Analyzing and Predicting Land Use and Land Cover Changes in New Jersey Using Multi-Layer Perceptron–Markov Chain Model

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Its a clear paper, some aspects to improve the manuscript:

• highlight the novelty of research and emphasis on what new applications are added and what main differences are in relation to the previous research.
• What are the main drivers of change in the study area? How the contributed to the bio-diversity? are they reflective of the policy? is there a clear relevance?
• Would change of policy impact the projected LULC by 2100?
• How is the research potential to be expanded to other states in the US? can be developed to larger scale and fine-tune the predictions as time goes? highlight the usefulness and efficiencies of this research.
• What are the limitations of this research?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors and editor,

The manuscript “Analyzing and Predicting Land Use and Land Cover Changes in New Jersey using Multi-Layer Perceptron - Markov Chain Model” shows the use of geographic software and neural networks for analysing and predicting land cover/use of New Jersey (US). The topic is critical for land-use policies, and the manuscript deserves to be considered for publication.

The Introduction provides a good background and identifies the objectives of the study. I suggest expanding the analysis of the objectives of land use analysis. In fact, the authors showed that laud use studies are important for environmental and human assessment and planning. However, studies of land use are critical for other sectors, such as agriculture (e.g. https://doi.org/10.1175/EI143.1, https://doi.org/10.3390/land9110469 or https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.106589) or pollution (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106847). I think it is very important that the authors stress the multiple implications of their study, thus, implementation of this section of the Introduction is encouraged.

The Material and Methods are well explained, but we miss how the larger classes were set up. First, were the larger classes the ones reported in Figure 2? Second, in the Discussion, you mention you made some decisions on to include or exclude in the classes. A paragraph on classes and their characteristics must be included. Moreover, I ask the authors to add more specifications when they mention software and tools.

The Results are well explained, but the figures don’t help. Some of them are impossible to read, some other ones could be better presented. Moreover, some confusion in the verb tense slows down the text flow.

In the Discussion, I miss why the authors compare the land use of the U.S. with that of Africa (Lines 473-493). Do you think the two models are comparable? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to make a comparison with Europe? Moreover, a critical analysis of the relevance of the study for land planning and policies must be included.

 

Here are some specific comments:

 

Line 12: please introduce here the acronym LULC.

Line 90: remove “here”

Lines 144-145: I am not sure I have understood: the 86 classes were already established?

Line 152: please add a reference for TerrSet2020

Figure 1: the quality is not very high

Lines 304-305: I don’t understand. Gained? Lost? The Figure doesn’t help, as Figure 6 is not readable. Same for Figures 7 and 12

Lines 326-338: you switched to present tense

Line 351: bracket

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

thank you for improving the quality and clarifying most of my concerns. I believe the manuscript is ready to pe published.