The Kerch Peninsula in Transition: A Comprehensive Analysis and Prediction of Land Use and Land Cover Changes over Thirty Years
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author. I am grateful for the opportunity to review the scientific article "The Kerch Peninsula in transition: A comprehensive analysis of land use and land cover changes over thirty years". The scientific article is devoted to an urgent topic, the research was carried out at a fairly high level and corresponds to the subject of the scientific journal, where the manuscript of the scientific article was sent for consideration. However, there are several comments. I ask you to give detailed answers to them and, if necessary, make corrections to the manuscript of the scientific article.
1. The manuscript of a scientific article should be drawn up according to the rules of a scientific journal.
2. The quality of the illustrations presented in the manuscript of the scientific article does not allow for their review, they are too small and blurred.
3. Specify the western Border of the Kerch Peninsula. Why is it marked with a straight line and probably runs along the meridian, and not along the physical and geographical boundaries?
4. Lines 82-84. It should probably be attributed to section 2 "Research methodology".
5. Lines 150-153. It is probably necessary to emphasize which authors and where (which research sites) received such data. It is not a fact that this pattern is confirmed in other regions of the world.
6. Line 196-198. Figure 1 does not show the unique geological, biological and climatic conditions of the Kerch Peninsula. Provide the appropriate maps/illustrations to support this argument.
7. Figure 1 coincides with the previously published work https://www.mdpi.com/2306-5729/8/9/138 . References to the citation sources are not provided.
8. Lines 206-232. A brief physical and geographical description of the Kerch Peninsula is extremely poorly written. Scattered common phrases are given. This text is probably written only to refer to the author's previous works. In particular, the characteristics of the soils of the Kerch Peninsula are not indicated, the characteristics of the river network are not given, etc. Individual proposals are well–known facts (lines 216-218), or require additional discussion (lines 211-213 - whether the relief is a limiting factor in the development of vegetation on the Kerch Peninsula).
9. There are quite a lot of self-citations of the author's works in the list of references, which requires additional explanations.
10. Section 2.2. How is the practical use of MOLUSCE implemented? Is this a QGIS plugin? What programs or programming languages are used?
11. Lines 262-266. What is the total number of images and scenes analyzed? By what parameters was the selection made? A similar question is for subsection 2.4.
12. Line 265. seven spectral bands – is this true? Landsat 8 has more of them.
13. Line 272-276. The research methodology is not clear. The technique is not reproducible. If you haven't used the code, provide it for a wide discussion.
14. Line 279-280. Scholarly articles. – What kind of data did you use?? With such phrases, the reader is misled, and the technique is becoming increasingly unproductive.
15. Lines 282-288. Was it a manual selection? Or if it's automatic, how?
16. Do you share the concepts of LU and LC? What exactly do you have depicted on the maps – LU or LC?
17. Section 2.4. It is not specified how the indicators are calculated. Which specific data sets are used. For example, a link to source 50 refers us to an article, not to a site with datasets.
18. Section 2.5, like the entire section 2, is written in general terms. The research methodology (step by step) is not reproducible and is mostly written in general terms. The reader will not be able to reproduce this study for another region of the world. Intuitively, I understand what the author has done, but there is not enough data for scientific accuracy.
19. How was the data verified? (in more detail, lines 394-395)
20. The geographical maps presented in section 3 "Results" (Figures 3-8) probably repeat (it is not possible to make an accurate comparison – see note 2) the results published by the author in the work https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954124000554 A logical question arises about the novelty of the research.
21. Lines 694-787. The methodology does not say anything about these indicators. How were they obtained? Based on what initial data? How are they calculated?
22. There are global and regional data on LC. Have you compared your calculated data with them?
23. Provide a broader overview of the literature on LC variation and comparing the data you have obtained with other regions of the world.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your insightful comments on our manuscript. We have meticulously considered each of your comments and implemented the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Please find below our responses to each of your specific queries.
In the manuscript, the western border of the Kerch Peninsula has been specified and the rationale behind the initial marking with a straight line has been elucidated. The revised section now accurately reflects the physical and geographical boundaries.
We have referenced the previously published work from which Figure 1 was derived and included the appropriate citations.
The physical and geographical description of the Kerch Peninsula has been extensively revised to provide a more comprehensive and coherent overview. This includes a detailed analysis of the soils, river networks, and other relevant features.
A review of the list of references was conducted, and self-citations were reduced to ensure their relevance and necessity.
The materials and methods section has been comprehensively revised to include clear data sources and a detailed methodology, ensuring the reproducibility of the results.
Furthermore, we have added a description of how landscape metrics were calculated. Additionally, we have retained figures in the Results section to visually demonstrate the differences in LULC between different periods.
A comparison was conducted between the calculated data and existing global and regional data on land cover, with the results included in the revised manuscript.
A more comprehensive overview of the literature on land cover variation has been provided, along with comparisons of the data with other regions of the world.
We are grateful for your valuable feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments for authors
1. How does the socio-ecological systems perspective influence the interpretation of land use and land cover changes, and what specific methodologies were employed to study the intertwined nature of human and natural systems?
2. What specific socio-political transformations, climatic variability, and environmental policies were identified as key drivers of land use and land cover changes in the Kerch Peninsula?
3. Can the discrepancies between the actual and predicted land cover maps be attributed solely to the limitations of the predictive models, or are there other factors at play?
4. How were misclassification errors in remote sensing data addressed in the analysis, and what implications might these errors have on the perceived extent and patterns of land use and land cover changes?
5. What are the multifaceted and unpredictable impacts of land use and land cover changes on ecosystems and climate, and how were these complexities addressed in the study?
6. Clarify the policies, economic shifts, and social dynamics that can be accounted for in the assessment of land use patterns and the limitations that exist in predicting future changes based on current models.
7. How were feedback loops, non-linear dynamics, and stochastic events accounted for in the modeling of future land use scenarios, and what uncertainties may arise from these complex interactions?
8. To what extent were socio-economic and political factors driving land use and land cover changes incorporated into the analysis, and what challenges were faced in quantifying their direct and indirect impacts?
9. How were social media and mobile device data integrated into the analysis, and what challenges may arise from using these non-traditional data sources?
10. Explain the potential limitations of incorporating high-resolution satellite imagery and multi-source data, such as drones and ground-based observations, in assessing land cover changes.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We are grateful for your insightful comments on our manuscript. We have meticulously considered each of your comments and implemented the necessary revisions to address your concerns. Please find below our responses to each of your specific queries.
A detailed explanation of the influence of the socio-ecological systems perspective on the interpretation of land use and land cover changes has been added to the discussion section. In particular, we have included a detailed account of the methodologies employed, such as integrated modeling frameworks and participatory approaches.
The manuscript was revised to explicitly identify and discuss the socio-political transformations, climatic variability, and environmental policies that were key drivers of land use and land cover changes in the Kerch Peninsula. A detailed historical analysis and policy document review were conducted to identify and highlight these factors.
Furthermore, the discussion was expanded to address other factors contributing to discrepancies between actual and predicted land cover maps, beyond the limitations of predictive models. This encompasses data quality issues, the inherent variability in human-environment interactions, and temporal lags.
A comprehensive explanation was provided of the methods used to address misclassification errors in remote sensing data, including smoothing algorithms, discriminant space-based methods, and support vector machines . Furthermore, we elucidated the implications of these errors on the perceived extent and patterns of land use and land cover changes.
A detailed account was provided of the way feedback loops, non-linear dynamics, and stochastic events were incorporated into the modelling of future land use scenarios. Furthermore, the potential for uncertainty to arise from these intricate interactions was also addressed.
We are grateful for your valuable feedback.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear author.
I have read your answers carefully and I want to say the following. The manuscript of the article has been significantly revised and improved. However, there are a number of comments to which detailed answers should be given and indicated in the responses for the reviewer, those meta in the manuscript of the scientific article (line numbers) where corrections have been made. This will significantly simplify the processing of your responses and reduce the time and effort of the reviewer.
1. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
2. It is not clear from the author's answer whether he improved the quality of the drawings. For example, I see that the maps (for example, Fig. 3, 4, etc.) are of poor quality. I strongly recommend that the author improve the quality of the images and/or upload the illustrations as separate files.
3. Information has been added to lines 207-209. And how does this border run on maps? In fact, there was no response to the remark.
4. No response has been received to the comment.
5. No response has been received to the comment.
6. No response to the comment has been received
7. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
8. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
9. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
10. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
11. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
12. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
13. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
14. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
15. No response to the comment has been received
16. No response has been received to the comment
17. GHSL, SMI, etc. – perhaps it is worth specifying in Table 1. On the basis of which the values of indicators 329-360 were calculated? There are no links or formulas.
18. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
19. No response has been received to the comment
20. No response was received to the comment
21. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
22. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
23. I agree. The response to the remark has been received.
Author Response
Comment 2. It is not clear from the author's answer whether he improved the quality of the drawings. For example, I see that the maps (for example, Fig. 3, 4, etc.) are of poor quality. I strongly recommend that the author improve the quality of the images and/or upload the illustrations as separate files.
Responce 2. A zip archive containing drawings at 300 dpi quality has been attached. It is possible that the manuscript file has undergone file compression, which has resulted in a reduction in the quality of the drawings.
Comment 3. Information has been added to lines 207-209. And how does this border run on maps? In fact, there was no response to the remark.
Responce 3. The western border of the Kerch Peninsula is defined by the Akmonai Isthmus, which is the straight line connecting the Sivash Bay and the Feodosia Gulf. Consequently, the Akmonai Isthmus represents the western geographical border of the Kerch Peninsula.
Comment 4. Lines 82-84. It should probably be attributed to section 2 "Research methodology".
Responce 4. The aforementioned lines have been excised from the introduction in the current version of the manuscript.
Comment 5. Lines 150-153. It is probably necessary to emphasize which authors and where (which research sites) received such data. It is not a fact that this pattern is confirmed in other regions of the world.
Responce 5. We have highlighted the authors and location of the research.
Comment 6. Line 196-198. Figure 1 does not show the unique geological, biological and climatic conditions of the Kerch Peninsula. Provide the appropriate maps/illustrations to support this argument.
Responce 6. The description of the unique geological, biological, and climatic conditions of the Kerch Peninsula has been removed, which now represents only the geographical location of the research area. All descriptions of the characteristics of the Kerch Peninsula can be found after the map, with corresponding references.
Comment 15. Lines 282-288. Was it a manual selection? Or if it's automatic, how?
Responce 15. In the absence of field research, manual annotation of the LULC classes was conducted through on-screen digitization, with the assistance of archival data and materials.
Comment 16. Do you share the concepts of LU and LC? What exactly do you have depicted on the maps – LU or LC?
Responce 16. In this research, our LULC classes scheme was based on a commonly used LULC classification for global products, with some regional class modifications. For example, the annual LULC classification at 10-m from https://www.impactobservatory.com/maps-for-good/. However, the primary classification was derived from remote sensing data, with the classes depicted on the map representing LC.
Comment 17. GHSL, SMI, etc. – perhaps it is worth specifying in Table 1. On the basis of which the values of indicators 329-360 were calculated? There are no links or formulas.
Responce 17. The table 1 calculation formulas for each index utilized in the study have been incorporated into the document.
Comment 19. How was the data verified? (in more detail, lines 394-395)
Responce 19. The simulated LULC data were validated using kappa statistics, which yielded a range of 0.57 in 2000-2010 and 0.88 in 1995-2005. However, the absence of spatial data representing political decisions that undoubtedly impact LULC, particularly in the 1990s following the dissolution of the Soviet Union and in 2014 following Russia's reintegration into the Russian Federation, necessitated the inclusion of a paragraph in the current version, located in L423-441, which clarifies the underlying assumptions upon which such models are constructed.
Comment 20. The geographical maps presented in section 3 "Results" (Figures 3-8) probably repeat (it is not possible to make an accurate comparison – see note 2) the results published by the author in the work https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1574954124000554 A logical question arises about the novelty of the research.
Responce 20. The objective was to illustrate the distinction between different timesteps. In the typical practice, the LULC ctransitions from one timestep to another are depicted using the Transitions map. However, in the current situation where there are 64 transition classes for each map, it appears as a color chaos. Consequently, in this case, we opted to present two LULC maps for a corresponding timestep.
We are grateful for your valuable feedback, which has considerably enhanced the clarity and quality of our manuscript.
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccept in present form
