Remote Sensing Applications for Land-Use and Land-Cover Change Research in South African Landscapes: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study reviewed the trends in remote sensing applications to land use and land cover change research in the landscapes of South Africa. It focused on the trends in RS datasets used in classifying land use and also provided a brief description of the current trends in LULC classification, as well as touched on the accuracy assessment limitations. It is an important topic that provides an overview of RS datasets used in research in the country and adds value to the literature.

The review is adequately conducted, and the methodology captures the workflow perfectly. Just a few minor comments and suggestions for the authors:

1. It would be worthwhile for the authors to add a map showing the geographical coverage of these sensors/datasets in the country.
2. Lines 58 - 77 describe the influence of LULC on biodiversity. From this passage, this review gives the notion that it is looking into the LULC classification trends on Biodiversity hotspots, and the Study area map sort of supported this narrative. However, as one delves deeper into the study, the review focuses on the general LULC classification in the entire country, with KZN dominating the conversation, which comes across as a bit biased. It is worthwhile to mention that focusing on Biodiversity hotspots rather than the whole country is rather an interesting angle - a unique one; however, there is nothing wrong with the current focus scale. Though caution should be taken when describing the problem, not to create confusion about the focus of the review. Perhaps specify somewhere that the purpose of reviewing the RS datasets was to assist in selecting the right sensors when mapping biodiversity - if that was the aim of Lines 58 - 77, and figure 1. Otherwise, reviewing and rephrasing this passage might help with the confusion. Furthermore, is the study assessing biodiversity as part of the LULC classes, or looking into changes in the Biodiversity hotspots?

3. Please take note of some citation discrepancies, for example,  Line 66 and Line 260

“Mashala, Dube, Mudereri, Ayisi and Ramudzuli [49] showed that parametric machine learning algorithms frequently and effectively relate LULC changes to water quality metrics. “ 

4. Please note the most recent SANLC is from the year 2022, not 2018.

5. General question for the authors: GEE is now available for use in QGIS. Download and install as a plugin. Does this relieve some of the limitations? What are your thoughts on this move?

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript provides a systematic review of 103 remote sensing studies on land use and land cover change in South Africa from 2001 to 2024, using the PRISMA framework. It offers a spatiotemporal and methodological panoramic view of LULC remote sensing research in South Africa, identifies technological evolution pathways and ecological conservation priority areas, and provides important insights for developing countries in biodiversity monitoring, sustainable development goal assessment, and the future integration of high-resolution remote sensing technologies. However, the manuscript has the following shortcomings:

（1）Lack of transparency in the literature screening process and insufficient rigor in the PRISMA application. Although the authors claim to follow the PRISMA guidelines, they do not provide a complete screening decision tree, such as specific reasons for excluding literature or handling duplicate records, nor do they report consistency and bias-control measures during the screening process. Detailed literature screening records should be supplemented to enhance reproducibility and methodological transparency.

（2）Lack of systematic description of the data extraction and coding methods. The manuscript mentions that 103 articles were entered into Excel based on dimensions such as "sensor, classifier, study site, LULC type," but it does not explain the process of developing the coding scheme, whether dual independent coding was used, or whether consistency checks were performed. This reduces the credibility and reproducibility of research findings. It is recommended to supplement the detailed process of data extraction and the quality control measures.

（3）Methodological ambiguity and risks of over-interpretation in the quantitative analysis of LULC change trends. Table 1 presents the net gain/loss percentages of "LULC conversion from 2001 to 2024," but it does not clearly explain how these values were aggregated from multiple articles (e.g., whether weighting was applied, whether differences in study area size were considered, or whether overlapping regions were excluded). This table is also not mentioned in the Methods section, lacking methodological support. It is recommended to clarify the generation logic and consider adding an explanation of spatial overlap handling.

（4）The lack of control variables in the analysis of the geographical distribution of studies leads to biased conclusions. The authors point out that studies are mostly concentrated in provinces such as KZN, EC, and WC, attributing this to "ecological importance" or "research capacity gaps," However, they do not consider confounding factors such as population density, urbanization level, and remote sensing data coverage. It is recommended to introduce control variables or multivariate analyses to avoid oversimplified conclusions about geographical distribution.

（5）Lack of a critical perspective in the analysis of machine/deep learning algorithm applications. The article repeatedly emphasizes the "potential" and "superiority" of algorithms such as RF, SVM, and CNN, but there is little discussion of the limitations of these methods in practical applications in South Africa. It is recommended to supplement this with a critical analysis of the algorithm’s applicability, cost-effectiveness, and generalizability.

（6）Generalized statements in the conclusions that do not match the evidence. The conclusion mentions that "emerging data sources such as UAVs provide alternative solutions," but only one article in the review used UAV data, and its applicability was not systematically evaluated. Such conclusions lack supporting evidence. It is recommended to appropriately converge or clearly define the applicable conditions based on the actual distribution and quality of the literature reviewed.

（7）Repetitive article structure and verbose content in some sections. Section 4 (Discussion) and Section 3 (Results) have substantial overlap in content, with descriptions such as sensor usage frequency, classification algorithms, and geographical distribution appearing repeatedly. It is recommended to merge or streamline to avoid redundancy and improve the logical compactness.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript earth-4161960 entitled:

“A synthesis of remote sensing applications to land use and land cover change research in South African landscapes”

1.    It is a review paper. 
Actually, this paper can be used as a guide for a researcher to quickly locate the region and the available data for this specific region. Also, there is a very brief reference on the specific problems of the region regarding the types of the significant changes of the land cover.

2.    According to my opinion the sentence t the end of the introduction 
“The novelty of this review is that it provides a comprehensive, evidence-based synthesis and analysis of South African research on LULC and its changes” 
is not correct. 
The authors do not dive into the research methods employed in the referenced papers. 

3.    The introduction section must contain at the end a brief description of each section. 

4.    Figures 1, 6 and 8 must be more clear as far as the text they contain. 

5.    Section must contain subsections 4.1. and 4.2. Subsection 4.1 cannot stand alone. Please, number the text in the beginning of section 4 as 4.1. 

6.    Please change the title so that it is explicitly written that the paper is a review e.g. 

Remote sensing applications to land use and land cover change research in South African landscapes: A Review

Conclusively, I marginally suggest this paper for publication, with major revisions, since it can be used as a guide for the researchers involved in LULC.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

We sincerely appreciate the Reviewer's constructive feedback and helpful suggestions. The reviewer’s comments on improving the clarity of the manuscript structure, refining the framing of the study’s contribution, and enhancing the presentation of figures have helped us improve the paper's organization and readability. In response, we revised the introduction to better contextualize the scope of the review, clarified the manuscript structure, improved the readability of several figures, and refined the title to more clearly reflect the nature of the study as a review. We thank the reviewer for these valuable insights, which have contributed to strengthening the manuscript.

Comment	Action Taken
(1)    It is a review paper. Actually, this paper can be used as a guide for a researcher to quickly locate the region and the available data for this specific region. Also, there is a very brief reference on the specific problems of the region regarding the types of the significant changes of the land cover.	We thank the reviewer for recognising the potential of this study as a reference guide. We have strengthened the concluding section to explicitly highlight its utility for researchers seeking region-specific datasets and methodological insights.
（2) According to my opinion the sentence t the end of the introduction “The novelty of this review is that it provides a comprehensive, evidence-based synthesis and analysis of South African research on LULC and its changes” is not correct. The authors do not dive into the research methods employed in the referenced papers.	We have revised the final paragraph of the introduction to more accurately reflect the study’s contribution as a systematic synthesis of spatial, temporal, and methodological research patterns rather than an in-depth methodological evaluation. Lines 88-91.
（3）The introduction section must contain at the end a brief description of each section.	We did provide a structural outline of the manuscript at the beginning of the results to improve clarity and logical flow, lines 145-147.
（4）Figures 1, 6 and 8 must be more clear as far as the text they contain.	Figures 1, 6, and 8 have been revised to improve clarity, including increased font size, enhanced resolution, and clearer legend formatting.
（5）Section must contain subsections 4.1. and 4.2. Subsection 4.1 cannot stand alone. Please, number the text in the beginning of section 4 as 4.1.	The numbering and structure of Section 4 have been revised to ensure logical subsection organization.
（6）Please change the title so that it is explicitly written that the paper is a review e.g.   Remote sensing applications to land use and land cover change research in South African landscapes: A Review	The title has been revised to explicitly indicate that the manuscript is a systematic review, as suggested by the reviewer. Lines 2-3

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors have adequately covered my comments. 

Please, accept it in the present form.