Urban Growth Monitoring and Prediction Using Remote Sensing Urban Monitoring Indices Approach and Integrating CA-Markov Model: A Case Study of Lagos City, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Besides many typos that needed editing, the overall study is helpful. Similar to Lagos, various cities in Asia have this trend. Satellite figures are less readable, so I advise clearly showing these figures.

 

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question the research is based on is the objectives of measuring the dynamics of urban development in Lagos State

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? The case in the article has similar phenomena in many developing nations, but it is unique when it comes to Lagos. This gives a new line of knowledge. The research gap is the methodology that the authors have used.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The originality is the methods and its analysis of remote sensing, GIS and data sensing.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?

What further controls should be considered? The methodology is appropriate for the objective of the study, but the information needs to be elaborate to give authors a chance to understand the rationality of the methods used.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Yes, the conclusion is consistent with the expected outcome and the answers the questions.

6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes, appropriate.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

The table and figures should be legible.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Besides many typos that needed editing, the overall study is helpful. Similar to Lagos, various cities in Asia have this trend. Satellite figures are less readable, so I advise showing these figures.

Author Response

Addressed comments for Reviewer 1.

Besides many typos that needed editing, the overall study is helpful. Similar to Lagos, various cities in Asia have this trend. Satellite figures are less readable, so I advise clearly showing these figures. Satellite figures are less readable, so I advise clearly showing these figures.

 We have modified the figures they are now clearly represented.

1. What is the main question addressed by the research?

The main question the research is based on is the objectives of measuring the dynamics of urban development in Lagos city in Nigeria.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The case in the article has similar phenomena in many developing nations, but it is unique when it comes to Lagos. This gives a new line of knowledge. The research gap is the methodology and the data that the authors have used.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?

The originality is the methods and its analysis of remote sensing, GIS and data sensing.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered? The methodology is appropriate for the objective of the study, but the information needs to be elaborate to give authors a chance to understand the rationality of the methods used.
5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Yes, the conclusion is consistent with the expected outcome and the answers the questions.

The part was removed.

6. Are the references appropriate?

Yes, appropriate.

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures. The table and figures should be legible.

  We have modified the figures and tables they are now clearly represented.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

·          The manuscript appears to lack a rigorous literature review, which is a crucial component for establishing context and demonstrating the relevance of your work. I recommend that you strengthen and expand this section to provide a comprehensive overview of existing research related to your study.

·          Lines 44-50: The mention of the challenges faced in Nigeria, specifically in Lagos, in obtaining reliable urban growth data establishes the context and significance of the study. Consider adding a brief note on the implications of this lack of data for urban management and sustainability.

·       Lines 76-80: The objective of the study is well articulated. It might be beneficial to briefly discuss the anticipated contributions of the study, i.e., how it will differ or add value compared to previous research.

·       Consider using consistent terminology; e.g., "GlobeLand30" is mentioned as "global land 30" in the last sentence of the introduction section.

·       2.2.1. GlobeLand30 data: The emphasis on the GlobeLand30 dataset's significance is well presented. However, the repetitive mention of its value might be trimmed to maintain conciseness. Moreover, add more citations to support your arguments in this subsection (Lines 104-123).

·          2.3. Data processing: It would be beneficial to briefly explain why each preprocessing step (like geometric correction, radiometric calibration) is necessary or refer to related references that explain these steps and their importance.

·       Line 190: “Figure 4 illustrates the standardized variables used in the present study.” It seems you should replace Figure 4 with Figure 5 in this sentence.

·       In some instances, there are discrepancies in the presented data. For example, the text mentions that artificial surfaces increased from 642.749 km2 (17.016%) in 2000 to 952.178 km2 (25.208%) in 2020, which is an absolute increase of 309.429 km2 and 8.192% (lines 229-230). In line 239 you mentioned “Notably, artificial surfaces 238 have expanded by 7.192% of total area, showing urbanization and development. Later, in line 252 and Table 3 it is mentioned as a "significant net rise of 309.429 km2 or 4.60%". The percentage value does not match and the authors should cross-check all the figures for consistency. Please clarify when you are addressing the net increase in each land use/land cover area and when you are referring to the share of each land use/land cover of the total area throughout the paper. As presented, the distinctions can be unclear, leading to potential confusion.

·       The explanation and application of the Markov model in this paper require further elaboration. The current description lacks sufficient detail to fully understand the methodology and its implications on your findings. To ensure clarity and comprehensibility, please expand on how the model was implemented, the rationale behind its selection, any assumptions made, and how the data was processed and analyzed using this model. Providing a more comprehensive and detailed explanation will enhance the rigor of your work and allow readers to better assess the validity of your results.

·       Line 274: “Table 4 …, as described in the book.” Please clarify which book.

·       In the results section, while the authors have provided descriptive statistics of the changes in land use and land cover, it might be beneficial to provide some statistical tests to determine the significance of these changes, especially when making comparisons.

·       It appears that statistical analyses have been undertaken in the discussion section, yet the results of these calculations are not present in the paper. Kindly incorporate these results and related calculations (“strong association between nighttime luminosity transitions and specific land use change types at the pixel level” in section 4.1 and “the correlation analysis reaffirms the association between urban development, …” in section 4.2).

·       In lines 401-405, the statement "Notably, the percentage of artificial surfaces has significantly increased from 17.016% in 2000 to 28.967% in 2040" refers to a future prediction. While predictions are essential, it would be beneficial to discuss the uncertainties and potential variables that could change this prediction.

·       Ensure consistent usage of terms throughout. For example, "Built-up" and "LULC" (especially "Artificial Surfaces") are used somewhat interchangeably. A clearer distinction or consistent usage will aid readers in understanding.

·       The key findings are presented without much explanation or analysis. The author should provide more interpretation of the findings and discuss their implications. The current discussion section largely reiterates the results and findings without adequately discussing the results or comparing the findings with those of previous studies.

·       The “prospect” section provides a clear insight into Lagos City's evolving landscape. However, there's a repetition of points and statistics from the conclusion section. Streamlining the two sections for brevity and reducing redundancy might enhance readability.

·       The study does a commendable job highlighting the implications and challenges. Including actionable recommendations, especially in the conclusions and prospects sections, can provide more practical value to policymakers, urban planners, and other stakeholders.

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some grammatical inaccuracies require correction, specifically on Line 12 (major) and Line 20 (Surprisingly, and bare …).

Author Response

Addressed comments for Reviewer 2.

The manuscript appears to lack a rigorous literature review, which is a crucial component for establishing context and demonstrating the relevance of your work. I recommend that you strengthen and expand this section to provide a comprehensive overview of existing research related to your study. 

Response：We have made changes and improvements based on the comments.

 

 Lines 44-50: The mention of the challenges faced in Nigeria, specifically in Lagos, in obtaining reliable urban growth data establishes the context and significance of the study. Consider adding a brief note on the implications of this lack of data for urban management and sustainability

Thank you for pointing this out, we have considered and added a brief note on the implications of this lack of data for urban management and sustainability.

 

Lines 76-80: The objective of the study is well articulated. It might be beneficial to briefly discuss the anticipated contributions of the study, i.e., how it will differ or add value compared to previous research.   Consider using consistent terminology; e.g., "GlobeLand30" is mentioned as "global land 30" in the last sentence of the introduction section.

Thank you for suggestion, the objective of the study is now discussed compared to previous research.

 

 2.2.1. GlobeLand30 data: The emphasis on the GlobeLand30 dataset's significance is well presented. However, the repetitive mention of its value might be trimmed to maintain conciseness. Moreover, add more citations to support your arguments in this subsection (Lines 104-123).

 Thanks for pointing this out, we have added more citations for supporting our arguments.

 

 2.3. Data processing: It would be beneficial to briefly explain why each preprocessing step (like geometric correction, radiometric calibration) is necessary or refer to related references that explain these steps and their importance

Thank you. We have referred to related references and explained step by step the data processing.

 

 Line 190: “Figure 4 illustrates the standardized variables used in the present study.” It seems you should replace Figure 4 with Figure 5 in this sentence

Thank you, we replaced Figure 4 with Figure 5 in this sentence.

 

 In some instances, there are discrepancies in the presented data. For example, the text mentions that artificial surfaces increased from 642.749 km2 (17.016%) in 2000 to 952.178 km2 (25.208%) in 2020, which is an absolute increase of 309.429 km2 and 8.192% (lines 229-230). In line 239 you mentioned “Notably, artificial surfaces 238 have expanded by 7.192% of total area, showing urbanization and development. Later, in line 252 and Table 3 it is mentioned as a "significant net rise of 309.429 km2 or 4.60%". The percentage value does not match and the authors should cross-check all the figures for consistency. Please clarify when you are addressing the net increase in each land use/land cover area and when you are referring to the share of each land use/land cover of the total area throughout the paper. As presented, the distinctions can be unclear, leading to potential confusion

Thank you, we have clarified and addressed the net increase in each land use/land cover area.

The explanation and application of the Markov model in this paper require further elaboration. The current description lacks sufficient detail to fully understand the methodology and its implications on your findings. To ensure clarity and comprehensibility, please expand on how the model was implemented, the rationale behind its selection, any assumptions made, and how the data was processed and analyzed using this model. Providing a more comprehensive and detailed explanation will enhance the rigor of your work and allow readers to better assess the validity of your results

Thank you, the Markov model has now explained in details.

 

In lines 401-405, the statement "Notably, the percentage of artificial surfaces has significantly increased from 17.016% in 2000 to 28.967% in 2040" refers to a future prediction. While predictions are essential, it would be beneficial to discuss the uncertainties and potential variables that could change this prediction.

Thank you, the artificial surfaces has significantly increased from 17.016% in 2000 to 28.967% in 2040" we referred to a future prediction. We have discussed the uncertainties and potential variables that could change this prediction.

 

Ensure consistent usage of terms throughout. For example, "Built-up" and "LULC" (especially "Artificial Surfaces") are used somewhat interchangeably. A clearer distinction or consistent usage will aid readers in understanding.

Thank you, we have used clearly distinction of terms.

 

 The key findings are presented without much explanation or analysis. The author should provide more interpretation of the findings and discuss their implications. The current discussion section largely reiterates the results and findings without adequately discussing the results or comparing the findings with those of previous studies.

Thank you for a good idea. We have explained findings and the results are well discussed in comparison with previous studies.

 

The “prospect” section provides a clear insight into Lagos City's evolving landscape. However, there's a repetition of points and statistics from the conclusion section. Streamlining the two sections for brevity and reducing redundancy might enhance readability.

Thank you, we have removed all repetitions and redundancies for enhance readability.

 

The study does a commendable job highlighting the implications and challenges. Including actionable recommendations, especially in the conclusions and prospects sections, can provide more practical value to policymakers, urban planners, and other stakeholders

Thank you, we highlighted the implications, challenges and we recommended more practical value to policymakers, urban planners, and other stakeholders.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Some grammatical inaccuracies require correction, specifically on Line 12 (major) and Line 20 (Surprisingly, and bare …).

Thank you. The paper has revised and extensive grammatical review has carefully done throughout the whole manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: Besides many typos that needed editing, the overall study is helpful. Similar to Lagos, various cities in Asia have this trend. Satellite figures are less readable, so I advise showing these figures.

Thank you. Satellite figures are corrected and they are now readable.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper has a lot of potential, but I have some big concerns about it.

Title - Please use the exact text formatting for GlobeLand30 as in the rest of the manuscript. The remote sensing urban monitoring indices part troubles me because it does not describe all the other data correctly. If all the other data is remote sensing based, maybe just note that, but the urban part (not even urban but just artificial) is incorrect as the researched area is just 25% that. Maybe the best thing to do is just to state the CA Markov model is used in the title as this is much more important information than the source of the data.

Abstract – It is not well written. It is very hard to read (like the rest of the paper) because of so many errors and strange translations. The paper should be professionally translated or corrected. As there is a lot of data sources the abstract should contain main methodology which is CA Markov using (as it seems) TerrSet software and maybe some other GIS software for data processing. A better explanation is needed. The 1, 2 and 3 numbers seem randomly put in the abstract. If urban growth is the main topic, please concentrate in the abstract on it not on other classes.

Introduction – Better literature review is needed. LULCC is a highly researched topic and from this introduction you cannot sense that. The review of used method should be somewhere in introduction as well.

Study area - With 9,113,605 inhabitants in 2006—roughly 6.44% of Nigeria's total population—Lagos State is Nigeria's most populous state. It also has the continent's most populated city, with a population of more than 12 million [20]. The population info is badly written or incorrect. Please use ISO markings for Kilometers and Meters (km, m) and correct them in all maps and figures. I also have a concern about the study area because the urban area of Lagos exceeds the boundary of the state so the results will not be accurate for prediction.

Data and methodology – This is where it gets really messy. First you need to describe the exact methodology process what was done and with what software. A graph representing the whole methodological process is needed. For the data used there should be a Table with names, resolution, and sources to better understand what was used for what. This part should be written in logical order and to better understand what was actually done. The maps are results and should be presented there. There is no need for table 1 as only three bands were used. Resolution can be covered in data sources table. Figure 4 – Built up data from where? Units are missing in a lot of maps so the content is not clear. Data sources is needed for Figure 5 (again put it in the table) and units because some maps seem incorrect due to not knowing which data was use for distance calculation.

Results – Results should be rearranged to follow a better written methodological process. The maps should be way better; they are not very informative, and the scale is not appropriate for some of them (fig 7 & 8). The black background should be switched with white, and boundaries and waterbodies should be added on Fig. 8. There are more results in Discussion, they should be put in this section. The map of 2040 prediction is missing.

Discussion – The real discussion is missing; those are mainly the results.

 

Prospect – I don’t see the need for this part. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The paper should be professionally translated or corrected.

Author Response

Addressed comments for Reviewer 3.

This paper has a lot of potential, but I have some big concerns about it.

Thank you for your valuable comments and kind suggestions on our paper. Your academic sense and scientific literacy definitely promoted this manuscript to a new level. We highly appreciate your time and effort. The manuscript has been improved according to your comments.

 

Title - Please use the exact text formatting for GlobeLand30 as in the rest of the manuscript. The remote sensing urban monitoring indices part troubles me because it does not describe all the other data correctly. If all the other data is remote sensing based, maybe just note that, but the urban part (not even urban but just artificial) is incorrect as the researched area is just 25% that. Maybe the best thing to do is just to state the CA Markov model is used in the title as this is much more important information than the source of the data

Thank you for suggesting a good and precise title we have chosen CA Markov model to be used in the title.

 

Abstract – It is not well written. It is very hard to read (like the rest of the paper) because of so many errors and strange translations. The paper should be professionally translated or corrected. As there is a lot of data sources the abstract should contain main methodology which is CA Markov using (as it seems) TerrSet software and maybe some other GIS software for data processing. A better explanation is needed. The 1, 2 and 3 numbers seem randomly put in the abstract. If urban growth is the main topic, please concentrate in the abstract on it not on other classes.

Thank you. This part has been revised, improved and extensive grammatical review has carefully done throughout the whole manuscript.

 

Introduction – Better literature review is needed. LULCC is a highly researched topic and from this introduction you cannot sense that. The review of used method should be somewhere in introduction as well.

Thank you. We have added literature review and reviewed the used method and introduction is well formulated.

 

Study area - With 9,113,605 inhabitants in 2006—roughly 6.44% of Nigeria's total population—Lagos State is Nigeria's most populous state. It also has the continent's most populated city, with a population of more than 12 million [20]. The population info is badly written or incorrect. Please use ISO markings for Kilometers and Meters (km, m) and correct them in all maps and figures. I also have a concern about the study area because the urban area of Lagos exceeds the boundary of the state so the results will not be accurate for prediction.

Thank you. The errors have corrected throughout the manuscript, all maps and figure are all clear.

 

Data and methodology – This is where it gets really messy. First you need to describe the exact methodology process what was done and with what software. A graph representing the whole methodological process is needed. For the data used there should be a Table with names, resolution, and sources to better understand what was used for what. This part should be written in logical order and to better understand what was actually done. The maps are results and should be presented there. There is no need for table 1 as only three bands were used. Resolution can be covered in data sources table. Figure 4 – Built up data from where? Units are missing in a lot of maps so the content is not clear. Data sources is needed for Figure 5 (again put it in the table) and units because some maps seem incorrect due to not knowing which data was use for distance calculation.

Thank you. The errors have corrected throughout the manuscript, methodology process has described all maps content are all clear.

Results – Results should be rearranged to follow a better written methodological process. The maps should be way better; they are not very informative, and the scale is not appropriate for some of them (fig 7 & 8). The black background should be switched with white, and boundaries and waterbodies should be added on Fig. 8. There are more results in Discussion, they should be put in this section. The map of 2040 prediction is missing.

Thank you. This part has been revised, improved, maps are clear and 2040 prediction map is added.

 

Discussion – The real discussion is missing; those are mainly the results.

 Thank you. The discussion part has been revised and improved as requested.

 

Prospect – I don’t see the need for this part. 

Thank you. We have removed prospect.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language: The paper should be professionally

Thank you. The paper has revised and extensive grammatical review has carefully done throughout the whole manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is appropriately revised.

Author Response

Addressed comments for Reviewer 2.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors: The paper is appropriately revised.

Response：Thank you for your valuable comments and kind suggestions on our paper. Your academic sense and scientific literacy definitely promoted this manuscript to a new level. We highly appreciate your time and effort.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the paper is significantly improved but although authors marked that they corrected everything in previous review it is not done so.

First, maps and figures are not clear, they are almost the same. The units are still missing. The methodology is still not clear enough.

The main problem of the difference between Lagos State and the city needs to be addressed.

 

The previous review still stands, and that is the problem. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing required 

Author Response

Addressed comments for Reviewer 3.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The quality of the paper is significantly improved but although authors marked that they corrected everything in previous review it is not done so.

Thank you for your valuable comments and kind suggestions on our paper. Your academic sense and scientific literacy definitely promoted this manuscript to a new level. We highly appreciate your time and effort. The manuscript has been improved according to your comments.

 

First, maps and figures are not clear, they are almost the same. The units are still missing. The methodology is still not clear enough.

Thank you. The errors have corrected throughout the manuscript and the units are ni pragraph describing figure 5 for making maps clear.

 

Methodology process has described all maps content are all clear.

 

The main problem of the difference between Lagos State and the city needs to be addressed.

Thank you. The lagos state and city difference has been addressed.

 

The previous review still stands, and that is the problem. 

Thank you. Review has carefully done throughout the whole manuscript.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language. Minor editing required.

Thank you. This part has been revised, improved and extensive grammatical has been done.

 

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The first review still stands. I do not see all the necessary changes. This paper needs a much higher quality for this type of journal.