Forest Cover Change Pattern after the Intervention of Community Forestry Management System in the Mid-Hill of Nepal: A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

“Forest cover change pattern after the intervention of community forestry management system in the Mid hill of Nepal: A case study” I think the paper is interesting and provides important baseline information on Nepal forest cover and it changes over a few decades.  Authors have quantitatively described changes in forest cover using Landsat images.  However, I identify the following concerns that should be taken into account before the acceptance of the manuscript

The Abstract is well structured and given information is adequate

The introduction is appropriate and well written. 

Please put sensor properties in a table. Important to have acquisition days of images, path/row of images, cloud cover of data

The description of the methodology is appropriate; however, the image-processing component has been poorly written thus I recommend rewriting the methodology with a flowchart

Authors just mentioned an ASTER DEM, however, it is not clear did they acquire the DEM. 

Apart from this, I see the following main question. The study area is located in topographically complex terrain. In areas of rugged terrain, variable illumination angles and reflection geometry are caused by different slope angles and orientations. In Landsat data, the effect is readily apparent as the visual impression of relief so it seems authors have not been corrected. Thus, the topographic normalization is essential. Do the authors have an argument against this statement?  

Discussion and conclusions are appropriate, however, concluded information is rather general especially conclusions  

 

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

“Forest cover change pattern after the intervention of community forestry management system in the Mid hill of Nepal: A case study” I think the paper is interesting and provides important baseline information on Nepal forest cover and it changes over a few decades.  Authors have quantitatively described changes in forest cover using Landsat images.  However, I identify the following concerns that should be taken into account before the acceptance of the manuscript

The Abstract is well structured and given information is adequate

The introduction is appropriate and well written.

Please put sensor properties in a table. Important to have acquisition days of images, path/row of images, cloud cover of data

We agree with the reviewer. We have now created Table 1 with sensor information.

The description of the methodology is appropriate; however, the image-processing component has been poorly written thus I recommend rewriting the methodology with a flowchart

We agree with the reviewer. We have added a new figure showing the flowchart of the methodology (Figure 3) and we have improved the methodology part.

Authors just mentioned an ASTER DEM, however, it is not clear did they acquire the DEM.

Apart from this, I see the following main question. The study area is located in topographically complex terrain. In areas of rugged terrain, variable illumination angles and reflection geometry are caused by different slope angles and orientations. In Landsat data, the effect is readily apparent as the visual impression of relief so it seems authors have not been corrected. Thus, the topographic normalization is essential. Do the authors have an argument against this statement? 

Thank you for pointing this out.  We performed topographic correction (C correction) but the LULC accuracy results did not improve and additionally, voids (gap in the image due to steep topography) were created due to voids in the ASTER/SRTM DEMS so we removed topographic normalization from the preprocessing step. Now we re-write the sentence and removed the sentence about ASTER DEM.

Discussion and conclusions are appropriate, however, concluded information is rather general especially conclusions 

We appreciate reviewer comments. We have improved the conclusion section.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting paper that assesses multi-decadal trends in land cover in Nepal. Overall it is good, but will require moderate editing to improve clarity. For example, the authors attribute increases in forest cover to Community Forestry, but never really define what community forestry (or a community forest) is. CF is a term that may have different meanings in different parts of the world, so the authors need to define it in the context of their study. I also have some issues w/the tables and figures. Additionally, I feel like the remote sensing/GIS portions of the paper are sufficient -- the FCD section, while interesting and useful, should perhaps be parsed out into a second manuscript.

Line 32: forest improvement needs definition.

line 54-57-the authors list several factors that have potentially improved the state of Nepals forests, but then cite CF as the program most responsible for increases in forest cover. What about the other programs?

RS/GIS Methods: no major concerns

Focus group methods: interesting stuff, but could perhaps be a 2nd paper.

Tables 2-5, I'm unclear on what exactly these numbers represent. For example, in the text it states that barren land increased by 13.65 from 1.09 to 14.74. I don't see these numbers in the table. I think that land cover change dynamics could be more effectively presented in a figure of some type.

Figures 4 and 5. I like these figures, but the color scheme is a little confusing. For example, Agriculture to Forest (Figure 4) is represented in the same color as Forest to Agriculture (Figure 5). I recommend a different color scheme. Also, at this scale and resolution, I only see yellows and greys (both figures).

Lines 248-295. This section is interesting, but seems a little out of place. I think the FCD sections of the paper could be parsed out into a 2nd manuscript.

Lines 276-277. Here the authors state that satellite image analysis revealed conversion of forestland to agriculture/barren land. However, the satelite analysis (figs 4 and 5) do not clearly show this (especially Forest --> Barren Land). Perhaps this is a scale/resolution issue. Regardless, the increase in barren land is interesting and worthy of further discussion and interpretation.

Discussion and Conclusion are good.

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper that assesses multi-decadal trends in land cover in Nepal. Overall it is good, but will require moderate editing to improve clarity. For example, the authors attribute increases in forest cover to Community Forestry, but never really define what community forestry (or a community forest) is. CF is a term that may have different meanings in different parts of the world, so the authors need to define it in the context of their study. I also have some issues w/the tables and figures. Additionally, I feel like the remote sensing/GIS portions of the paper are sufficient -- the FCD section, while interesting and useful, should perhaps be parsed out into a second manuscript.

We appreciate reviewer comments. Although we had mentioned about other programs as well in the sentence “After the year 1993 with the Forest Act and Bufferzone Regulation, the Nepal government has experimented with a variety of programs aimed at decentralizing forest management beginning with community forestry (hereafter CF), leasehold forestry, park and people program [8], and buffer zone community forests.” We have now rephrased the sentence and added more sentences to clarify it.

Line 32: forest improvement needs definition.

We appreciate reviewer comment and added the definition.

line 54-57-the authors list several factors that have potentially improved the state of Nepal's forests, but then cite CF as the program most responsible for increases in forest cover. What about the other programs?

We appreciate the reviewer concern and we have elaborated it to make more understandable.

RS/GIS Methods: no major concerns

Focus group methods: interesting stuff, but could perhaps be a 2nd paper.

We appreciate reviewer comments. However, we support our remote sensing finding with people’s experience. So, we had to add focus group information into the same article.  

Tables 2-5, I'm unclear on what exactly these numbers represent. For example, in the text it states that barren land increased by 13.65 from 1.09 to 14.74. I don't see these numbers in the table. I think that land cover change dynamics could be more effectively presented in a figure of some type.

We agree with the reviewer. Now, we rephrase the sentence to make it clearer. Furthermore, we have corrected table numbers as well in the caption and in text.

Figures 4 and 5. I like these figures, but the color scheme is a little confusing. For example, Agriculture to Forest (Figure 4) is represented in the same color as Forest to Agriculture (Figure 5). I recommend a different color scheme. Also, at this scale and resolution, I only see yellows and greys (both figures).

We agree with the reviewer. We have changed color scheme.

Lines 248-295. This section is interesting, but seems a little out of place. I think the FCD sections of the paper could be parsed out into a 2nd manuscript.

Lines 276-277. Here the authors state that satellite image analysis revealed conversion of forestland to agriculture/barren land. However, the satelite analysis (figs 4 and 5) do not clearly show this (especially Forest --> Barren Land). Perhaps this is a scale/resolution issue. Regardless, the increase in barren land is interesting and worthy of further discussion and interpretation.

We agree with the reviewer, due to scale/resolutions issue, it is not visible properly. However, we have now changed color scheme in the legend in both figures (6 and 7).

Discussion and Conclusion are good.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript represents a case study focused on forest cover change patterns after the intervention of the community forestry management system in Nepal. Land-use changes, mainly deforestation and aforestation, play a crucial role in mitigating the negative impacts of climate change, regulating water regimes, and preserving the region's biodiversity. Remote sensing techniques were used to track land-use changes in different periods. I found the manuscript aims very interesting, but some parts need revision, and English must be improved.

 

My main objection is about deficiency in Methods that were used – probably methods were handled correctly, but the description in the Method section needs improvement. In the Method section, there is a paragraph about Image classification and accuracy assessment (line 130), but there is no information about final accuracy that was reached in the Results.

Also, the paragraph „The field data were collected from 200 locations covering all LULC“ (lines 111-112) needs more explanation. How were these locations chosen? Randomly, or in a regular grid or a different method? Were these points used in the training phase? Please add this information to the Method section.

In the Result section we can find paragraph „For training and verification of the LULC map, additional points were extracted from the Topographic map (prepared from 1992 to 2001 by the Government of Nepal), GPS point, and Google Earth image.“ (lines 150-152). I miss information about how many additional points were added, and into which LULC classes they belonged to. I will suggest adding more information about testing the accuracy and what was the final accuracy level.

 

Specific comments:

 

5 Firstname lastname – please correct the names

 

16-17 hard to read the sentence

 

38 hill – correct to hills

 

40 forest – correct to the forest area

 

93 LULC – please explain abbreviation when it is used for the first time in the text

 

105 topicat – tropical

 

164 map from 1976-1991, 1991-2015, and 1991-2015 ? dates are duplicated

 

208 Table 2. hard to read table – it needs more description in Table text. The first line of the table represents class Water and how water areas were growing and replacing other classes (Barren land, Agricultural land etc.) from 1976 to 1991?

 

209 Table 4 hard to read table. Table 3 is missing, or numbering is incorrect?

 

225 Same problem with the table

 

245-247 Fig 4., 5. – I will suggest exchanging these figures. Forest loss was observed in the first period and the increase of forested land in the second period, so it will be more logical to first present the figure with forest loss.

 

327-382 Please replace XX YY ZZ by names

 

370-371 I didn’t find a reference to Supplementary materials in the text of the manuscript

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript represents a case study focused on forest cover change patterns after the intervention of the community forestry management system in Nepal. Land-use changes, mainly deforestation and aforestation, play a crucial role in mitigating the negative impacts of climate change, regulating water regimes, and preserving the region's biodiversity. Remote sensing techniques were used to track land-use changes in different periods. I found the manuscript aims very interesting, but some parts need revision, and English must be improved.

My main objection is about deficiency in Methods that were used – probably methods were handled correctly, but the description in the Method section needs improvement. In the Method section, there is a paragraph about Image classification and accuracy assessment (line 130), but there is no information about final accuracy that was reached in the Results.

We appreciate reviewer comments. However, we have mentioned about overall accuracy in end of section 3.1  as “The overall accuracy of the classification was 86%, 75.3%, and 79.5% and the Kappa statistics was 0.77, 0.69, and 0.67 for the year 1976, 1991 and 2015, respectively.”

Also, the paragraph „The field data were collected from 200 locations covering all LULC“ (lines 111-112) needs more explanation. How were these locations chosen? Randomly, or in a regular grid or a different method? Were these points used in the training phase? Please add this information to the Method section.

We appreciate reviewer comments. We have improved the method section and elaborated those field data collection information.

In the Result section we can find paragraph „For training and verification of the LULC map, additional points were extracted from the Topographic map (prepared from 1992 to 2001 by the Government of Nepal), GPS point, and Google Earth image.“ (lines 150-152). I miss information about how many additional points were added, and into which LULC classes they belonged to. I will suggest adding more information about testing the accuracy and what was the final accuracy level.

Thank you for your useful comments. We have added more information on this topic.

Specific comments:

5 Firstname lastname – please correct the names

This was corrected.

16-17 hard to read the sentence

This was corrected.

38 hill – correct to hills

This was corrected.

40 forest – correct to the forest area

This was corrected.

93 LULC – please explain abbreviation when it is used for the first time in the text

This was corrected.

105 topicat – tropical

This was corrected.

164 map from 1976-1991, 1991-2015, and 1991-2015 ? dates are duplicated

This was corrected.

208 Table 2. hard to read table – it needs more description in Table text. The first line of the table represents class Water and how water areas were growing and replacing other classes (Barren land, Agricultural land etc.) from 1976 to 1991?

Thank you for your useful comments. We have added a sentence in section 3.1.1.to explain how to read the table 3 for example. “The row total of table 3 represent the percentage of total area covered by each class in 1976 (for e.g.  the total value of second row is 1.09% which was the land percentage covered by barren land in 1976) and column total of table 3 represent the percentage of total area covered by each class in 1991 (for e.g. the total value of second column is 14.74 which was the land percentage covered by barren land in 1991) and the differences between the row total and column total represent the land cover changed between 1976 to 1991 (for e.g. the difference between total of second row and second column is 13.65 which was land percentage converted from barren land to other land) .”  Furthermore, we have added a new figure to show changes in land and land cover in those years.

209 Table 4 hard to read table. Table 3 is missing, or numbering is incorrect?

This was corrected. Furthermore, new table (Table 1) was created according to suggestion from another reviewer.

225 Same problem with the table

We have added a sentence how to read the tables. Furthermore, we have added a figure combining all land cover in year 1976, 1991 and 2015 (Figure 5).

245-247 Fig 4., 5. – I will suggest exchanging these figures. Forest loss was observed in the first period and the increase of forested land in the second period, so it will be more logical to first present the figure with forest loss.

We agree with the reviewer. We have now exchanged figures positions. Forest loss as figure 6 and forest enhancement as figure 7. Furthermore, we have changed the legend in Figure as other reviewer wanted to have different colors for each legend in two figures.

327-382 Please replace XX YY ZZ by names

This was corrected.

370-371 I didn’t find a reference to Supplementary materials in the text of the manuscript

This was corrected.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

a very small correction:  Conclusion ( line 371) should be Conclusions

I noted, recommended all corrections have been made thus I don't have any objection for acceptance this manuscript. 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the way how authors improved the manuscript. It is now suitable for publication.