Land Use Misclassification Results in Water Use, Economic Value, and GHG Emission Discrepancies in California’s High-Intensity Agriculture Region

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript entitled “Land Use Misclassification Results in Water Use, Economic Value, and GHG Emission Discrepancies for California's High Intensity Agriculture” describing problem of land use misclassification, resulted in discrepancies in water use, economic value and GHC. The manuscript is difficult to understand at few points due to larger sentences. It is advised to split larger sentences in to smaller fragments.

1.   Give a partial introduction about land use classification in introduction. I have not found it anywhere in the manuscript. It will be helpful to make paper more readers friendly.

2.   As stated authors in the present study, the uncommon crops of all three datasets when combined into general categories leads to difference in the crop components for the general crop categories and resulting in inaccuracy for crop water requirement, revenue, and GHG emissions estimates. Then how authors maintain and propose accuracy of results in the present study? In think, this point should be incorporated in material and methods with explanation and presented in results and discussion section with full discussion.

3.   The Results and Discussion section, although, is there in the manuscript but the discussion is found completely missing. How it is possible to validate results without their discussion with results of previous completed or ongoing studies all around the globe?    

4.   Finally, the review should elaborate possible directions of future strategies for better understanding of researchers to select new research ideas.

5.   Use greenhouse gas emissions in full not abbreviated for as the term is used for first time in the manuscript. Please correct in as per following:

Line 13:  change as demand, GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) emissions, and..

Line 43:  change as…… 23% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from….

 

Thanks.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

The manuscript entitled “Land Use Misclassification Results in Water Use, Economic Value, and GHG Emission Discrepancies for California's High Intensity Agriculture” describing problem of land use misclassification, resulted in discrepancies in water use, economic value and GHC. The manuscript is difficult to understand at few points due to larger sentences. It is advised to split larger sentences into smaller fragments.

 

1. Give a partial introduction about land use classification in introduction. I have not found it anywhere in the manuscript. It will be helpful to make paper more readers friendly.

We thank the reviewer for the recommendation. We have added substantial text to the manuscript to introduce the concept more fully.

 

2. As stated authors in the present study, the uncommon crops of all three datasets when combined into general categories leads to difference in the crop components for the general crop categories and resulting in inaccuracy for crop water requirement, revenue, and GHG emissions estimates. Then how authors maintain and propose accuracy of results in the present study? In think, this point should be incorporated in material and methods with explanation and presented in results and discussion section with full discussion.

This is an interesting point, and we thank the reviewer for bringing it up. An interesting dynamic is that each of the datasets were created by a different entity and a different funding source. Because of that it is difficult to pinpoint how to make overall improvements, but in the discussion we speculate further about this situation.

 

3. The Results and Discussionsection, although, is there in the manuscript but the discussion is found completely missing. How it is possible to validate results without their discussion with results of previous completed or ongoing studies all around the globe?    

The Results and Discussion are combined as per the journal format. It is understood that extended discussion of the results are requested. This manuscript is at its publishable length at ~7000 words, but we defer to the editors for guidance.

 

4. Finally, the review should elaborate possible directions of future strategies for better understanding of researchers to select new research ideas.

We make reference here to future work in the manuscript, which is likely to rely on machine learning techniques.

 

5. Use greenhouse gas emissions in full not abbreviatedfor as the term is used for first time in the manuscript. Please correct in as per following:

Line 13:  change as demand, GHG (greenhouse gas emissions) emissions, and…

Line 43:  change as…… 23% of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from…

Thank you for the suggestion. The change has been made in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

In the received article, the study covers a very important problem that affects many regions of the world. The quality of the conducted research and the rich, up-to-date review of the literature testify to the fact that scientists are well prepared in terms of content. Analyzing the substantive side, the article is at a high level. The layout of the article is correct, it is necessary to improve the quality of figures 2,3 because they could be of better quality.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

In the received article, the study covers a very important problem that affects many regions of the world. The quality of the conducted research and the rich, up-to-date review of the literature testify to the fact that scientists are well prepared in terms of content. Analyzing the substantive side, the article is at a high level. The layout of the article is correct, it is necessary to improve the quality of figures 2,3 because they could be of better quality.

Thank you for your time and review! We have made improvements to Figures 2 and 3 as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The title of the article does not fully correspond to its content. For example, what do the authors mean by "High Intensity Agriculture"? The article does not mention this.

2. It is not entirely clear how the classification of land can affect the income of agricultural producers? As far as we know, revenues are fixed on the basis of accounting and not on the basis of land classification data.

3. The time range of the study covers 2014 and 2016. Today is 2023. Why do the authors use data that is actually not relevant today? In our opinion, the data need to be updated and supplemented (if the authors want to analyze the dynamics of the problem under study).

4. In the section "Discussion", authors should compare own results with existing ones in more detail, demonstrate their novelty, commonality and/or difference.

5. Recommendations for decision makers should be added to the article.

6. Double numbering is given in the reference.

Author Response

1. The title of the article does not fully correspond to its content. For example, what do the authors mean by "High Intensity Agriculture"? The article does not mention this.

We thank the reviewer for pointing to the disconnect between the title and the content of the manuscript. We have updated the title to focus on the high intensity agriculture region specific to California, and in the manuscript, we have introduced language specific to high intensity agriculture.

2. It is not entirely clear how the classification of land can affect the income of agricultural producers? As far as we know, revenues are fixed on the basis of accounting and not on the basis of land classification data.

Thank you for your question. The intention of this study is not to highlight how land misclassification could affect income of agricultural producers but rather quantify the crop revenue, which is used to inform agricultural contributions to California and United States economy. Therefore, inaccuracies in crop revenue due to land use misclassifications could lead to inaccuracy in top commodities grown in the state and its contributions to regional, state, and national economy.

3. The time range of the study covers 2014 and 2016. Today is 2023. Why do the authors use data that is actually not relevant today? In our opinion, the data need to be updated and supplemented (if the authors want to analyze the dynamics of the problem under study).

The 2014 and 2016 years represent part of one of California’s most severe droughts ranging from 2012-2016. Analyzing these drought years was limited to 2014 and 2016 because these were the years available for Land IQ during this analysis. Providing a quantification of water use, crop revenue, and greenhouse gas emission discrepancies during these years is relevant given it highlights a period in which land use classification discrepancies could provide inaccurate insights to water budgets for local water agencies trying to manage scarce water resources.  

4. In the section "Discussion", authors should compare own results with existing ones in more detail, demonstrate their novelty, commonality and/or difference.

 To the authors knowledge this is the first study to quantify land use misclassification water use, crop revenue, and greenhouse gas emission discrepancies for a highly diverse agricultural region in California.

5. Recommendations for decision makers should be added to the article.

Thank you for this wonderful suggestion. The recommendation to decision-makers has been made more explicit in the conclusion of the manuscript.

6. Double numbering is given in the reference.

Thank you for pointing this out. We have addressed the double number issue in the references.

Reviewer 4 Report

This study examines a simple issue and offers non-operational solutions to it. In the introduction section, few studies are mentioned during the literature review and there is no explanation about the details and results of previous studies. Therefore, it is not possible to reach a conclusion about innovation and the need for further studies. Also, it seems that the use of comprehensive economic models is more appropriate to achieve research goals.

Author Response

This study examines a simple issue and offers non-operational solutions to it. In the introduction section, few studies are mentioned during the literature review and there is no explanation about the details and results of previous studies. Therefore, it is not possible to reach a conclusion about innovation and the need for further studies. Also, it seems that the use of comprehensive economic models is more appropriate to achieve research goals.

Thank you for your time and review. To the authors’ knowledge this is the first study to quantify water use, crop revenue, and greenhouse gas emission discrepancies across three of the most commonly use land use classification datasets used to make water and land use management decisions in California. For drought prone and intensely high agricultural diversity and economic dependence, reliable land use classification data are needed to develop effective climate change adaptation strategies. This study quantifies the significant water use, crop revenue, and greenhouse gas emission discrepancies that results from low thematic resolution datasets (e.g., CropScape) due to their inability to accurately capture agricultural diversity. Thank you for the suggestion to incorporate economic models to this work but it is beyond the scope of this work, which was to quantify the crop revenue discrepancies associated with the land use type classified by each dataset.

Reviewer 5 Report

The reviewed work raises a very important social issue. It refers to a region of California that is significantly dependent on agriculture but suffers from pronounced water scarcity. For such regions, effective development of climate change adaptation strategies is linked to reliable land use classification data. Without such land use classification datasets with high thematic resolution, it is difficult to establish a starting point for climate change adaptation actions and to reduce the drivers of climate change. Importantly, the planned actions are better the more accurate the baseline data is, and it is this aspect that the authors have paid particular attention to with very extensive thematic research.

The paper quantifies revenues, crop water requirements and discrepancies in greenhouse gas emissions due to land use misclassification. By comparing three commonly used data sets: Kern Ag, LIQ and CropScape, they showed that the CropScape datasets did not capture agricultural diversity as well as the LIQ dataset.

In my opinion, reviewed manuscript is interesting, makes an important contribution to the literature on the subject and is in line with the profile of the Journal Sustainability. It can be published with suggested minor corrections:

Line 161 - where is 'Figure 15'?

"Data were cropped to restrict the analysis to the agricultural lands within Kern County (Figure 15)".

Line 176 - 179: Number the formulae to the right with consecutive natural numbers in round brackets, please, and remove the notation preceding the formula everywhere thus: "Equation number"

Lines 199 - 201 repetition of the same sentence

Lines 205 - 211 number the lines to the right and delete the notation "Equation number" - similarly lines 227 - 230 and lines 244 - 247

line 212 - add information that these tables can be found in Supplementary Material

I propose to delete the first row of Table 3 as it creates unnecessary confusion:

So delete please:

„Total Area, Revenue, Crop Water …..”

Row 365, the table should be numbered 4 (as above, delete the first row of this table as it is redundant here)

In the bibliography, please remove the double numbering of consecutive literature items.

 Regards

Author Response

The reviewed work raises a very important social issue. It refers to a region of California that is significantly dependent on agriculture but suffers from pronounced water scarcity. For such regions, effective development of climate change adaptation strategies is linked to reliable land use classification data. Without such land use classification datasets with high thematic resolution, it is difficult to establish a starting point for climate change adaptation actions and to reduce the drivers of climate change. Importantly, the planned actions are better the more accurate the baseline data is, and it is this aspect that the authors have paid particular attention to with very extensive thematic research.

The paper quantifies revenues, crop water requirements and discrepancies in greenhouse gas emissions due to land use misclassification. By comparing three commonly used data sets: Kern Ag, LIQ and CropScape, they showed that the CropScape datasets did not capture agricultural diversity as well as the LIQ dataset.

In my opinion, reviewed manuscript is interesting, makes an important contribution to the literature on the subject and is in line with the profile of the Journal Sustainability. It can be published with suggested minor corrections:

Line 161 - where is 'Figure 15'?

"Data were cropped to restrict the analysis to the agricultural lands within Kern County (Figure 15)".

Thank you for catching this mistake. The Figure number has been corrected to Figure 1.

Line 176 - 179: Number the formulae to the right with consecutive natural numbers in round brackets, please, and remove the notation preceding the formula everywhere thus: "Equation number"

Thank you for the suggestion. We have made the changes as suggested.

Lines 199 - 201 repetition of the same sentence

We appreciate you bringing this repetition to our attention. It has been addressed in the manuscript.

Lines 205 - 211 number the lines to the right and delete the notation "Equation number" - similarly lines 227 - 230 and lines 244 – 247

Thank you! We have made the suggested formatting suggestion to the number of equations.

line 212 - add information that these tables can be found in Supplementary Material

We have made this clarification, thank you!

I propose to delete the first row of Table 3 as it creates unnecessary confusion:

So delete please:

„Total Area, Revenue, Crop Water …..”

The title (row 1) of Table 3 has been deleted as suggested, thank you!

Row 365, the table should be numbered 4 (as above, delete the first row of this table as it is redundant here)

The title (row 1) of Table 4 has been deleted as suggested. Thank you for your feedback!

 

In the bibliography, please remove the double numbering of consecutive literature items.

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It has been addressed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

As authors has incorporated suggested corrections and provided rebuttals also where required. Hence the manuscript can be processed further.

Thanks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Thanks for considering most of the comments.

At the same time, the discussion and recommendations could be better.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript "Land Use Misclassification Results in Water Use, Economic Value, and GHG Emission Discrepancies for California's High Intensity Agriculture" is interesting and well written. I think it should be considered for publication in Sustainability in present form.