Assessment of Land Use Land Cover Changes and Future Predictions Using CA-ANN Simulation for Gazipur City Corporation, Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article deals with LULC change and prediction in a small town of Bangladesh. Authors have applied MLC technique for LULC classification and CA-ANN model for the LULC prediction. Article is nicely formatted and have potentials for the publication. I have a few suggestion to further improve the article. Firstly, kindly update the literatures in intro section with some recent articles such as https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2022.2152496, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-20900-z, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi11020089, https://doi.org/10.1080/24749508.2022.2132010, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-22079-9.

There should be consistency between sentences. The first two sentences in abstract deals with two different context. Further, authors have used MLC for LULC classification. So better to avoid macine learning here. 

What are the conditioning parameters used for LULC prediction. Generally for LULC prediction, we use about 7-12 conditioning parameters such as elevation, slope, aspect, population, distance from raod, water bodies, city centre, etc. But there is no description here. Kindly add a separate section in method section for it and also explain the significance of these factors for LULC prediction. 

Landsat 7 data have stripline error. How authors have fixed this error? Kindly mention it in method.

Also, Why authors have use Landsat 8 for 2022 when Landsat 9 was available which have several advantages over Landsat 8? Kindly discuss about why you have used Landsat 8 instead of 9.

Why Authors have used CA-ANN model when we have SLEUTH Model, Markov Chain and several other? Kindly explain in the article.

Generally in the process of urbanization, the vegetation cover declines. But the study shows very high increase in Vegetation cover in GCC. What are the reasons for it? Was there any special program of government or local administration for increasing vegetation cover? Explain in detail in the article.

Conclusion is very nice. But there is no discussion of the result. Kindly discuss your results in either result section or in a separate discussion section in the light of previous articles and provide justification for some unexpected changes such as increase in vegetation cover. 

 

 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. Here the responses from authors are attached for your kind reference. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with an interesting theme highly topical in the context of the current World research trends. I appreciate especially the detailed analyses of land cover changes, as well as the interpretation of the obtained results. In order to meet the objective of the paper, the authors chose an adequate methodical apparatus based on the use of relevant geospatial and remote sensing data from 2002, 2012 and 2022, and modern geoinformatics equipment.

The title of the paper is acceptable and adequate and no major changes are necessary. I find the abstract acceptable and well structured. The manuscript has a sufficient scientific value and the information provided represents widening of knowledge. The conclusions are based entirely on the results and the methods used are adequate. The relation between the scientific value and the extent is acceptable. The language and style of the text are at an acceptable level. The tables and illustrations used in the paper are adequate; however I consider the number of references incomplete. The topic dealt with in the paper is also covered by other authors in papers.

I have no other remarks of a rather significant nature concerning the paper. The results are valuable and the scientific paper brings new original data. The manuscript is acceptable after minor revision with minor amendments required; no re-review is necessary. I recommend the paper for the print. The paper was of very good quality and it was a pleasure to read and review it.

So no elements that should be corrected:

Conclusion: any limitation of your research? So please add it.

I recommend amending the references. This issue is also covered by the newer papers from other authors. I recommend adding some papers into the references.

Figure 6 and 9– especially the resolution is very low.

As you see, there is not too much to correct according to my opinion.

Good luck in your future scientific work.

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. Here the responses from authors are attached for your kind reference. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The present manuscript entitled “Assessment of Land Use Land Cover Changes and future predictions using CA-ANN Simulation for Gazipur City Corporation, Bangladesh” discusses the LULC change dynamics in the last 20 years using the Landsat series of data and use MOLUSCE plugin tool for future LULC prediction. The LULC preparation method is a simple ordinary method and the running of the MOLUSCE tool is just a few clicks. Moreover, I can see there is only DEM and distance from road data is there for the dependent variables in future LULC prediction, which is not sufficient. The data is dependable, the method is reliable, and the results are reasonable. However, innovation is lacking. The quantity of work is less. I suggest the author add work on LST and UHI and then find some interesting results and submit them again. Currently, your paper has very basic work and not the detailed one. In view of this, I recommend the rejection of the manuscript in its present form.

The flow of writing is weak, which leads to failure in highlighting the significance and novelty of the paper.  The sentence should be connected and focused and precise. Besides, improvement in grammatical is also required. 

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for the comments and suggestions. Here the responses from authors are attached for your kind reference. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Manuscript has been significantly improved and may be accepted now for publication.

Author Response

The authors express their gratitude for kind comments. The response is added herewith. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Though the author submitted the revised version of the manuscript, I still did not feel it for publication. The author has not increased the quantity of work by adding LST and UHI analysis.

I think in this study, the author prepared LULC and ran the MOLUSCE tool.

Running the MOLUSE tool in QGIS does not justify the significance and novelty of the research. There are thousands of cities in the world, so it does not mean you will publish thousands of papers by running a MOLUSCE tool.

Moreover, I also had doubts about the result produced. Many urban pixels are seen to convert to vegetation (northwester side) or water body (left side of the river in the south side). What process is responsible for this?

 

In future simulations, the complete disappearance of rivers is not promising.

Add author from Native English country.

Author Response

The authors express their gratitude for reviewer's comments. The responses from authors is attached herewith. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx