Projecting Urban Expansion by Analyzing Growth Patterns and Sustainable Planning Strategies—A Case Study of Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam, North-East India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Introduction

-          In this, the literature review mentions previous studies for Ethiopia and Punjab but the relevance of these studies to current research and the framework for incorporating them into the analysis remain unclear.  There are several example from china and india to cite and improve the review

-          Please discuss the opportunities and challenges for sustainable development that come with urbanization in relation to broader environmental and socioeconomic issues.

-          The background and literature review do not clearly research gaps and motivation. Please explain it properly.

2.      Research sites and Materials

-          The study area map has poor layout and should be updated in a more attractive manner."

-          As the information about Guwahati is mentioned in the third paragraph of the study area, the author should provide a brief overview of it in two to three lines.

-          The details about Guwahati’s longitude and latitude could be avoided.

3.      Method

-          The justification for chosen buffer size (5 Km) for analyzing urban sprawl using Shannon’s Entropy can be elaborated on? 

-          Clarify how inconsistencies in AHP were handled particularly as a consistency ratio of 0.08 is provided in Table 4?

-          Please explain how Shannon’s entropy compares with other potential measures?

4.      Results and discussion

-          Discuss an in-depth analysis of how various industrial activities are contribute to increase in barren land?

-          The author should elaborate on the possible causes of the observed changes in land usage in the discussion.

 

-          Discuss specific limitations of Markov chain and AHP model in analyzing urban expansion. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English seems fine but needs some help in improving it.

Author Response

A Point-to-Point Response to Reviewer-1

1. INTRODUCTION

Reviewer Comment-1: In this, the literature review mentions previous studies for Ethiopia and Punjab but the relevance of these studies to current research and the framework for incorporating them into the analysis remain unclear.  There are several examples from china and India to cite and improve the review

Responses-1: Thank you for your feedback. We have updated the literature review to clearly expresses the relevance of the current research. (Line no 54 – 85)

Reviewer Comment-2: Please discuss the opportunities and challenges for sustainable development that come with urbanization in relation to broader environmental and socioeconomic issues.

Responses-2: Thank You for pointing out the need to discuss the opportunities the opportunities and challenges for sustainable development that come with urbanization in relation to broader environmental and socioeconomic issues. As per your suggestion we have added a section in the introduction (Line no 145-171) & also a detailed discussion (line no 814- 852).

Reviewer Comment-3: The background and literature review do not clearly research gaps and motivation. Please explain it properly.

Responses-3: Thank you for your feedback. We have updated the background and literature review to clearly expresses the research gaps and motivation. (Line no 54 – 85) & (Line no 145-171)

2. RESEARCH SITES AND MATERIALS

Reviewer Comment-4: The study area map has poor layout and should be updated in a more attractive manner.

Responses-4: Thank you for your feedback. We have revised the quality and layout of the study area.

Reviewer Comment-5: As the information about Guwahati is mentioned in the third paragraph of the study area, the author should provide a brief overview of it in two to three lines.

Responses-5: We have updated it as per suggestion from line no. 179-183. Thank you

Reviewer Comment-5: The details about Guwahati’s longitude and latitude could be avoided.

Responses-6: We have updated it as per suggestion. Thank you

3. METHOD

Reviewer Comment-6: The justification for chosen buffer size (5 Km) for analyzing urban sprawl using Shannon’s Entropy can be elaborated on?

Responses-6: Thank you for your inquiry. We have provided the justification in the manuscript (Line no 271-277).

Reviewer Comment-7: Clarify how inconsistencies in AHP were handled particularly as a consistency ratio of 0.08 is provided in Table 4?

Responses-7: Thank you for your inquiry. We have provided the clarification in the manuscript (Line no 402 – 409). Also, the Table 4 is updated to Table no 5.

Reviewer Comment-8: Please explain how Shannon’s entropy compares with other potential measures?

Responses-8: Thank you for your suggestion. We have updated the manuscript, explaining how Shannon’s entropy compares with other potential measures (Line no 254 -276)

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Reviewer Comment-9: Discuss an in-depth analysis of how various industrial activities are contribute to increase in barren land?

Responses-9: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have added a detailed discussion under section 5 in the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment-10: The author should elaborate on the possible causes of the observed changes in land usage in the discussion.

Responses-10: Thank you for pointing out the necessary updates required in the manuscript. We have provided a detailed discussion under section 5.

 Reviewer Comment-11: Discuss specific limitations of Markov chain and AHP model in analyzing urban expansion. 

Responses-11: Thank you for your suggestion. We have added a section 6 for discussing the limitations and future scope.

Reviewer Comment-12: on the Quality of English Language. English seems fine but needs some help in improving it.

Responses-12: Thank you for reviewing the language. We have revised the quality of the English Language (coloured in green)

 

Note:

• The Red coloured paragraphs are the new addons according to the suggestion.
• The Green Coloured paragraphs are the revised quality of the earlier manuscript.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Title: Projecting Urban Expansion by Analysis Growth Patterns and Sustainable Planning Strategies – A Case study of Northeast India

Manuscript Number: earth-2966950

Dear authors, I read your manuscript, and the topic is interesting and important for north-eastern India. Some major corrections are needed for this manuscript.

1.      “Projecting Urban Expansion by Analysis Growth Patterns and Sustainable Planning Strategies – A Case study of Northeast India” The authors applied Kamrup Metropolitan district for the study, then why did they use “Northeast India”? The title of the manuscript needs to be modified. Use the actual study area or remove the “A Case study of Northeast India”.

2.      Reduce the abstract section. Line numbers 36 to 42, try to remove some unnecessary information.

3.      Improve the citation style like line number 73 (Megersa et al. (2023)), Check throughout the manuscript.

4.      The introduction section needs more attention to the significance of the study.

5.      In the last paragraph of the introduction, the research gap and novelty must be added.

6.      Improve the figure quality.

7.      Line number 175, “Landsat TM and OLI” Authors must add “Landsat OLI/TIRS”.

8.      “land use and land cover (LULC)” and “land use/land cover (LULC)”, write only one in the entire manuscript. See the abstract section.

9.      To reduce the word, authors must check the abbreviation and use those first.

10.    Accuracy assessment of the classification maps is essential for validation.

11.   The entire manuscript looks like a report, try to improve your manuscript with related previous analysis and discuss the strengths of your manuscript.

12.   Limitations and future study directions must be written before the conclusion.

13.   The conclusion section is huge, try to improve your conclusion section with the appropriate concluding part of the manuscript.

Best of Luck.

Author Response

A Point-to-Point Response to Reviewer-2

Reviewer Comment-1: Dear authors, I read your manuscript, and the topic is interesting and important for north-eastern India. Some major corrections are needed for this manuscript.

Response-1: Thank you for recognizing the importance of our topic. We are committed to addressing the major corrections as suggested.

Reviewer Comment-2: “Projecting Urban Expansion by Analysis Growth Patterns and Sustainable Planning Strategies – A Case study of Northeast India” The authors applied Kamrup Metropolitan district for the study, then why did they use “Northeast India”? The title of the manuscript needs to be modified. Use the actual study area or remove the “A Case study of Northeast India”.

Response-2: Thank you for your suggestion. We have updated the title to Projecting Urban Expansion by Analysis Growth Patterns and Sustainable Planning Strategies – A Case study of Kamrup Metropolitan, Assam

Reviewer Comment-3: Reduce the abstract section. Line numbers 36 to 42, try to remove some unnecessary information.

Response-3: Thank you for your feedback. We have reduced the abstract section and have provided a to the point summary of the research.

Reviewer Comment-4: Improve the citation style like line number 73 (Megersa et al. (2023)), Check throughout the manuscript.

Response-4: Thank you for pointing this out. We have thoroughly reviewed and corrected the citation style across the manuscript to ensure consistency and adherence to the journal's guidelines. This includes updates to all references to match the required format, enhancing the manuscript's readability and academic rigor.

Reviewer Comment-5: The introduction section needs more attention to the significance of the study.

Response-5: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. We have revised the introduction my adding specific importance of the study area and the need of the research. (Line no 54-85) & (line no 145 – 171)

Reviewer Comment-6: In the last paragraph of the introduction, the research gap and novelty must be added.

Response-6: Thank you for your feedback. We have updated it accordingly. (Line no 145 -171)

Reviewer Comment-7: Improve the figure quality.

Response-8: We have updated it accordingly. Thank you

Reviewer Comment-8: Line number 175, “Landsat TM and OLI” Authors must add “Landsat OLI/TIRS”.

Response-8: We have updated it accordingly (Line no 218)

Reviewer Comment-9: “land use and land cover (LULC)” and “land use/land cover (LULC)”, write only one in the entire manuscript. See the abstract section.

Response-9: We have updated it to “land use/land cover (LULC)” for the entire manuscript. Thank you

Reviewer Comment-10: To reduce the word, authors must check the abbreviation and use those first.

Response-10: Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript and introduced appropriate abbreviations at their first occurrence.

Reviewer Comment-11: Accuracy assessment of the classification maps is essential for validation.

Response-11: We have updated it accordingly under Table no 6. Thank you

Reviewer Comment-12: The entire manuscript looks like a report, try to improve your manuscript with related previous analysis and discuss the strengths of your manuscript.

Response-12: Thank you for your constructive feedback. To address your concerns, we have enriched the manuscript with additional analytical content. Specifically, we have introduced a new graph under Figure 7 to visually represent and clarify the statistical changes more effectively. Furthermore, we have expanded Section 5 to include a detailed comparative analysis of our study against prior research and relevant government reports (Reference no 52). This enhancement not only strengthens the manuscript's analytical depth but also highlights its contributions to the existing body of knowledge in urban planning and development studies.

Reviewer Comment-13: Limitations and future study directions must be written before the conclusion.

Response-13: Thank you for your suggestion. We have provided a Section 6, which discusses the limitation and future scope. (Line 854-883)

Reviewer Comment-14: The conclusion section is huge, try to improve your conclusion section with the appropriate concluding part of the manuscript.

Response-14: Thank you for your feedback. We have reduced the conclusion to a considerable length and tried to improved the concluding part by addressing the specific points and requirements of the manuscript.

Reviewer Comment-16: Best of Luck.

Response-16: Thank you for your well wishes and the insightful feedback throughout the review process. We greatly appreciate your guidance and support.

 

Note:

• The Red coloured paragraphs are the new addons according to the suggestion.
• The Green Coloured paragraphs are the revised quality of the earlier manuscript.

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

·         What is this research making new and will contribute to the scientific community?

·         What scientific research gaps/limitations did the authors cover in their work? Except for changing the study area and performing simple and very basic statistics.

·         Introduction section of this work is so basic. Please reconstruct by following the limitations/research gaps. Additionally, clarify the hypothesis and improve the research objectives/questions.

·         Present the results clearly and comprehensively. Use tables, graphs, or other visual aids to help readers interpret the data. Compare your findings with previous research to highlight any similarities or differences.

·         Discuss the implications of the results and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Address any limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research. Make sure the discussion is well-structured and logically organized.

·         Summarize the main findings of the study and reiterate its significance. Offer insights into potential future scenarios or research directions based on the results.

·         Revise the language to make it clear and concise. Avoid jargon or technical terms that may be unfamiliar to readers. Use clear and straightforward explanations to convey complex ideas.

·         Resolution of all figures should be improved.

·         The authors should rewrite the conclusion with more clarity and suggest some mitigation measures to combat the problem.

·         Overall, I recommend that the paper should be revised.

 

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

·         Revise the language to make it clear and concise. Avoid jargon or technical terms that may be unfamiliar to readers. Use clear and straightforward explanations to convey complex ideas.

Author Response

A Point-to-Point Response to Reviewer-3

Reviewer Comment-1: What is this research making new and will contribute to the scientific community?

Response-1: Thank you for your question. This research introduces several novel contributions to the field of urban planning and sustainable development, particularly within the context of rapidly urbanizing regions in Northeast India. Firstly, the use of the Cellular Automata (CA)-Markov model combined with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) in the Kamrup Metropolitan District provides a nuanced understanding of urban expansion patterns and their implications on land use and ecological sustainability. This approach allows for a more precise and predictive analysis of future urban growth, which is crucial for developing effective urban planning strategies.

Secondly, our study extends the current understanding of how regional policies like India’s Act East Policy influence urban morphology and growth dynamics in border towns, offering insights that are applicable to other regions experiencing similar geopolitical and economic transformations.

Lastly, the research addresses a significant gap in the current literature by focusing on a geographically and strategically important area that has been underrepresented in urban studies. By doing so, we contribute to a broader knowledge base that can inform both local policy decisions and contribute to the global discourse on sustainable urban development in emerging economies.

These contributions are expected to aid policymakers, urban planners, and researchers in understanding and managing urban growth in a way that balances development needs with environmental sustainability, potentially setting a precedent for studies in similar contexts globally.

Reviewer Comment-2: What scientific research gaps/limitations did the authors cover in their work? Except for changing the study area and performing simple and very basic statistics.

Response-2: Thank you for your feedback. Our study employs the widely recognized Cellular Automata (CA)-Markov model combined with the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP), a methodological approach well-established for its efficacy in urban planning research. Despite its popularity, the innovative application of this methodology to the Kamrup Metropolitan District provides novel insights into urban growth patterns in a region of strategic geopolitical significance.

The primary contribution of our study lies in addressing the gap in predictive urban growth modeling within this district, which is pivotal due to its role as the administrative center of Assam and its strategic importance under India’s Act East Policy (Reference no 52). This policy aims to enhance connectivity and economic integration between India’s northeastern regions and Southeast Asia, underscoring the need for advanced planning in these gateway cities.

Our research introduces forecasting models to an area where such studies have been previously lacking, offering critical data for infrastructure development and policy planning. This is particularly relevant as Guwahati is poised to play a key role in regional development initiatives.

Moreover, we have acknowledged and discussed specific limitations and potential areas for future research in Section 6 of the manuscript (Lines 855-883). These discussions include the need for integrating more localized socio-economic data and potential improvements in model accuracy to better support policy formulation and urban management in rapidly changing geopolitical landscapes. This candid examination of the study's limitations alongside its contributions enriches the scientific dialogue surrounding urban expansion modeling in geopolitically sensitive regions.

Reviewer Comment-3: Introduction section of this work is so basic. Please reconstruct by following the limitations/research gaps. Additionally, clarify the hypothesis and improve the research objectives/questions.

Response-3: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have thoroughly revised the introduction to address the concerns raised. A comprehensive review of relevant literature has been integrated to clearly delineate the research gaps and limitations (Lines 54–85). This addition not only contextualizes our study within the existing body of knowledge but also highlights the unique contributions our research aims to make.

Furthermore, we have refined the hypothesis and explicitly defined the research objectives and questions to ensure clarity and focus (Lines 145-171). These enhancements are designed to provide a solid foundation for the subsequent sections of the manuscript, aligning the study’s aims with its methodological approach and anticipated outcomes. This should greatly improve the coherence and depth of the introduction, setting a clear direction for the entire paper.

Reviewer Comment-4: Present the results clearly and comprehensively. Use tables, graphs, or other visual aids to help readers interpret the data. Compare your findings with previous research to highlight any similarities or differences.

Response-4: Thank you for your suggestion. To enhance clarity and facilitate easier interpretation of our results, we have incorporated additional visual aids including updated graphs under Figure 7, which provide clear visual representation of the statistical data. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion section (Lines 815 – 853) to offer a detailed comparison of our findings with previous research. This not only contextualizes our results within the broader academic discourse but also explicitly outlines the similarities and differences, thereby illustrating the contributions and distinctions of our study in the field of urban planning and development.

Reviewer Comment-5: Discuss the implications of the results and how they contribute to the existing body of knowledge. Address any limitations of the study and suggest areas for future research. Make sure the discussion is well-structured and logically organized.

Response-5: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We have thoroughly revised Section 5 to include a detailed discussion on the implications of our findings. This section now clearly outlines how our results extend the existing body of knowledge, specifically in the context of urban growth and planning in Northeast India. We have structured this section to sequentially address the implications, linking them directly to the aims of the study and the identified research gaps.

Additionally, we have created a separate Section 6, dedicated to discussing the limitations of our current study and suggesting potential areas for future research. This section not only acknowledges the constraints we faced but also proposes directions that could enhance the robustness and applicability of future studies in this area. The layout and organization of the discussion have been carefully designed to ensure logical progression and coherence, facilitating a clear understanding of the study’s contributions and its broader impacts on the field.

Reviewer Comment-6: Summarize the main findings of the study and reiterate its significance. Offer insights into potential future scenarios or research directions based on the results.

Response-6: Thank you for your constructive suggestion. In response, we have succinctly summarized the main findings of our study in Section 5, emphasizing their significance within the broader context of urban planning and development, particularly in rapidly urbanizing regions. This summary highlights the practical implications of our research, illustrating its relevance to both policy-makers and urban planners.

Furthermore, in Section 6, we have detailed potential future research directions that build upon our findings. This section proposes several scenarios that could be explored in subsequent studies, potentially enhancing the understanding of urban expansion dynamics and improving planning strategies. These additions aim to clearly articulate the contributions of our study and outline a roadmap for future research, ensuring that our work serves as a foundation for ongoing academic and practical developments in the field.

Reviewer Comment-7: Revise the language to make it clear and concise. Avoid jargon or technical terms that may be unfamiliar to readers. Use clear and straightforward explanations to convey complex ideas.

Response-7: Thank you for your feedback. We have thoroughly revised the language throughout the manuscript to ensure clarity and conciseness, aiming to make the content more accessible. Technical terms have been defined or simplified where possible, and complex ideas are now conveyed through clearer, more straightforward explanations. These revisions have been highlighted in green in the manuscript to easily track the changes made. Our goal is to enhance the manuscript's readability and ensure that the research is understandable to both experts in the field and the broader scientific community.

Additionally, to facilitate review:

• Red-colored paragraphs indicate new additions made in response to your suggestions.
• Green-colored paragraphs highlight revisions that have improved the quality of the existing manuscript.

Reviewer Comment-8: Resolution of all figures should be improved.

Response-8: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We have enhanced the resolution of all figures in the manuscript to ensure they are clear and effectively convey the intended data. These updates will facilitate better understanding and interpretation of the visual content by readers. Thank you once again for your constructive feedback.

Reviewer Comment-9: The authors should rewrite the conclusion with more clarity and suggest some mitigation measures to combat the problem.

Response-9: Thank you for your feedback. We have extensively revised the conclusion to enhance its clarity and coherence. This revision now succinctly summarizes the main findings and explicitly addresses their implications. Additionally, we have included specific mitigation measures based on our results, which are aimed at addressing the urban planning challenges identified in our study. These measures are intended to provide practical and actionable recommendations to policymakers and urban planners involved in managing urban growth in the Kamrup Metropolitan area. We appreciate your guidance in making these improvements.

Reviewer Comment-10: Overall, I recommend that the paper should be revised.

Response-10: Thank you for your recommendation. We have comprehensively revised the manuscript to address your suggestions and enhance its overall quality. Specifically, we have updated the introduction to better set the stage for our study, added new graphs under Figure 7 to clearly illustrate key findings, and introduced new sections under Sections 5 and 6 to expand on the discussion and future research directions. Additionally, we have carefully revised the language throughout the manuscript to ensure it meets academic standards and enhances readability.

Reviewer Comment-11: Comments on the Quality of English Language

Response-11: Thank you for your feedback regarding the language quality. We have undertaken a thorough revision of the manuscript to improve the English language usage, ensuring that the text is clear, concise, and adheres to high academic standards. This revision aims to enhance readability and ensure that our research is communicated effectively to the global scientific community.

 

Note:

• The Red coloured paragraphs are the new addons according to the suggestion.
• The Green Coloured paragraphs are the revised quality of the earlier manuscript.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      Line (119) – This line has a typo mistake (“Higher entropy value6vs indicate more diverse and fragmented urban landscapes”) that needs to be corrected by the author.

2.      In this, the literature review mentions previous studies for Ethiopia and Punjab but the relevance of these studies to current research and the framework for incorporating them into the analysis remain unclear: - This question has not received a satisfactory response from the author in the introduction part.  

3.      The background information of Kamrup Metropolitan District can be described briefly.

4.      Please add the final sentences about a possible future scope from the introduction to the conclusion section.

5.      Throughout the manuscript, the author failed to include in-text citations for every figure.

 

6.      The background information, literature review, motivation, and objectives in the introductory section must all be formatted. English edited precisely. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A through read by an native english writer is necessary

Author Response

Comment: Line (119) – This line has a typo mistake (“Higher entropy value6vs indicate more diverse and fragmented urban landscapes”) that needs to be corrected by the author.

Response: We have corrected it accordingly. Thank you

Comment: In this, the literature review mentions previous studies for Ethiopia and Punjab but the relevance of these studies to current research and the framework for incorporating them into the analysis remain unclear: - This question has not received a satisfactory response from the author in the introduction part. 

Response:  We have updated the literature review with previous studies of Bhutan and West Bengal as they share border with state of Assam and have similarities in the physiography, which gives better insights in the framework of our studies. Thank you for your review and suggestion which helped in improving our research.

Comment: The background information of Kamrup Metropolitan District can be described briefly.

Response: We have updated the information of the study area to a considerable length. Thank you for the feedback.

Comment: Please add the final sentences about a possible future scope from the introduction to the conclusion section.

Response: We have updated it accordingly. Thank you

Comment: Throughout the manuscript, the author failed to include in-text citations for every figure.

Response: We have updated it accordingly. Thank you

Comment: The background information, literature review, motivation, and objectives in the introductory section must all be formatted. English edited precisely. 

Response: We have updated it accordingly. Thank you

Comments: on the Quality of English Language

A through read by a native english writer is necessary

Response: thank you for the review. All the English grammar are updated and revised thoroughly. 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors are mostly revised the manuscript. This manuscript is now suitable for publication after addressing some minor comments.

1. Please check the DEM data used in "Study Area " map. lower high is -44, this may not be the possible low elevation of this area. 

2. Please use the equation number in line number 263.

3. Figure 5, Its "Built-up Land" not "Buildup Land". Please modify this.

Best of Luck

Author Response

Comment: The authors are mostly revised the manuscript. This manuscript is now suitable for publication after addressing some minor comments.

Response: Thank you for your valuable feedback and suggestion which helped in improving the manuscript. 

Comment: Please check the DEM data used in "Study Area " map. lower high is -44, this may not be the possible low elevation of this area.

Response: Thank you for your review. We have reevaluated the DEM data and updated it accordingly.  

Comment:  Please use the equation number in line number 263.

Response: We have updated it accordingly. Thank you

Comment: Figure 5, Its "Built-up Land" not "Buildup Land". Please modify this.

Response: We have updated it accordingly. Thank you

Comment: Best of Luck

Response: Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All comments are completed by Authors, now it is ready for publication.

Author Response

Comment: All comments are completed by Authors, now it is ready for publication.

Response: Thank you for your review and suggestion which helped in improving our research.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf