Recent Advances in the EAGLE Concept—Monitoring the Earth’s Surface Based on a New Land Characterisation Approach
, Gerard Hazeu 4, Michael Bock 5, Barbara Kosztra 6, Christoph Perger 7, Gebhard Banko 8, Tomas Soukup 9, Nuria Valcarcel Sanz 10, Stefan Kleeschulte 11, Julián Delgado Hernández 12 and Emanuele Mancosu 13
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn this paper, the motivation and the technical approach of the EAGLE concept with its matrix and UML model implementation are explained. Supported by a number of experimental and operational use cases, the research holds significant practical implications. While the manuscript demonstrates coherent structure and clear exposition, with satisfactory responses to previous reviewers' comments, the following aspects require improvement before acceptance:
- Though the study emphasizes the motivation and technical framework of EAGLE construction, it lacks critical analysis of methodological limitations. Supplemental discussion on constraints is recommended.
- The academic and practical contributions should be further highlighted, preferably in the Introduction or Conclusions and Outlook sections.
- The article mentions its application in the EU's Copernicus program but lacks specific explanations on how it improves monitoring efficiency or analytical capabilities. Expanded discussions on implementation outcomes are advised.
Author Response
Comment 1: Though the study emphasizes the motivation and technical framework of EAGLE construction, it lacks critical analysis of methodological limitations. Supplemental discussion on constraints is recommended.
Response 1: This issue has already been addressed in the section 2.5 “Comparison of the EAGLE Matrix and Model: advantages and disadvantages”. The overall constraints of the concept as a whole (regardless of using matrix or model) can be discerned from the text and should in any case be considered in the context of whether the matrix or UML model are being used.
Comment 2: The academic and practical contributions should be further highlighted, preferably in the Introduction or Conclusions and Outlook sections.
Response 2: The paper already lists the relevant academic source material and the practical development of the approach leading up to the current version of the EAGLE approach. Any further elaboration would not add value to paper and could result in it becoming verbose and more difficult to engage with.
Comment 3: The article mentions its application in the EU's Copernicus program but lacks specific explanations on how it improves monitoring efficiency or analytical capabilities. Expanded discussions on implementation outcomes are advised.
Response 3: A further example of the use of the EAGLE data model in the context of the Copernicus programme has been added as section 2.6.
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments: The revised manuscript have addressed the reviewers' comments and improves upon the original submission. However, several issues still need attention.
Comment1. The novelty of the EAGLE concept in the introduction and discussion by contrasting it more clearly with previous approaches needs to be enhanced.
Comment2. The connection between the problem statement and the proposed solution could be further strengthened, e.g., explicitly showing how the EAGLE concept resolves the identified issues in land monitoring.
Comment3. In explanation of the EAGLE matrix and UML model, more specifics are needed on the bar-coding process, e.g., how the scoring system was developed and validated.
Comment4. More details on data collection and processing would enhance the work’s reproducibility.
Comment5. The figures and tables could be improved for clarity, such as providing more detailed captions and explanations for the matrix and model structures.
Comment6. Ensure the sentences are simplified for broad readability.
Comment7. The authors should further elaborate on the potential impacts and benefits for end-users and decision-makers, to enhance this work’s significance.
.
Author Response
Comment 1: The novelty of the EAGLE concept in the introduction and discussion by contrasting it more clearly with previous approaches needs to be enhanced.
Response 1: The novelty of the EAGLE approach has been clearly explained throughout the paper with descriptions of the approach and its use cases. The opening sentence of section 2 describes EAGLE as a “paradigm shift away from a “paper map” based world”.
Comment 2: The connection between the problem statement and the proposed solution could be further strengthened, e.g., explicitly showing how the EAGLE concept resolves the identified issues in land monitoring.
Response 2: The whole paper addresses this issue. It is difficult to see how it can be further elaborated.
Comment 3: In explanation of the EAGLE matrix and UML model, more specifics are needed on the bar-coding process, e.g., how the scoring system was developed and validated.
Response 3: An additional bullet point list has been added to further explain the coding of the Bar Code Values (BCVs).
Comment 4: More details on data collection and processing would enhance the work’s reproducibility.
Response 4: The EAGLE concept is source data set agnostic and therefore any processing of input data will be controlled by the user. EAGLE is a semantic analysis approach which allows decomposition, comparison and characterisation of nomenclatures and real-world features via their definitions. The only processing required is related to the bar-coding approach and that has been adequately described.
Comment 5: The figures and tables could be improved for clarity, such as providing more detailed captions and explanations for the matrix and model structures.
Response 5: The captions of the figures have been reviewed and extended / clarified where appropriate.
Comment 6: Ensure the sentences are simplified for broad readability.
Response 6: This is a vague and open-ended comment. All of the authors are highly proficient at writing in English and for the corresponding author it is their mother tongue. The paper has been prepared for a reasonably scientific audience as would be expected for a journal of Land’s quality.
Comment 7: The authors should further elaborate on the potential impacts and benefits for end-users and decision-makers, to enhance this work’s significance.
Response 7: The impacts and benefits of the EAGLE concept are clearly stated throughout the paper and can be considered its raison d'être.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI consider the improvements in the manuscript sufficient to make this able for publication. If the academic editor considers this paper good enough for publication I don't see problems for that.
Author Response
Comment 1: I consider the improvements in the manuscript sufficient to make this able for publication. If the academic editor considers this paper good enough for publication I don't see problems for that.
Response 2: The authors fully agree with the reviewers comment.
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
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsArnold and his/her colleagues provide a comprehensive review of the motivations and technical approaches behind the EAGLE concept, particularly focusing on matrix and model implementation. The introduction and development of the EAGLE concept are highly significant for the quantification and monitoring of land use changes and global changes, making this a valuable and important contribution. I particularly like the use of the word "Beyond" in the title, as it aptly captures the manuscript's aim to surpass previous work. I only have a few minor comments:
1. Line 82-83: [4] [5] [6] should be changed to [4-6]. Line 147: [10] [11] should be changed to [10,11]. Line 151: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] should be changed to [14-18]. Please carefully check the citation format throughout the manuscript.
2. In the legend of Figure 5, the tilde (~) under "CH, Param." should be removed.
3. The formatting of Section 2.3.2 "Semantic Design" is incorrect.
4. The resolution of Figure 7 needs to be improved.
5. Figure 8 should be presented as a table.
Author Response
Comment 1: Line 82-83: [4] [5] [6] should be changed to [4-6]. Line 147: [10] [11] should be changed to [10,11]. Line 151: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] should be changed to [14-18]. Please carefully check the citation format throughout the manuscript.
Response 1: All cross references have been updated.
Comment 2: In the legend of Figure 5, the tilde (~) under "CH, Param." should be removed.
Response 2: Tilda removed.
Comment 3: The formatting of Section 2.3.2 "Semantic Design" is incorrect.
Response 3: Formatting corrected.
Comment 4: The resolution of Figure 7 needs to be improved.
Response 4: Highest quality version of the figure is being used.
Comment 5: Figure 8 should be presented as a table.
Response 5: Figure 8 has been converted to a table as Table 1.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral comments: The manuscript introduces the EAGLE concept, representing a significant paradigm shift from traditional land classification to a more nuanced characterization of land features. This approach has the potential to greatly enhance the detail and flexibility of land monitoring, making it a valuable contribution to the field. The written language of this article is adequate, but the following issues need special attention.
Comment 1.The paper is well-structured, with a clear progression from the introduction of the problem, through the development of the EAGLE concept, to its implementation and future outlook. However, 1) the logical flow could be further strengthened by providing a more detailed comparison of the EAGLE concept with existing land monitoring frameworks; 2) the authors should highlight the innovative aspects more prominently, especially in the abstract and introduction.
Comment 2. The paper uses specialized terminology appropriate everywhere for the subject matter. I suggest that a glossary or a more detailed explanation of key terms, particularly for those less familiar with the field, could improve accessibility
Comment 3. Introduction section, text sharpness
1) e.g., in the first paragraph, text descriptions with similar backgrounds appear somewhat verbose and need to be simplified. Also, To supplement the objectives and significance of this article ( i.e., providing convenience for learning and understanding related technologies, deepening understanding of a certain issue, emphasizing the pursuit of truth or falsification of previous work, etc.).
2) e.g., in the last paragraph, the gaps filled in this study, the problems addressed, and the expected purpose and significance must be strengthened.
3) e.g., various concepts and factual examples lack citation data, which makes it difficult for non-professional readers to read
4) e.g., in Lines 51-53, “All these policies hope to reverse the degradation of ecosystems and the alarming loss of natural capital that undermines our wellbeing and prosperity ”, what are the ways and manifestations of its impact? What is the relationship with the theme of this article?
Comment 4. The content in the table of Figure 2 is readable.
Comment 5. Section 2. The technical approach of the EAGLE concept, including its matrix and model implementation, is explained in detail. Suggestion: The authors might consider including a flowchart or diagram to visually represent how to work with this complex methodology during various real-world applications, which would aid understanding.
Comment 6.Sections 3 and 4. The manuscript references a variety of data sources, e.g., Earth Observation (EO) data, which is crucial for the production of LULC information. However, it would be beneficial to include a small paragraph discussing the limitations and potential biases of the data sources used.
Comment 7. Sections 4. The paper presents several experimental and operational use cases, which effectively demonstrate the applicability of the EAGLE concept. I suggest you include a critical analysis of these cases, discussing both successes and challenges, which would provide a more comprehensive evaluation.
Comment 8. Sections 5. The manuscript concludes with thoughts on the future outlook of the EAGLE concept. Nevertheless, it would be insightful to include a more detailed discussion on how the EAGLE concept could be integrated with emerging technologies, such as AI and machine learning, to further enhance land monitoring. Several recent papers can be referenced as follows:
1. Deep learning in environmental remote sensing: Achievements and challenges, Remote Sensing of Environment, 2020, 241.
2. Calibration for Improving the Medium-Range Soil Forecast over Central Tibet: Effects of Objective Metrics' Diversity. Atmos.,15(9):1107.
3. Fusion of Spectral and Topographic Features for Land Use Mapping Using a Machine Learning Framework for a Regional Scale Application, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 2024, 196(11): 1-22.
4 Land Surface Temperature Classification Using Machine Learning Algorithms for the region of Kolli Hills, Tamil Nadu, India, 2024 10th International Conference on Communication and Signal Processing (ICCSP) (2024): 671-676.
Author Response
Comment 1: The paper is well-structured, with a clear progression from the introduction of the problem, through the development of the EAGLE concept, to its implementation and future outlook. However, 1) the logical flow could be further strengthened by providing a more detailed comparison of the EAGLE concept with existing land monitoring frameworks; 2) the authors should highlight the innovative aspects more prominently, especially in the abstract and introduction.
Response 1: Further details provided on the differences between the EAGLE concept and conventional classification approaches. The innovative and important nature of the EAGLE concept and how it has been about by European organisations were emphasised.
Comment 2: The paper uses specialized terminology appropriate everywhere for the subject matter. I suggest that a glossary or a more detailed explanation of key terms, particularly for those less familiar with the field, could improve accessibility.
Response 2: A glossary was added to paper.
Comment 3: Introduction section, text sharpness
1) e.g., in the first paragraph, text descriptions with similar backgrounds appear somewhat verbose and need to be simplified. Also, To supplement the objectives and significance of this article ( i.e., providing convenience for learning and understanding related technologies, deepening understanding of a certain issue, emphasizing the pursuit of truth or falsification of previous work, etc.).
Response 3.1: Text has been revised to improve understanding and the aims of the work.
2) e.g., in the last paragraph, the gaps filled in this study, the problems addressed, and the expected purpose and significance must be strengthened.
Response 3.2: The transition from the background material to the description of the EAGLE concepts and data model have been improved.
3) e.g., various concepts and factual examples lack citation data, which makes it difficult for non-professional readers to read.
Response 3.3: Readers can now refer to the glossary.
4) e.g., in Lines 51-53, “All these policies hope to reverse the degradation of ecosystems and the alarming loss of natural capital that undermines our wellbeing and prosperity ”, what are the ways and manifestations of its impact? What is the relationship with the theme of this article?
Response 3.4: The impacts and responses to effective policy implementation can be highly diverse and thus difficult to report in detail. The text has been improved to communicate the overall sentiment.
Comment 4: The content in the table of Figure 2 is readable.
Response 4: It is not intended for the reader to be able to discern every word in the figure. It is illustrate of the overall structure of the EAGLE data model in matrix form. further details are given in Figure 3.
Comment 5: Section 2. The technical approach of the EAGLE concept, including its matrix and model implementation, is explained in detail. Suggestion: The authors might consider including a flowchart or diagram to visually represent how to work with this complex methodology during various real-world applications, which would aid understanding.
Response 5: Two additional figures (7 & 8 ) have been added to illustrate the approaches to the main uses of the bar-coding approach for sematic decomposition and class definition.
Comment 6: The manuscript references a variety of data sources, e.g., Earth Observation (EO) data, which is crucial for the production of LULC information. However, it would be beneficial to include a small paragraph discussing the limitations and potential biases of the data sources used.
Response 6: A paragraph was added at the end of 4 to make potential users aware of the biases and limitations which will likely carry over from the original EO interpretation even when using such a powerful and flexible approach as the EAGLE concept.
Comment 7: The paper presents several experimental and operational use cases, which effectively demonstrate the applicability of the EAGLE concept. I suggest you include a critical analysis of these cases, discussing both successes and challenges, which would provide a more comprehensive evaluation.
Response 7: The use cases in the paper are intended to be illustrative only covering breadth of potential applications. There are other examples, for instance at country level, where the EAGLE concepts and data model are being deployed and it was felt that an in depth critical review of each case would detract from the overall aim of the paper to encourage the transition from classification to the characterisation of the Earth’s surface. This would be an excellent idea for a future paper.
Comment 8: Sections 5. The manuscript concludes with thoughts on the future outlook of the EAGLE concept. Nevertheless, it would be insightful to include a more detailed discussion on how the EAGLE concept could be integrated with emerging technologies, such as AI and machine learning, to further enhance land monitoring.
Response 8: An additional paragraph was added to section 5. The AI land monitoring is in general some way behind the developments described in the paper being undertaken by other in this field. Many AI approaches remain stuck in the use of fixed labels as they are wishing to build huge collections of training pairs rather than give more detailed descriptions of the features they hope to map.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWe requires improvements in the paper "Beyond classification to the characterisation of the Earth’s surface" to make it more readable and to achieve its objectives.
L25: the meaning of "EAGLE" must be clear. Is it an acronym?
L90: check some parts of the manuscript like this: "was identified by [7]" the main authors' names must be mentioned, as "was identified by Comber, Fisher, and Wadsworth [7]"
This manuscript seems to be a book chapter or a proceeding paper which was not well adapted to the form of a journal article.
L164: the authors calls this manuscript as a chapter. Is this text an adaptation from a book chapter?
Several sentences of this manuscript came from i) EAGLE documentation: https://land.copernicus.eu/en/eagle
and from ii) "The EAGLE Concept – Applications of an Object-Oriented and Multi-Purpose Data Modelling Approach for Land Cover and Land Use Monitoring" proceeding paper: https://nikal.eventsair.com/NikalWebsitePortal/living-planet-symposium-2019/lps19/Agenda/AgendaItemDetail?id=29dd17de-09c7-419d-8558-6040526f6bcf
Author Response
Comment 1: We requires improvements in the paper "Beyond classification to the characterisation of the Earth’s surface" to make it more readable and to achieve its objectives.
Response 1: Extensive edits have been made to paper to improve the readability and a glossary has been added to help less expert users.
Comment 2: L25: the meaning of "EAGLE" must be clear. Is it an acronym?
Response 2: EAGLE has been explained in the abstract.
Comment 3: L90: check some parts of the manuscript like this: "was identified by [7]" the main authors' names must be mentioned, as "was identified by Comber, Fisher, and Wadsworth [7]"
Response 3: All cross references have been updated.
Comment 4: This manuscript seems to be a book chapter or a proceeding paper which was not well adapted to the form of a journal article. L164: the authors calls this manuscript as a chapter. Is this text an adaptation from a book chapter?
Response 4: These references referred to the parts of the paper. The wording has been changed to "section".
Comment 5: Several sentences of this manuscript came from i) EAGLE documentation: https://land.copernicus.eu/en/eagle and "The EAGLE Concept – Applications of an Object-Oriented and Multi-Purpose Data Modelling Approach for Land Cover and Land Use Monitoring".
Response 5: The authors of this paper were responsible for writing the documentation that is found on the CLMS website and the paper referenced. It is therefore highly likely that the same wording is used. In this case we feel it is best to maintain a consistency in description of the concepts for readers who may also be looking at the website and the paper in the context of this publication.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsUnfortunately, from my point of view this manuscript still seems to be a book chapter or a proceeding paper which was not well adapted to the form of a journal article. This manuscript do not add substantial advances compared with EAGLE documentation, being still a rewritten presentation of this documentation.
