Forecasting Land Use Dynamics in Talas District, Kazakhstan, Using Landsat Data and the Google Earth Engine (GEE) Platform
, Kanat Zulpykhanov 1,5, Aigul Tokbergenova 5, Salavat Duisenbayev 5, Edil Sarybaev 4 and Zhanarys Turymtayev 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI reviewed the paper titled “Forecasting Land Use Dynamics in Talas District, Kazakhstan, Using Landsat Data and Google Earth Engine (GEE) Platform” by Seitkazy et al. Comments on the manuscript can be found in the attached file. I am also list below some general comments.
1. The introduction is too shorts. It does not provide the previous/similar work review to highlight the paper novelty as well as the importance of performing this work.
2. The methodology is very simple, it does not show the paper novelty.
3. The results and discussion section misses the comparison with similar/close word to indicate the similarity/ dissimilarity with them.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
The authors need to work more on the paper language especially the paper structure and usage of cronomy.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
I would like to express my gratitude to you for the manuscript.
The paper presents perfectly described analysis of the patterns, causes, and consequences of land cover and land use changes in the Talas District from 2000 to 2020, utilizing the capabilities of Google Earth Engine (GEE). In my view, the study's objectives and background are fully described. The study's methodology including classification, mapping and subsequent forecast are understandable for GIS specialists. All results are evidently showcased and bolster the authors' assertions.
This manuscript constitutes a thorough examination of an intriguing field riddled with numerous ecological, economic, and social quandaries. Because of it, I agree with the authors that presented research is essential for sustainable land management and ecological balance of the Talas Region.
However, I would like to recommend subdivide the section “1. Literature review” on several paragraphs for easy reading.
There are a few minor grammatical errors and awkward phrasings in the text, but overall it is understandable and conveys its intended meaning.
I failed to observe the manuscript's notable drawbacks and can only propose its acceptance in its current state.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe work discusses an interesting topic.
For the purpose of publication, however, substantial editing is required.
· ABSTRACT: Please, better indicate the study area (e.g. Talas Region, Kyrgyzstan). The abstract does not seem to present the work at its best.
· KEYWORDS: Pay attention. There is an error in the first one (land use). I would propose splitting: land use, land cover, forecasting, etc.
· INTRODUCTION: References must be numbered (it is not necessary to include first author et al.) in order of appearance in the text and listed individually at the end of the manuscript. Pay attention to author guides.
The applications of GEE are multiple. Please give a brief mention.
For a better reading, I would suggest not splitting the introductory chapter, so to avoid repetition.
· MATERIALS AND METHODS: divide in different paragraphs. One dedicated to the study area can help here. Briefly add information on the topography, geology/geomorphology of the area, in order to better understand the reasons for the choice.
Revise the data section: it is not clear whether the analyses were conducted in GEE. Why do they first mention Landsat 7 in GEE and then say that the others were downloaded? There is also no mention of this in Fig.2.
Line 171: not a model, rather a methodology (work flow).
There is an extensive literature discussing ML (i.e. Random Forest) techniques regarding land use classification. Add references.
Why did you use point elements for the creation of the training and test dataset and not polygons?
Line 273: why 100 trees? On what basis?
· RESULTS, DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION: the procedure concerning classification should be moved to the previous section.
It is unclear how the forecast was proposed. Land use changes have multiple causes, which certainly cannot be considered in their entirety. One could cross-reference rainfall data in order to assess trends and then possibly propose a forecast.
What, practically speaking, do these changes translate into? Do they have significant impacts on the community?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
The project is well-defined and well-written with interesting results. I have noticed a couple of technical issues and typos. My short comments are below:
1. Line 58. NDVI has appeared first time and should be explained.
2. Writing date appears to be inconsistent: Line 161-163,214 yy, y in writing dates must be typo.
3. There is 3 figures in fig 1, need to be explained each in detail. Not sure writers referred one.
4. It does not make sense to general reader what does it mean by “B1-B4”. Needs explanation.
5. Legend and scale of Figure 4 and 6 appear to be the same, then it should be common instead inside of only one figure.
6. Caption of table 2 contains ``yy” that does not make sense.
7. Funding section shows no funding but acknowledgement contains funding. Can we mention in funding section?
8. Specific objectives authors mention ``To evaluate ecological, socioeconomic, and community impacts……. holistic assessments..”. However, the text does not show assessments.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript focuses on the analysis and prediction of land cover and land use change in Talas District, Kazakhstan. The research used the Google Earth Engine (GEE) platform and Landsat satellite data to conduct a detailed evaluation of land cover change over the period 2000–2030. In the whole, this paper’s finding is interesting. However, the manuscript still needs major revision and check before formal publication. Here are some specific suggestions for the authors:
1. line22 - The second sentence in the abstract talks about the advantages of GEE. The abstract should begin with a description of the unique contribution or novelty of the manuscript rather than an unclear expression. And the abstract lacks of the Result and Conclusion. The abstract does not speak to the findings of the research.
2. line31 - In the first keyword, please change “land user cover” to “land use cover”. In addition, the keyword is suggested to be "land use and cover change".
3. Although related studies are mentioned in the literature review section of the article, there still need a more in-depth exploration of these studies to this work and their implications for the methodology and results of this study. Not only do we need to objectively describe the work of previous studies, but we should also take our own work as a starting point. It is recommended that the literature review section be revised a little bit more.
4. line114-There are eight research objectives, and it is suggested that they be appropriately condensed and it is related to the contents of the Result Section.
5. The article focuses on the Talas region, but does not elaborate on how representative the region is of Kazakhstan and Central Asia in general. It is suggested that the authors discuss the selection criteria for the study region and the applicability of the findings to other similar areas.
6. line207- Accuracy Assessment using Kappa statistics: The article used the confusion matrix and the Kappa statistic to assess the accuracy of the classification model, but did not provide the specific values of the confusion matrix. It is suggested that the authors show the confusion matrix so that readers can understand the model performance more intuitively and provide the detailed calculation of the Kappa statistic.
7. The font size of the legend in figure 4 should be made to be larger for clear. And The font size of thelongitude and latitude in figure 4 should be made to be larger for clear. Also, the same legend should be added to both figure 4a and 4b. The font size of the Figure 2 should be enlarged a little more.
8. Figure 6, as well as the other maps in this manuscript, have problems similar to those of figure 4, and are recommended for revision.
9.In the Results Section, some contents such as land use classification, image colloection in Table 1 and Formular (1) should be move to the Materials and Methods Section.
10. Table 2 shows the predicted area in the region. It is suggested that all the data remaines 2 decimal place precision beause of different decimal place precision in the Table 2. Also, the method was described in the Materials and Methods Section, in which the reader is not able to understand how the authors designed the experimental program for the forecasting. For the point, the following article might be recommended:
(1) Scenario Simulation of Land Use and Cover under Safeguarding Ecological Security: A Case Study of Chang-Zhu-Tan Metropolitan Area, China, 2023. http://doi.org/10.3390/f14112131.
11. Limitations of the prediction model. The article predicts land cover change in 2030, but it does not adequately discuss the limitations of the prediction model, such as the potential uncertainties associated with future climate change, policy changes, and other factors. It is recommended that the authors explore these potential uncertainties in more depth in the discussion section.
12. Innovation and contribution of this research. The article needs to clearly point out the novelty of the study and how it makes a novel contribution to the field of land cover and land-use change research. It is suggested that the authors highlight these innovations in the introduction and conclusion sections. Relevant studies to quantify and understand the changes in land use and land cover (LULC) can be referred to below:
(1) Intensity Analysis to Communicate Detailed Detection of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Chang-Zhu-Tan Metropolitan Region, China, 2023. http://doi.org/10.3390/f14050939.
13. In the Line 157, I suggest that GEE internet address might be list here. In the Line 245, shrub possiblly is the shrublands, so authors could delete one of them. In addition, why does the title of the Figure 6 “Talas LULC map a) 2000” is the same as the title of the Figure 7 “Talas LULC Map 2000”? I doubt that it is repeated for figures.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors carried out work on the study of the Talas region in Kazakhstan using satellite images from Landsat 7 and 8. At the moment, the article is a description of their work but does not have the structure of a scientific paper.
1. The abstract consists of a description of what the research was conducted for. Improvements are needed, including the relevance of the work and the specific results obtained.
2. The materials and methods do not provide specific criteria for the selection and preprocessing of satellite images (part of the data is presented in Table 1 in the Results).
3. Figure 2 shows the scheme of the study and provides a general description, which should be expanded to clarify the methods used.
4. The materials and methods do not mention the ground-based research conducted in 2021–2022. It needs to be supplemented.
Additional remarks:
1. The date format should lead to a uniform style throughout the text.
2. Divide lines 54–108 into paragraphs.
The authors do not consider the period between 2000 and 2020. If the dynamics are being built, it is necessary to take into account the changes that occur every year. This way, you can see the changes and calculate the factors influencing them.
Why will the bare vegetation area increase by 2030?
The date format should lead to a uniform style throughout the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper has been improved in the revised version. The authors have made great deal of efforts to consider my comments.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful for your positive evaluation of the efforts we have made to revise our paper. Your recognition that the paper has been improved in the revised version is inspiring and confirms the correctness of our direction of change.
We have endeavoured to incorporate your comments and suggestions as much as possible to improve the quality of the study and its presentation. Your professional perspective and detailed comments have been invaluable in the process of finalising the paper.
Regards,
Omirzhan Taukebayev and the author's team
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsBasically authors revised according to my suggestion. However, the Font size can be enlarged of the Box in Figure 2.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English is good.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have done a lot of work to improve the article and have taken into account the comments of the reviewers.
At the same time, the article still has shortcomings in the presentation of the material, which must be eliminated before printing.
1. The period from April to July is limited in materials and methods. Why not in August? What is the reason for this choice? How does the limitation of the period affect the identification of trends in the development of the groups under consideration and the forecast of their changes until 2023?
2. Ground-based research has not been disclosed enough. Lines 432-441. How was the shooting going? How were the coordinates of the place where soil samples and photographs were taken recorded? How did the data obtained correlate with satellite image data?
3. The results do not indicate how the conducted soil analyses influenced the forecast for 2023.
Additional remarks:
The authors made adjustments to the text but did not correlate the new text with the old one. Because of this, there is a duplicate meaning in the text.
1. Line 249. Extra quotes.
2. Lines 285-288 and 293-296 have duplicate meanings.
3. Line 305 The interpretation of the meaning does not correspond to the location of the cards.
4. Table 1. Bring the date format to a single one (not changed from the last review).
5. Line 374. The text says that 3 scenes were used, and 4 are described; Table 1 also indicates 4.
6. Line 406. Repeat the word shrublands.
7. Line 421 and further in the text. The abbreviation LULC was removed in the new version of the text and remained in the old one. Bring everything into a single format.
8. Lines 419–429 repeat the meaning of lines 384–399 and 309–310.
9. Table 2. Check the spelling and uniformity of the numbers. Correct the spelling correctly using dots and commas. And dall according to the text of lines 499–528.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI thank the authors for their answers.
In Fig. 1., b and c can be reversed for ease of understanding.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 6 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors made changes to the article in accordance with the recommendations and gave a detailed answer to the reviewer's questions.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We sincerely thank you for your positive feedback on the changes we have made and the clarifications we have provided in response to your comments and recommendations. We have endeavoured to address each of your points as thoroughly and carefully as possible to ensure that our study is as clear, accurate and useful to our readers as possible.
Your constructive criticism and suggestions have been extremely helpful in improving the quality of our article, and we are deeply grateful for the time and effort you have devoted to our work. We hope that our results will make a meaningful contribution to the field of research to which they relate and will be useful to the scientific community.
If you have any further questions or suggestions, we would be happy to discuss them to make our work even better.
Regards,
Omirzhan Taukebayev and the author's team.
