Performance Assessment of Irrigation Projects in Nepal by Integrating Landsat Images and Local Data

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Article ID : remotesensing-2560276-peer-review-v1 (1)

Article Name : Performance Assessment of Irrigation Projects in Nepal by Integrating Landsat Images and Local Data

 

This paper has following contributions. 

It accomplished by merging long-term changes in satellite-derived irrigated area with local data relevant to irrigation performance, such as annual budget, irrigation service fee, crop output, precipitation, and main canal discharge. This allowed for an evaluation of irrigation project performance and the factors that influence it.

 

 

Therefore, it is interesting and attractive. However, it should be major revised to enhance the quality, as follows:

 

1) In Section 1, authors should make three sub sections, motivation, contributions and organization of the paper

2) Literature review is missing or not present well enough. Pl provide one table for overall idea about the current trends on the particular problem.

 

3) Contributions of the research paper is missing or its not clearly mentioned. Pl add it in contributions sub sections

 4) Pl avoid unnecessary subsections

5) Figure 8 and 9 are not presented well

6) Pl add one table to compare with your existing work with other models

7) In conclusion section, pl add future scope of the present research.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper ‘Performance Assessment of Irrigation Projects in Nepal by Integrating Landsat Images and Local Data’ provides an interesting and innovative study. I do not have any major revisions for the paper, so my recommendation was for 'Accept after minor revision'.

Additional comments

1 - Rewrite the last paragraph of the Introduction saying what the research objectives were, not what you accomplished.

2 - Not common Tables with vertical lines.

3 - Correct the axes of the plots. It has no standard number of decimal places, letters or units (Figures 3, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 e 13).

4 - The results are too numerous for such a short discussion. Improve the Discussion section by including more papers related to the research topic.

5 - In the conclusions section, I think that excerpts from the methodology should not be included, such as: lines 548 to 551, 555 to 557, 561 and 562, 566 and 567.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors did a detailed work on the delineation and classification of the irrigated in the study area, while they present an interesting approach for areas with limited spatial data on irrigated cropland. However, some figure maps should be improved in design, two important citations and a math formula should be added, and some minor english improvements should also be made.

The following comments will vbe helpful for the better presentation and scientific soundness of the article. 

Line 88: “…irrigated areas are, in fact, recorded  non-scientifically by the authorized governmental body.” Please explain what it means non-scientifically recorded. Being recorded by governmental body denotes that some kind of scientific control of the data has been conducted. You cant write that it is not scientifically recorded. Maybe there are data gaps, maybe they used another method that you use. Be more clear about how your approach is better and not just say the government does not have valid records of the irrigated areas, because you writing that it is not scientifically recorded means that.

Figure 1. Location map of the study area. Have one north arrow in the whole figure. So much black and white makes the image overwhelming. The boundaries of the two irrigation project maps can be simplified with a more discrete line frame. Also if canal network is the irrigation network ok, but if not then change the label to river or stream network to denote the artificial or natural water elements

Lines 109 and 110:  the word “epochs” refers to longterm periods, like centuries. Please replace with “period” or a synonym.

Line 240: correct “perfromed “ to “performed“

Figure 3. Spectral Signature by class. Do not stretch the image. Correct by replacing with the initial image and keep ratio of dimensions checked while adjusting in page. And don’t use italics in axes’ titles.

Figure 4. Figure 5. Don’t use black as a color index for Non-Irrigated area. Makes hard to read. Use color pairs yet discrete. eg. green-grey/blue, green-orange etc. Use one north arrow for all images. And remove the same frame from all. Use a simple line frame not a thick black-white.

Figure 6. Don’t stretch images disproportionately. Correct with the initial image and keep scale of image checked while adjusting it to page.

Line 307: correct ‘Africultural’ to ‘Agricultural’

What type of statistical measure is the overall accuracy? Can you provide the formula and the reference in manuscript for readers to understand?

Line 343: the word “epochs” refers to longterm periods, like centuries. Please replace with “period” or a synonym.

Line 436-438: “The amount of ISF collected from the beneficiary farmers depends on  the reliability of the irrigation service provided by the project office. Although there is a provision in the             national policy to collect ISF, it has not been effectively carried out. The  farmers provide     the fee only if they are satisfied with the system.” Provide the source reference of this statement, otherwise, erase it because without proof it is just your opinion, and it is not objective for a scientific publication.

some minor english improvements should also be made. I have noted the words to be replaced with synonyms.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have satisfactorily responded to the concerns that I had previously brought up, and at this point I have no other queries. I strongly suggest that this work may be accepted. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors edited sufficiently and improved the manuscript for this reason I suggest accept in current form.

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript is sufficiently improved.