Land Cover and Land Use Ontology—Evolution of International Standards, Challenges, and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a relevant topic, of potential interest to Land readers.
I could agree that it is practically impossible to present the intricacies of the classification systems in the scope of a single paper, nonetheless, I would suggest authors enhance the way they present the contribution, its merits and the benefits obtained by applying it to the listed case studies.
Specifically, the very brief description of those recalled in sub-sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 of the manuscript would require referencing published work on the related cases (e.g., as authors have properly done for 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2).

As a general remark, the number and the quality of cited literature could be improved.

About the discussion section, comparing the positive effect of applying the classification system with existing alternatives should be broadened, so to clarify the novelty and the merits of the current proposal.

The status described in section 3.2 ought to be reported at the time of writing (please, check the verbs about dates already passed and update the status if needed).

Author Response

Comment 1: The manuscript addresses a relevant topic, of potential interest to Land readers.
I could agree that it is practically impossible to present the intricacies of the classification systems in the scope of a single paper, nonetheless, I would suggest authors enhance the way they present the contribution, its merits and the benefits obtained by applying it to the listed case studies.
Specifically, the very brief description of those recalled in sub-sections 3.1.1 to 3.1.5 of the manuscript would require referencing published work on the related cases (e.g., as authors have properly done for 3.1.4.1 and 3.1.4.2).

Response 1: Page 5-7, line 218-322. Thank you for your comment, as ongoing work cannot be quoted here therefore use cases has been replaced and only published work has been mentioned.

Comment 2: As a general remark, the number and the quality of cited literature could be improved.

Response 2: Page 10-12, line 428-516. Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Comment 3: About the discussion section, comparing the positive effect of applying the classification system with existing alternatives should be broadened, so to clarify the novelty and the merits of the current proposal.

Response 3: Page 5-7, line 218-322. Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Comment 4: The status described in section 3.2 ought to be reported at the time of writing (please, check the verbs about dates already passed and update the status if needed).

Response 4: Page 7, line 335-343. Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done. “The current status as of July 2024 is that 1) the revision of ISO 19144-2 on land cover was published (12-12-2023).; 2) the new ISO 19144-3 on land use has passed its Draft Tech-nical Specification ballot with 100% approval and is now in the publication stage. Some minor typographical and non-substantive technical errors identified in the DTS ballot will be ad-dressed and the document should be published soon.; 3) a new preliminary project on ISO 19144-4 on registration and implementation aspects has been approved by resolution at the May 2023 plenary of ISO/TC 211 and a new work item proposal has been submitted and is under ballot.; and 4) work on the revision of ISO 19144-1 classification systems structure will not begin until the work on ISO 19144-4 is mature.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see document attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: The paper titled “Land cover and land use ontology – evolution of international standards, challenges, and opportunities” is not currently suitable for publication in its current form. The authors need to do a better job linking the figures to the text (not just simply mentioning them and having the figures fairly different from the elements mentioned in the text). For example, Figure 1 is very specific and is not tied to anything discussed in the manuscript.

Response 1: Page 3, line 145-147. Thank you for your comment, this has already been explained in the text from line 143-147. “The meta language establishes a vocabulary which can be used to describe a land cover class from any classification system. This vocabulary is established on a decomposition based on the physiognomic aspects of each element. This is partially illustrated in Figure 1. This vocabulary is not a classification system, but rather is an ontology which can be used to describe a class in a land cover classification system.”  

Comment 2: Figure 2, why was Savannah chosen?

Response 2: The Savannah class was selected because it has proven to be an effective and user-friendly example in numerous training sessions, workshops, and United Nations meetings. It helps audiences understand the meta language model, as it includes all the essential components (basic elements, properties, and characteristics) necessary to define a class in LCML. 

Comment 3: The manuscript does not seem to provide novel and compelling information to the reader, maybe if the figures would be rethought then they would do a better job in supporting the message that the authors are tying to disseminate.

Response 3: Text: Page 4, line 149-156. Thank you for your comment the figure has been modified with better explanation “In addition to the basic elements one can add properties and class characteristics to further refine the description of any land cover class. The example in Figure 2.a shows a tree and shrub savannah, which may be a class in a particular classification system. A savannah is composed of three separate layers of trees, shrubs, and herbs with different covers of the woody component types. The base layer is composed of herbs. The second and third layers are composed of shrubs and trees of different heights and cover as can be seen in Figure 2.a. By adding details on properties and characteristics, this class can be modeled in LCML as shown in Figure 2.b.”.

Comment 4: The following two comments were also stated in the previous round of reviews. 1. The paper has a very large number of bullet points. I have advised the authors to restructure to reduce the number of bullet points used. This is a manuscript, not an outline with bullet points.

Response 4: Thank you very much for highlighting this, the needful has been done throughout the paper.

Comment 5: 2. It is still fairly unclear the novel aspects that this paper brings to the existing state of knowledge in the land system science field. The paper makes broad statements, which are correct but not novel and have little substance in truly brining something new to the reader. For example, in Case study 2 – “Standardized land use classifications…” have multiple benefits. This is not a new finding; this is just stating the obvious fact. The examples (case studies provided) seem disconnected and do not add to the argument that the authors are trying to make. The West Africa or Tunisia examples are not really connected in the text, they read as stand-alone sections and the is not a true link as to how they further enhance the knowledge that this paper is trying to provide to the reader.

Response 5: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done with published work in this context.

Comment 6 As I mentioned in the previous round of reviews – The research questions are not stated and the gap in the literature that the paper is trying to address. is also not covered. This has yet to be addressed by the authors.

Response 6: Page 2, line 45-56. Thank you for your comment, the needful has been now included in the introduction section. “This paper introduces a global standardization framework designed to address the previously mentioned gaps in the field. Furthermore, this framework incorporates the potential for definition conversion and translation from various existing systems by making it dynamic through the use of a meta-language. A metalanguage is a language used to describe, analyze, or define another language. It is a higher-level language that provides the vocabulary, grammar, and rules to discuss and structure the properties and elements of a primary language”

Comment 7: Section 2.2 consider listing that information in a table, rather than as bullet points. Sections 2.4 and 2.5 have different formatting in terms of the space left after the heading. Keep all formatting consistent throughout. After several rounds of reviews, the formatting should not be inconsistent.

Response 7: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Comment 8: The discussion section can be substantially improved and not written as bullet points, since it is not an outline. Why have the case studies mentioned been chosen?

Response 8: Thank you for your comment, as ongoing work cannot be quoted here therefore use cases has been replaced and only published work has been mentioned.

Comment 9: It is not clear at all. After the two disjoint case studies the “International library based on ISO standards- land cover legend registry” is introduced. What is the connection. All the sections written are either not connect at all or poorly connected at best so that the paper seems truncated on different sections, and there is no flow in the writing.

Response 9: Thank you for your comment, the sections have been updated. There is a strong connection between land cover meta language and other standards with land cover registry as this is the only registry which provided information based on land cover meta language, and it will support the future development of standards on registries.

Comment 10: The authors claim that “This article has underscored the critical contribution of the ISO 19144 series to addressing pressing global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and sustainable urban planning” but in reality, little connection is made between standardized land cover classification schemas and climate change or biodiversity in the text.

Response 10: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done and text has been modified accordingly.

Comment 111: Lastly, the paper only has 20 references which is not a lot of references for a published manuscript in a reputable journal.

Response 11: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Comment 12: Line specific comments:

Line 36: level not lever

Response: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Line 42 the font seems to change within the first sentence.

Response: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Figure 1: make the text larger within the boxes. As it is right now it is very very difficult to read. It is not clear how figure 1 fits in the text.

Response: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Line 126: fix formatting.

Response: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Case study 3 has “:” and case study 4 has “.” Keep the formatting consistent.

Response: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Line 348: spell out acronym WALCRS

Response: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All in all, the manuscript has been substantially improved and the authors have addressed my previous comments. Better context is provided in the introduction, and the case studies are better structured and described within the framework of the manuscript. Formatting should be checked and made consistent. For example, this was my comment from the previous round of reviews – “Line 42 the font seems to change within the first sentence” Line 57 this is still the case.

Author Response

Comment 1: “Line 42 the font seems to change within the first sentence” Line 57 this is still the case.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment, the needful has been done and formatting has been checked for whole paper.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper addresses an important topic that requires more involvement, synthesis and conceptualization, in my opinion.

After analyzing the paper, I believe that the following aspects must be improved:

- the abstract seems to be the hypothesis of the research; it would be good for this to be a synthesized summary of the paper, which also includes results and conclusions of the research carried out, or the direction in which this standardization should go.

- the introduction deals with too few references and the documentation is weak, considering that the paper wants to be at *international* level.

- at the end of the introduction, I recommend presenting a summary of the objectives that will be addressed in the paper.

- chapter 2 seems well done to me, but the graphics used must be legible; there are few references here, but it's ok if they sound original; with all this I consider that the discussions must be detailed.

- the references must be improved and edited accordingly.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Land Cover and Land Use – evolution of international standards, challenges, and opportunities” analyzes the ISO 19144 standards in the context of land use and land cover. The biggest shortcoming of the manuscript is the lack of a precisely described purpose of the work, which makes it difficult to evaluate and understand its content. The layout of the manuscript is also incorrect, as noted in the review. The arrangement of content should be improved as recommended. This will allow for a better understanding of the essence of the presented research. In this version, the manuscript is not suitable for publication.

 

Comments for authors

 Language

I have no objections.

 

Subject

It is consistent with the content.

 

Keywords

Partially correct. Some of them repeat the title of the manuscript. The title becomes redundant in this case. Enter new keywords according to scientific principles.

 

Abstract

The abstract is not correct. The aim of the research was determined indirectly. Only what was researched and how was written. The main methods used were not mentioned. Main results and conclusions are missing. The abstract should be rewritten in accordance with the rules of scientific articles. This version is unacceptable and will not generate interest among readers.

 1. Introduction

This is not a classic introduction to the topic. Some introductory examples are inappropriate (railway standardization) in terms of the topic discussed. The extensive introduction contains only three references. The standards described are also items that should be referred to and not only described.

The biggest drawback is the lack of purpose in the work. The purpose of the work should be defined precisely.

 2. Classification system standards

Correct description of the problem addressed. However, this is part of the introduction. I don't understand why such a separate chapter was created. The subsections are described consistently, but the author goes on to provide more detailed descriptions. They are difficult to read. We should consider organizing individual standards and their interpretation in tables.

3.      Discussion

The section is, according to the author, a description of individual case studies. Case studies are more about results. Based on the results, we can conduct a discussion that is compared to similar studies. You should organize your manuscript:

1. First describe the research methods.

2. Then present the results (case studies.

3. Conduct a discussion.

This arrangement is illegible and impractical. Even if the work is theoretical.

 4.      Conclusions

The conclusions partly overlap with the discussion elements (they partly repeat them). Moreover, they duplicate the introduction. Without a specific purpose of work, it is impossible to assess the accuracy of the conclusions.

Conclusions should summarize the results and discussion, but not repeat them. It should be clearly justified that the manuscript contains sufficient contributions to the new body of knowledge from the international perspective. What new things (new theories, new methods or new policies) can the paper contribute to international literature?

It should be shortly described how the presented research can be translate into good management in other parts of the world.

 

Literature

The lack of a purpose of the work does not allow for verification of the correctness of the selection of literature. However, it is quite poor and takes little account of similar research.

​

Overall conclusion

The manuscript requires significant revisions. The layout of the manuscript and its content does not help in understanding the essence of the research. The lack of a precisely defined purpose of the work does not allow understanding the author's intentions and assessing the correctness of the research.

​

Conclusion from the review – reject and re-submission for review after reacting to the content and layout of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see document attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The abstract needs to be re-written and grammatical errors corrected. For example, " These systems are all valid and tuned to address various national needs but lacks". This should be lack not lacks since it is referring to these systems - plural. There are other examples listed in the document attached as well.