Estimating the Total Volume of Running Water Bodies Using Geographic Information System (GIS): A Case Study of Peshawar Basin (Pakistan)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This work presents a GIS application for estimating the total volume of running water body.

In general, the article has many gaps, lacking content, originality and above all structure. The manuscript describes the study area and presents extremely simple applications, of no scientific value.

The authors can find my considerations below.

 

ABSTRACT

The maximum of words that can be used for this magazine is 200, the authors use more than double.

There are repetitions.

It turns out to be dispersive, it creates confusion in the reader. It should have the following format: aim, method, results, conclusions.

 

INTRODUCTION

Part of the introduction should go to the section dedicated to the study area.

It is poor in content, it does not provide information on the scientific background.

Contains repetitions.

 

MATERIALS AND METHODS

SECTION 2.1

More detailed information is provided in the introduction than in this section.

Lines between 117-126 are not related to the study area, but to the section dedicated to data and software.

SECTION 2.2

The nature of the used data is not clear. Are they in raster format? Are they uniform throughout the study area? What spatial resolution do they have?

SUBSECTION 2.2.1

Figure 1 is too far from its reference in the text. Furthermore, the geographical location of the study area is difficult to deduce from the figure.

The authors refer to satellite images in a generic way, it would be useful to indicate the type of images adopted.

The methodology is unclear: which bands were chosen for the classification? How many classes? Perhaps, the classes are identified in the four categories?

SUBSECTION 2.2.2

Unclear, it would be useful to insert an image.

 

 

CASE STUDY AND RESULTS

From SECTION 3.1 to SECTION 3.3

What is described in these sections should be part of the study area.

Figure 3 is too far from its reference in the text.

SECTION 3.4

SUBSECTION 3.4.1

The characteristics of the used satellite images must be described in materials and methods, it would be important to indicate the dates of acquisition of the images.

The graphs relating to figures 4 and 5 do not show units of measurement on the y axis, I think it should be mm.

SUBSECTION 3.4.2 to 3.4.8

The tables are not aligned, and some differences between the values were not made correctly.

The maps provided in figures 6 and 10, and probably the others as well, do not have congruent scales between the images relating to 2010 and those relating to 2020. I hope that these have at least the same reference system, information not reported by the authors.

 

CONCLUSION

The conclusions are totally wrong. The only formula present in the whole text was reported in the conclusions.

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. As suggested, a complete re-structuring of the manuscript has been performed. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 1:

• ABSTRACT: The maximum of words that can be used for this magazine is 200, the authors use more than double. There are repetitions. It turns out to be dispersive, it creates confusion in the reader. It should have the following format: aim, method, results, conclusions.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the abstract has been revised to be within a range of 200 words, repetitions have been removed, and the suggested format: aim, method, results, conclusions has been used.

 

• INTRODUCTION: Part of the introduction should go to the section dedicated to the study area. It is poor in content, it does not provide information on the scientific background.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, part of the introduction has been moved to the “Study Area” section and the information related to the scientific background has been added to the “Introduction” section.

 

• SECTION 2.1: More detailed information is provided in the introduction than in this section. Lines between 117-126 are not related to the study area, but to the section dedicated to data and software.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the lines between 117-126 has been moved to the “Data and Software” section and more information has been added in the “Study Area” section from the “Introduction” section.

 

• SECTION 2.2: The nature of the used data is not clear. Are they in raster format? Are they uniform throughout the study area? What spatial resolution do they have?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the nature of the data used and the spatial resolution are discussed in section 2.2 on page 2 of the revised manuscript.

 

• SUBSECTION 2.2.1: Figure 1 is too far from its reference in the text. Furthermore, the geographical location of the study area is difficult to deduce from the figure. The authors refer to satellite images in a generic way, it would be useful to indicate the type of images adopted. The methodology is unclear: which Perhaps, the classes are identified in the four categories?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, Figure 1 has been changed in order to clearly show the study area. The methodology of the current research work is also discussed in detail in section 2.2.1 on page 3 of the revised manuscript.

 

• SUBSECTION 2.2.2: Unclear, it would be useful to insert an image.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the process of applying the cuts are explained in detail in order to make it more clear.

 

• SECTION 3.1 to SECTION 3.3: What is described in these sections should be part of the study area. Figure 3 is too far from its reference in the text.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, section 3.1 to section 3.3 has been moved to the “Study Area” section. The reference in the text has been corrected for Figure 3.

 

• SUBSECTION 3.4.1: The characteristics of the used satellite images must be described in materials and methods, it would be important to indicate the dates of acquisition of the images. The graphs relating to figures 4 and 5 do not show units of measurement on the y axis, I think it should be mm.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the characteristics of the used satellite images has been described in the “Materials and Method” section. The unit of the measurement on the y-axis of figures 4 and 5 is mm and is now added to these figures. In the revised version of the manuscript, the subsection 3.4.1 is now 3.1.

 

• SUBSECTION 3.4.2 to SUBSECTION 3.4.8: The tables are not aligned, and some differences between the values were not made correctly. The maps provided in figures 6 and 10, and probably the others as well, do not have congruent scales between the images relating to 2010 and those relating to 2020. I hope that these have at least the same reference system, information not reported by the authors.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, all the tables are now aligned and the differences between the values has been corrected. The maps in figures 6, 10, 12, 14, 16 and 18 have now congruent scales for 2010 and 2020 and have same reference system.    

 

• CONCLUSION: The conclusions are totally wrong. The only formula present in the whole text was reported in the conclusions.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the conclusion section has been revised.   

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors performed a numerical study to study total volume of running water body using GIS. They also made certain conclusions that are related to this article. In my opinion, this article was written poorly and few physics were discovered. It is like a homework (or technique report) for users to learn GIS and Excel. It is not recommend editor to accept it in its present form.

Major comments:

1. Line30：The significance of the thesis research is unclear. What useful things can the result do for future planning and development?
2. Line136: what the specific software?
3. Line 151: what the supervised classification algorithm?
4. MLC is a mature algorithm and does not reflect the creativity of the author
5. The results derived from the author's paper are a known statistical result.

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. As suggested, a complete re-structuring of the manuscript has been performed. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 2:

• Line 30: The significance of the thesis research is unclear. What useful things can the result do for future planning and development?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the abstract has been revised to include the significance of the current research study and its usefulness for the future planning and development.

 

• Line 136: what the specific software?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the details related to the specific software is added in section 2.2.1 on page 7 of the revised manuscript.

 

• Line 151: what the supervised classification algorithm?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the details related to the supervised classification algorithm is added in section 2.2.1 on page 7 of the revised manuscript.

 

• MLC is a mature algorithm and does not reflect the creativity of the author.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. The authors agree with the reviewer that MLC is a mature and widely used algorithm in the study area. In the current study, the land cover changes were investigated for four categories, i.e., built-up Area, Agriculture Land, Rang land, and water body, by using Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC). Based on the suggestion of the reviewer, new and custom algorithms will be used in the future extension of the current research work.

 

• The results derived from the author's paper are a known statistical result.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the future extension of the current research work, new and custom algorithms and software will be used to make the process more dynamic and sensitive to changes with time.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors thank you very much for research finding about Estimating the Total Volume of Running Water Body Using Geographic Information System (GIS): A Case Study of Peshawar Basin (Pakistan). In the manuscript authors need to describe more about the significance of research, need to address the justification of topic sentence, review and organize the introduction and the methodology part properly. The methodological approach of the presented research, mainly satellite image processing, application of its processing process, presentation of the result needs a number of improvements. The manuscript has multiple errors and need to improve the quality to meet the standard of sustainability journal. 

Comments   

After reading this manuscript this research provides a land cover map of the study area using Landsat images. Authors describe the land cover of the study area and geological formation. Authors missed to describe the major factor of the landcover change and transition matrix of the land cover data. Authors discussed more about tools like GIS and RS and not found the novelty in the manuscript.

   Please rewrite your introduction part addressing the global, regional land cover change , its challenges and driving factors.

  Similarly, authors missed to discuss the gap analysis and implication.

  Methodology

Provide details about image (Level of Landsat image it is 1or 2.), details about registration process of satellite data, RMS error, image processing. Review more about SVM, DT, RF and ML algorithms and write why authors applied ML classifier in this study. Line 136. what is specific software tools. Make it clear. How authors evaluated the accuracy of LULC classification. When and how authors collected the sample points? for data analysis. The ground water process methodology need more clear with references.  Section 2.2 and section 3.4.1 text is similar.

  Authors describe the geological formation of the study area but there is no comparative analysis of water level, volume with land use, geology. Rainfall data and its impact or relation is not properly described in the manuscript. The conclusion part very week and need to re-write.

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. As suggested, a complete re-structuring of the manuscript has been performed. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 3:

• After reading this manuscript this research provides a land cover map of the study area using Landsat images. Authors describe the land cover of the study area and geological formation. Authors missed to describe the major factor of the landcover change and transition matrix of the land cover data. Authors discussed more about tools like GIS and RS and not found the novelty in the manuscript. Please rewrite your introduction part addressing the global, regional land cover change, its challenges and driving factors. Similarly, authors missed to discuss the gap analysis and implication.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the manuscript is re-written and a complete re-structuring of the manuscript has been performed. The abstract has been revised and shortened. The introduction section has been revised by adding more recent references. The details related to the software used in the study and the methodology followed in the current study has been discussed in detail. All the figures and tables have been revised. A new figure has been added for the study area. The conclusion section is also revised.

 

• Provide details about image (Level of Landsat image it is 1or 2.), details about registration process of satellite data, RMS error, image processing. Review more about SVM, DT, RF and ML algorithms and write why authors applied ML classifier in this study. Line 136. what is specific software tools. Make it clear. How authors evaluated the accuracy of LULC classification. When and how authors collected the sample points? for data analysis. The ground water process methodology need more clear with references. Section 2.2 and section 3.4.1 text is similar.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the details related to the specific software is added in section 2.2.1 on page 7 of the revised manuscript. The duplicated text in sections 2.2, 3.4.1 and in other sections of the manuscript has been deleted. As suggested, the various details related to the methodology followed in the current research study has been added in the revised manuscript.

 

• Authors describe the geological formation of the study area but there is no comparative analysis of water level, volume with land use, geology. Rainfall data and its impact or relation is not properly described in the manuscript. The conclusion part very week and need to re-write.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the conclusion section has been revised. The introduction section has been revised by adding more recent references related to the rainfall and its impacts. Based on the suggestion of the reviewer, the suggested areas will be thoroughly studied and added in the future extension of the current research work.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

I think that the work submitted to me for evaluation is interesting and worth publishing for several reasons: a) it is based on rich factual material, b) it is prepared with the use of modern methods and techniques of geographic information systems, c) it concerns a region and a country for which such studies are rare. However, there were also many shortcomings that diminish the importance of this study, e.g.
gis methods allow you to create not only analyzes but also aesthetic and clear maps. the maps in the study are carelessly made, they are not aesthetic, some of their fragments are illegible and look as if they were scans or screenshots (see the location figure). I do not know if it is necessary to mark the amount of precipitation on the graph, since the values ​​are described on the axis, and if the authors have chosen this way, they should be consistent and either use whole numbers but with decimals (fig. 4 and 5), pie charts should be flat, and not three-dimensional, it does not add charm to them, but only reduces readability. In figures with outflow sizes 9, 11, 13, 15 etc, if it is explained at the bottom that cut in%, why duplicate the description also for numbers? The discussion of the results seems to be cursory, and the conclusion does not emphasize the greatest achievements of the study. I would also recommend citing the literature more widely, especially on similar issues.

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. As suggested, a complete re-structuring of the manuscript has been performed. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 4:

• I think that the work submitted to me for evaluation is interesting and worth publishing for several reasons: a) it is based on rich factual material, b) it is prepared with the use of modern methods and techniques of geographic information systems, c) it concerns a region and a country for which such studies are rare.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the kind and motivating comments.

 

• GIS methods allow you to create not only analyzes but also aesthetic and clear maps. the maps in the study are carelessly made, they are not aesthetic, some of their fragments are illegible and look as if they were scans or screenshots (see the location figure).

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the quality and presentation of all the GIS figures has been improved. The figure for the location of the study area (Figure 1) has been changed.

 

• I do not know if it is necessary to mark the amount of precipitation on the graph, since the values ​​are described on the axis, and if the authors have chosen this way, they should be consistent and either use whole numbers but with decimals (fig. 4 and 5).

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the numbers showing the precipitation on the graphs in figures 4 and 5 has been removed.

 

• Pie charts should be flat, and not three-dimensional, it does not add charm to them, but only reduces readability.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the pie charts has been flattened and has been changed to two-dimensional.  

 

• In figures with outflow sizes 9, 11, 13, 15 etc, if it is explained at the bottom that cut in%, why duplicate the description also for numbers?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, figures 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 has been revised by avoiding the duplication within these figures.

 

• The discussion of the results seems to be cursory, and the conclusion does not emphasize the greatest achievements of the study.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, all the results have been discussed in detail and the conclusion section has been revised.

 

• I would also recommend citing the literature more widely, especially on similar issues.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the introduction section has been revised by adding various recent publications related to the study area.    

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors on the profound restructuring they have given to their manuscript.

The article is fine now, it's just a little poor in number of references, I would recommend the authors to get at least 40 references in total, for example on some definitions such as DEM or MLC. Here are two examples:

For Digital Elevation Models (DEM) the author could cite:

 Balasubramanian, A. (2017). Digital elevation model (DEM) in GIS. University of Mysore.

 

For Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC) the authors could cite:

Alcaras, E., Amoroso, P. P., Parente, C., & Prezioso, G. (2021). Remotely Sensed Image Fast Classification and Smart Thematic Map Production. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 46, 43-50.

 

Best regards

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 1:

• I would like to congratulate the authors on the profound restructuring they have given to their manuscript. The article is fine now, it's just a little poor in number of references, I would recommend the authors to get at least 40 references in total, for example on some definitions such as DEM or MLC. Here are two examples:

For Digital Elevation Models (DEM) the author could cite:

Balasubramanian, A. (2017). Digital elevation model (DEM) in GIS. University of Mysore.

For Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC) the authors could cite:

Alcaras, E., Amoroso, P. P., Parente, C., & Prezioso, G. (2021). Remotely Sensed Image Fast Classification and Smart Thematic Map Production. The International Archives of Photogrammetry, Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Sciences, 46, 43-50.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, more references have been added in the revised manuscript, including the above-mentioned two references. The total number of references are now more than 40.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

• The work in this paper is only focus on the volume of water from 2000 to 2020. There are all historical information doesn’t have any study on the predictions. How can the current study help manage the floods that occur each year in Peshawar, Pakistan?
• Does the proposed model have predictive capabilities, or is it only able to process historical data?
• For the response to comment 4:” The authors agree with the reviewer that MLC is a mature and widely used algorithm in the study area. In the current study, the land cover changes were investigated for four categories, i.e., built-up Area, Agriculture Land, Rang land, and water body, by using Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC).” It means that this paper only has workload but no innovation.
• In the conclusion: “These results can be useful for future planning and development.” What useful things can the result do for future planning and development? The authors did not answer the question twice. The support for this is not found in the paper.
• This article was written poorly and few physics were discovered. It is like a GIS software homework. It is not suitable for publication as an SCI paper.

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 2:

• The work in this paper is only focus on the volume of water from 2000 to 2020. There are all historical information doesn’t have any study on the predictions. How can the current study help manage the floods that occur each year in Peshawar, Pakistan?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. The results of this study can help indirectly manage future floods in the studied area. However, in an effort to keep the length of the paper reasonable, the authors could not show examples of such utilization. In agreement with the Reviewer’s comment, we removed references to flood management in the revised manuscript.

 

• Does the proposed model have predictive capabilities, or is it only able to process historical data?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. The current study presents historical data and analyzes its impact on land utilization. Plans are set to extend this study to address predictive flood management. We thank the Reviewer for proposing this great idea.

 

• For the response to comment 4: “The authors agree with the reviewer that MLC is a mature and widely used algorithm in the study area. In the current study, the land cover changes were investigated for four categories, i.e., built-up Area, Agriculture Land, Rang land, and water body, by using Maximum Likelihood Classification (MLC).” It means that this paper only has workload but no innovation.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. The current study presents historical data and analyzes its impact on land utilization. Both objectives are important for planning future land use by the public and private sectors.

 

• In the conclusion: “These results can be useful for future planning and development.” What useful things can the result do for future planning and development? The authors did not answer the question twice. The support for this is not found in the paper.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. The current study presents historical data and analyzes its impact on land utilization. Both objectives are important for planning future land use by the public and private sectors.

 

• This article was written poorly and few physics were discovered. It is like a GIS software homework. It is not suitable for publication as an SCI paper.

Answer: We appreciate the Reviewer’s time and effort to improve our manuscript.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

 Thank you very much for the revised version of the manuscript.   Introduction  methodology and result sections  need more revision and need to make it very  clear about the data collection, processing and analysis.  

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 3:

• Dear Authors

Thank you very much for the revised version of the manuscript. Introduction, methodology and result sections need more revision and need to make it very clear about the data collection, processing and analysis.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the introduction, methodology and result sections have been revised and are highlighted in yellow in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper has been revised by the authors. I believe it may be considered for publication with minor corrections

figure 10 should be improved as the legend overlaps the map, figure 11 (a) and also, a few other figures have also been improved, but their quality still leaves much to be desired (maybe it was using an incorrect compression method?).

The authors cite the literature modestly. I would recommend quoting a few more works related to this issue. Here are some examples:

Bandi, Aneesha Satya, Meshapam, Shashi, and Deva, Pratap. "A geospatial approach to flash flood hazard mapping in the city of Warangal, Telangana, India" Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, vol.7, no.3, 2019, pp.1-13. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2019-0013

Schumann A.H., Funke R., Schultz G.A. 2000. Application of a geographic information system for conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 240, 1–2: 45–61. 

Dewan A.M., Monirul Islam M., Kumamoto T., Nishigaki M. 2007. Evaluating flood hazard for land-use planning in greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water Resources Management, 21, 9: 1601–1612. 

Liu Y.B., Gebremeskel S., De Smedt F., Hoffmann L., Pfister, L. 2003. A diffusive transport approach for flow routing in GIS-based flood modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 283, 1–4: 91–106. Mansor S., Shariah M., Billa L., Setiawan I., Jabar F. 2004. Spatial technology for natural risk management. Disaster Prevention and Management. 13, 5: 364–373.

Author Response

The following represent point-by-point answers to the reviewers’ comments. Appropriate revisions are made in the revised manuscript, as explained hereunder. In the revised version of the manuscript, all the revisions are highlighted in yellow.

 

Comments by Reviewer 4:

• The paper has been revised by the authors. I believe it may be considered for publication with minor corrections.

Figure 10 should be improved as the legend overlaps the map, figure 11 (a) and also, a few other figures have also been improved, but their quality still leaves much to be desired (maybe it was using an incorrect compression method?).

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, Figures 10 & 12 have been revised by resolving the legend overlap issue and the quality of other figures (4, 5, 9, 11, 13, 15, and 17) has been improved.

 

• The authors cite the literature modestly. I would recommend quoting a few more works related to this issue. Here are some examples:

Bandi, Aneesha Satya, Meshapam, Shashi, and Deva, Pratap. "A geospatial approach to flash flood hazard mapping in the city of Warangal, Telangana, India" Environmental & Socio-economic Studies, vol.7, no.3, 2019, pp.1-13. https://doi.org/10.2478/environ-2019-0013

Schumann A.H., Funke R., Schultz G.A. 2000. Application of a geographic information system for conceptual rainfall-runoff modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 240, 1–2: 45–61.

Dewan A.M., Monirul Islam M., Kumamoto T., Nishigaki M. 2007. Evaluating flood hazard for land-use planning in greater Dhaka of Bangladesh using remote sensing and GIS techniques. Water Resources Management, 21, 9: 1601–1612.

Liu Y.B., Gebremeskel S., De Smedt F., Hoffmann L., Pfister, L. 2003. A diffusive transport approach for flow routing in GIS-based flood modeling. Journal of Hydrology, 283, 1–4: 91–106. Mansor S., Shariah M., Billa L., Setiawan I., Jabar F. 2004. Spatial technology for natural risk management. Disaster Prevention and Management. 13, 5: 364–373.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, more references have been added in the revised manuscript, including the above-mentioned four references.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

All the comments made have been revised by the author

Author Response

• All the comments made have been revised by the author.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comments, which were well-taken and implemented in the revised manuscript and has improved the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

 Thank you very much for the revised version of the manuscript.

Please rewrite your introduction part addressing the global, regional land cover change, its challenges and driving factors. Further discuss about Pakistan. Please add the discussion section in the manuscript and provide the details evidence after review the recent research work. I asked similar type of question in my previous comments also. I don't accept your manuscript before revision of the introduction part.

Author Response

• Dear Authors

Thank you very much for the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Please rewrite your introduction part addressing the global, regional land cover change, its challenges and driving factors. Further discuss about Pakistan. Please add the discussion section in the manuscript and provide the details evidence after review the recent research work. I asked similar type of question in my previous comments also. I don't accept your manuscript before revision of the introduction part.

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comments. As suggested, in the revised version of the manuscript, the introduction part is rewritten by addressing the global, regional land cover change, its challenges and driving factors. The discussion about Pakistan has been included in the revised manuscript. The discussion section has also been added in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

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

Dear authors,

In your paper, you employ GIS to estimate the surface runoff over the Peshawar Basin, in Pakistan, based on geographic information and measurements from the Regional Metrological (Meteorological? see line 95) Department.

While this type of study is relevant, the methodological approach and form of presenting and discussing the results lack significant pieces of information required in hydrological studies with the aim of natural resources and land management. For instance, instead of using runoff coefficients based on land-cover, you use "cuts," which are kind of arbitrary (I expected at least a comment on common methods or models, but they were totally ignored, suggesting a lack of knowledge in this field). The water balance discussion throughout the year is always made based on a monthly or seasonal behavior, instead of a simple AREA * ANNUAL PRECIPITATION. If you like this research field, I suggest you try HEC-GeoHMS, or GRASS, which allows you to grasp better the phenomena occurring in the basin.

Even if my main recommendation is to reconstruct and significantly improve the method and discussion, the manuscript also requires extensive English language revision. Terms such as "running water" are not the common phrasing for surface runoff or flow. For instance, just on the first page:

45. plays --> play

58. excessive --> extensive (if you are writing that there is vast research in Pakistan about water preservation, then cite and describe some of these papers).

60. vegetable, fruit and often other agriculture products. (avoid wordiness, there are ways to write this in three words or less).

I hope these comments are of some help for future submission. Based on my previous comments, my overall recommendation is to reject this manuscript.

Best regards,

The Reviewer

Author Response

Comments by Reviewer 1:

• In your paper, you employ GIS to estimate the surface runoff over the Peshawar Basin, in Pakistan, based on geographic information and measurements from the Regional Metrological (Meteorological? see line 95) Department.

Answer: Pakistan Meteorological department is an agency of the ministry of earth sciences of the government of Pakistan. It is the principle agency responsible for meteorological observation, weather forecasting and seismology. The word in line 95 on page 3 is “Meteorological”.

 

• While this type of study is relevant, the methodological approach and form of presenting and discussing the results lack significant pieces of information required in hydrological studies with the aim of natural resources and land management. For instance, instead of using runoff coefficients based on land-cover, you use "cuts," which are kind of arbitrary (I expected at least a comment on common methods or models, but they were totally ignored, suggesting a lack of knowledge in this field). The water balance discussion throughout the year is always made based on a monthly or seasonal behavior, instead of a simple AREA* ANNUAL PRECIPITATION. If you like this research field, I suggest you try HEC-GeoHMS, or GRASS, which allows you to grasp better the phenomena occurring in the basin.

Answer: In the current study, we have applied cuts because, we have data of four different areas i.e. Range land, Barren land, Population and Agriculture. All these four areas are the main causes for the excessive loss of water, so for this reason we applied cuts to calculate the possible volume of running water. The decrease in volume of running water of Peshawar basin is discussed in lines 110-122 on page 3. Similarly, we can also see the effect of all the four areas on water reduction in Figure 7 and in lines 195-199 on page 8 and in Figure 9 in lines 208-213 on page 9.

 

• Even if my main recommendation is to reconstruct and significantly improve the method and discussion, the manuscript also requires extensive English language revision. Terms such as "running water" are not the common phrasing for surface runoff or flow. For instance, just on the first page:

45. Plays --> play
46. Excessive --> extensive (if you are writing that there is vast research in Pakistan about water preservation, then cite and describe some of these papers).
47. Vegetable, fruit and often other agriculture products. (avoid wordiness, there are ways to write this in three words or less).

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comments. The word “surplus water” can also be used instead of the “running water” but from running water we means the water that flows as a result of rainfall. The manuscript has been carefully reviewed for any possible English language mistakes. As suggested, the corrections have been made in lines 45, 58 and 60.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Application of Geographic Information System (GIS) for Estimating the Total Volume of Running Water Body: A Case Study of Peshawar Basin (Pakistan)” is interesting and worth publishing. However, I make a few remarks listed below.

1. Line 29-30 „The volume of running water body in Peshawar basin on average is 0.53 km3 which is quite high because of its stratigraphy.” – stratigraphy or lithology?

For better understanding geology of Peshawar basin add a geological map and cross-section. Also add an information about the hydrogeological conditions.

2. Why is the research period not the same?

The rainfall precipitation is from January 2018 to December 2018, but the total volume of running water body of settlement area is given for 17 months.

Line 107-108 „The total sum of rainfall precipitation of Peshawar from Jan 2018 – May 2019 is 715.7  mm”.

Line 159-160 „The total precipitation is equal to 714.5 mm. (from January 2018 to December 2018)

This is confusing.

Moreover, annual rainfall studies are not reliable. Multiannual periods should be considered.

3. Improve the marking of units in all of the text: km, cubic km,
4. Improve the word: underground water – groundwater
5. Line 109 – 100 „To convert rainfall precipitation from millimeter to kilometer: Rainfall Precipitation = 109 715.7mm/1000,000 mm/km = 0.0007157 km” - This information is not necessary for the Readers of this journal.
6. Line 158 – 159

Line 158 – „Prospective applications of GIS in integration with AI…”

Line 159 – „Integration of AI with GIS technology…”

write strictly: GIS with AI or AI with GIS

7. rainfall precipitation, rain precipitation, precipitation - use one term instead of all.

Author Response

Comments by Reviewer 2:

• Line 29-30 “The volume of running water body in Peshawar basin on average is 0.53 km³ which is quite high because of its stratigraphy.” –Lithology (Stratigraphy or lithology)?

Answer: The authors are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable comments. Based on our understanding, the word “stratigraphy” should be used in the mentioned statement because the term “lithology” is normally used for physical properties of rock or the rock in a particular area. Lines 29-30 discuss the average volume of running water body and hence, the word “stratigraphy” is more suitable in this scenario.

 

• Why is the research period not the same?

The rainfall precipitation is from January 2018 to December 2018, but the total volume of running water body of settlement area is given for 17 months:

Line 107-108 “The total sum of rainfall precipitation of Peshawar from Jan 2018 – May 2019 is 715.7 mm”.

Line 159-160 “The total precipitation is equal to 714.5 mm. (from January 2018 to December 2018).

 

Answer: The data from January 2018 to December 2018 in Figure 3 on page 6 and in lines 159-166 shows rainfall precipitation only for the first 12 months while the 5 months data from January 2019 to May 2019 in Figure 3.1 on page 6 and in lines 168-169 shows the highest month of rainfall precipitation of the years.

 

This is the total precipitation value for all the 17 months, from January 2018 to December 2018 on page 6 in Figure 3 and from January 2019 to May 2019 on Page 6 in Figure 3.1.

 

The value 714.5 mm is not only for January 2018 to December 2018 but it is for all the 17 months from (January 2018 to May 2019). The main purpose of the two separate graphs is to show the months with high rainfall, separately.

 

• Moreover, annual rainfall studies are not reliable. Multiannual periods should be considered.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. The current research work is based on the analysis of the monthly based data, as can be seen in Figures 3 and 3.1 on page 6.

• Improve the marking of units in all of the text: km, cubic km.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the units has been changed throughout the manuscript.

 

• Improve the word: underground water – groundwater.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the word “underground water” has been changed throughout the manuscript to “groundwater”.

 

• Line 109–100 “To convert rainfall precipitation from millimeter to kilometer: Rainfall Precipitation = 109 715.7mm/1000,000 mm/km = 0.0007157 km” - This information is not necessary for the Readers of this journal.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the statement has been deleted.

 

• Line 158–159:

Line 158 – “Prospective applications of GIS in integration with AI…”.

Line 159 – “Integration of AI with GIS technology…”.

Write strictly: GIS with AI or AI with GIS.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the corrections has been made in lines 264 & 265.

 

• Rainfall precipitation, rain precipitation, precipitation - use one term instead of all.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the words “precipitation” and “rain precipitation” have been changed to “rainfall precipitation” throughout the manuscript.  

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This article, in my opinion, is not suitable for publication in a sustainability journal due to its very simple design, very simple analyses that do not take into account many important features and the lack of use of hydrological modelling tools taking into account parameters long known in the literature, namely:

1. the methodology used, described in chapter 2.2.1 is too trivial, it does not include in the counting procedure e.g. land slopes, which is crucial to determine the amount of water runoff,
2. in chapter 2.2.2 the applied cuts are given without any analysis and discussion. The understanding of the idea that guided the authors is not clear or explained,
3. for the quoted first sentence in the introduction "... water is the most important element of this world ...", should an item [1] of the literature have been quoted, is it the most important conclusion in this item or a torn sentence from its content? I would argue. Nature needs many factors: like sun, air, temperature and many others besides water. Such a literature survey is shallow and does not meet the requirements of scientific papers,
4. in chapter 2.1 it is stated that GIS is the most important software tool, ... it has the potential to use a huge amount of data, ... and that it has features like a map overlay. I cannot agree with any of these statements. Hydrological modelling can do without the use of GIS, the authors have not presented this huge amount of data they write about in the article, and the statement that GIS has some kind of map overlay is not in line with the knowledge of how spatial databases work, Maybe the authors meant "maps overlaying"?
5. Figure 1 does not present the proposed methodology, if only insufficiently, in my opinion all figures do not meet the requirements for publication.
6. Other figures contain too many unnecessary objects such as: coordinate markers appearing on all sides of the map, but without cartographic grid, too large scale bar, and unnecessary use of coordinate markers for each map area as e.g. in figure 4. In my opinion maps are deformed (see proportions of north arrow on figure 4),
7. Chapter 3.3 is trivial. The graphs and analyses could be combined in the presentation of subsequent areas,
8. I did not notice the use of artificial intelligence in the publication, so the presence of chapter 4 is a mistake, its content does not relate at all to the presented research,
9. the overwhelming content of chapter 6 is a repetition of the introduction, and the conclusions themselves are obvious and add little to the current state of knowledge on the subject. They do not present anything new either in the application of GIS or in hydrological modelling.

Author Response

Comments by Reviewer 3:

• The methodology used, described in chapter 2.2.1 is too trivial, it does not include in the counting procedure e.g. land slopes, which is crucial to determine the amount of water runoff.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. Focusing on the objective of the current study to calculate the total volume of running water body, the calculation of the velocity of the running water body was not covered in the current study. This will be considered as one of the possible future extension of the current study.

 

• In chapter 2.2.2 the applied cuts are given without any analysis and discussion. The understanding of the idea that guided the authors is not clear or explained.

Answer: As suggested, the explanation has been added in the revised manuscript, on page 3 and in lines 111-115.

 

• For the quoted first sentence in the introduction "... water is the most important element of this world ...", should an item [1] of the literature have been quoted, is it the most important conclusion in this item or a torn sentence from its content? I would argue. Nature needs many factors: like sun, air, temperature and many others besides water. Such a literature survey is shallow and does not meet the requirements of scientific papers.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the correction has been made in the revised version of the manuscript.

 

• In chapter 2.1 it is stated that GIS is the most important software tool, ... it has the potential to use a huge amount of data, ... and that it has features like a map overlay. I cannot agree with any of these statements. Hydrological modelling can do without the use of GIS, the authors have not presented this huge amount of data they write about in the article, and the statement that GIS has some kind of map overlay is not in line with the knowledge of how spatial databases work, Maybe the authors meant "maps overlaying"?

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, the correction has been made in the revised manuscript that GIS is not the only important tool for hydrological modeling but is one of them. In the current study, we have created huge data of the five different areas including agriculture land, population, water body, rangeland and barren land with the help of GIS Software through cut polygon tools.

 

• Figure 1 does not present the proposed methodology, if only insufficiently, in my opinion all figures do not meet the requirements for publication.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. As suggested, all the figures in the manuscript are considered for improvement, in order to meet the publication requirements, in terms of the quality and size and will be submitted.

 

• Other figures contain too many unnecessary objects such as: coordinate markers appearing on all sides of the map, but without cartographic grid, too large scale bar, and unnecessary use of coordinate markers for each map area as e.g. in figure 4. In my opinion maps are deformed (see proportions of north arrow on figure 4).

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. The large scale bar is selected in Figure 4 because it represents the total area of the project.

 

• Chapter 3.3 is trivial. The graphs and analyses could be combined in the presentation of subsequent areas.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. We have five different areas of all the five districts, so that’s why we plot the graph and analysis separately.

 

• I did not notice the use of artificial intelligence in the publication, so the presence of chapter 4 is a mistake, its content does not relate at all to the presented research.

Answer: The authors thanks the reviewer for the valuable comment. We used artificial intelligence (AI) as a prospective work and as an integration with GIS. Artificial intelligence growing its popularity promptly in every field and especially in the earth sciences. We included this section because AI based technique are currently used with GIS for data gathering, illustration, and analysis to utilize it for inaccurate spatial issues, and classification of land, earth and remotely sensed imaginary.

 

• The overwhelming content of chapter 6 is a repetition of the introduction, and the conclusions themselves are obvious and add little to the current state of knowledge on the subject. They do not present anything new either in the application of GIS or in hydrological modeling.

Answer: The conclusion of this research work given on page 14 is to calculate the volume of water in Peshawar basin so that we can find the recharge of the aquifer, we also know that the water of Peshawar basin discharge directly to Indus River, so with the help of GIS we can find the contribution of water of Peshawar basin to Indus River.

 

Finally, the authors wish to thank the reviewer for his constructive remarks, which are well-taken and implemented to improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, 

The changes you made to the paper in terms of content and scientific soundness were minimal.

Each of these areas (Range land, Barren land, Population, and Agriculture) has associated runoff coefficients depending on scientifically accepted methods (See a list of models included in HEC-HMS) to assess the water balance in a watershed. Cuts are still an arbitrary assumption without a strong scientific base or application.

Dear authors, I know what you meant by "running water", which is why I suggested using surface runoff (or excess precipitation in the SCS method) < http://nwrm.eu/node/3890 >.  The term "Surplus water" is law-related < https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/surplus-water >; therefore, you are not presenting a strong defense about this comment I made. 

The English language is still an issue. For instance, your improved sentence in line 88 now reads: " GIS is the one of the most important software tool" where it should be "GIS is one of the most important software tools", or "GIS is the most important software tool".  

For these reasons, I stand by my initial recommendation of rejecting this manuscript. Please take the time to learn to use hydrological models (such as HEC-HMS, GRASS, etc.), it will help you with this and future research about water resources management. 

Even if I did not include this comment in my first review, the discussion shall be made by contrasting your results with previous research on the subject, instead of general comments that are plain to see.

Best regards,

The reviewer

Reviewer 3 Report

Unfortunately, the authors of this publication did not follow or comment on my previous review. Therefore, I cannot consider this form of improving the content of the publication as appropriate. None of the points presented have been duly amended, explained or discussed, but I would like to mention a few particularly ignored allegations. For example, objection number 3 was omitted almost entirely by adding only one word. It wasn't about that. The study was cited "[1] S. Wolfe and D. B. Brooks," Water scarcity: An alternative view and its implications for policy and capacity building, "in Natural Resources Forum, 2003, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 99-107. " And this, according to the authors, is the main conclusion from that work? That water is the basic factor of nature? Such an objection cannot be dismissed in one word. For example, objection number 6. None of my suggestions have been implemented. For example, objection 8. No, please do not argue that the usual application of GIS for mapping or computing is Artificial Intelligence. It's still far from there. This chapter could be an introduction to an AI research article, but not the current article. If it is to stay, I would like to ask you to carry out the analyzes that the authors write about there and show them in this publication. It will be very valuable. For example objection 9: requests were not corrected. Only 3 words have been changed. It is not acceptable.