Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I do not agree with the authors reply, so I do not think the manuscript should be published.

Author Response

We have carefully reviewed the comments provided by the reviewers. However, after thorough consideration, we believe that we have already adequately addressed the issues raised and that a final acceptance or rejection, rather than a major revision, is now required. We outline our reasoning for this conclusion below.

Reviewer 1: I do not agree with the authors reply, so I do not think the manuscript should be published.

Response: We note that Reviewer 1 and Reviewer 2 did not provide specific feedback or suggestions for revisions. Instead, their remarks primarily pertain to the publication decision. Given the limited nature of their feedback, the lack of concrete suggestions for improvement, and the absence of any new points raised, we believe that there are no further actions required on our end.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear authors,

I think all my comments have been addressed. So I agree to accept it. 

Author Response

We appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to evaluating our manuscript titled "Downscaling global land-use scenario data to the national level: a case study for Belgium", with the ID [land-2588653].

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Manuscript Review: The manuscript introduces a study aimed at downscaling global land-use scenario data to finer resolutions for local-scale biodiversity impact assessment. The GLOBIO 4 model's land use allocation tool is applied to downscale Land Use Harmonization v2 (LUH2) data from its original 0.25° resolution to 100 m and 10 m resolutions, using Belgium as a case study. Multiple reference land cover maps are considered, with their impact on downscaling results examined.

Comments and Suggestions:

1. Map Quality: The study's effectiveness significantly relies on the quality of the reference land cover maps. Therefore, it is critical to thoroughly evaluate and describe the accuracy, reliability, and spatial coverage of these maps. Additionally, the review should highlight any potential limitations or uncertainties associated with these maps.
2. Index Cartographic Design Missing: The manuscript lacks information regarding the cartographic design of the maps. It's important to stress the importance of clear and informative legends, scale bars, and labeling conventions. These elements are essential for readers to interpret the maps accurately.
3. Conclusion Missing Results: A notable omission in the manuscript is the absence of a conclusion summarizing the key findings and their implications. This is a significant shortcoming as it leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the study's outcomes. A complete conclusion is essential for the study's comprehensiveness.
4. Methodology Applicability: The manuscript should emphasize the broader applicability of the methodology. It should explicitly state how the downscaling approach can be used not only for various Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios but also for different spatial scales, thereby enhancing its value to the research community.
5. Environmental Impacts: The manuscript t should highlight the potential of fine-resolution downscaling for improving land use planning and assessing environmental impacts. This is a key takeaway that deserves explicit mention in the review.
6. Future Work: Suggest that future research could expand on the study's findings by incorporating additional scenarios and involving stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of land use dynamics. This can guide future research directions in this field.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Reviewer 3 Comments:

In their review, Reviewer 3 highlighted several aspects that they believed required further attention. We would like to point out that we have already taken steps in the previous version to address each of their concerns, as follows:

 

Conclusion Missing Results: A notable omission in the manuscript is the absence of a conclusion summarizing the key findings and their implications. This is a significant shortcoming as it leaves the reader without a clear understanding of the study's outcomes. A complete conclusion is essential for the study's comprehensiveness.

 

Response: We have summarized the key findings and their implications in the conclusion section (section 5). We have ensured that the conclusion encapsulates the main outcomes of our study, providing a comprehensive overview for readers, as follows: "In this study, we applied the GLOBIO land allocation routine to downscale fractional land use data at a resolution of 0.25o (approximately 25 km) to discrete land use maps at 10 and 100 m resolution based on three different reference land cover maps (ESA WorldCover at 10 m resolution, ESA WorldCover upscaled to 100 m resolution, and CORINE land cover at 100 m resolution). Our results indicate that the ESA WorldCover map at 10 m resolution results in the highest degree of agreement with the original LUH2 dataset, followed by the upscaled ESA WorldCover map and the CORINE land cover map. The upscaling of the ESA World Cover map resulted in a loss of urban and cropland area, hence a decrease in accuracy compared to the original ESA WorldCover map. Therefore, while upscaling to 100m resolution increases computational efficiency, it may come at the cost of reduced accuracy. Overall, the selection of an accurate and reliable reference land cover map is crucial for ensuring the quality and accuracy of downscaled land use data. Our methodology has broader applicability, enabling the downscaling of coarse resolution LUH2 data for various SSP-RCP scenarios, as well as different spatial scales. Downscaling LUH2 data to a fine resolution has the potential for improving land use planning as it provides detailed information for identifying the areas of transformation and potential environmental impacts. Future work should include additional scenarios and incorporate stakeholder input to enhance the understanding of land use dynamics.” Please see lines 496 to 513.

 

Methodology Applicability: The manuscript should emphasize the broader applicability of the methodology. It should explicitly state how the downscaling approach can be used not only for various Socio-economic Pathway (SSP) and Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) scenarios but also for different spatial scales, thereby enhancing its value to the research community.

 

Response: We have taken this into account and would like to emphasize that our paper clearly outlines the broader applicability of the GLOBIO land allocation model in the discussion. For example, please see lines 418-421: ‘Although the GLOBIO land allocation model is not the only approach available for downscaling land use data, it stands out because of its high flexibility. It can be easily applied to any country or region, based on a variety of input data sources for land use claims’. See also lines 408-409: ‘Our methodology has broader applicability, enabling the downscaling of coarse resolution LUH2 data for various SSP-RCP scenarios, as well as different spatial scales’.

 

Environmental Impacts: The manuscript should highlight the potential of fine-resolution downscaling for improving land use planning and assessing environmental impacts. This is a key takeaway that deserves explicit mention in the review.

 

Response: We have already highlighted the potential of fine-resolution downscaling for improving land use planning and assessing environmental impacts. Please see lines 412 to 418: ‘This improved resolution is expected to provide more accurate and detailed land-use information, which in turn can support local decision-making through more detailed environmental assessments. For example, high-resolution discrete land use maps can be used to assess the consequences of land use and land use change for habitat fragmentation, which is an important threat to wildlife. This information, in turn, can aid in the design of habitat fragmentation mitigation measures.’ Please see also lines 486 to 494: ‘The resulting fine-grained land-use maps provide an excellent starting point for evaluating the impacts of potential future land-use change on biodiversity and ecosystem services. The approach adopted in this study, involving the downscaling of land use and land cover scenarios to finer resolutions, yields outcomes that provide decision-makers with insights that help to inform biodiversity conservation and sustainable land management. In addition, these downscaled maps at high spatial resolution also promote public and stakeholder engagement in evaluating and designing development pathways. Ultimately, this supports and informs local decision-making processes that strive to balance ecological preservation and developmental needs.’

 

Future Work: Suggest that future research could expand on the study's findings by incorporating additional scenarios and involving stakeholders to gain a deeper understanding of land use dynamics. This can guide future research directions in this field.

 

Response: In our paper, we clearly state that future work should include additional scenarios and incorporate stakeholder input to enhance the understanding of land use dynamics. Please see lines 512 to 513.

 

Map Quality: The study's effectiveness significantly relies on the quality of the reference land cover maps. Therefore, it is critical to thoroughly evaluate and describe the accuracy, reliability, and spatial coverage of these maps. Additionally, the review should highlight any potential limitations or uncertainties associated with these maps.

 

Response: We've employed the ESA WorldCover and CORINE Land Cover maps as our reference maps. These maps have been extensively validated by their respective developers and are widely used in environmental analyses. Validation of these external and published data sources is outside the scope of our study. We've included proper references for both of these map sources.

 

Index Cartographic Design Missing: The manuscript lacks information regarding the cartographic design of the maps. It's important to stress the importance of clear and informative legends, scale bars, and labeling conventions. These elements are essential for readers to interpret the maps accurately.

 

Response: All our maps include legends and scale bars; please see the attached figures. Please review the enclosed figures using the provided link

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gccymnLBqUQfJrvgpO9zXMaXl-JFZ630/view?usp=sharing

 

Considering that we have addressed all reviewer comments, we kindly request a decision on the acceptance or rejection of our manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Thanks for the responses. The authors are encouraged to improve the resolutions of figures 4-7, as few scales, spatial extension, resolutions, legends etc... are unreadable.

 

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 authors have demonstrated a comprehensive understanding of the reviewers' feedback and have made significant improvements to the manuscript. They have addressed all concerns, clarified ambiguous points, and incorporated relevant revisions that have substantially strengthened the overall quality and scientific merit of the paper.

Therefore, I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript for publication in the Land (MDPI). I believe it will contribute significantly to scientific knowledge and be of interest to the readership of the journal.

Reviewer 2 Report

None of my previous comments to this manuscript have been properly addressed. 

Comparing the classes in LUH2 with the classes in the downscaled version of LUH2 is not really a validation. The classes may well change in the downscaled version. You are implicitly assuming that the best downscaling method is a naive downscaling that simply divides LUH2 pixels into smaller pixels.

So, I am sorry to say that I still think that the manuscript should not be published.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript entitled “Downscaling global land-use scenario data to inform local decision-making” significantly improved compared to the first version. However, there are still some points to be addressed/answered in relation to the comments I left in the first version, namely:

 

 

 

- The title must indicate the case study, namely with the indication of Belgium. This is because the authors applied their analysis in this country.

 

 

 

- the authors must create a methodological Framework so that the analysis flow created in this study is easily interpreted.

 

 

Line 137-139: the authors should indicate which year the mentioned information refers to.

 

 

- Figures 2, 4, 5, 6 and 7 still have poor legibility. Authors must improve both the resolution of these images and their graphic arrangement.

 

 

- The forestry class in Figures 4, 5 and 6 cannot be represented by the blue colour.

 

 

- the validation process is still absent. Thus, there is no way to indicate that the results achieved with this study are correct. This step is critical from the point of view of acceptance of the results achieved.

- Minor grammar and punctuation errors can be found throughout the text and need to be corrected.