Analysis of Land Use Change Effects/Impacts on Surface Water Resources in Delhi
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read the manuscript entitled “Analysis of land use changes and changes in trend and status especially surface water resources by using remote sensing and GIS techniques: A case of NCT Delhi.” Surely the content of this manuscript is a reading interest. However, in the manuscript, there are several issues and I am not able to accept this manuscript in the present form. So, I request a major revision. Following are my observations:
1) The title of the article should be short and scientific. I suggest to change the title
2) Abstract is too much lengthy. The significant content of this study is missing in the abstract including aims, methodological application and contribution to policy making
3) The authors used present tense, the article should be written in past tense
4) In introduction the authors focused on surface water resources instead of land use perspective. It should be changed. Many mistake in citation format like (Du, 2010)(Nagendra & Ostrom, 2014)
5) In study area, the location map is not well presented. Use a single layout, latitude, longitude etc.
6) The table caption should be above the table.
7) In table 2, it is not collection time, use suitable term
8) Describe the land use classification technique in methodology
9) Image classification accuracy measure should be added
10) Figure 3, use standard layout format, where is latitude and longitude?
11) Use map to present the change area instead of table
12) In source, generated by author/s should be changed by prepared by author/s
13) In discussion, there is no literature, compare your study with existing literature and show the novelty of your study
14) The limitation and future direction should added in the conclusion
Thank you
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The co-author and I very much appreciated the critical and constructive comments on this manuscript. The comments are extensive and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestions incorporated in the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by you, and our responses to all the comments are as follows in the attached file.
Please see the attachment. Thanking you.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors present an interesting study on land-use changes and changes in trends and status of surface water resources. The bright side of the manuscript is that to provide some useful practical details in related topic. However, some parts of the manuscript are not easy to understand, and there are many grammatical mistakes. Therefore, I would like to make some suggestions to improve the quality of the paper as below:
Lines 12-13 “This research analyses the land use changes and changes in trends and status for effective management and planning of surface water resources to protect water quality and quantity.” This would be better fit and of first paragraph of Abstract. Please move this sentence to Line 16.
Lines 17-18: “There are many research studies on the land-use changes effects, trends and status and relationship between them, but it is not yet assessed in the case of NCT Delhi.”. I think, this sentence would better fit as “Although many studies on the land-use changes effects, trends and status and relationship between them, none of them focused on NCT Delhi”. After this sentence, please add a sentence that clearly explains your study aim.
Lines 43: Please add a conjunction between two sentences such as in this context, in this sense etc.
Lines 43: Please add a reference here.
Lines 52-53: (Du, 2010)(Nagendra & Ostrom, 2014) -> (Du, 2010; Nagendra & Ostrom, 2014)
Please the guidelines of the journal
(https://www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci/instructions#preparation)
Lines 54-55: Which guidelines? Please clarify
Line 65: Please add a reference here.
Line 95: scholars -> researchers
Line 150: has tried to -> aimed to
Lines 103-105: “This study also helps in improvement of practices, policies and plans related to surface water resources planning and land-use development planning” Please move this sentence to conclusion.
Line 106: Study area and Data sources and method sections should be subsection of Materials and Methods section. Please the guidelines of the journal
(https://www.mdpi.com/journal/urbansci/instructions#preparation)
Line 107: has been -> was
Line 114: Need a reference.
Line 124: km2 -> km2
Lines 126-128: “At present, the City boundary has around 1000 no. natural and man-made water bodies.”
Lines 130-136: This table no makes sense to me. Actually, you can write down that the surface water area has been decreasing since 1962 (Delhi, 2021; Delhi Development Authority, 1990; Gupta, 1962). I think table should be deleted.
Line 186: are-> were
Line 297: The reference should be in the table title. Same for Table 6.
Lines 313, 315,317, 319, 320 and 336: km2 -> km2 . Same for Table 4.
Line 409: has -> was
Lines 409-411: “The study has used indices P and Ps for characterizing spatial changes. P, Ps have numerators that represent the temporal land-use changes and denominators that represent spatial changes. Using N, T and P in the study,” I think, the meanings of each letter can be given in parathesis, and this would be better fit.
Line 419: studies -> surveys
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The Co-author and I very much appreciated the critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewers. The comments are extensive and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestions incorporated in the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewers, and our responses to all the comments are as follows in the attached file.
Please find the attachment.
Thanking you.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. I think the method proposed in this paper is not innovative, but only statistical analysis through historical data. Using GIS and sensors to observe hydrological and geological changes is the current common way. The author should focus on the new fusion method of multi-source data. In addition, the writing style and structure of the paper need to be improved.
2. The summary is too complicated and should be simplified. It mainly introduces the background of this article, the problems to be solved, the methods to be adopted, and the effects.
3. The introduction part should clearly describe the methods, innovations, effects and composition of the article
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
the Co-author and I very much appreciated the critical and constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewers. The comments are extensive and useful in improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have increased the scientific value of the revised manuscript. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestions incorporated in the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewers, and our responses to all the comments are as follows in the attached file.
Please find the attachment.
Thanking you
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I have reviewed the revised version of this manuscript on which I have made some useful comments to improve the overall quality of this manuscript.
As far as my observations is concerned, I found that the authors made possible changes and modified their manuscript as per my comments.
So, I have now no objection to accept this manuscript and strongly recommend to accept it.
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
I and co-author very much thankful for your valuable and appreciating comments on this revised manuscript by the first reviewer.
Point 1: I have reviewed the revised version of this manuscript on which I have made some useful comments to improve the overall quality of this manuscript.
As far as my observations are concerned, I found that the authors made possible changes and modified their manuscript as per my comments.
So, I have now no objection to accept this manuscript and strongly recommend to accept it.
Thank you.
Response: Thank you so much for your appreciating inputs.
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
1. Abstract is too tediously. The problems to be solved, methods and effects proposed shall be described concisely. The results should be quantified to show the progressiveness of the proposed method.
2. At the end of introduction, the structure of this paper should be explained. For example, what is the section 1? What is the section 2 mainly about?...
3. The format of the paper is very confusing, and the author needs to readjust it. E.g. page 6, page 7
4. There are some mistakes. For example, the titles of lines 231 and 248 are 'methods'. In addition, many units have made mistakes, such as km2 in lines 356, 357 and 358
5. In the results of the paper, the author compares the data through tables. Readers will be confused. Please draw some necessary figures according to the tables to illustrate.
6. The conclusion also needs to be further refined.
Author Response
Dear Editor and Reviewer,
I and co-author very much appreciated the constructive comments on this manuscript by the reviewers. The comments are very thorough and useful in improving the manuscript. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestions incorporated in the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:
Point 1: Abstract is too tediously. The problems to be solved, methods and effects proposed shall be described concisely. The results should be quantified to show the progressiveness of the proposed method.
Response: Thank you so much for your valuable and constructive comment. Now the abstract has been revised by comprising the basic introduction, general & specific problem, aim, method, results and general context with broad perspective; all these elements of structure have been described concisely. The results are shown in quantified terms in the abstract and in the manuscript for showing progress of the method.
Point 2: At the end of introduction, the structure of this paper should be explained. For example, what is the section 1? What is the section 2 mainly about?...
Response: This comment is also incorporated in the revised manuscript in the end of introduction section. Hope, you will find this rationale.
Point 3: The format of the paper is very confusing, and the author needs to readjust it. E.g. page 6, page 7.
Response: Thank you for the insightful comment, the whole manuscript has been readjusted in explicitly.
Point 4: There are some mistakes. For example, the titles of lines 231 and 248 are 'methods'. In addition, many units have made mistakes, such as km2 in lines 356, 357 and 358.
Response: Suggested corrections are incorporated in revised manuscript. Hope you will find this assertive. We have provided the numbering for each section and their sub-sections for avoiding confusion and all units have been corrected in the manuscript.
Point 5: In the results of the paper, the author compares the data through tables. Readers will be confused. Please draw some necessary figures according to the tables to illustrate.
Response: The comment has incorporated in the revised manuscript. Few graphs are prepared along the table for presenting results clearly. Hope you find these efforts rationale.
Point 6: The conclusion also needs to be further refined.
Response: The conclusion section has refined again. Thank you for the comment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has revised the manuscript according to the suggestion, and it is suggested to publish.
