Multi-Temporal Analysis of Past and Future Land-Cover Changes of the Third Pole

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear editor and authors.

First, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to review the article entitled ~ Multi-temporal analysis of past and future land cover changes of the Third Pole!

Although the manuscript is ell presented, it needs revisions, based on the following comments:

1. The literature review lacks of completeness. Please include more relevant and recent contributions.

2. At the end of the introduction, include one paragraph describing the structure of the paper.

3. Research methodology

Line 2.2.2 - The authors say that for this research the Land Change Modeler (LCM) model was used. Can you describe in detail the advantages and disadvantages of this model and why this model was used in your study?

4. The results should be explain in more detail. For example, In section 3.2 authors describe the changes between the years 1992-2020, I propose to the authors to include in this section recommendations for reducing skirmishes in the following years.

5. The English should be improved

Best regard

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your review and comments. We believe this is an important piece of information for both scientists and managers. We would like to submit our responses to your specific comments below in blue text. We would also like to thank you for the comments, which have greatly improved our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Introduction

1.     Although Introduction section has covered a good background of available knowledge on the title of the paper, the last paragraph (lines 101-105) of the introduction is not linked well vis-à-vis incorporation of a clearly rationalized problem statement along with research query and outlined aim/objective of this paper. Therefore, there is a need to revisit the introduction section (particularly the ending paragraphs) by having a rationalized concluding problem statement along with developing and adding a research query and bringing more clarity in the aim/objective of the paper. There should not be any jump between last two paragraphs.

Material and Methods

2.     The study area description is well described with sufficient details.

3.     Logically, Lines no. 135-144 should not be part of Study Area section as the given contents are depicting the knowledge gap/problem statement of the study. It should be the part of Introduction.

4.     In 2.2 Data and preprocessing, the sub heading 2.2.1 should be ‘Data Acquisition’ presenting the details of all the datasets that are used in this study. After that in 2.2.2 data preprocessing and reclassification, the author can discuss the steps of processing and classification.

5.     Although methodology presented for future land cover predictions is self-explaining and fulfills the criteria of future prediction modeling and validation, methodology for monitoring and past land cover changes is absent without which the current title of the study is not justified. Therefore, authors are required to describe the methodology; how is the analysis of the past land cover changes done?

6.     There is a need to develop and incorporate a flow diagram for different methodological steps followed in this study.

Results and Discussion

7.     To justify the title, the authors need to create and visualize the crucial past dataset in the form of maps and then compare it with future climate changes as well other influencing factors. This can be done by creating land cover change maps with the selected classes for future land cover changes maps in GIS. It also requires to be backed with necessary references (where applicable).

8.     The current discussion is merged with the results and also needs to be improved particularly in the context of preceding comment which is linked with the past land cover changes then future prediction and in the end model verification.

Overall

9.     Revisit the Conclusion and Abstract in the light of changes brought against all above comments.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, thank you for your review and comments. We believe this is an important piece of information for both scientists and managers. We would like to submit our responses to your specific comments below in blue text. We would also like to thank you for the comments, which have greatly improved our manuscript. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, please see my comments for round 2 in red text.

 

Comment 1 round 1. Although Introduction section has covered a good background of available knowledge on the title of the paper, the last paragraph (lines 101-105) of the introduction is not linked well vis-à-vis incorporation of a clearly rationalized problem statement along with research query and outlined aim/objective of this paper. Therefore, there is a need to revisit the introduction section (particularly the ending paragraphs) by having a rationalized concluding problem statement along with developing and adding a research query and bringing more clarity in the aim/objective of the paper. There should not be any jump between last two paragraphs.

 

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have revised the introduction and included some information as follows. Changes are reflected in blue text in the manuscript.

 

Round 2 – Review Comment 1: Although authors have added the problem statement, the last paragraph of the introduction should not include the results of the research. Therefore, remove the results related contents from the last part of the introduction.

 

Comment 2 round 1. The study area description is well described with sufficient details.

 

Response: Many thanks for your comment, we have provided more details for the study area.

 

Round 2 – Review Comment 2: It is okay, no further action required.

 

Comment 3. Logically, Lines no. 135-144 should not be part of Study Area section as the given contents are depicting the knowledge gap/problem statement of the study. It should be the part of Introduction.

 

Response: Thank you for the comment. We moved the lines to the introduction section. Please see the blue text for changes.

 

Round 2 – Review Comment 3: It’s okay, no further action required.

 

Comment 4. In 2.2 Data and preprocessing, the sub heading 2.2.1 should be ‘Data Acquisition’ presenting the details of all the datasets that are used in this study. After that in 2.2.2 data preprocessing and reclassification, the author can discuss the steps of processing and classification.

 

Response: Thank you for your comment. We tried our best to address your comments, and the changes are reflected in blue text in the methods section.

 

Round 2 – Review Comment 4: It’s okay, no further action required.

 

Comment 5. Although methodology presented for future land cover predictions is self-explaining and fulfills the criteria of future prediction modeling and validation, methodology for monitoring and past land cover changes is absent without which the current title of the study is not justified. Therefore, authors are required to describe the methodology; how is the analysis of the past land cover changes done?

 

Response: Thank you for your observation. We enriched the methodology section, as can be seen in the methodology section.

 

Round 2 – Review Comment 5: As far as the future prediction is concerned, methodology is okay. However, the methodology pertaining to past spatio-temporal analysis is still missing due to which there is controversy exist in the title, problem statement (i.e. background context of the paper in introduction section), objective, results and conclusion of the paper. There are two options, first is original comment which is un-attended and linked with addition of missing part of the methodology for past trends while second option may be exercised by amending the title, problem statement (i.e. background context of the paper in introduction section), objective, results and conclusion of the paper. Apparently, the authors seem reluctant for incorporation of missing context of the methodology. Considering the reply and options available for the paper, I am indecisive as more inclined towards option 1 based on my original comment during round 1. However, for alternate option, I would strongly urge the need to take direction from the Academic Editor prior to proceed for alternate option if the authors desire it.

 

Comment 6. There is a need to develop and incorporate a flow diagram for different methodological steps followed in this study.

 

Response: We have included a figure that shows the methodological steps for the study. We appreciate your suggestion.

 

Round 2 – Review Comment 6: Although a good flow chart has been incorporated, the authors need to change its caption as “Flow Chart of Methodology” instead of “study of flowchart”.

 

 

Comment 7. To justify the title, the authors need to create and visualize the crucial past dataset in the form of maps and then compare it with future climate changes as well other influencing factors. This can be done by creating land cover change maps with the selected classes for future land cover changes maps in GIS. It also requires to be backed with necessary references (where applicable).

 

Response: Thank you so much for this comment. We did anticipate this comment; however, we have purposely not included it in this study as our focus is on ascertaining general trends in land cover changes in the Third pole landscape. We hope to include this in our next LULC study, which will be more detailed and focused on major mountain ranges.

 

Round 2 - Comment 7: Not satisfactory. There is a need to revisit in the light of reply opted for comment 5 regarding methodology.

 

 

Comment 8. The current discussion is merged with the results and also needs to be improved particularly in the context of preceding comment which is linked with the past land cover changes then future prediction and in the end model verification.

 

Response: We have improved the results and discussion and tightened them for clarity.

 

Round 2 - Comment 8: Same as earlier comment above. There is a need to revisit in the light of reply opted for comment 5 regarding methodology.

 

 

 

Comment 9. Revisit the Conclusion and Abstract in the light of changes brought against all above comments.

 

Response: We have revised and tightened the abstract and the conclusion.

 

Round 2 - Comment 9: Same as earlier comment above. There is a need to revisit in the light of reply opted for comment 5 regarding methodology.

 

 

 

Round 2 – Overall Comment:

 

Although the manuscript has been revised, authors are still required to address "Comment 5" as this is the most important one. It is not wise to accept the manuscript without a good solution to comment 5 for which decision from Academic Editor is suggested.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We would like to express our appreciation for your detailed and helpful comments on our manuscript “Multi-temporal analysis of past and future land cover changes of the Third Pole”. Based on your comments, we have revised our paper as carefully as possible. We hope our revised version will sufficiently meet the standard of publication for the journal of Land MDPI.