Establishing a Geo-Database for Drinking Water and Its Delivery and Storage Components with an Object-Based Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper is better. But it still needs improvement.
The style and language issues have generally been resolved.
However, I still feel that you do not do enough in the paper to discuss the generalizability and applicability of these methods to all places – especially those with existing digital resources. Your comments to me explained that and I generally found those points salient. Adding some notes along those lines to the paper – a sentence or two here and there, perhaps based on what you shared with me – would improve the presentation immensely.
Related to this, the new information added about the increases in connections and equipment seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur. It does not make sense why it is in the paper unless it is to highlight that better mapping is finding more system resources (equipment) as the system expands. The only other explanation – that system expansion is occurring in less-developed areas – does not appear to fit since the customer density increased.
Overall, as I noted before, I would want to see more explanation on the findings and how they relate to any system – it is clear how they would work for a system without digital information – before I feel it is ready for publication. I have attached a copy of the paper with specific comments as well.
I have attached a copy of the paper with specific comments as well.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Query:
This paper is better. But it still needs improvement.
The style and language issues have generally been resolved.
Response: Thanks for your comments, we would like to obey all the revisions to make our article good as much as possible We can
Query:
However, I still feel that you do not do enough in the paper to discuss the generalizability and applicability of these methods to all places – especially those with existing digital resources. Your comments to me explained that and I generally found those points salient. Adding some notes along those lines to the paper – a sentence or two here and there, perhaps based on what you shared with me – would improve the presentation immensely.
Response:
There are General Directorates of Drinking Water and Sewerage Administration in all metropolitan cities in Turkey. It is known that some of them have similar systems to the one in the study. However, it is not known how municipalities outside metropolitan cities can develop and implement such a system. It is essential that all municipalities and all institutions responsible for drinking water affairs in the country address drinking water management together in a common database. This requirement has been conceptually met with the package diagram of infrastructure theme and water network class diagrams defined in TNGIS. In the study, the drinking water process was further developed by considering the packages and classes defined by TNGIS together with other UML diagrams, redesigning some classes and implementing a real GIS. For all the reasons explained, the following can be recommended to institutions and researchers in this field who are planning to establish a drinking water infrastructure information system. First, model a drinking water geographic information system integrated with other information systems. Then, use all digital resources from water production to consumption to transfer real water elements to the model. Track water instantly with facilities such as sensors and remote digital measurement tools that help obtain information remotely. Perform analyses such as loss, leakage, fault detection, payment information, consumption information in a dynamic structure by considering time and space. As a result, manage water, which is a "scarce resource", well and leave livable cities where drinking water management is carried out for future generations.
Query:
Related to this, the new information added about the increases in connections and equipment seems to be a bit of a non-sequitur. It does not make sense why it is in the paper unless it is to highlight that better mapping is finding more system resources (equipment) as the system expands. The only other explanation – that system expansion is occurring in less-developed areas – does not appear to fit since the customer density increased.
Response:
In the defined drinking water infrastructure information system in this study, each water users is fed by the entirety of the water produced and carried by the infrastructure information system. Therefore, each water user must be taken into consideration. Namely, it is necessary to be able to analyze information such as the amount of water consumption, the loss and illegal water use caused by each water user, and the failure information in the water elements that deliver water to the user, for the operation of the system. Therefore, such a system must include all users. Otherwise, this defined analysis cannot be performed, and the system's vulnerabilities cannot be detected.
Query:
Overall, as I noted before, I would want to see more explanation on the findings and how they relate to any system – it is clear how they would work for a system without digital information – before I feel it is ready for publication. I have attached a copy of the paper with specific comments as well.
Response:
The designed geographical data model was created with figures 3, 6, 7, 8, 9 given in the findings section. Then, real data in the application area defined with figure 10 was used. The analyses targeted in the design of the model were carried out using real data. The results of these analyses are presented with the screenshots obtained with figures 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17. In terms of interoperability of other systems, a relationship can be established through common data or common classes. This relationship can be established with a common data set or class.
Query:
I have attached a copy of the paper with specific comments as well.
Response:
We have done using your notes, please look at the article and our response.
Query from PDF:
Line 24:
Acronyms only defined in abstract -- not in main body of the paper.
Response:
from first round of my article one of the reviewer specified that "Some abbreviation has been used in abstract before description. For example, what's the LADM? it's necessary to escribe each abbreviation in the first place."
I respond that "I have used all abbreviation with their extended written format." So I have done all abbreviations in the first place according to the reviewer's revision.
Query from PDF:
Line 110:
So far.
Response:
This is the reality.
Query from PDF:
Line 111:
If drinking water components are not mapped when they are constructed, the location of these underground components may not be possible.
Response:
Thanks again, this sentence had not been good, so I have revised it "If drinking water components are not precisely mapped when they are constructed, after a while if there is a necessity to reach the components location may not be possible."
Query from PDF:
Line 112:
Because the upper and lower structures that make up cities are built in different years.
Response:
Thanks again, this sentence had not been good, so I have revised it “Although the upper and lower structures that make up cities are built in different years, so above ground structures can always be mapped. However, it may not always be easy to map underground structures.”
Query from PDF:
Line 229:
Here spelled out "percent" -- Below the percent sign "%" is used. Need to be consistent in the style of the journal.
Response:
Thanks again, this usage had not been good, so I have revised it …1.2 % of the world's….
Query from PDF:
Line 233:
Lacks transition since three sections of the previous paper were combined into one.
Response:
There may be "Lacks transition since three sections of the previous paper were combined into one" because of reviewers demands from the first round. I have to specify that UML definition are using in abstract line 24, 27, 28 and in introduction line 98 and 216, and also fig2a and fig2b and also sub section 2.2., 2.3 and 2.4.
Query from PDF:
Line 254:
How does this compare to the 1.2% figure cited above?
Response:
The water rate stated as 1.2% is expressed as the amount of accessible drinking water. On the other hand, the water rate stated as 0.74% is expressed as the potable drinking water rate.
Query from PDF:
Line 649:
Is this an indicator of system development or of increased data collection/mapping of that system?
Response:
In addition to the existence of the system, in cases such as the growth of the drinking water infrastructure network over time, the renewal of water elements, the increase in the number of water users, the replacement of faulty water elements with new ones, etc., it is essential that all these innovations, water components constructions and changes, revisions are processed into the designed system. Therefore, it is actually an indicator of both system development and the increased data in the system.
Query from PDF:
Line 655:
Response:
Both. Because the system is operated in the entire study area (Trabzon) every day. And of course because the city continues to grow, new water users are added. However, the contribution of the system being implemented in the entire city every day is much greater than to add new customers. The effect of the new water user is more limited.
Query from PDF:
Line: Figure 18.
Response: consumption rate has been revised
Query from PDF:
Line: Table 1.
To my previous comment, a doubling to tripling in the density of equipment does not make sense for a 10% increase in membership density over the same time period. This may mean that the work done to fully "map" the system is working. But I don't see those points being made.
Response:
These figures mean that the drinking water infrastructure information system has been established in Trabzon and that data entry is intensive. The system will continue to grow rapidly until the data entry for the entire Trabzon province is completed. After all the data entry is complete, slower increases can be expected as you stated.
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study aims to establish a drinking water infrastructure information system that can monitor and provide solutions to negative situations such as malfunctions and interruptions, support project and investment studies, and assist with disruptions in field work by obtaining all geographical data.
This studies should be published with minor revision.
Having said that some writing needs to be corrected or improved like in line 117 there are two "that".
Another sentence may be rewritten "That the construction, maintenance, repair and governance of infrastructure facilities cannot be carried out systematically, on time and effectively is a problem for decision makers." or just omit the word "is a problem".
The conclusion should mentioned that this model can be transferable to other locations or even to other countries. (data base model to monitor water location, infrastructure maintenance....)
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee recommendation before
Author Response
Query:
This study aims to establish a drinking water infrastructure information system that can monitor and provide solutions to negative situations such as malfunctions and interruptions, support project and investment studies, and assist with disruptions in field work by obtaining all geographical data.
This studies should be published with minor revision.
Response:
Thank you for your positive comments. The revisions you have specified have been corrected, as detailed below.
Query:
Having said that some writing needs to be corrected or improved like in line 117 there are two "that".
Another sentence may be rewritten "That the construction, maintenance, repair and governance of infrastructure facilities cannot be carried out systematically, on time and effectively is a problem for decision makers." or just omit the word "is a problem".
Response:
I have omitted one "that" and I have revised the sentence as "There is a problem for decision makers that the construction, maintenance, repair and governance of infrastructure facilities cannot be carried out systematically, on time and effectively. "
Query:
The conclusion should mentioned that this model can be transferable to other locations or even to other countries. (data base model to monitor water location, infrastructure maintenance....)
Response:
Please read the text from our op-to-date conclusions.
In this study, the following suggestions were reached from the impressions and field experiences regarding the acquisition, transformation and processing of data. Drinking water infrastructure information systems in the area of responsibility should be established as soon as possible by water and sewerage administrations. After the system is designed in accordance with international geographic data model standards, obtaining spatial and non-spatial data of water components in the short, medium and long term during the implementation phase should be planned. In the short term, all data should be acquired and transferred to the information system in new projects and productions. In the medium term, business plans should be systematically digitized and acquired. In the long term, the virtual drawing method and the measurement of water components above ground level should be carried out. In this way, all drinking water components should be transferred to the system with the contribution of a time-table.
Thanks to devices which can provide remote sensing, such as sensors etc. to be placed in certain components of the drinking water infrastructure information system in appropriate numbers and quality; water storage, loss and leakage, and water flow may be monitored more accurately. Water faults that may occur can be detected earlier and more effectively. By integrating the data obtained from these devices into GIS, the system, which is designed in a static structure, can be transformed into a dynamic structure. Finally, it is recommended that similar studies which allow remote sensing devices to be integrated into the GIS carried out in this study in harmony with LADM standards be used in the drinking water infrastructure system.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is just about ready for publication.
The response text addresses my factual concerns regarding the differences in water accessibility vs. availability (Line 230 & 254) as well as the increases in system structures being higher than the increases in consumptions or customers. in water consumption (Line 655). Incorporating a version of those explanations into the body of the article text would alleviate any potential confusion.
There are still some minor typesetting issues -- generally around page breaks -- that will have to be addressed in final preparation as well.
Author Response
Query:
The paper is just about ready for publication.
Response:
Thanks to your comments and revisions.
Query:
The response text addresses my factual concerns regarding the differences in water accessibility vs. availability (Line 230 & 254) as well as the increases in system structures being higher than the increases in consumptions or customers. in water consumption (Line 655). Incorporating a version of those explanations into the body of the article text would alleviate any potential confusion.
Response:
I texted the below paragraph to reflect your opinion to the manuscript in 259-264
The amount of accessible drinking water is expressed as 1.2% [28]. On the other hand, the water rate given as 0.74% is expressed as the rate of potable water [40]. According to them, it is obvious that there are two different figures about accessible drinking water and potable drinking water, because there two figures represent two different explanations, but one conclusion that human beings must be careful to distribute, control and use drinking water.
Query
There are still some minor typesetting issues -- generally around page breaks -- that will have to be addressed in final preparation as well.
Response:
I have checked all mistakes and typesetting issues and other grammatical deficiencies throughout the article then revised all of them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
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
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1- The title of paper need some improvement to picture out the research subject.
2- Some abbreviation has been used in abstract before description. For example, what's the LADM? it's necessary to escribe each abbreviation in the first place.
3- What's the innovation of this study?
4- Line 41, I think the anthropogenic activity also play crucial role in this regard. For example see " Anthropogenic depletion of Iran's aquifers"
5- How can you claim that all the water distribution cycle is considered in your model?
6- What's the limitation of your study?
7- What's the innovation of your study? I think this GIS based approach is normal method across the world.
8- What's the connection of this study with Turkey development vision?
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Extensive English editing may be required
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper presents a comprehensive review of the establishment of a geographical database for drinking water infrastructure using an object-based approach. The study addresses critical issues surrounding the management of drinking water facilities, emphasizing the importance of incorporating modern mapping technologies and informatics to effectively manage aging infrastructure. The authors delve into the methodology, emphasizing the adoption of current mapping technologies and informatics facilities to establish a GIS database for managing drinking water infrastructure in Trabzon. They outline the process of gathering necessary data from field workers, engineers, and other stakeholders to facilitate spatial and non-spatial analyses. The authors should work on the following areas to improve the manuscript.
General:
1. Clarity of Language: While the paper provides a comprehensive overview, there are instances where the language could be clearer and more concise. Simplifying complex concepts and avoiding jargon can enhance readability and accessibility for a wider audience.
2. Methodological Detail: While the methodology is outlined, providing more detailed explanations of specific data collection methods, data processing techniques, and validation procedures would enhance the replicability of the study.
3. Discussion of Limitations: It would be beneficial to include a discussion of the limitations of the study. Acknowledging potential constraints or biases in the data collection process, as well as any limitations in the methodology or scope of the study, can provide a more balanced and nuanced interpretation of the findings.
4. Future Research Directions: The paper briefly touches on recommendations for future research, but expanding on these suggestions and providing more detailed insights into potential avenues for further investigation could enhance the paper's impact and relevance.
5. Language and Formatting: Attention should be paid to language usage, grammar, and formatting to ensure consistency and clarity throughout the paper. Proofreading for errors and inconsistencies can improve the professionalism and readability of the manuscript.
Section wise:
6. Abstract: The abstract should be revised to strongly emphasize the novel contributions of the study.
7. Section “2. Materials and Methods” looks very extensive. Please shorten it by retaining only the necessary information.
8. In section 3.2, all subsections should be considerably reduced.
9. Figures 6,7, and 8 can be clubbed together as it is representative of the step by step process of UML process development.
10. Figures 10 to 13 indicates the data points and mapping results which can be combined and reorganized to show the applicability of the UML model design.
11. Figures 16 and 17 can be moved to Supplementary material.
12. Table 1: Include Table 1 to include the spatial and temporal resolution of each dataset used, as the study's results pertain to spatiotemporal GIS based drinking water analysis.
13. Temporal Evolution: Include a bar graph or time series plot to represent the temporal evolution characteristics of drinking water use.
14. The study talks about 5-year development plan from 2023 to 2028. However, the 2014 maps are used for the GIS part of the model development. Justify.
As a reviewer, I strongly recommend these major revisions to improve the manuscript's quality before considering it for publication in the journal, Water.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageN/A
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors designed the article to studied the "Establishing a geographical database for drinking water and its components with an object based approach but the article has following discrepancies to improve its quality before further consideration.
The article abstract needs to be improved. The methodology needs to be mentioned very clearly with the final results.
The introduction section needs to be improved and should be in line with the title of the article.
The material and method section needs to be improved totally. There are many flaws in this section. The authors mentioned the study area heading in the Results section. The headings 3.1 to 3.3 should be moved to the Materials and Method section.
Kindly take care about the capitalization of the words in the sentences, you capitalized the many words in your article between the sentence and please also take care about the abbreviations.
The findings and discussion section is very limited. Please enhance this section and strengthen your results with more similar results.
The recommendation mentioned separately after conclusion of the article.
To Thanks someone, should be mentioned in the acknowledgement heading as per journal format. Also remove those lines from the article abstract.
English editing and sentence structure needs to be improved.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThere are two different levels of issues which I feel need to be addressed.
The first is the technical issues. These are generally related to the English language use sometimes being stilted or awkward. This is an easy fix -- working with an editor to ensure the paper is presented well.
The second is more about the approach to the paper. The paper is written as if what is being done Türkiye is applicable without modification elsewhere in the world. Different cultures, different laws, and different resources all limit the generalizability of the process details. Instead, the paper would be better if structured as a case study rather than an attempt to present a general model.
The situation described in the paper has aspects -- from the need to digitize information to the EU standards -- which may not fit other places. For example, the lack of accurate maps was an issue that had to be overcome in Trabzon. However, most communities in the United States have maps of their infrastructure -- thus there is no need to create them. Likewise, Europe has more definitive rules on data use than what might be found in the United States or other places globally.
Two final points. One, much of the GIS discussion is location-based, as would be expected. However, the time element -- when and how often these issues occurred is also important to know and should be discussed. Two, I feel that the concept of sensors does not receive adequate attention. It is mentioned once in the discussion of how to create the system. Then it is not noted again until the final paragraph of the conclusion.
A copy of the paper with comments is attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
The English is generally correct -- just a bit awkward. In other words, it is formal and technical as what would be expected from a non-native speaker and as such, occasionally things get "lost in translation." Work with an editor/proofreader would solve this issue.
