few places that you need to correct, I am writing them to you.

1- Line 74 statement is incorrect. According to new data, more than half of the world's population already lives in urban areas.

2-"Koç, A., & Yılmaz, S. (2020). Landscape character analysis and assessment at the lower pressure-scale. Applied Geography, 125, 102359" on line 62, can you cite this work?

3-Why did you take the 10th and 12th months to produce the land use change databases? Do you think it could be misleading about vegetation? Please include this in the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am happy with the current changes.