Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors:

I am so proud of being a reviewer of this manuscript. Almost all contents are enough to be accepted except for one thing. You mentioned CA-Markov model for future LULC projections. However, I can not make sure that the progress of using CA-Markov and the output are reasonable. So you need to add the method and its progress for CA-Markov model in more detail.

Minor comments for revision were mentioned below.

Line # 14: focus group discussions (FDGs) --> FGDs

Line # 38: 2billion --> 2 billion

Line # 135: ground-throthed points --> ground truth points

Line # 150: define the acronym, LULCC

 

Author Response

The process of the CA-Markov model was re-write to align the progress and the output.

Line 14; Edits were made in to FDGs changed to FGDs

Line 38; 2billion was edited to 2 billion

Line 135; ground-throthed points was edited to ground truth points

Line 150; the acronym LULCC was removed and the detailed statement written

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Author,

Congratulations on your research. I would suggest some improvements that would, in my mind, enrich the value of the paper:

1. Lines 15-17 - Insert the source of the information concerning the land use in Uganda as for 1985 ('In 1985, 16 grassland covered 31.7%, wetlands 26.4%, woodland 11.5% and farmlands 7.2% of the total land 17 area. In 2021, farmland covered 35.8% of the total land area, wetland 21.6% and grassland 18.5%.').

2. In the abstract add the general aim of the research - what the publication presents.

3. Line 92 - Instead of using 'Km2', please use 'km²'

4. Figure 1 - Add the source of the figure

5. Search for some edition slips (for example '4years' - use space between '4' and ' years', etc)   

6. Table 1 - shorten the description, delete the expressions such as: 'This category comprises of', 'This category consists of', 'These are'. Leave just the description. For example, for Open Water - 'areas with natural open water bodies'

7. In the section Discussion I would definitely add some more results of literature review on the subject of gathering data concerning Land use/Land cover changes around the world and drivers of LUCL changes. Please search for iterature concerning cases of other countries. 

Best wishes,

Reviewer

Author Response

1. In line 15-17, the information concerning the land use in Uganda as for 1985 was provided as the United States Geological survey (USGS)
2. The general aim of the study was added in the abstract
3. In line 92, the typo ‘Km2’ was edited to ‘Km²’
4. The source of the study area map (figure) was added as ‘Authors, 2022’
5. The edition slips '4years' edited to '4 years' and other edition slips corrected.
6. Descriptions in Table 1; were shorted by deleting some expressions such as ‘the category comprises of’

Reviewer 3 Report

comments are described in the file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Point by point responses to comments of the reviewer report 3

Point 1: The introduction section needs some rework and restructuring to make a precise outline of the study that can be achieved by making discussion in the following sequence

1. Need - challenges - methods of land cover mapping using satellite and different models
2. Identified research gaps or problem statement
3. Proposed solution to address the problem statement or to fill the research gaps
4. Objectives in line with identified research gaps or problem

 

Response one: Edits were made to the introduction of the study. Additional citations were made in the background of the study.  The methods and the research design were improved  

Point 2: Please mention the objectives and research gaps clearly in the introduction

Response 2: The research gaps were included in the introduction. It is also acknowledged that integrating local knowledge and remote sensing during LULC changes assessments can provide better and novel understandings for the extent and underlying drivers of change. Understanding the perceptions of the local commu-nity on LULC changes is also reported to be central for designing effective land use and management plans. However, there is still a limited integration of local knowledge and remote sensing knowledge in existing studies that investigated the extent and drivers of LULC change across the different parts of Uganda such as Karamoja, Nakasongola and Ankole.

 

Point 3: The paper presents a relatively comprehensive case study, but it needs many improvements before publication, dealing with data, materials, and discussions.

Response 3: The presentation of the results was improved and the conclusions realigned to match the results of the study. The shortfalls of only relying on satellite imagery in land cover mapping listed down and the integration of satellite imagery and traditional knowledge underpinned. The objectives of the study aligned with the research gap.

 

Point 4; Line 51.52; Authors have missed discussing the important aspect of incorporation of the effect of vegetation cover on runoff in different. scenarios. There is a vast literature on this I would like to suggest a few lines following to this which the author should add “Vegetation can have a significant effect on hydrological fluxes and thereby changes in landuse/land cover mapping alters the surface patterns. Due to significant changes in these variations of LULC, changes in the physical characteristics of the land surface, soil, and vegetation; such as the roughness, albedo, infiltration capacity, root depth, architectural resistance, leaf area index (LAI), and stomatal conductance occur. (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02630-4; https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.136449)”. I would recommend adding these recent references to add more scientific weight to their Introduction.

Response 4: The effects of agriculture land use and vegetation loss on soil runoff and other hydrological component were indicated and suggested references adopted. According to Srivastava [2], vegetation loss due to increased agricultural activities might lead to significant hydrological fluxes due to changes in some hydrological components like surface runoff, surface roughness, stream flow and evapotranspiration. Consequently, the hydrological fluxes can drive changes in land use and land cover in an area [3].

 

Point 5: Reasons for wood fuel as a dominant driver of LULC change and Weak policies as the least provided.

Response 5: Wood fuel extraction emerged as the key driver of LULC change in rangelands of Nakasongola because of the high level of tree loss that the local community has been observed overtime. Trees from woodlands, grasslands and wetlands were reported to be mainly cleared by farmers and other community members who engage in the lucrative business of charcoal burning and sale of firewood; and this had been exacerbated by changes in property rights from communal to individual ownership. This is in line with findings from Kiringe [33] that showed that the Maasai community in communal rangelands around Amboseli in Kenya perceived high rates of tree loss due to increased charcoal burning.

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I recommend for the publication.