Maintenance Prioritisation of Irrigation Infrastructure Using a Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Methodology under a Fuzzy Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript titled “Maintenance prioritisation of irrigation infrastructure using a Multi-Criteria Decision Making methodology under a Fuzzy environment”. Author(s) have investigated the criterion prioritisation for maintenance of irrigation infrastructure using MCDM approach under a Fuzzy environment. They have selected 7 criteria as service delivery, financial loss, safety), credibility, environment, compliance and asset condition rating, and 36 sub-criteria.

 

The research topic is important for development of irrigation infrastructure and may be interesting for the research community. The manuscript deserves to be published. However, there are some comments that should be responded before accepting the paper for publication:

 

 

·         The term “Assets” used throughout in MS could be replaced with better term “waterworks” or “irrigation infrastructure” to make more specific with reference to topic.

·         The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria selected should be supported by literature survey (section 5.1).

·         Figure 9 should be improved by provided space between the figures of each channel. Five figures of channel without space are little bit confusing and size may also be increased.

·       The discussion section needs to be improved. The outcome on evaluation criteria should have elaborate discussion. The section should discuss the criterion prioritised for maintenance of irrigation infrastructure as per their MCDM approach investigation.

·       The conclusion section has conclusions as general. The conclusion should mention the priority criteria for maintenance of irrigation infrastructure.

Author Response

1. The term “Assets” used throughout in MS could be replaced with better term “waterworks” or “irrigation infrastructure” to make more specific with reference to topic.

Thanks for the comment.

The word “asset” is replaced with “irrigation infrastructure” across the document where the context is relevant to irrigation infrastructure and not asset management in general. The track changed response is also in red text.

2. The evaluation criteria and sub-criteria selected should be supported by literature survey (section 5.1).

Thanks for the comment.

The evaluation criteria and their sub-criteria are derived from the case study’s (G-MW) corporate risk framework and not have been determined by the research team. A note is also added to the paper to clarify this. The track changed response is also in red text.

3. Figure 9 should be improved by provided space between the figures of each channel. Five figures of channel without space are little bit confusing and size may also be increased.

Thanks for the comment.

Figures 9 and 10 are replaced to improve their quality and visibility.

4. The discussion section needs to be improved. The outcome on evaluation criteria should have elaborate discussion. The section should discuss the criterion prioritised for maintenance of irrigation infrastructure as per their MCDM approach investigation.

Thanks for the comment.

The criteria which were used in this research are not prioritised and instead compared against each other (via pairwise comparison matrix) to measure their relative weights to then be used for evaluating irrigation assets (in this case irrigation channels) for maintenance. Further explanation is added to the discussion section to explain the criteria weight calculation procedure and compare it to the existing method practiced in G-MW (the case study). The track changed response is also in red text.

5. The conclusion section has conclusions as general. The conclusion should mention the priority criteria for maintenance of irrigation infrastructure.

Thanks for the comment.

Further explanation is added to the conclusion section to provide more context in relation to calculating the criteria weights as well as elaborate on how the future work can help improve the developed method. The track changed response is also in red text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This is a technical approach to a serious problem (water and its use). The absence of a problematization regarding water scarcity and its sustainable use, as well as the absence of a reference to the (territorial) context of the application, constitute limitations of this research.

Author Response

1. This is a technical approach to a serious problem (water and its use). The absence of a problematization regarding water scarcity and its sustainable use, as well as the absence of a reference to the (territorial) context of the application, constitute limitations of this research.

Thanks for the comment.

As stated in the abstract, the governing factor of this study is challenges in asset maintenance prioritisation due to aging infrastructure, limited budget, and rising demand for service. Therefore, we tried to focus on methods which could help optimise decision making in maintenance management of infrastructure assets (irrigation infrastructure as is our case study). The developed method could be applied to other disciplines such as rail, road, utilities etc.

Reviewer 3 Report

 The article is well organized and well written and the data handling approach is satisfactory. 

I suggest the following for minor improvements.

1. The fuzzy decision-making approach (TOPSIS) is conventional. The ranking results need to be compared with more decision-making methods.

2. Quality of figures requires improvements.

3. Scope for future studies should be included in the conclusion section.

4. Grammer Check is required. For example, In the abstract refer 

"The proposed method will be implemented on real-time data of six irrigation channels in Northern Victoria, Australia. The result of maintenance ranking is validated against current physical conditions of the assets and suggestions for optimising the existing practical methods will be provided" Sentences need to be rewritten. 

I suuggest minor revison.

 

  

Author Response

1. The fuzzy decision-making approach (TOPSIS) is conventional. The ranking results need to be compared with more decision-making methods.

Thanks for the comment.

The intention of this research was to improve what is currently in practice. Though, as is stated within the paper, the authors were also cautious not to make the procedure so complicated to reduce the likelihood of the proposed method for consideration in practical applications as the more complicated the calculation method, the less likely to be used in real-world. Further explanation is provided in section 4 to elaborate more on the choice of TOPSIS method.

2. Quality of figures requires improvements.

Thanks for the comment.

Figures 9 and 10 are replaced to improve their quality and visibility.

3. Scope for future studies should be included in the conclusion section.

Thanks for the comment.

Further explanation is added to the conclusion section to provide more context in relation to what can be done for the future work and how the future work can help improve the developed method. The track changed response is also in red text.

4. Grammar Check is required. For example, In the abstract refer

"The proposed method will be implemented on real-time data of six irrigation channels in Northern Victoria, Australia. The result of maintenance ranking is validated against current physical conditions of the assets and suggestions for optimising the existing practical methods will be provided" Sentences need to be rewritten. 

Thanks for the comment.

The statement is re-written to make it clearer and to the point. Also, the whole text is reviewed and grammatically corrected where required. The track changed response is also in red text.

Reviewer 4 Report

We thank the authors for an interesting thorough study.

The authors have developed a methodology for measuring the weight of criteria and ranking alternative assets for maintenance, as well as developed fuzzy multi-criteria decision-making methods for optimizing asset maintenance.

At the same time, I would like to give recommendations to strengthen the results: in the abstract and conclusion, it should be indicated how the proposed methods by the authors differ from existing ones.

Also in the list of references, the review of studies ends in 2020, nevertheless, the study is very relevant, it should also be added studies of 2021 and 2022.

Author Response

1. I would like to give recommendations to strengthen the results: in the abstract and conclusion, it should be indicated how the proposed methods by the authors differ from existing ones.

Thanks for the comment.

The abstract and conclusion is edited to elaborate more on the benefit of the proposed method and how it can make a difference in prioritising assets for maintenance as well as what could be the direction for future work to further investigate the maintenance prioritisation optimisation and improvement. The track changed response is also in red text.

2. Also, in the list of references, the review of studies ends in 2020, nevertheless, the study is very relevant, it should also be added studies of 2021 and 2022.

Thanks for the comment.

More recent references are added to section 4.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf