Multi-Criteria Assessment of the Environmental Sustainability of Agroecosystems in the North Benin Agricultural Basin Using Satellite Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have completed the review of manuscript wherein authors have described sustainability of agroecosystem using satellite data and a series of environmental sustainability criteria. The manuscript is nicely organized and worthy of publication. However, there are a few aspects that should be addressed before acceptance.

1. My major concern is about the potential limitations of the study keeping in mind the validity levels of satellite data.
2. How were 12 land cover classes determined? Was there any ground truthing of the collected data?
3. What was the criteria for different weightages of environmental externalities? Not a description of the criteria in the Methods section.
4. Methods section is too lengthy; it should be reduced substantially and not to include theoretical aspects / concepts.
5. Results should be rearranged under suitable sub-heads and explained.
6. Likewise, discussion should be rearranged as the results to provide a better overview of the findings of the study.

Author Response

Comment 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this positive remark regarding the quality of the English. We appreciate your feedback.

Comment 2: Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? Can be improved.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this general observation. While the comment does not specify which aspects of the introduction could be improved, we have re-examined the section carefully to ensure that it provides a solid background on the challenges of landscape sustainability assessment, the role of land cover information in evaluating negative environmental externalities, and the conceptual foundation of the LESI framework. Nevertheless, we remain open to incorporating any specific suggestions the reviewer or editorial team may have to further strengthen the introduction.

Comment 3: Are the methods adequately described? Can be improved.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. We have clarified key aspects of the methodology in the revised version, particularly regarding land covers class nomenclature, ground-truthing procedures (L175-L188), and the weighting of environmental criteria (L391-L405). Although the Methods section remains detailed due to the complexity of the LESI computation, we believe these improvements enhance clarity and reproducibility of the method.

Comment 4: Are the results clearly presented? Can be improved.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this comment. We have reviewed the presentation of the results section to enhance clarity and coherence. Specifically, we have improved the referencing of figures in the text to better guide the reader through the key findings.

Comment 5: Are the conclusions supported by the results? Can be improved.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this observation. While the comment does not point to specific inconsistencies, we have carefully reviewed the conclusion to ensure that it accurately reflects and synthesises the main findings of the study. We have clarified some sentences of the conclusion. We remain fully open to incorporating further refinements should reviewer or editorial team identify specific aspects requiring clarification or reinforcement.

Comment 6: Are all figures and tables clear and well presented? Can be improved.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this remark. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have improved the presentation of figures, particularly in the Results section (lines: 633, 643, 648, 653, 677–679), to enhance clarity and facilitate interpretation. We remain attentive to any additional suggestions that could further improve the presentation quality.

Comment 7: My major concern is about the potential limitations of the study keeping in mind the validity levels of satellite data?

Answer: We appreciate this important remark of the reviewer. In response, we have added a dedicated paragraph to the Discussion section (Lines 806–854) to explicitly address the limitations related to the classification of satellite imagery, which is the foundational dataset for the LESI computation. We clarify that the land cover maps were generated using the Moringa chain, which integrates SPOT 6/7, Sentinel-2, and SRTM data through object-based classification using the Random Forest algorithm. Despite these methodological strengths, the resulting classification accuracy (64% for Bagou, 76% for Ouenou, and 73% for Parakou) indicate varying levels of uncertainty. We now discuss the potential implications of classification errors on LESI values and emphasise that increasing classification accuracy would improve the precision of the sustainability index. We also highlight possible sources of misclassification (e.g. spectral confusion, fragmented land features) and suggest future improvements, such as the integration of more diversified ground-truth datasets. We also better emphasize that the primary contribution of this article lies in the methodological conceptualization of a novel, innovative, and integrative indicator for assessing landscape environmental sustainability. We thank the reviewer for encouraging us to better contextualise the methodological limitations of our satellite-based approach.

Comment 8: How were 12 land cover classes determined? Was there any ground truthing of the collected data?

Answer: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. The 12-land cover classes used in the classification were defined based on the authors’ in-depth knowledge of the land-use systems and ecological configurations specific to the three study sites, and local experts consultations, as now mentioned in the revised version of the manuscript. These classes reflect the diversity of natural and anthropogenic land cover types observed across the landscapes and were selected to capture key ecological gradients and land use intensities relevant for the LESI assessment.

In addition, a comprehensive ground-truthing campaign was conducted prior to classification. Field data were collected along selected transects using the QField mobile application installed on tablets. This process involved in situ identification and georeferencing of land cover types, followed by the digitisation of polygons through photo-interpretation using SPOT 6/7 imagery. This methodology is now better described in the manuscript (L174 – L187).

Comment 9: What was the criteria for different weightages of environmental externalities? Not a description of the criteria in the Methods section.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the need to clarify the criteria used to assign weights to environmental externalities. In the previous version of the manuscript, we had already provided an initial explanation. However, in response to this valuable comment, we have thoroughly reformulated the paragraph to enhance clarity, transparency, and methodological rigour. The revised version now explains in more detail than the weighting scheme was implemented in two steps: (1) assigning an equal weight of 0.25 to each of the four major environmental systems (hydrosphere, pedosphere, atmosphere, and biosphere), based on their equally critical contribution to landscape sustainability; and (2) distributing the 0.25 weight equally among the criteria associated with each system. This approach is intended to avoid subjective bias and to ensure reproducibility, particularly in the absence of consensus from a panel of experts that would clearly hierarchize the importance of these criteria in regards of human induced environmental negative externalities. We believe the revised text (now lines L391 – L405) offers a clearer justification of our methodological choice, while acknowledging its limitations and potential for future refinement.

Comment 10: Methods section is too lengthy; it should be reduced substantially and not to include theoretical aspects/concepts?

Answer: We acknowledge and appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the length of the Methods section. We fully agree that clarity and conciseness are important in scientific writing. However, the Methods section currently comprises ten structured subsections (including site description, data sources, methodological framework, indicator construction, scoring and weighting procedures, and spatial aggregation steps). This structure was designed to ensure full transparency, scientific rigour, and reproducibility of our approach, particularly considering the novelty of the LESI framework and the multiple stages involved in its computation. In our view, significantly reducing this section would risk omitting essential information that is necessary to understand, assess, and reproduce the LESI indicator, potentially limiting the interpretability and credibility of the results. Furthermore, we would like to draw the reviewers’ attention to the fact that one of the specificities of this study lies in the need to incorporate theoretical and conceptual aspects directly into the methodology section. This is because the assessment of the criteria for each land cover class is, methodologically speaking, grounded in a literature review. Consequently, these literature-based elements are an integral part of the methodological approach and must therefore be included within this section.

Comment 11: Results should be rearranged under suitable subheads and explained.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this remark. In the current version of the manuscript, the ‘Results’ section is already structured into three subsections – Human Disturbance Coefficient, Spatial Variation of the Human Disturbance Coefficient, and LESI Maps – which reflect the main outputs derived from our proposed evaluation framework. This structure was intentionally designed to align with the methodological steps and maintain logical consistency between the analytical process and the results.

We agree, however, that further clarification was needed to enhance readability. Therefore, we have revised the entire section to improve the clarity of figure presentation (lines: 633, 643, 648, 653, 677–679) and ensure that all visual elements are better integrated into the text, in order to prevent confusion for the reader.

Comment 12: Likewise, discussion should be rearranged as the results to provide a better overview of the findings of the study.

Answer: We acknowledge the reviewer’s comment and agree on the importance of presenting a well-structured and coherent discussion. In this revised version, we introduced the three following sub-titles in the Discussion in order to better clarify its structure and increase its readability:

• 1. LESI results and implications for rural landscape sustainability in the study area
• 2. Advantages of the LESI index
• 3. Methodological limitations and development perspectives

The Discussion structure does not perfectly mirror the Results structure, because the Results section presents two sections that are dedicated to the HDC and that HDC is an intermediate result necessary to arrive to the main result which is the LESI maps. We found more relevant to focus the Discussion on the main result which is the LESI, in order to avoid a too long Discussion and to avoid redundancy of interpretation between HDC and LESI. In addition, we found important to highlight the advantages of LESI in a specific section. Similarly, we found important to have a section dedicated to Methodological limitations and development perspectives.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached review. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1: Firstly, I want to apologize for this slow review and for not appreciating how minor the fraction of surface water is in these three areas of Benin in my previous review. However, the current method does not know if a particular surface water body is upstream or adjacent or ‘close to’ a ‘ecologically pressured’ land type. The text near L431 and L450 should be improved.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thoughtful observation and for revisiting their previous assessment regarding the role of surface water in our study areas. We fully agree that the current LESI scoring methodology does not explicitly capture the spatial configuration between surface water bodies and adjacent or upstream land cover types, which indeed limits the ability to assess direct hydrological connectivity or proximity-based pressures. In response to this important remark, we have revised the subsection (L449 – L459) to clarify that the scores attributed to surface water classes reflect indirect ecological pressures, such as upstream sedimentation, nutrient loading, or land use encroachment, which are not spatially modelled in the current framework but considered through expert-informed reasoning based on general ecological principles. More importantly, we also acknowledge this methodological limitation in discussion section more clearly in the revised text and suggest that future methodological refinements could incorporate flow accumulation models, riparian buffer analyses, or hydrological network data to better represent pressure propagation within landscapes (806-816).

We are grateful for this comment, which allowed us to improve the transparency and nuance of our approach.

 

Comment 2: I feel the authors should make an effort to omit duplication. There is clearly repetition of points in the discussion or conclusion (L784-L787). The repeated statements only need to be in one or the other. I think it should be possible to trim over a page of duplication and this would make the paper more enjoyable to read. There is repetition near L237 of text found at L215.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this valuable observation regarding duplication between the discussion and conclusion sections, as well as within the methodology. We acknowledge that some statements were unnecessarily repeated. In the revised version of the manuscript, we have carefully reviewed and edited the lines L225-L227 and L867-L871 to eliminate redundancies and streamline the narrative. These changes have resulted in a more concise and fluid presentation of the key messages, without compromising the clarity or completeness of the findings. We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion, which has improved the overall readability of the paper.

Comment 3: Another criticism relates to use of scientific jargon. Some readers will know what pedosphere, ichtyologically, hemeroby mean but neither is in the dictionary I use and Microsoft Word also does not recognize the word hemeroby. Hemeroby is sufficiently introduced but a single sentence defining pedosphere is suggested. Does ‘ichthyological’ (L120) relate to fishing?

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this helpful remark regarding the use of scientific terminology. We acknowledge that certain terms, while commonly used in environmental and ecological sciences, may not be familiar to all readers. In response:

• We have added a concise definition of the pedosphere at its first mention to clarify that it refers to the soil system as one of the four key components of the natural environment (L222).
• We confirm that ichthyological indeed relates to the fish fauna (i.e., fish biodiversity) of aquatic ecosystems. We have reworded the sentence for clarity to avoid potential confusion (L120).
• While hemeroby is already introduced and defined, we have ensured that its usage remains consistent and clearly explained throughout the manuscript.

We hope these adjustments improve the accessibility of the manuscript without compromising its scientific precision.

Comment 4: Another important point comes at L217. Greenhouse gases affect sustainability globally, not on the landscape scale. Maybe this sentence can be rewording or some extra words can be added regarding GHGs.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this insightful remark. We fully agree that greenhouse gas emissions have global consequences, and that spatial indices such as the LESI primarily assess environmental sustainability at the landscape scale. To address this concern, we have reformulated the sentence to explicitly clarify that the LESI capture landscape-level pressures, including those with global externalities like GHG emissions, by considering their local land-based sources (e.g. deforestation fires, biomass burning) (L281-L283). This nuance is now reflected in the revised version of the manuscript to avoid any ambiguity regarding the scale of interpretation.

Comment 5: L36: I had to read the last sentence of the abstract twice to understand it. The reader must understand that the weighting relates to the negative externalities. This can be understood from earlier in the abstract (L24).

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We agree that the original formulation may have been ambiguous and could lead to misinterpretation. We have revised the final sentence of the abstract (L36-L38) to clarify that the variable weighting schemes refer to refining of the evaluation of negative environmental externalities, in line with the multi-criteria analysis described earlier in the abstract. This adjustment aims to enhance readability and ensure conceptual consistency.

Comment 6: L106: I don’t like the use of the long dashes before and after ‘the Landscape Environmental Sustainability Index’. The dashes could be replaced by commas, although an editor can have weighed in on this.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this stylistic suggestion. As recommended, we have replaced the long dashes with commas in L107 to improve the clarity and alignment with standard punctuation practices.

Comment 7: L108: I think ‘appropriate’ fits this context better than ‘representative’ L119: chemical – > inorganic.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these helpful suggestions. We have rephrased the sentence to better express our idea (L108-L109) and we replace ‘chemical’ with ‘inorganic’ (L118) to improve accuracy and clarity.

Comment 8: L171: Give a reference for Random Forest.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this remark. As suggested, a reference for the Random Forest algorithm has been added to the manuscript (L172).

Comment 9: L200 (Table 2 and elsewhere): Use a decimal point, not a comma. There is a mix in this paper. L273: emitted – > affected (‘deforestation’ does not emit).

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail. We have replaced all commas with decimal points throughout the tables and in Figure 4 to ensure consistency with international scientific standards. Additionally, we have clarified the expression to emphasize that it refers specifically to emissions resulting from deforestation fires (L286).

Comment 10: L274: SO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Answer: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important clarification. SO₂ is indeed not a greenhouse gas, and we have accordingly removed it from the text (Line 286).

Comment 11: L278: ‘electricity’ can be obtained without CO2 emissions. I suggest ‘electricity from fossil fuel combustion’ if this is what the authors meant.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this helpful suggestion. We have clarified this sentence (L284-L287). We have also updated the information from reference [51] by reporting the appropriate data accordingly (L290-L295).

Comment 12: L328: Provide a reference for heavy metals in fertilisers.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this pertinent remark. A reference has been added to support the statement regarding the presence of heavy metals in fertilisers (L344).

Comment 13: L368 (Table 3): GHG and Air pollution row for Score 7: Please change ‘thermal energy’ to ‘energy from combustion’. Thermal energy is not the correct term.

Answer: We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The term ‘thermal energy’ has been replaced with ‘energy from combustion’ in Table 3 to improve accuracy and clarity (L383).

Comment 14: L388 (Table 4): middle heading does not make sense. This is not ‘Land cover type’ info. I believe it should be ‘Criterion’.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. The middle heading in Table 4 has been corrected from ‘Land cover type’ to ‘Criteria’ to accurately reflect the content presented (L407).

Comment 15: L417: It is not explained why infiltration is reduced when the natural formations like forests are degraded. Is it because the soil becomes hard?

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this relevant observation. We have clarified the sentence (L434-438) to explain that the reduction in infiltration following forest degradation is mainly due to the loss of vegetative cover, which exposes the soil surface, reduces its porosity and organic matter content, and increases compaction and crust formation, ultimately hindering water infiltration and promoting surface runoff.

Comment 16: L442: ‘preserve’ is the wrong word. L548: Please introduce soil sealing.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these pertinent suggestions. The term ‘preserve’ has been replaced with ‘host’ to better reflect the intended meaning (L468). Additionally, the concept of soil sealing in urban areas has been clarified and explicitly introduced in the revised manuscript (L575 – L576).

Comment 17: L663: ‘10 km’ could be replaced by ‘7 km’ …. seems more accurate, but I am fine with 10 km.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this remark. After careful consideration, we have decided to maintain the 10 km reference, as it aligns with the spatial resolution and extent of the analysis conducted (L693).

Comment 18: L725: ‘multidimensional’ seems like an exaggeration. There are two spatial dimensions and the index dimension, but is this what the authors mean? The index is basically turning multiple dimensions (e.g., criteria) into a single index for each 1 km × 1 km cell.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for this relevant observation. We agree that the term ‘multidimensional’ may be misleading in this context. To avoid any exaggeration or ambiguity, we have removed the word from the sentence (L757-759) in the revised version.

Comment 19: L746: negatives – > negative L797: repetitive…. please avoid

Answer: We thank the reviewer for these helpful remarks. We have corrected the grammatical issue by replacing ‘negatives’ with ‘negative’ (L779). In addition, we have reformulated the sentence at L867-L871 to avoid repetition and improve clarity.

Comment 20: L800: ‘under-developed’ – > ‘less developed’ ‘under-developed’ sounds like you are encouraging development, but this is a preference.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We have replaced ‘under-developed’ with ‘less developed’ (L884) to ensure more neutral and appropriate wording.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is much improved

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 Authors

I have critically evaluated the ms under reference. I have a few concerns:

1. What was the criteria and rationale for selecting the three sites?
2. What was the multi-criteria/weighted approach used in this study? and why?
3. What was the significance of findings for other under-developed and less developed countries encountering similar anthropogenic pressures?
4. Since the selected areas have moderate anthropogenic impacts, what shall be the implications if there are high impacts?
5. Abstract is not informative, does not provide a complete outline of the work conducted, no mention of methods.
6. In the present form, manuscript is more so a rhetoric and lacks scientific robustness.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor to moderate editing is required

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached review. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript Multi-criteria assessment of the environmental sustainability of agroecosystems in the North-Benin agricultural basin using satellite data written by Mikhaïl Padonou et al  is about a new approach for multi-criteria assessment of environmental sustainability in rural landscape based on satellite data. 

Suggestions for Improvement
In Section 2.3 (Global Methodological Framework) and Section 2.7 (Weighting of HDC evaluation criteria), please provide a clearer rationale for the assignment of weights. Were they derived from empirical evidence, expert judgment, or literature review? A brief explanation is needed.

Lines 154–156: Please elaborate on how the accuracy values were calculated. This is crucial to assess the reliability of your classification.

Lines 131–133: The attribution here seems misplaced; please relocate it to the appropriate section of the manuscript.

Several figures, including Figure 5, are not sufficiently readable in their current form. Please improve resolution and ensure that legends, color scales, and axes are clearly labelled. Also, clarify what exactly the figure represents—is it a pixel-based classification map or an index representation? Avoid redundancy.

The Justification of criteria scores currently found in Section 2.8 includes interpretative content that would be better placed in the Discussion section. Here, the authors could compare their approach and assumptions with findings from related studies, helping to ground their reasoning in the scientific literature.

The results indicate a dominance of land cover classes under anthropogenic disturbance, but the manuscript must go beyond this observation. Please clearly articulate the value added by your study. What new understanding or actionable insights does the LESI index provide that would not be captured by land cover classification alone?

The sentence at the end of the Discussion raises concern: "this method could be adapted to differentiate...". This adaptation appears to be a core part of the study's scope and not a future direction. Please clarify.

In the Conclusion, simply stating that the method helps to "better understand human impacts" is too generic. Define the specific objectives achieved, and how this framework offers new utility for land-use planners compared to existing tools.