Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors submitted an interesting manuscript dealing with Tracking Land Use and Land Cover Change through Fragmentation Dynamics in the Ciliwung River Watershed, Indonesia using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques. The study is of the greatest interest and would greatly contribute to environmental research studies of  climate change impacts. While the manuscript contains sufficient scientific content, it should be revised before it could be considered for publication, especially by revising the research design. Please find below comments and suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript:     Lines 10-37: The authors should write the abstract in A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum. Additionally, they should avoid providing different conclusions on the research findings such as lines 16-17, 34-37. For more information regarding the manuscript structure, please check instructions for authors provided by the Journal.   Lines 90-244: These paragraphs should be in the Section (2) of Material and Methods in which the authors should divide it into different subsections such as (2.1) Study Area and  (2.2 ) Methodology in which they include information related to the descriptions of the Area of study, details information related to the dataset creation and data analyses methodology. While the data analysis techniques used are well described, in this section the authors should provide sufficient descriptions of the data used, especially Spatial resolution, Spectral band used and the time of images acquisition. Please check and revise.   Line 213: Please provide the legend for Figure 3.   Lines 246-785: These paragraphs contain a lot of information. The authors should divide this Section of Results and Discussion into 2 separate Sections of Results and the other one for Discussions.  

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewers' constructive and insightful comments, which significantly improved the clarity and robustness of this manuscript. We hope that our revisions address the suggestions raised and that the manuscript is now suitable for publication

 

Reviewer 1

R1.0: The authors submitted an interesting manuscript dealing with Tracking Land Use and Land Cover Change through Fragmentation Dynamics in the Ciliwung River Watershed, Indonesia using Remote Sensing and GIS techniques. The study is of the greatest interest and would greatly contribute to environmental research studies of  climate change impacts. While the manuscript contains sufficient scientific content, it should be revised before it could be considered for publication, especially by revising the research design. Please find below comments and suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript:

Response: Thank you for your constructive and encouraging comments. We appreciate that you found our manuscript on the Ciliwung River Watershed to be of interest. We acknowledge the suggestion to revise the research design and have made comprehensive revisions to significantly improve the overall quality of the manuscript.    

 

R1.1: Lines 10-37: The authors should write the abstract in A single paragraph of about 200 words maximum.

Response: Thank you, we have updated the paragraph as suggested.

 

R1.2: Additionally, they should avoid providing different conclusions on the research findings such as lines 16-17, 34-37

Response: Thank you, we have amended the research findings in the revised abstract.

 

R1.3: For more information regarding the manuscript structure, please check instructions for authors provided by the Journal.  Lines 90-244: These paragraphs should be in the Section (2) of Material and Methods in which the authors should divide it into different subsections such as (2.1) Study Area and  (2.2) Methodology.  in which they include information related to the descriptions of the Area of study, details information related to the dataset creation and data analyses methodology.

Response: Thank you. We have rearranged the structure, particularly in the Material and Methods section (sections 2 and subsections 2.1 Study Area and 2.2 Methodology, as suggested).

 

R1.4: While the data analysis techniques used are well described, in this section the authors should provide sufficient descriptions of the data used, especially Spatial resolution, Spectral band used and the time of images acquisition. Please check and revise.  

Response: Thank you, we have updated the descriptions of data used, spatial resolution, spectral band and the time of image acquisition. This includes the following revised text: “The material of this study was using Landsat imagery with a spatial resolution of 30 m. The near-infrared and red spectral bands were selected for the NDVI calculation. To assess changes over the study period, a dataset containing images from 9th July 1990 for 1990 data and 22nd April and 24th May 2020 for 2020 data. The 1990 and 2020 data was acquired on 20th April 2022.

The methodology utilises remote sensing, GIS, and R programming, employing NDVI values, buffer analysis, and landscape metrics”

 

R1.5: Line 213: Please provide the legend for Figure 3.  

Response: Thank you, we have updated the legend for Figure 3.

 

R1.6: Lines 246-785: These paragraphs contain a lot of information. The authors should divide this Section of Results and Discussion into 2 separate Sections of Results and the other one for Discussions.

Response: Thank you. We have divided the Results and Discussion section into two subsections as suggested.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction

 

The introduction presents a limited theoretical and bibliographical foundation. I recommend rewriting this section based on recent studies on landscape fragmentation in megacities, highlighting the implications, advantages, controversies, and relevant factors of studies that have used the same approach. This will strengthen the scientific framework and relevance of the study.

 

Figures and Cartographic Representations

 

Figure 2: Since this is a map, I suggest inserting the coordinate grid, preferably in geographic coordinates, to improve spatial location.

 

Map 3: Replacing the orange color with pastel tones can contribute to greater visual acuity when reading thematic cartography.

 

Figure 4: I recommend improving the image resolution and increasing the font size to ensure legibility.

 

Materials and Methods

 

The evaluation statistics used (NP, Contag, ED, SHDI, SIDI) are central to the analysis. I recommend describing them in this section, along with their formulas and relevance to the study. Currently, this information is in the appendix, but it would be more appropriate in Materials and Methods (lines 190–199).

Results and Discussion

 

The Results section presents an overly detailed description of tables and graphs, with little interpretative exploration. Only in a few passages (e.g., lines 678–679) does an effective, albeit vague, discussion begin.

 

I suggest that the section be restructured to:

 

1. discuss the results and values ​​obtained in an integrated manner;

 

2. explain the impacts of changes in LULC in the studied region;

 

3. highlight the main causes, limitations, points of divergence, and specific aspects requiring attention;

 

4. relate the findings to similar studies, broadening the scientific debate.

 

Currently, the impression conveyed is of a descriptive data report. A more analytical approach would substantially enrich the article's contribution.

 

Final Considerations

 

Overall, the article presents a good structure, a relevant topic, and results of global interest, capable of being replicated in other regions. Although the methodology is not innovative, the results are consistent and well-presented. However, I emphasize the need for the suggested changes to improve the theoretical foundation, the visual quality of the figures, and, above all, the depth of the Results and Discussion section.

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewers' constructive and insightful comments, which significantly improved the clarity and robustness of this manuscript. We hope that our revisions address the suggestions raised and that the manuscript is now suitable for publication

 

Reviewer 2

Introduction

R2.1: The introduction presents a limited theoretical and bibliographical foundation. I recommend rewriting this section based on recent studies on landscape fragmentation in megacities, highlighting the implications, advantages, controversies, and relevant factors of studies that have used the same approach. This will strengthen the scientific framework and relevance of the study.

Response: Thank you, we have updated and highlighted the implications, advantages, controversies, and relevant factors of studies.

Figures and Cartographic Representations

R2.2: Figure 2: Since this is a map, I suggest inserting the coordinate grid, preferably in geographic coordinates, to improve spatial location.

Response: Figure 2 is not a map and we believe this is in reference to Figure 1 – which is a map. We have added a coordinated grid to the figure as suggested.

R2.3: Map 3: Replacing the orange color with pastel tones can contribute to greater visual acuity when reading thematic cartography.

Response: We have altered the colours and believe that this increases the visual acuity.

 

R2.4: Figure 4: I recommend improving the image resolution and increasing the font size to ensure legibility.

Response: We have increased the font size for this Figure to make it more legible. The image has a resolution of 300dpi.

Materials and Methods

R2.5: The evaluation statistics used (NP, Contag, ED, SHDI, SIDI) are central to the analysis. I recommend describing them in this section, along with their formulas and relevance to the study. Currently, this information is in the appendix, but it would be more appropriate in Materials and Methods (lines 190–199).

Response: We appreciate the suggestion. We have added the description of the evaluation statistics (NP, Contag, ED, SHDI, SIDI) to the Materials and Methods section, as requested (lines 190–199). However, to maintain the manuscript's length and flow, the formulas for these statistics remain in the appendix.

Results and Discussion

R2.6: The Results section presents an overly detailed description of tables and graphs, with little interpretative exploration. Only in a few passages (e.g., lines 678–679) does an effective, albeit vague, discussion begin.

Response: Thank you. We have updated the interpretative exploration. Exploring on evidence, explanation, and discussion related to similarity or divergence from other references

I suggest that the section be restructured to: 

R2.7: discuss the results and values obtained in an integrated manner;

Response: Thank you. We have updated and obtained in an integrated manner. As one example of such changes, new text has been generated to set the context more clearly: “The landscape metrics reveal a fundamental divergence in the process of urban impact across the Ciliwung River Watershed, which is critical for policy designation. In the upstream and midstream areas, the landscape change is predominantly characterised by fragmentation.“

R2.8: explain the impacts of changes in LULC in the studied region;

Response: Thank you. We have explained the impacts of changes in LULC. The explanation express on text: “This fragmentation condition impacts LULC change. Specifically, the built-up area, including settlements, expanded within the study timeframe in both the midstream and downstream areas, heavily occurring far from the main road networks. In contrast, the upstream zone's LULC change is characterised by ribbon infrastructure, with built-up areas predominantly dominating the land directly along the main road.“

R2.9: highlight the main causes, limitations, points of divergence, and specific aspects requiring attention;

Response: Thank you. We have highlighted the main causes, limitations, points of divergence, and specific aspects requiring attention. We incorporated 4 new references into the literature review (as detailed in our response to Reviewer 3 Comment 1) and expanded the discussion subsection accordingly. The example text of points of divergence, which can be seen in the 3.2.1. Discussion subsection, and is expressed as follow:

“The case study on the transition zone of Bogor City and Regency, located in the midstream Ciliwung River watershed, faces many challenges due to population rise and settlement demand. Research confirms that settlement expansion in this area—encompassing both urban and rural sprawl and characterized by uneven development—has the potential to exacerbate habitat isolation, thereby accelerating ecological degradation (Putri, 2023; Ding et al., 2024; Dutta & Dey, 2024).“

R2.10: relate the findings to similar studies, broadening the scientific debate.

Response: Thank you. We have revised the discussion to broaden the debate by exploring and relating our findings to similar studies. As with our response to comment R2.9, we have added more explanation and references and strengthened the debate within the discussion text. The text is presented as follows (subsection 3.2.2.):

“In sharp contrast, the downstream area of the Ciliwung, which encompasses the core of Jakarta, exhibits a pattern dominated by densification and complete loss, rather than fragmentation. By 1990, the natural land cover in this area was already scarce and isolated notably starting near the main roads, and much of the natural area near the river was already beginning to be lost. This finding is strengthened by the research of Fachrul et. al. (2007), which states that settlement developed in the riverbanks starting in 1980 and spread widely to Bogor Regency during 1990 to 2000. According to Didit and Pauleit (2014), urban expansion in the Jakarta Metropolitan Area began in the early 1980s with the development of toll roads in an east-west direction, aiming to control growth toward the south, an important water supply area. “

R2.11: Currently, the impression conveyed is of a descriptive data report. A more analytical approach would substantially enrich the article's contribution.

 Response: Thank you, we have added references and taken a more analytical approach compared to other papers. For instance, we add more explanation on the discussion as follows:
“The findings underscore that road-induced fragmentation extends beyond primary infrastructure. Given that Mohammadi and Fatemizadeh (2021) found significant degradation within a 1000 m highway buffer, future research should explore whether lower-class roads, such as tertiary or local and informal roads, which are increasingly dense in the Ciliwung Watershed, exert a comparable fragmenting force across 1000 m and further out to 2000 m, as their cumulative impact may be substantial.“

Final Considerations

R2.12: Overall, the article presents a good structure, a relevant topic, and results of global interest, capable of being replicated in other regions. Although the methodology is not innovative, the results are consistent and well-presented. However, I emphasize the need for the suggested changes to improve the theoretical foundation, the visual quality of the figures, and, above all, the depth of the Results and Discussion section.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive comments regarding the manuscript's structure, relevance, and global applicability. We appreciate the suggestions for strengthening the theoretical foundation, enhancing the visual quality of the figures, and increasing the depth of the Results and Discussion section. We have incorporated changes throughout the revised manuscript to address these points.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors This study takes the Ciliwung River Basin in Indonesia as the research object, employs remote sensing and GIS methods combined with the NDVI index, and uses time-series data from 1990 to 2020 to explore the characteristics of landscape fragmentation under the process of urbanization and its relationship with river and road buffer zones. The research topic is of practical significance, especially providing a case study for the research on water systems and land use against the background of rapid urbanization in Southeast Asia. The research framework is clear and the methods are reproducible, and the conclusions have certain reference value for basin ecological protection and land use management. However, on the whole, the paper still has shortcomings in terms of research innovation, methodological rationality and depth of result interpretation, which need to be further supplemented and improved.

 

1. Lines 41-78: The reviewed literature is relatively outdated, lacking recent studies on landscape fragmentation, road expansion and ecological networks under the background of urbanization. It is suggested to supplement the latest literature.
2. Lines 83-89: The statement of research objectives is relatively general, and the new contributions of this study in terms of methods or theories are not clearly reflected.
3. Lines 128-133: The expression is not fluent enough. "agrcilutral vegetation" and "avegetated areas" are spelling errors. Some sentences in the whole paper are lengthy, so it is suggested to appropriately simplify them during revision to improve readability.
4. Lines 130-133: NDVI > 0.25 is used as the threshold for green space, but there is a lack of comparison with other thresholds and verification basis. It is suggested to supplement and cite recent studies or explain the sensitivity analysis.
5. Lines 155-159: A variety of indicators are listed, but there is a lack of explanation of their ecological significance and specific applicability in the study area. It is suggested to supplement and elaborate on this.
6. Lines 246-299, 344-507: The results section mainly presents descriptions such as "reduction of green space" and "increase of fragmentation", but lacks in-depth connection with socioeconomic variables (population, land use policies, road development). It is suggested to add explanations or at least supplement relevant analyses in the discussion section.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

can be improved

Author Response

We are grateful for the reviewers' constructive and insightful comments, which significantly improved the clarity and robustness of this manuscript. We hope that our revisions address the suggestions raised and that the manuscript is now suitable for publication

 

Reviewer 3

 

R3.0. This study takes the Ciliwung River Basin in Indonesia as the research object, employs remote sensing and GIS methods combined with the NDVI index, and uses time-series data from 1990 to 2020 to explore the characteristics of landscape fragmentation under the process of urbanization and its relationship with river and road buffer zones. The research topic is of practical significance, especially providing a case study for the research on water systems and land use against the background of rapid urbanization in Southeast Asia. The research framework is clear and the methods are reproducible, and the conclusions have certain reference value for basin ecological protection and land use management. However, on the whole, the paper still has shortcomings in terms of research innovation, methodological rationality and depth of result interpretation, which need to be further supplemented and improved.

Response: Thank-you for identifying the significance of our work highlighting the clear framework and replicable methods.

 

R3.1: Lines 41-78: The reviewed literature is relatively outdated, lacking recent studies on landscape fragmentation, road expansion and ecological networks under the background of urbanization. It is suggested to supplement the latest literature.

Response: Thank-you – we have updated the literature and identified 4 new, more recent articles:

• Yirigui et al. (2019) who explored Fragmentation of Riparian Forests and Biological Conditions in Streams in the Korean peninsula;
• Mohammadi and Fatemizadeh (2021) whose study explored fragmentation and degradation caused from highways in Iran;
• Ding et al. (2024) who investigated the change in ecological networks of habitat patches over a 20-year period in urban and rural areas of the Nanjing Metropolitan Area China, and
• Dutta & Dey (2024) who undertook Fragstats analysis using Landsat remote sensing data of urban expansion and forest fragmentation in the Dhaka Megacity, India, 2016-2024.

 

 

R3.2: Lines 83-89: The statement of research objectives is relatively general, and the new contributions of this study in terms of methods or theories are not clearly reflected.

Response: We have added two research objectives which highlight new contributions of the work. The objectives are as follows:

“Specifically, the objectives of this research are to first analyse the differential pattern of linear landscape features (the riverine corridor and major road networks) on landscape fragmentation changes across the urban-rural continuum of the Megacity and its surrounding, particularly focusing on the Ciliwung River. Second, this work seeks to find key insights on tracking LULC changes, through an integrated methodology using spatial temporal remote sensing data, GIS buffering techniques, and landscape metrics in a highly dense, dynamic riverine context. The overarching aim of these efforts is to provide empirical evidence that can inform proactive land-use planning, environmental regulation, and targeted ecological preservation strategies for river corridors facing rapid urbanisation pressures.”

 

R3.3: Lines 128-133: The expression is not fluent enough. "agrcilutral vegetation"  and "avegetated areas" are spelling errors.  Some sentences in the whole paper are lengthy, so it is suggested to appropriately simplify them during revision to improve readability.

Response: The manuscript has been comprehensively edited, identifying typos, improving the text with the shortening of long sentences. This has been undertaken primarily by the three native UK authors.

 

R3.4: Lines 130-133: NDVI > 0.25 is used as the threshold for green space, but there is a lack of comparison with other thresholds and verification basis. It is suggested to supplement and cite recent studies or explain the sensitivity analysis.

Response: We have updated the manuscript with a new additional supporting reference from a recent 2025 publication:

“Research by Liu et al. (2025) reinforces this principle, noting that in pan-tropical regions, NDVI values greater than 0.25 typically correspond to forests, dense vegetation, grassland, thus excluding most bareland and built-up areas.”

 

R3.5: Lines 155-159: A variety of indicators are listed, but there is a lack of explanation of their ecological significance and specific applicability in the study area. It is suggested to supplement and elaborate on this.

Response: We have added more explanation and elaboration. This explained at the end of methodology sections: ”The chosen suite of indices provides a targeted assessment of landscape health and change in the rapidly developing Ciliwung Watershed. The foundation of this analysis is the NDVI, which functions as a robust proxy for photosynthetic activity and biomass density. A decline in NDVI, particularly in areas classified as vegetation loss or non-vegetated (built-up areas), directly quantifies the loss of critical ecological functions. These vital functions, such as carbon sequestration, hydrological regulation (stormwater control), and the mitigation of soil erosion vulnerability, are essential for maintaining the watershed's resilience against intense urban pressures. By using NDVI to measure the conversion to non-vegetated areas, the study directly tracks the impact of urban encroachment, identifying it as a central and quantifiable pressure point in the Ciliwung.”

 

R3.6: Lines 246-299, 344-507: The results section mainly presents descriptions such as "reduction of green space" and "increase of fragmentation", but lacks in-depth connection with socioeconomic variables (population, land use policies, road development). It is suggested to add explanations or at least supplement relevant analyses in the discussion section.

Response: We have added more explanation with socioeconomic variables. Particularly on Jakarta faces flooding and climate changes due to the critical scarcity of green-blue infrastructure and loss of ecosystem services: ”This finding is strengthened by the research of Sumarga et al. (2023) and Kurniawan et al. (2024), who identified that Jakarta faces key environmental problems, such as flooding and climate change, which result in damage extending beyond physical harm to include socioeconomic issues, including population, land use policies, and road development stemming from urbanisation and expansion.”

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No further comments

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The improvement in the article and the authors' commitment to this process are evident, especially in improving the text. However, the fonts used in all figures remain very small. I strongly recommend that the authors pay greater attention to this aspect in a future publication of this manuscript. Overall, the revisions made were appropriate and well-executed; therefore, I recommend it for publication.