Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well structured.

The topic is really interesting.

It seems to me that the argument is related also too the soil consumption question but it doesn't seem to be exploited ....

It is a good paper ready for publication in my opinion 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well structured.

The topic is really interesting.

It seems to me that the argument is related also too the soil consumption question but it doesn't seem to be exploited ....

Response: It is very true it is also related to soil consumption but in this paper, we were interested in impervious surfaces. However, this is noted for future research.

 

It is a good paper ready for publication in my opinion 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting paper, I think a tool for monitoring the effect ef expansion of urbanization in arid territories is useful and your  index to analyise Landsat and Sentinel satellite data appears to be straightforward. The base of explanation is solid and the paper is set together with a good iconography and exaustive data.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Very interesting paper, I think a tool for monitoring the effect of expansion of urbanization in arid territories is useful and your index to analyze Landsat and Sentinel satellite data appears to be straightforward. The base of explanation is solid and the paper is set together with a good iconography and exhaustive data.

Response: We are grateful for the time spent and your effort in reviewing our paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Impact Evaluation of Decentralization in Urban Growth by Extracting Impervious Surfaces using ISEI in Model Maker” develops methods to quantifying urban growth by identifying impervious areas. This method is compared to other published methods.

 

This is an interesting study, with good method development. However, there needs to be more detail on the data used and now the indexes were implemented. Also, the figures were all of the entire area so it was difficult to directly compare the algorithms. These figures are good, and need to stay, but I would also like some “zoomed” in images where we can see the accuracy. Something where you can see individual roads and buildings and how the methods worked.

There are numerous English grammar and usage issues. Some examples are highlighted in the attached markup of the manuscript. This markup is not exhaustive, but provides examples for the authors.

Need “cut-off” values for all the indexes used. You define things as either pervious or impervious, need to know what values you are using to switch categories.

 

L466 – 472 This is the list of advantages you state for your approach, but you do not prove or present data on 3 of the 4 claims

STATEMENT: Reduced complexity of algorithm: The proposed method is very simple to execute and does not require additional data.  ISSUE: All the equations (eq 1 – 5) have very similar complexity. If your is simpler, you need to discuss in the text.

STATEMENT: It does not use a combined effect of more indexes. ISSUE: mostly true, but only 1 index uses a combined approach

STATEMENT: It is very suitable for varied sensors and climatic condition. Robustness across sensors and topography. ISSUE: You didn’t show this, you only used images from the dry period and only one location. While this may be true, you need to demonstrate it.

STATEMENT: There is a considerably reduced computation time. ISSUE: You didn’t show this, based on eq 1 – 5 I would expect computation time to be identical for all the algorithms.

 

Specific comments

 

L33 How can you state the “impact of decentralization is very positive”? This paper does not evaluate the impacts of decentratralization, only how to quantify it.

 

L46-60 Watch capitalization. Only marked-up here, but an issue throughout the paper.

 

L163 I believe the units on humidity are incorrect.

 

L190 Table 1 Need units on band ranges, either in column headings or in a table foot note.

 

L190 Table 1, need to state what the two numbers mean in the Pixel Size column

L226 Spelling error

 

L234 Eq 7, need to define X22, X12 along with x1 and x2

 

L239 Eq 9, what are present and past? You state they are “figures” but what does this mean?

 

L277 – 280 You use different variables in the equations and the text. For example, is F1 (L277) defined in one of the equations? I don’t’ see it.

 

L300 Should “contracts” be “constrast”?

 

L309 – 311 Figure 4 - 9, would like some detailed figures where you can see individual roads, buildings, etc. to compare.

 

L376 Table 2 it might be useful to graph these values to show trends (in addition to a table).

 

L376 Table 2 Line 1 (1984 Wa Mun value) is this value, 80.61% correct? It doesn’t follow the trend. If it is correct, it needs to be discussed in the text.

 

L387 Figure 13 Put Regional Pop on its own axis so the changes in the other varilables can be seen.

 

L395 Table 4 “Annual Increase” of what?

 

L400 – 404 Figure 14 -15. IN figure 14 there is a decreasing rate of the rate of growth from 1984 – 200, however the rate change (I assume Figure 15 is the derivative of Figure 14) does not show decreasing growth. May need better description of the figures, to me, Figure 15 is the derivative of Figure 14 (one is the rate, the other is how fast the rate is changing.

L407 “Contracts” should be “constrast”

 

L413 Table 5 It would be good to know the range of each index, e.g., 0-1, -1-1, etc

 

Table 6 – Might be better in an appendix or electronic suppliement.

 

Table 6 need to use the same terms or variables used in the equations. The terms here do not match equations 11-14.

 

Table 6 – Need cut-off values and range for each index.

 

L427 -430 Should mask out scan-line errors. By computing statistics including the scan line errors the data are useless.

 

L448-449 Why would urban managers need to make “heat of the moment” decisions? These are not “real-time” issues.

 

L458 – 460 These only talk about 0-1 indexes, but many of the indexes have different ranges.

 

L463 Why couldn’t the other indexes produce results? Need details.

 

L475 – 482 Should be comparing numbers from Table 6, not index values and index values for different indexes can mean different things. Also cut-off values for different indexes can be different.

L491 – 500 This description of the difference in the political units needs to be earlier in the paper.

 

L539 You do not discuss or bring up climate change in this paper, it should not be in the conclusions.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Open Review

 

 

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript “Impact Evaluation of Decentralization in Urban Growth by Extracting Impervious Surfaces using ISEI in Model Maker” develops methods to quantifying urban growth by identifying impervious areas. This method is compared to other published methods.

This is an interesting study, with good method development. However, there needs to be more detail on the data used and now the indexes were implemented. Also, the figures were all of the entire area so it was difficult to directly compare the algorithms. These figures are good, and need to stay, but I would also like some “zoomed” in images where we can see the accuracy. Something where you can see individual roads and buildings and how the methods worked.

There are numerous English grammar and usage issues. Some examples are highlighted in the attached markup of the manuscript. This markup is not exhaustive, but provides examples for the authors.

Need “cut-off” values for all the indexes used. You define things as either pervious or impervious, need to know what values you are using to switch categories.

L466 – 472 This is the list of advantages you state for your approach, but you do not prove or present data on 3 of the 4 claims

STATEMENT: Reduced complexity of algorithm: The proposed method is very simple to execute and does not require additional data.  ISSUE: All the equations (eq 1 – 5) have very similar complexity. If your is simpler, you need to discuss in the text.

STATEMENT: It does not use a combined effect of more indexes. ISSUE: mostly true, but only 1 index uses a combined approach

STATEMENT: It is very suitable for varied sensors and climatic condition. Robustness across sensors and topography. ISSUE: You didn’t show this, you only used images from the dry period and only one location. While this may be true, you need to demonstrate it.

STATEMENT: There is a considerably reduced computation time. ISSUE: You didn’t show this, based on eq 1 – 5 I would expect computation time to be identical for all the algorithms.

Response: The whole of this paragraph has been struck out and rewritten to mention only what can be proved in the paper based on the presented results. See lines 521 and 522 of the manuscript with track changes.

 

Specific comments

 

L33 How can you state the “impact of decentralization is very positive”? This paper does not evaluate the impacts of decentralization, only how to quantify it.

Response: This has been corrected and changed to quantification. Indeed, the title has been changed accordingly.

L46-60 Watch capitalization. Only marked-up here, but an issue throughout the paper.

Response: This was a very important observation. Originally, names of places, agencies and policies were capitalized. Marked ones have been corrected as in lines 50 to 68. Others have all been corrected as well throughout the paper.

L163 I believe the units on humidity are incorrect.

Response: The figure was wrong. It is supposed to be the annual relative humidity. It has been corrected.  See line 170 of the manuscript with track changes

L190 Table 1 Need units on band ranges, either in column headings or in a table foot note.

Response:  This has been explained as a note below the table 1.  See line 197 to 199 of the manuscript with track changes

L190 Table 1, need to state what the two numbers mean in the Pixel Size column

Response: 30 represent the resolution for landsat images while 10 represent the resolution for sentinel image. These have been explained as a note below the table 1. See line 197 – 199 of the manuscript with track changes

L226 Spelling error

Response: This has been corrected.  See line 242 of the manuscript with track changes

L234 Eq 7, need to define X22, X12 along with x1 and x2

Response: These were correctly represented in the original submitted manuscript. Formatting may have changed them. These have been corrected.  See line 250 of the manuscript with track changes

L239 Eq 9, what are present and past? You state they are “figures” but what does this mean?

Response: Past and present represent the previous and current dates for which the computation is done. Figure meant the impervious surface area coverage of the past and present dates. These have been adequately explained.  See line 256 of the manuscript with track changes 

L277 – 280 You use different variables in the equations and the text. For example, is F1 (L277) defined in one of the equations? I don’t’ see it.

Response: The variables are supposed to refer to the same thing. These have been corrected and reconciled.  See lines 293 and 295 of the manuscript with track changes

L300 Should “contracts” be “contrast”?

Response: This has been corrected.  See line 445 of the manuscript with track changes 

L309 – 311 Figure 4 - 9, would like some detailed figures where you can see individual roads, buildings, etc. to compare.

Response: This has been done and represented as Figure 3a.  See line 312 of the manuscript with track changes

L376 Table 2 it might be useful to graph these values to show trends (in addition to a table).

Response: This has been done.  See line 242 of the manuscript with track changes

L376 Table 2 Line 1 (1984 Wa Mun value) is this value, 80.61% correct? It doesn’t follow the trend. If it is correct, it needs to be discussed in the text.

Response: The district and regional figures were mistakenly interchanged. This has been corrected.  The percentage figure of 80.61% has been accordingly corrected. See line 397 of the manuscript with track changes

L387 Figure 13 Put Regional Pop on its own axis so the changes in the other variables can be seen.

Response: This has been done.  See Figure 13a and line 408 of the manuscript with track changes

L395 Table 4 “Annual Increase” of what?

Response: It is meant to be annual impervious surface area coverage increase. This has been written properly.  See Table 4 and line 436 of the manuscript with track changes

L400 – 404 Figure 14 -15. IN figure 14 there is a decreasing rate of the rate of growth from 1984 – 200, however the rate change (I assume Figure 15 is the derivative of Figure 14) does not show decreasing growth. May need better description of the figures, to me, Figure 15 is the derivative of Figure 14 (one is the rate, the other is how fast the rate is changing.

Response: Change is the relative difference in size between the impervious surface area coverage of respective years. However, the growth rate is the addend (quantity or value) by which the impervious surface area changes over the period under consideration. These two parameters can fluctuate.  

L407 “Contracts” should be “constrast”

Response: This has been done.  See line 449 of the manuscript with track changes

L413 Table 5 It would be good to know the range of each index, e.g., 0-1, -1-1, etc

Response: This has been explained as a note below Table 5.  See line 456 of the manuscript with track changes

Table 6 – Might be better in an appendix or electronic supplement.

Response: This has been done. It has been sent to Appendix A. See line 663 of the manuscript with track changes

Table 6 need to use the same terms or variables used in the equations. The terms here do not match equations 11-14.

Response: The variables are supposed to refer to the same thing. These have been corrected and reconciled.  See lines 293 and 295 of the manuscript with track changes

Table 6 – Need cut-off values and range for each index.

Response: I do not understand what ‘cut-off values’ mean in this context but the range values has been explained as a note below Table 5.  See line 456 of the manuscript with track changes

L427 -430 Should mask out scan-line errors. By computing statistics including the scan line errors the data are useless.

Response: Whereas scan-line reduce data as expressed by various authors, it was the intention to use ‘rough’ data and not so a ‘refined’ data to test the algorithm. It has been shown in Figure 8 that algorithm can still work on scan-off data and the proposed index performed better there.

L448-449 Why would urban managers need to make “heat of the moment” decisions? These are not “real-time” issues.

Response: This has been struck out.  See line 449 of the manuscript with track changes 

L458 – 460 These only talk about 0-1 indexes, but many of the indexes have different ranges.

Response: Yes, many indexes have different ranges but, in this study, the discussion is limited to the comparable indexes. We have changed in the text to include minimum and maximum ranges values of binary results. See lines 515 to 516 of the manuscript with track changes.

L463 Why couldn’t the other indexes produce results? Need details.

Response: Indexes that have the form [(a+b)/(a-b)] is a normalized formula. Thus, during computations, it is possible to have some pixels with 0 values thus the algorithm cannot run when the denominator reaches zero and produces a blank result. This is an influenced factor in developing the proposed index. 

L475 – 482 Should be comparing numbers from Table 6, not index values and index values for different indexes can mean different things. Also cut-off values for different indexes can be different.

Response: This aspect of the discussion has been struck out from that section.  This has been taken to line 458 to 465 of the manuscript with track changes A new explanation has been provided. This has been taken to line 539 to 550 of the manuscript with track changes.

L491 – 500 This description of the difference in the political units needs to be earlier in the paper.

Response: This has been done.  See lines 427 to 434 of the manuscript with track changes 

L539 You do not discuss or bring up climate change in this paper, it should not be in the conclusions.

Response: This has been struck out.  See line 607 of the manuscript with track changes

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

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

The manuscript is very hard to follow and near every paragraph needs to be improved in terms of academic writing. The reviewer is unable to fully understand the methodology of this study due to poor writing skills. The study itself though might have merits. Several comments from the reviewer are attached which could improve the quality of the manuscript.

1) The introduction section shall be shortened. The reviewer is unsure about the journal policy regarding whether or not the political discussions shall be included in the article. Based on the reviewer's understanding, only technical aspects shall be included in the scope of the journal. The authors should minimize the discussion about the political background.

2) Section 2.1 and 2.2 seem to be very abrupt. Why the authors would like to demonstrate this information? How do they relate to the scope of this study? What is the research methodology?