Adopting Land Cover Standards for Sustainable Development in Ghana: Challenges and Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study defines a national standard for the Ghana region that is compatible with the international standard for land cover, and the land cover products produced under this standard were analysed. This study seems to have some problems in the presentation and experimental part. The following are my suggestions:

1. the logic of the introduction section could be improved. The research gap that this paper needs to target is not clear. Additionally, the description of what this research is going to do seems to be rather brief.

2. the article lacks a detailed methodological description. Figure 1 is too brief to meet the requirements for publication in academic journals.

3. Defineting the classification system is the core of the whole study. The authors only briefly describe the construction method in section 2.2. More details are needed here, such as the category hierarchy of the classification system, the specific meaning of each category, the starting point for defining the system, and so on. Also, 2.2.1 should be used when there are more than two subsections (for example, 2.2.2), and the way it is currently written is not conventional.

4. I don't understand why the authors put source 26. in the title of Figures 7 to 10. 

5. all pictures and tables should be rearranged. The current style does not conform to the norm.

6. the innovation of the whole article is not clear enough. On the one hand, the authors discuss the production of local land cover data and its accuracy in Ghana, which is not significantly innovative methodologically, as there have been many studies on the production of land cover products. On the other hand, the role of standardised land cover approaches in improving accuracy and reliability could be obvious. The authors need to further clarify the innovations of this research.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have the following comments and suggestions for including information and improvements:

Abstract

1. The abstract needs to be more consistent and better developed regarding the objectives, methods, and main results. In the current version, the abstract is very limited, making it difficult for readers to understand the points mentioned above quickly.

Introduction

1. I kindly request that the authors revise the introduction, as the current version lacks a comprehensive overview of the state of the art in Land Use and Land Cover mapping using remote sensing and machine learning techniques.

 

2. I kindly request that the authors expand their discussion of recent advancements, key applications, and developments in the field to better situate their work within the broader scientific context. A more comprehensive context will also highlight the broader relevance and impact of the research.

 

3. Another essential point I want to draw the authors' attention to is the need to describe, explore, and integrate textually is the use of the Land Use and Land Cover mapping using remote sensing and machine learning within the African context. This is an imminent gap in this section.

 

 

4. Dear authors, the research objectives need to be stated more clearly and concisely. I suggest better justifying the relevance of the study and presenting the objectives in a clear and consistent manner. In the current version, both aspects are not sufficiently clear to the reader.

 

 

Methods 

The Materials and Methods section needs more detailed information to ensure the study's results can be replicated by readers of all experience levels. I recommend the authors carefully review each subsection and provide comprehensive details about the processes and techniques used, as these currently lack sufficient explanation.

1. The Flowchart for Methodology presented in Figure 1 needs to be revised. The current version is extremely limited in describing all the pre-processing and post-processing steps involved in the study.
2. Add a more detailed description of each methodological step in the illustrated flowchart, including data collection and pre-processing to analysis and interpretation of results.
3. Describe in detail, link, and associate each step of the methodology sections (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.). Include the necessary information for each step.
4. What is the justification for selecting the year 2023 as the time frame? This needs to be explained in detail. Regarding Land Cover Standards for Sustainable Development, isn’t it necessary to use time series data to assess transitions and changes in land use and cover? The authors should reflect on the potential limitations of working with a single-year map and address this issue in relation to “Challenges and Opportunities in Adopting Land Cover Standards for Sustainable Development.”
5. The authors must create a dedicated section to explain the data validation procedures thoroughly.
6. How can the differences in spatial resolution between all spatial data affect the results?
7. One of the fundamental steps when using classifiers such as Random Forest for classification is the analysis of the feature space. In the current paper, this step is not described. I request that the authors include this information.
8. Another important aspect that needs further clarification in the paper is how the standardization of training samples was conducted. While Random Forest is designed to handle many features, it remains sensitive to class sample balance. The authors should provide details on how this issue was addressed.
9. Another important point is that it is considered best practice within the Google Earth Engine (GEE) user community to make scripts and code used in studies publicly available. I suggest that the authors create a GitHub repository for the project, upload the relevant scripts and data, and cite the repository link in the paper. This will not only help increase the visibility of the study's findings but also contribute to knowledge sharing and support the broader research community.

Results

1. Expand the Results section by providing a more detailed explanation of the findings associated with the figures.

• The current text is concise and would benefit from more in-depth descriptions to help readers fully grasp the insights revealed by the analyses.

• Explain the context of the results and enrich the visual and technical interpretation of the figures to provide a broader and deeper understanding of the findings presented.

Discussion

The discussion section lacks clarity and needs to include a comparison of studies in literature.

In this sense, I ask the authors to include a broad and more detailed comparison with the existing literature and to include a deeper articulation of the potential applications of the results found with the existing literature. This will help to fill this gap.

Another fundamental point that deserves attention to be incorporated a dedicated section that compares the methods and analyses presented in this article with other similar studies conducted in other geographic contexts, in other countries and/or regions.

Regarding the limitations of the present study, I suggest that a paragraph be included that describes in detail the limitations of the study in order to further strengthen the manuscript. This should cover methodological restrictions, use of tools or any other aspects.

Conclusions

The study's findings offer valuable insights that can shape future research on Land use and Land cover aspects. I suggest the authors emphasize the originality of their results and highlight potential research gaps to guide future investigations. Framing this section to underline these aspects will encourage further studies and provide a solid foundation for advancing the knowledge established in this work.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I liked the idea of this paper but didn't feel it delivered on arguments supporting its assertions. I think it could be revamped to meet this requirement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance of the study is related to innovation and sustainable development goals. In this regard, the role of standards as a guarantee of productivity, compliance, sustainability and safety of new products and processes is shown. The objective of this article "is to assess the potential for the adoption of land cover land use standards by (1) preparing a legend for Ghana as a pilot country in Sub-Saharan Africa following the standards ISO 19144-2, (2) preparing a land cover dataset of Ghana for 2023, (3) engaging experts in Ghana, Africa and globally to document the challenges and the opportunities of the adoption of standards for land cover and to make this process sustainable". This has also determined the structure of the article.
When finalizing the article, the authors should make the following changes and revisions:
1. It is necessary to expand the literature review with research materials regarding the application and importance of standards and in particular ISO 19144-2. This will also help reduce the self-citation rate, which is currently 14%.
2. It is not clear why the survey includes experts from different regions of the world, and not just from Ghana. I suggest that this be explained by the authors in point 2.4.
3. In the "Discussion" section, 10 publications are cited, and some are cited multiple times (for example, 33). The place for most of them is in the first section. Only those that support the results should remain in this section.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment."

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments have been well addressed, and I have some minor issues this time:

1. It is not necessary to mark the number of features in Figure 1.  Please also polish this figure to make it more readable.
2.  Table 2 should be further designed. The current display is not appropriate (too wide, too many blanks)
3. The resolution of all figures should be increased to meet the publication standard.
4. The current title of this article is not fully covered by the content. I think taking this work as a case study is much better than representing it as a review work (challenge and opportunity)

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I thank the authors for incorporating the suggested improvements into the paper. In this regard, I consider the manuscript suitable for acceptance in Land Journal.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf