Light-Pollution-Monitoring Method for Selected Environmental and Social Elements

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates a way for tracking the impact of light pollution on environmental and social factors in anthropogenic areas. The study utilizes GIS software and analyzes data obtained from various sources, including nighttime light imagery from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite, land cover data from the CORINE Land Cover program, and environmental information from the European Environment Agency and the World Database on Protected Areas. The analysis, conducted for the years 2014 and 2019, identifies environmental and social elements within five distinct classes of light pollution.

The problem domain is interesting however overall methodology is not new. The following comments needs to be addressed.

    •  Line 180-187: Lack of enough justification on how the categorization is done. Or The author’s can provide specific references to support their arguments. Relevant literature must be added with enough justification to establish the proposed categorization.

    •  Line 287: Better to add the place name in the caption of Figure 3.

    • Line 380: Is “Prroper” correct?

    •  Line 407: The symbolization ( color ) of Table 1 and Figure 5 does not match.

    • Line 411: Please specify “Raster to Polygon tool” with proper reference. 

    • Line 418: Please specify  the GIS-type software used with proper reference.

    • Line 430: This table heading seems misleading as it has only social elements (based on the content in line 180-187), Do this table contain environmental elements?

    • Line 442: In Figure 7, the legend and labels are confusing and not easily understandable. What do the different colors represent? 

    • Line 454: Figure 8: Add class labels for better readability. E.g.  Class 1 ( “No Pollution”)

    • Line 454: Need other supporting data ( e.g.  statistics/data from reliable sources like Government, etc) to validate the comparison made.   For example, Figure 8 shows class 1 increased by 12.5% in  2019, which means light pollution is decreasing. This may seem contradicting to the statement made earlier in the article ( line 42) where it says “light pollution increases by more than 2% every year”.

    •  What is the possibility of generalizability of the study results to other countries/regions. Please discuss about the assumptions made and the limitations of this study.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No major issues with the English language were found. However, it can be improved for better readability.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Thanks to your remarks, we hope our manuscript is of much better quality. Please find our responses below (marked in red).

Kind regards,

The Authors

Reviewer's comments in black

Author's response in red.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article investigates a way for tracking the impact of light pollution on environmental and social factors in anthropogenic areas. The study utilizes GIS software and analyzes data obtained from various sources, including nighttime light imagery from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite, land cover data from the CORINE Land Cover program, and environmental information from the European Environment Agency and the World Database on Protected Areas. The analysis, conducted for the years 2014 and 2019, identifies environmental and social elements within five distinct classes of light pollution.

The problem domain is interesting however overall methodology is not new. The following comments needs to be addressed.

• Line 180-187: Lack of enough justification on how the categorization is done. Or The author’s can provide specific references to support their arguments. Relevant literature must be added with enough justification to establish the proposed categorization.

The authors supplemented the literature in the marked paragraph. Based on the literature, the authors selected environmental and social elements for further research. The influence of anthropogenic light emission was determined for selected elements (Lines 182-190).

• Line 287: Better to add the place name in the caption of Figure 3.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article (Line 291).

• Line 380: Is “Prroper” correct?

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article (Line 385).

• Line 407: The symbolization ( color ) of Table 1 and Figure 5 does not match.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article. Figure no. 5 has been corrected (Line 412).

• Line 411: Please specify “Raster to Polygon tool” with proper reference. 

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article. The name of the software has been added to the text: “in ArcGIS Pro (ESRI)” – Line 417

• Line 418: Please specify  the GIS-type software used with proper reference.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article.  The name of the software has been added to the text: “in ArcGIS Pro (ESRI)” – Line 424.

• Line 430: This table heading seems misleading as it has only social elements (based on the content in line 180-187), Do this table contain environmental elements?

The authors included environmental (forests, water) and social elements in the table title. Table 2. Environmental and social elements. Own study based on the CORINE Land Cover [73] – Line 435.

• Line 442: In Figure 7, the legend and labels are confusing and not easily understandable. What do the different colors represent? 

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article. Figure no. 7 has been corrected – Line 447.

• Line 454: Figure 8: Add class labels for better readability. E.g.  Class 1 ( “No Pollution”)

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article. Figure no. 8 has been corrected – Line 460.

• Line 454: Need other supporting data ( e.g.  statistics/data from reliable sources like Government, etc) to validate the comparison made.   For example, Figure 8 shows class 1 increased by 12.5% in  2019, which means light pollution is decreasing. This may seem contradicting to the statement made earlier in the article ( line 42) where it says “light pollution increases by more than 2% every year”.

The authors are unable to obtain additional reference data from the analyzed area. The reduction in light pollution shown in Fig. 8 results from the failure of the belt conveyor in the Turów Coal Mine caused by the subsidence of the mine workings, which was described in the article in lines 491-512. Prior to the conveyor failure, increased light pollution was reported in the area.

• What is the possibility of generalizability of the study results to other countries/regions. Please discuss about the assumptions made and the limitations of this study.

The authors explained in the article how the proposed methodology can be applied to other research areas in lines 593-609.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No major issues with the English language were found. However, it can be improved for better readability.

We thank the Reviewer for her/his valuable remarks and positive feedback. We hope our improvements, which resulted from combining both reviews, are satisfying for the Reviewer and editorial board.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled 'Light Pollution Monitoring Method for Selected Environmental and Social Elements,' Justyna Górniak-Zimroz et al. developed a database of light pollution classes, classified based on the distribution of radiance and visibility of the phenomenon using night satellite data. They also created a database containing environmental and social elements, spatially identifying those susceptible to light pollution. The results were represented in maps, and the surface area of the elements was calculated for each light pollution class. This study presents interesting findings valuable for understanding light pollution monitoring. However, I found some sections of the paper to be overly detailed, with important points inadequately or completely omitted. I have limited confidence in a crucial analysis, and numerous questions need clarification before I can recommend this paper for publication in 'Remote Sensing.' Therefore, major revisions are necessary before accepting this manuscript for publication.

 

Major comments:

1 Abstract: A lock of sufficient explanation of the result that proposed methodology allows the identification of the environmental and social elements which emit light ,you need to explain your simulation results in detail and why you got such results.

2 Introduction: Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in Introduction

3 While you have conducted some analysis of the results, the discussion of the findings appears insufficient, particularly regarding Table 3 and Figure 9. Further elaboration is needed to validate the significance of the experimental outcomes.

4 In the conclusion, it is necessary to supplement additional viewpoints derived from the analysis of the results.

 

Minor comments:

 

1 I suggest standardizing the image dimensions in Table 3 for consistency and improved visual presentation

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Thanks to your remarks, we hope our manuscript is of much better quality. Please find our responses below (marked in red).

Kind regards,

The Authors

Reviewer's comments in black

Author's response in red.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript titled 'Light Pollution Monitoring Method for Selected Environmental and Social Elements,' Justyna Górniak-Zimroz et al. developed a database of light pollution classes, classified based on the distribution of radiance and visibility of the phenomenon using night satellite data. They also created a database containing environmental and social elements, spatially identifying those susceptible to light pollution. The results were represented in maps, and the surface area of the elements was calculated for each light pollution class. This study presents interesting findings valuable for understanding light pollution monitoring. However, I found some sections of the paper to be overly detailed, with important points inadequately or completely omitted. I have limited confidence in a crucial analysis, and numerous questions need clarification before I can recommend this paper for publication in 'Remote Sensing.' Therefore, major revisions are necessary before accepting this manuscript for publication.

 Major comments:

1 Abstract: A lock of sufficient explanation of the result that proposed methodology allows the identification of the environmental and social elements which emit light ,you need to explain your simulation results in detail and why you got such results.

The authors added the following sentence in the abstract: The methodology used in this work allows to observe changes resulting from light pollution (decrease, increase the intensity) – Lines 21-22.

Detailed research results are described in the article in part 3. Results and discussion – Line 448

2 Introduction: Relevant research background needs to be supplemented in Introduction

In the article, the authors developed the description of the research on the topic according to the suggestions of Reviewers No. 2 and 3. – Lines 63-22, 192-198.

3 While you have conducted some analysis of the results, the discussion of the findings appears insufficient, particularly regarding Table 3 and Figure 9. Further elaboration is needed to validate the significance of the experimental outcomes.

The authors described the results in detail in lines 470-490. The authors added a sentence in the article (lines: 489-490): The results show changes resulting from light pollution - reducing, increasing or decreasing its intensity.

4 In the conclusion, it is necessary to supplement additional viewpoints derived from the analysis of the results.

The authors described the results in detail in lines 593-627. The authors added the following sentence (lines: 603-605): The results demonstrate variations attributed to light pollution, encompassing alterations in its intensity, whether through reduction or augmentation.

Minor comments:

 1 I suggest standardizing the image dimensions in Table 3 for consistency and improved visual presentation

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article.

We thank the Reviewer for her/his valuable remarks and positive feedback. We hope our improvements, which resulted from combining both reviews, are satisfying for the Reviewer and editorial board.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The manuscript titled “Light pollution monitoring method for selected environmental and social elements” reports on the development of an approach using remote-sensing images and land cover databases to characterize the extent of light pollution in a border area around Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic.

In general, the work reports on a new application area and is well-written. The manuscript could benefit from some restructuring. Particularly there seems to be the need for a background or literature review section that follows the introduction. There are many sections of the existing manuscript that belong to a literature review section rather than the section where they are currently placed (e.g. most of section 2.1). The results and discussion section starts with a statement that seems out of place and may be better placed in the introduction. The beginning of the conclusion section has a statement that belongs to a separate literature review section.

Some specific items the authors should consider in a revision of the manuscript include:

1.

The abstract states “GIS type software” was used. The manuscript does not state specifically what were the software and their functionalities that were used. Repeatability requires that the software tools be known.

2.

The written language is good but there are some areas that need detailed checking. For example, page 3 line 107 that begins as “The here proposed methodology…”.

3.

Figure 2 can be restructured such that the text is larger and easier to read. One suggestion is to have the preliminary research block at the beginning of the diagram and how that flow downwards into the proper research block rather than to the side.

4.

Page 9 line 380 “Prroper” should be “Proper”.

5.

Table 1 should consider labeling “small” as “low” to be consistent with medium and high. Also in table 1 the radiance of values seems to be reported at an unnecessarily high level of precision.

6.

In table 1 there is no specifics on how the five classes were obtained. Were they generated from natural breaks or some other classification method? Why was a specific classification method used and not something else?

7.

In the results and discussion section, the precision of the numerical values should be made consistent across the manuscript. In particular, the total surface area was reported as of 310.33 km² but given as of 310 km² earlier.

8.

Light pollution monitoring is a well-developed area and there are many peer-reviewed publications available. A comprehensive literature review would have better placed this research into proper context. Some background references missing from the work include:

Barentine JC. Methods for Assessment and Monitoring of Light Pollution around Ecologically Sensitive Sites. J Imaging. 2019 May 18;5(5):54. doi: 10.3390/jimaging5050054.

Chalkais, C. et al. Modelling of light pollution in suburban areas using remotely sensed imagery and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 2006 79(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.05.015

Mu H, Li X, Du X, Huang J, Su W, Hu T, Wen Y, Yin P, Han Y, Xue F. Evaluation of Light Pollution in Global Protected Areas from 1992 to 2018. Remote Sensing. 2021; 13(9):1849. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13091849

There is an entire special issue in the Remote Sensing journal from 2021: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/special_issues/Light_Pollution_Monitoring

 

Overall, the research reported in the manuscript offers new insights and application of spatial methods and spatial databases to monitor light pollution. With the above suggestions, the manuscript will make a stronger contribution to the knowledge base around light pollution monitoring and analysis.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

See the overall document.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable feedback. Thanks to your remarks, we hope our manuscript is of much better quality. Please find our responses below (marked in red).

Kind regards,

The Authors

Reviewer's comments in black

Author's response in red.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript titled “Light pollution monitoring method for selected environmental and social elements” reports on the development of an approach using remote-sensing images and land cover databases to characterize the extent of light pollution in a border area around Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic.

In general, the work reports on a new application area and is well-written. The manuscript could benefit from some restructuring. Particularly there seems to be the need for a background or literature review section that follows the introduction. There are many sections of the existing manuscript that belong to a literature review section rather than the section where they are currently placed (e.g. most of section 2.1). The results and discussion section starts with a statement that seems out of place and may be better placed in the introduction. The beginning of the conclusion section has a statement that belongs to a separate literature review section.

Some specific items the authors should consider in a revision of the manuscript include:

1. The abstract states “GIS type software” was used. The manuscript does not state specifically what were the software and their functionalities that were used. Repeatability requires that the software tools be known.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article.

2. The written language is good but there are some areas that need detailed checking. For example, page 3 line 107 that begins as “The here proposed methodology…”.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article – line 109, 199.

3. Figure 2 can be restructured such that the text is larger and easier to read. One suggestion is to have the preliminary research block at the beginning of the diagram and how that flow downwards into the proper research block rather than to the side.

Thank you for your valuable suggestion. After discussion, the authors concluded that the current format and structure of the figure 2 were appropriate.

4. Page 9 line 380 “Prroper” should be “Proper”.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article – Line 385.

5. Table 1 should consider labeling “small” as “low” to be consistent with medium and high. Also in table 1 the radiance of values seems to be reported at an unnecessarily high level of precision.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article – Line 412.

6. In table 1 there is no specifics on how the five classes were obtained. Were they generated from natural breaks or some other classification method? Why was a specific classification method used and not something else?

The authors described the selection of classes in detail on lines 406-407.

7. In the results and discussion section, the precision of the numerical values should be made consistent across the manuscript. In particular, the total surface area was reported as of 310.33 km² but given as of 310 km² earlier.

The authors took into account the reviewer's comment in the text of the article Line 281.

8. Light pollution monitoring is a well-developed area and there are many peer-reviewed publications available. A comprehensive literature review would have better placed this research into proper context. Some background references missing from the work include:

Barentine JC. Methods for Assessment and Monitoring of Light Pollution around Ecologically Sensitive Sites. J Imaging. 2019 May 18;5(5):54. doi: 10.3390/jimaging5050054.

Chalkais, C. et al. Modelling of light pollution in suburban areas using remotely sensed imagery and GIS. Journal of Environmental Management 2006 79(1). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2005.05.015

Mu H, Li X, Du X, Huang J, Su W, Hu T, Wen Y, Yin P, Han Y, Xue F. Evaluation of Light Pollution in Global Protected Areas from 1992 to 2018. Remote Sensing. 2021; 13(9):1849. https://doi.org/10.3390/rs13091849

There is an entire special issue in the Remote Sensing journal from 2021: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/remotesensing/special_issues/Light_Pollution_Monitoring

In the article, the authors developed the description of the research on the topic according to the suggestions of Reviewers No. 2 and 3 - Lines 63-22, 192-198.

Overall, the research reported in the manuscript offers new insights and application of spatial methods and spatial databases to monitor light pollution. With the above suggestions, the manuscript will make a stronger contribution to the knowledge base around light pollution monitoring and analysis.

We thank the Reviewer for her/his valuable remarks and positive feedback. We hope our improvements, which resulted from combining both reviews, are satisfying for the Reviewer and editorial board.