Spatiotemporal Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) Dynamics and Its Drivers in the Melokoza District, South Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors focus on the assessment of temporal and spatial changes in landuse and landcover, as well as the main drivers. The assessment uses common methods for assessing landcover changes. Unfortunately, the assessment of basic drivers is very general, not supported by any data. The main driver is population growth. This claim could be supported by statistical data. I recommend the following additions and modifications to the paper: 

• in the introduction, emphasize the aim of the paper and state the basic higlites
  in part 2 2 . Materials and Methods, also include citations of works dealing with the assessment of ecological and environmental impacts of land cover changes
  -provide more detailed information about the sociological survey - how many stakeholders and what age composition were involved in the assessment of historical land use, specify how the survey was conducted
  -  in the  section "results", describe the main drivers of land cover changes and support them with statistical data, the conclusion that the main drivers were population growth is very general
  

   include the description of the main ecological and environmental impacts of land cover changes
  - in the discussion, emphasize the new contribution of the authors, in what they improved the methodological procedures
  - in the conclusion, define the main recommendations for practice - natural resource management

  it is necessary to use the correct terminology - land use cannot be equated with land cover

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not a native speaker, but I suggest correcting the English language.

Author Response

Point-by-point Response to reviewer and editor comments

Manuscript ID: earth-3523925 

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Earth

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers spent reviewing our manuscript to improve its quality. Hence, we are grateful for your scientific contribution. We incorporated the comments and suggestions provided. We showed all the changes with Red highlights.

Comments from the Reviewers:

Reviewer 1

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors focus on the assessment of temporal and spatial changes in landuse and landcover, as well as the main drivers. The assessment uses common methods for assessing landcover changes. Unfortunately, the assessment of basic drivers is very general, not supported by any data. The main driver is population growth. This claim could be supported by statistical data. I recommend the following additions and modifications to the paper: 

Response: We want to thank the reviewer and editor for their encouraging words and positive evaluation of our manuscript.

in the introduction, emphasize the aim of the paper and state the basic higlites
in part 2 2 . Materials and Methods, also include citations of works dealing with the assessment of ecological and environmental impacts of land cover changes

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve made the necessary corrections, as highlighted in Red
-provide more detailed information about the sociological survey - how many stakeholders and what age composition were involved in the assessment of historical land use, specify how the survey was conducted

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which inspired us to enhance our work. In response, we have added the requested section to address the reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the Red highlighted areas.
-  in the  section "results", describe the main drivers of land cover changes and support them with statistical data, the conclusion that the main drivers were population growth is very general
Response: Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We appreciate your insights and have made revisions to enhance the work accordingly. In particular, we have added a section to address the reviewers' feedback. Please refer to the red highlighted areas on the revised manuscript.

 include the description of the main ecological and environmental impacts of land cover changes
- in the discussion, emphasize the new contribution of the authors, in what they improved the methodological procedures
- in the conclusion, define the main recommendations for practice - natural resource management

Response: Thank you very much for your detailed observation. The reviewer's comment has been critically considered and corrected. We have now incorporated the section to accommodate it. Please see the red shaded parts

Respect and great applause to all the Reviewers and Editor‼!

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript lacks a consistent investigation of spatiotemporal LULC dynamics and their drivers in the Melokoza district. Several technical and writing issues (including English language quality) negatively impact the study's rigor and clarity.

Major comments:

• The authors need to revise the terms and acronyms, standardizing them throughout the manuscript. There are different forms used to refer to land use and land cover: (a) land use/land cover, (b) land use land cover, (c) land uses and land covers, (d) land uses and covers, (e) land cover and usages. I recommend standardizing to "land use and land cover (LULC)". Furthermore, after introducing the acronym use only LULC to refer to land use and land cover. In some sections, the authors also use LULCC without defining it. If they intend to refer to land use and land cover change, the acronym should be clearly defined.
• They refer to the study area as "Melokoza landscape" in the title and in the introduction section, but from Material and Methods onward, they use "Melokoza district" -> Standardize. I suggest using "Melokoza district" throughout the manuscript. In Material and Methods, the authors also describe the location as "Southern Ethiopia", whereas in the title, figures, and other parts of the text it is referred to as "South Ethiopia".
• The figures are of low quality and poorly represent the study area and the results. I recommend revising all figures to enhance Landsat images, slope data, and other relevant information to support the regional characterization and result visualization. Consider adding subsets in the maps to improve the visualization of LULC distribution patterns in the study area, including Landsat images to facilitate reader comprehension.
• The methodological description is inadequate and lacks essential information to support the analysis. They used ground control points but did not specify their distribution, the number of samples per LULC class, or details on algorithm training and validation procedures. In some sections, ground control points are mentioned for validation, while in others, samples seem related to a supervised classification approach. Additionally, the authors do not specify the GIS software used or clarify the tools and procedures applied to the Landsat dataset and post-processing of classification maps.
• The use of images from different seasonal periods for each year is not justified, nor is the potential impact of this choice on the mappings and results discussed. Only the 2023 map was validated, which raises concerns about the consistency of data for 1993 and 2013 and the consistency of the dynamics discussed. 
• The application of NDVI in the study is unclear and methodologically problematic: the authors describe this step as an assessment of vegetation health, but the analysis relies on ranges for LULC classification (e.g., water, built-up, barren land). These classes do not reflect vegetation health metrics. Generalizing NDVI ranges from other studies without site-specific validation is inappropriate for a multitemporal study. In the results, the authors focus on median values of total area, neglecting the proposed health analysis. 

Minor comments:

• Title suggestion: "Spatiotemporal land use and land cover (LULC) dynamic and its drivers in South Ethiopia"
• Abstract: lacks essential information about methodological design and presentation of the results.
• Introduction:

>Authors state that remote sensing is a method for LULC mapping; revise this to clarify its role as a tool.

> GEE is inaccurately described as user-friendly; acknowledge its requirement for programming skills despite available tutorials.

> Replace Landsat photo with Landsat imagery 

• Material and Methods:

> Describe the soil types according to the world soil classification system

> Replace remote sensing image data with Landsat dataset

> "(...) to feel inaccessible parts (...)" replace to feel -> to fill

> Replace figure out with analyze

> Replace photo with images

> This section requires restructuring for logical flow and clarity

• Results:

> Figure 3: What is the unity of the y-axis??

> Figure 4: replace in y-axis: in square kilometer with (km²).

> The accuracy assessment is not linked to a specific subsection (e.g., 3.3)

> Table 6: they cited the overall accuracy and kappa coefficient but presented both after presenting the table

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Point-by-point Response to reviewer and editor comments

Manuscript ID: earth-3523925 

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Earth

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers spent reviewing our manuscript to improve its quality. Hence, we are grateful for your scientific contribution. We incorporated the comments and suggestions provided. We showed all the changes with Red highlights.

 

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript lacks a consistent investigation of spatiotemporal LULC dynamics and their drivers in the Melokoza district. Several technical and writing issues (including English language quality) negatively impact the study's rigor and clarity.

Response: We want to thank the reviewer and editor for their encouraging words, detailed and positive evaluation of our manuscript.

Major comments:

• The authors need to revise the terms and acronyms, standardizing them throughout the manuscript. There are different forms used to refer to land use and land cover: (a) land use/land cover, (b) land use land cover, (c) land uses and land covers, (d) land uses and covers, (e) land cover and usages. I recommend standardizing to "land use and land cover (LULC)". Furthermore, after introducing the acronym use only LULC to refer to land use and land cover. In some sections, the authors also use LULCC without defining it. If they intend to refer to land use and land cover change, the acronym should be clearly defined.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve made the necessary corrections, as highlighted in Red

• They refer to the study area as "Melokoza landscape" in the title and in the introduction section, but from Material and Methods onward, they use "Melokoza district" -> Standardize. I suggest using "Melokoza district" throughout the manuscript. In Material and Methods, the authors also describe the location as "Southern Ethiopia", whereas in the title, figures, and other parts of the text it is referred to as "South Ethiopia".

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which inspired us to enhance our work. In response, we have added the requested section to address the reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the Red highlighted areas.

• The figures are of low quality and poorly represent the study area and the results. I recommend revising all figures to enhance Landsat images, slope data, and other relevant information to support the regional characterization and result visualization. Consider adding subsets in the maps to improve the visualization of LULC distribution patterns in the study area, including Landsat images to facilitate reader comprehension.

Response: Thank you very much for your detailed observation. The reviewer's comment has been critically considered and corrected. We have now incorporated the section to accommodate it. Please see the red shaded parts

 

• The methodological description is inadequate and lacks essential information to support the analysis. They used ground control points but did not specify their distribution, the number of samples per LULC class, or details on algorithm training and validation procedures. In some sections, ground control points are mentioned for validation, while in others, samples seem related to a supervised classification approach. Additionally, the authors do not specify the GIS software used or clarify the tools and procedures applied to the Landsat dataset and post-processing of classification maps.

Response: Thank you for your detailed comments and suggestions on the manuscript. We appreciate your insights and have made revisions to enhance the work accordingly. In particular, we have added a section to address the reviewers' feedback. Please refer to the red highlighted areas on the revised manuscript.

• The use of images from different seasonal periods for each year is not justified, nor is the potential impact of this choice on the mappings and results discussed. Only the 2023 map was validated, which raises concerns about the consistency of data for 1993 and 2013 and the consistency of the dynamics discussed. 

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the necessary revisions and corrections as highlighted in red. We appreciate your contributions to improving the work.

• The application of NDVI in the study is unclear and methodologically problematic: the authors describe this step as an assessment of vegetation health, but the analysis relies on ranges for LULC classification (e.g., water, built-up, barren land). These classes do not reflect vegetation health metrics. Generalizing NDVI ranges from other studies without site-specific validation is inappropriate for a multitemporal study. In the results, the authors focus on median values of total area, neglecting the proposed health analysis. 

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the necessary revisions and corrections as highlighted in red. We appreciate your contributions to improving the work.

Minor comments:

• Title suggestion: "Spatiotemporal land use and land cover (LULC) dynamic and its drivers in South Ethiopia"
• Abstract: lacks essential information about methodological design and presentation of the results.
• Introduction:

Response: Thank you very much for the constructive comment. Now, the reviewer’s comment is considered and corrected as indicated in red highlights in the revised manuscript.

>Authors state that remote sensing is a method for LULC mapping; revise this to clarify its role as a tool.

> GEE is inaccurately described as user-friendly; acknowledge its requirement for programming skills despite available tutorials.

> Replace Landsat photo with Landsat imagery 

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve made the necessary corrections, as highlighted in Red

• Material and Methods:

> Describe the soil types according to the world soil classification system

> Replace remote sensing image data with Landsat dataset

> "(...) to feel inaccessible parts (...)" replace to feel -> to fill

> Replace figure out with analyze

> Replace photo with images

> This section requires restructuring for logical flow and clarity

Thank you for your valuable comments. We have made the necessary revisions and corrections as highlighted in red. We appreciate your contributions to improving the work.

• Results:

> Figure 3: What is the unity of the y-axis??

> Figure 4: replace in y-axis: in square kilometer with (km²).

> The accuracy assessment is not linked to a specific subsection (e.g., 3.3)

> Table 6: they cited the overall accuracy and kappa coefficient but presented both after presenting the table

Response: Accompanied by positive and encouraging evaluation, the reviewer's demand for clearer is well accepted.  Accordingly, we revisited the section and revised it as indicated in red highlights.

 

Respect and great applause to all the Reviewers and Editor‼!

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper quantifies spatiotemporal land uses/cover dynamics and their drivers in the Melokoza landscape, South Ethiopia using geospatial approaches. It is a valuable study, and much work has been done, but there are still some issues and content that need to be revised or explained.

1. The interchangeable use of "land use/cover" and "land use/land cover (LULC)" should be standardized for readability.
2. This work selects the Melokoza landscape from South Ethiopia as the study area. Where does his uniqueness lie?
3. Landsat images from 1993, 2013, and 2023 are used as the data sources, which provide a reasonable time span. However, it does not clarify whether seasonal variations were considered in the classification results.
4. More detailed descriptions of preprocessing steps (e.g., atmospheric correction and radiometric calibration) should be included to enhance methodological reproducibility.
5. Experimental results state the overall accuracy and a Kappa coefficient for the classification but lack details on validation samples (e.g., number, distribution, and collection method).
6. The study identifies population growth and agricultural expansion as key drivers but lacks quantitative support (e.g., demographic data and economic indicators).
7. While NDVI is used to assess vegetation health, the study does not address its limitations (e.g., sensitivity to low vegetation cover, soil background interference).
8. Figure 2 and Figure 5 should include clear scale bars, and the clarity of all the figures needs to be enhanced.

Author Response

Point-by-point Response to reviewer and editor comments

Manuscript ID: earth-3523925 

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Earth

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers spent reviewing our manuscript to improve its quality. Hence, we are grateful for your scientific contribution. We incorporated the comments and suggestions provided. We showed all the changes with Red highlights.

Reviewer 3

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper quantifies spatiotemporal land uses/cover dynamics and their drivers in the Melokoza landscape, South Ethiopia using geospatial approaches. It is a valuable study, and much work has been done, but there are still some issues and content that need to be revised or explained.

Response: We want to thank the reviewer and editor for their encouraging words and positive evaluation of our manuscript.

1. The interchangeable use of "land use/cover" and "land use/land cover (LULC)" should be standardized for readability.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve made the necessary corrections, as highlighted in Red

1. This work selects the Melokoza landscape from South Ethiopia as the study area. Where does his uniqueness lie?

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which inspired us to enhance our work. In response, we have added the requested section to address the reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the Red highlighted areas.

1. Landsat images from 1993, 2013, and 2023 are used as the data sources, which provide a reasonable time span. However, it does not clarify whether seasonal variations were considered in the classification results.

Response: Thank you very much for your detailed observation. The reviewer's comment has been critically considered and corrected. We have now incorporated the section to accommodate it. Please see the red shaded parts

1. More detailed descriptions of preprocessing steps (e.g., atmospheric correction and radiometric calibration) should be included to enhance methodological reproducibility.

Response: Thank you very much for the constructive comment. Now, the reviewer’s comment is considered and corrected as indicated in red highlights in the revised manuscript.

1. Experimental results state the overall accuracy and a Kappa coefficient for the classification but lack details on validation samples (e.g., number, distribution, and collection method).

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve made the necessary corrections, as highlighted in Red

1. The study identifies population growth and agricultural expansion as key drivers but lacks quantitative support (e.g., demographic data and economic indicators).

Response: Thank you very much for critically considering the missed part of the section. Now, it has been revised and corrected as highlighted in red.

 

1. While NDVI is used to assess vegetation health, the study does not address its limitations (e.g., sensitivity to low vegetation cover, soil background interference).

Response: Thank you very much for the constructive comment. Now, the reviewer’s comment is considered and corrected as indicated in red highlights in the revised manuscript.

1. Figure 2 and Figure 5 should include clear scale bars, and the clarity of all the figures needs to be enhanced.

Response: Accompanied by positive and encouraging evaluation, the reviewer's demand for clearer is well accepted.  Accordingly, we revisited the section and revised it as indicated in red highlights.

 

Respect and great applause to all the Reviewers and Editor‼!

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for their diligent work revising the manuscript and addressing the points I raised in my previous review. The changes (highlighted in red in this version) have significantly improved the manuscript. However, I still consider that the figures are of low quality and could be improved.

Author Response

Point-by-point Response to reviewer and editor comments 2^nd Round

Manuscript ID: earth-3523925 

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Earth

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers spent reviewing our manuscript to improve its quality. Hence, we are grateful for your scientific contribution. We incorporated the comments and suggestions provided. We showed all the changes with Red highlights.

 

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I commend the authors for their diligent work revising the manuscript and addressing the points I raised in my previous review. The changes (highlighted in red in this version) have significantly improved the manuscript.

Response: We want to thanks again the reviewer and editor for their encouraging words, detailed and positive evaluation of our manuscript.

However, I still consider that the figures are of low quality and could be improved.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which inspired us to enhance our work. In response, we have addressed the reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the Red highlighted areas.

Respect and great applause to all the Reviewers and Editor‼!

Thank you!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made extensive revisions to the manuscript according to reviewers’ comments, but there are still some minor issues that need to be corrected before publication.

1. The reason for using the Melokoza landscape from South Ethiopia as the research area is still unclear.
2. In Figure 1, the order and relationship of the three regions need to be further clarified.
3. For accuracy assessments, the formula parameters involved need to be referenced by the confusion matrix index.
4. During the revision phase, we would prefer to see your modifications or additions visually in the responses, rather than aimlessly searching through the entire manuscript.

Author Response

Point-by-point Response to reviewer and editor comments 2^nd Round

Manuscript ID: earth-3523925 

Dear Editor-in-Chief,

Earth

Thank you for allowing us to submit a revised version of the manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers spent reviewing our manuscript to improve its quality. Hence, we are grateful for your scientific contribution. We incorporated the comments and suggestions provided. We showed all the changes with Red highlights.

Reviewer 3

The authors have made extensive revisions to the manuscript according to reviewers’ comments, but there are still some minor issues that need to be corrected before publication.

Response: We want to thanks again the reviewer and editor for their encouraging words and positive evaluation of our manuscript.

1. The reason for using the Melokoza landscape from South Ethiopia as the research area is still unclear.

Response: Accompanied by positive and encouraging evaluation, the reviewer's demand for clearer is well accepted.  Accordingly, we revisited the section and revised it as indicated in red highlights in the introduction section of the revised manuscript.

1. In Figure 1, the order and relationship of the three regions need to be further clarified.

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback, which inspired us to enhance our work. In response, we have addressed the reviewer’s comments. Please refer to the Figure 1.

1. For accuracy assessments, the formula parameters involved need to be referenced by the confusion matrix index.

Response: Thank you for bringing this to our attention. We’ve worked the confusion matrix index section accordingly the accuracy assessments formula parameters involved.

Respect and great applause to all the Reviewers and Editor‼!

Thank you!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx