Urbanization Trends Analysis Using Hybrid Modeling of Fuzzy Analytical Hierarchical Process-Cellular Automata-Markov Chain and Investigating Its Impact on Land Surface Temperature over Gharbia City, Egypt
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please check the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This manuscript combined FAHP and CA-Markov chain for urbanization trends analysis and studied the corresponding urban heat island phenomenon. This work itself is meaningful in the field of urbanization. However, some other problems in the manuscript are still concerned in the following:
1. The study period of this work is 1991-2018. Could the authors extend it to 2021 or 2022?
2. In Figure 3 and other figures, only three categories were classified. Could the authors make more refined classifications? I mean that more categories could be determined and shown.
3. Could the authors show a table of the data they used?
4. The full versions of the abbreviations should be given when they firstly appear in the text.
Author Response
Please check the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is well-written, but requires some improvements.
- The novelty of the paper is lacking. The authors need to emphasize what are the paper's main contributions.
- The Materials and Methods section should give more information about CA and AHP.
- The classification accuracy of water areas is usually achieved high. It should be discussed why producer’s accuracy values for water are so low in the study area.
- What is the threshold for acceptable Jaccard coefficients?
- The last two sentences of the Summary and Introduction sections contain the same words. It needs to be expressed in different words.
Author Response
Please check the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
Many thanks for submitting your research for review. I have keen interest on your research especially it was conducted in the Nile river valley area. The study conducted in this area was a good attempt, but it has serious flaws in presentation. My specific comments and suggestions are given in point by points: please improve the title, text, methodology and results parts.
1. Title need to be precise and short, currently it is carrying too much text. Overall understanding should be clear at this point what you are focusing in this study. My suggestive title:
"Analysis of Urbanization Trends and Its Impact of Land Surface Temperature Over Gharbia city, Egypt Using Hybrid Modeling Approach"
2. Abstract need to be rewrite and main findings should be highlight. All abbreviate first show in detail then use acronym, for example, Land Use and Land Cover (LULC). Keywords must be end with five/six in number. as LULC C dynamics is written, simulation is not required.
3. In Introduction part, very less references are given by the authors. As we know many researches are conducted in recent time across the world using your current model. Hybrid models are used my many researchers as well as Markov-CA modeling approach. this section suggest authors are not much involved with published work. Many important researches citations are missing which is a major set back in this study.
4. What are the main problems in this study? Why this study conducted in this Nile valley where urbanization is in progress? The authors should be more precise and show why they selected this area? What are the main reasons behind selection? Research gap must be discuss aligned to other available researches in this area.
5. Why hybrid model? what are the benefits of this model? Explain and report it based on available literatures and relate it with your present investigations. Why this model implement to find out changes and what are the benefits?
6. Some text expressions are not ended, and some brackets are missing in the manuscript.
7. Figure 2. The conceptual flowchart of the adopted methodology must relate with software that considered in this study. Readers will be confuse which software used for what? It must be clearly presented with simple understanding. It may be break down in many steps, such as Step 1- Step 4, and so on.
8. According to new method flow work, your methodology should be reorganized, and try to avoid many references in method parts. Currently too many references are available.
9. table 1 can be referred to supplement table, and main scores can be shown in text, more details readers can be look over supplement table.
10. Table 2. Classification accuracy assessment of LULC types can be presented in a comparative graph. and related table can be shift in supplementary table 2. Could you please check water body again in accuracy table? look at producer accuracy table which need to be high, currently it shows low.
11. One important issue is , why you limit your study till 2018 to know LULCC of the study area? As Satellite data are up to date till today. I would suggest to consider recent satellite image as you considered past and recent and , you then simulate 10 yrs interval, for example, 2020, simulate to 2030, 2040, and 2050.
12. LULC type should be five in class, please change it. As the study area representing urban sprawl, you should first know in detail LULC types, then it will clearly define where this growth is accelerating. Use better color to represent LULC types. All LULC types must be abbreviated as Built-up Areas (BA), Agricultural Land (AL), Waterbodies (WB), and so on. This must carry to entire text of your manuscript. First represent and then use acronyms.
13. In LST maps, class should be at least 5 classes to know more spatial variations that exist in the study area, and what is going to be change in future. In LST same as LULC types, choose better color ramp.
14. Transition Potential maps can be referred in supplementary part, you can refer in text. Your text matter in this manuscript is too long, please concise your writing within 20-25 pages.
15. Discussion part must follow the results sections and briefly discuss the results with other findings. Moreover, it is also need to be checked with other published work and comparison must be made with your results.
16. What is new in this study? It must be reported and discuss along with other published works.
Moreover, the study need rigorous revision, and in current form it is not acceptable.
My Decision: Reconsider after Major revision.
Regards
Reviewer
Date: 10 Dec 2022, Time: 2.26 PM
Author Response
Please check the PDF file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have made an effort to address my concerns. By doing so the manuscript is sufficiently improved.
Best wishes,
Author Response
Thank you for your evaluation and effort.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have answered all of my concerns.
Author Response
Thank you for your evaluation and effort .
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors
Many thanks for submitting your revised version.
I have checked and have seen your improvements in this version. The introduction part is still too long to catch the main points of the study.
Many of my previous comments are not followed, and authors retain or gave excuse which they kept as it is, which is not a issue, but their explanation is not clear to me why they are not considering new data to find out changes.
Flowchart steps is still some problems, not following step by step, readers will be confused about the outcome and flowchart should be broke into many sub-steps, such as Step -1, step-2, and so on. which should be maintain sequences.
Moreover, accuracy assessment results which you replied is a big issue, this should be improved. The results are not reliable as it shows lower level of performance, this is happened due to mixed pixels, and less number of class you generated. I can't agree with your reply.
Overall, many of the points are overlooked and authors are not well revised. Therefore, I would not recommend this to be publishable in this journal.
Reviewer
Dated: 27 Dec 2022, Time: 12.47 AM
Author Response
Done
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
