A Conceptual Approach to Modeling the Geospatial Impact of Typical Urban Threats on the Habitat Quality of River Corridors
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper is an interesting contribution, and its structure is well developed. I find that in the discussion the literature review can be improved, as it is very scarce. Some figures are redundant, and the grammar and structure of the sentences can be improved. However, I believe this paper is worthy of being published in Remote Sensing.
Introduction:
Line 88. More explanation is needed as regards the concept of “individual and combined impact of threats” and the synergic between individual and combined impacts in other study cases in rivers.
Methodology.
Line 102: Whilts? Means While?
Line 113 and 114: It is not clear which is the difference between the land use: informal urban-rural transitional (2) and recent formal rural settlements (3) and if that difference leads to a specific impact on the river.
The picture number (4) within the figure 1 is not cite in the text. It should be cite somewhere.
Line 241: the introduction of a new figure showing the LULC map would provide more clarification in terms of the distribution of the different LULC and spatial scale (pixel size used) to the study.
Line 246: further information is needed on the pixel size of the threat maps. Similar to the description provide for the LULC map
Results
Figures: There are two figures, 4??? Also, I recommend the background of all the figures from 3 to 6 is changed to a background similar to in figure 7. When using a grey background, it seems all the background has a 0 habitat degradation.
Line 329 This means that the effect of the threats is summed; there is no synergic effect between the threats; this needs to be addressed on the discussion as regards the limitation of the model.
Line 339: check the error that appear between parenthesis in that line.
The results figures are really nice; however, I identify some redundancy on them. I suggest one of the two options:
Keep figure 3,4,4(there are two figures 4), and 5. But not figure 6
Keep figure 5 and 6. But not figure 3,4, and 4
Discussion section needs a more in-depth literature review to justify the affirmations of the authors.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you on behalf of the authors for spending your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We very much appreciate your very positive feedback which encourages us to continue with our investigative work.
We addressed all your comments and suggestions in our revised version of the manuscript. Please find a detailed author response in the attachment.
Best regards,
Jochen Hack
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper examines an interesting issue, namely the geospatial impact of typical urban threats on habitat quality of 3 river corridors. The novelty of the paper is, according to the authors, the use of a model (InVest) at a small scale (<10 km2) and in the urban context.
The paper is well written, has a solid introductory part, a nice flow; to this end it allows the reader to comprehend the methodology applied and the strenghts and weaknesses of the model used.
The use of remote sensing is very limited, if any. There is a referral in a LULC classification performed in the area and published in a previous paper [4] of the authors. In addition, the satellite images used for the depiction of aggregate threats to the area concerned come from Google Earth Pro.
Thus the paper has hardly any remote sensing background, nor does it reflect any novelty as far as the use of remote sensing for an environmental application. Furthermore, even the very limited use of remote sensing is poorly described, not to mention the lack of any kind of information on the source (s) of satellite data, the classification accuracy (performed in the previous paper), etc.
Saying the above, the paper carries limited connection to remote sensing, whereas its novelty in the remote sensing field is minimal, again if any. It practically reflects an application of a model - developed by another group - which is based on one (1) land cover classification of the urban area concerned. This can not be considered as a genuine remote sensing application or at least a remote sensing application which is importantly or even considerably based on remote sensing techniques.
As a conclusion, the paper does not fit to the scope of the Journal. It may be easily accommodated in another - more thematically suitable - journal of MDPI (for instance Sustainability).
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
I would like to thank you on behalf of the authors for spending your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. Your feedback is valuable to us and we respect it. Thank you for your reflections on our manuscript. We agree with you that our study is not novel in the use of remotely sensed data nor does the data used represent any novelty. However, we submitted our manuscript to the Special Issue “Remote Sensing and GIS for Environmental Analysis and Cultural Heritage” and among the topics of interest are: (1) Integration of remote sensing data for environmental analysis, (2) New tools and methods for spatial data generation, and (3) Tracking urban growth and land use change with remote sensing technologies and GIS tools. We do believe that our study suits these topics well. Moreover, the journal itself states in its aims and scope a broader interpretation of possible journal topics including “Remote sensing applications”.
Regarding the mentioned the lack of information on the sources of satellite data and the classification accuracy, we refer to our previous paper where the LULC classification was described and performed as well as the accuracy assessed. Since the focus of the submitted manuscript is not on the LULC classification but rather on its use as input data for a model, we believe this is sufficient.
We welcome any concrete suggestion on your behalf for further improving our manuscript.
Best regards,
Jochen Hack
Reviewer 3 Report
The article raises important issues related to water management in cities. Tests carried out correctly, selection of tools appropriate, number of literature items appropriate.
Minor Notes:
It is not recommended to cite in the summary, because here the author's conclusions are expected. Alternatively, it should be in the introduction.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you on behalf of the authors for spending your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We very much appreciate your very positive feedback which encourages us to continue with our investigative work.
We eliminated the citation in the conclusions as suggested.
Best regards,
Jochen Hack
Reviewer 4 Report
I have read clearly and with interest the presented manuscript which demonstrates an interesting and important scientific problem in the field of hydrology and hydraulics. I appreciate the Author’s field studies. The results will be certainly highly welcomed by large group of scientist dealing with similar tasks. Obtained results would be directly applied particularly in hydrology, hydraulics and eco-hydrology studies what could ensure a high citation of the article.
Below is a few minor comments, which I believe, can improve the work a little bit.
- Lines 46-60: just cite reference [1] one time, at the end of paragraph.
- In introduction the novelty of conducted study must be clearly emphasized. Actually there is lack of this statement.
- Study area: I would like to see more information about the analyzed catchment. Please provide the information’s about basically physiographic factors.
- How was select the particular stretches of river?
- Subchapter 2.2.1: the Authors mentioned about land-use and land cover but did not provide the information about this characteristic for analyzed river.
- Lines 287: please cite Sharma et al. (2018) and Seiler (2001) in correct style.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
thank you on behalf of the authors for spending your valuable time in reviewing our manuscript. We very much appreciate your very positive feedback which encourages us to continue with our investigative work.
We addressed all your comments and suggestions in our revised version of the manuscript. Please find a detailed author response in the attachment.
Best regards,
Jochen Hack
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
A comparison of the submitted manuscript to other papers published in Remote Sensing (special issue Remote Sensing and GIS for Environmental Analysis and Cultural Heritage), confirms that the use of remote sensing in the manuscript under consideration is very limited.
The paper does not fit to the scope of the Journal. It may be easily accommodated in another - more thematically suitable - journal of MDPI (for instance Sustainability).
