Identification of Potential Natural Aquifer Recharge Sites in Islamabad, Pakistan, by Integrating GIS and RS Techniques

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The idea in the manuscript involves the analysis and defining of the optimal location for natural aquifer recharge in Islamabad, Pakistan. The analysis involves solving the specific problem of water supply to the area that has a high population density. Conventional mathematical tools that are acceptable for this type of problem are applied. The results are incorporated into the graphic mapping by using GIS and RS Techniques. The abstract is well formed and clearly explained.

However, there are shortcomings in the manuscript which indicate that it cannot be accepted for publication in this form. 

The structure of the paper is not well formed. There is no clear border between the definition of methods and materials, the presentation of results, and the discussion. Certain segments of the paper are explained too extensively, while there is a lack of mathematical explanation of the procedures for calculating the parameters for the formation of the graphic mapping. The paper must contain an explanation of the methods (AHP, Fuzzy, WLC) and the mathematical calculation flow. A representative example of the calculation should be listed within the results. The paper also contains a large number of typographical and technical errors.

In addition, shortcomings for modification are also:

§  Improve the literature review from the aspect of methods that will be used in this model.

§  Explain the reasons why these MCDM methods were chosen as optimal for this type of analysis. Some general information and an Overview of the MCDM method can find in the article:

     [1]   Sitorus, F., Cilliers, J.J., Brito-Parada, P.R. Multi-criteria decision making for the choice problem in mining and mineral processing: Applications and trends. Expert System with Application 2019, 121, 393–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eswa.2018.12.001

§  Correct Figure 2 in relation that will follow the text explanation about four stages in the model (rows 161 – 172). That way graphical representation will clearly explain the methodology flow in the presented model. I suggest taking a look at the article about literature review and graphical representation of the model:

     [2]   Djenadic, S., Tanasijevic, M., Jovancic, P., Ignjatovic, D., Petrovic, D., Bugaric, U. Risk Evaluation: Brief Review and Innovation Model Based on Fuzzy Logic and MCDM. Mathematics, 2022, 10, 811. https://doi.org/10.3390/math10050811

§  Section 3 is overloaded with information. I suggest reorganization. 3.1 Data Sources; 3.2 Preparation of Thematic Maps; 3.3 Methodology (that contains basic information and calculation equation of AHP, Fuzzy logic, WLC). Only the material and methods explanation should be in this section.

§  Section 3.2 Selection of Factors - is insufficient because the indicators in the analysis were explained and selected in Section 3.1 and listed in Table 1. Some of the text from Section 3.2 should move to the previous Section after Table 1.

§  The calculation and results of the AHP, Fuzzy logic and WLC should move to Section 4 – Results. The calculation for the AHP method is presented in detail, while for Fuzzy logic and WLC calculation is not presented. It is not clear which procedures of Fuzzy logic were applied (fuzzification, composition, identification, defuzzification). I suggest showing representative examples and other results to structure in Tables.

§  For all the parameters in the analysis, the abbreviation can be introduced so the Tables below could be more clear (less text).

§  Figure 5 is well known AHP flow chart, and it is insufficient. In the consistency check of the AHP method, indexes CI and RI are two times explained. Results of the AHP method and consistency check can be incorporated into the one Table (different authors presented results in that way).

§  In Section 4. Results and Discussion – Results from the AHP method are again presented while there is no information about other methods and output is used to form Figure 9 as an essential part of the work. The results of the AHP method and percentage distribution are repeated too many times.

§  A Section 5 – Discussion should be formed.

§  The listed references are not unified at the end. Reference [2] is not written correctly (name of the website; available on; date of access) also link leads us to Page not found.

§  Technical remarks that need to be corrected: Table. 1 (row 144, 155); abbreviation NAR (Nature Aquifer Recharge) is introduced at the beginning of the manuscript but never used after; The Higher (row 231); Figure. 2 (row 161); Table 3 instead Figure 3 (row 316); Table 5 instead of Figure 5 (row 337); etc.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the uploaded response to comments file. Thanks for your attention and assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is a case study. Identification of Potential Natural Aquifer Recharge Sites in Islamabad is being considered. The usual mathematical methods for ranking and decision-making were used. AHP and MCDM are well known but fuzzy logic and inference are specific. The authors presented only fuzzy propositions (chapter 3.4) and mention fuzzification (line 378). Fuzzy logic and inference are not processed. 

Several recommendations for improvement are listed below: 

Line 44. - Missing reference. 

Line 45. – Missing explanation for the BCM unit. 

Line 66 and 68 - The word ``relatively'' is used twice. It is necessary to clarify what it is about. 

Line 70 – 92. - It is necessary to tabulate which criteria were analyzed in each article. What are the similarities and differences? 

Chapter 3.5. - Describe in more detail the fuzzy inference engine.  

Discussion: Аre there alternative methods? Is the method stable and robust? 

Author Response

Please see the uploaded response to comments file. Thanks for your attention and assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Paper ID: remotesensing-1902354

Title: Identification of Potential Natural Aquifer Recharge Sites in Islamabad, Pakistan by Integrating GIS and RS Techniques

This study mainly proposed potential sites for aquifer recharge wells using AHP and fuzzy logic techniques. Researchers purely integrated the GIS and RS datasets derived from different sources for final analysis. In general details and specifications of the data collected or obtained from field surveys should be presented and justified. Following are the recommendations for further improvement of the manuscript.

 COMMENT # 1. Authors should carefully proof-read to eliminate spelling errors. For example, see ‘tub wells’ in the abstract, line 23, ‘Tub Wells Data’ under ASDF DEM sections in input variables in Figure 2, ‘class’s areas’ written over the line 442, extra space after the citation in line 278 and 356 and 2 in Area axis label (in square kilometers) units in Figure 10.

 COMMENT # 2. Add some more relevant results in the abstract section.

COMMENT # 3. Authors should refer all the work in introduction section in sequence e.g., covering the potential works to be cited for whole world, then coming towards South Asia, followed by relevant studies covering Pakistan and then similar (if available) studies on Islamabad region should be presented.

COMMENT # 4. Authors should mention the source of DEM with correct resolution. Downloading the DEM from ASF is insufficient. Better to report the original DEM utilized in the study by mentioning whether it was ASTER based, SRTM sourced or from other missions of ALOS-PALSAR. Likewise, authors initially reported the resolution of DEM of 12.5m, but on line 264, page 08, it is 12m instead of 12.5m.

COMMENT # 5. Initially elevation range of study area is reported to cover the altitude from 457 to 610m (refer to line 123), but Figure 3(d) highlights all the elevation from 360m to 1538m) covering all the region of Islamabad. The difference should be re-reviewed and corrected.

COMMENT # 6. Manuscript reports that spatial data for 200 tube wells and 400 soil samples was collected but geographically these sampling locations are not presented. It is recommended to either map the locations with resulting attributes of sample data results for the wells and soil samples or present it in the form of table with their coordinates and final resulting attributes.

COMMENT # 7. Full stop after reference [17] line 113 is required before starting the new sentence.

COMMENT # 8. In the legend section of all the maps line features should be placed above the polygons. Also, all maps except Figure 1 seem stretched and their aspect ratio is distorted. Also, the resolution of all the figures is questionable and should be improved.

COMMENT # 9. In the legend section of Figure 4. drainage density is written instead of population density. Recheck and eliminate this error. Also report the spatial resolution of the raster and whether this data was available in the form of population of Union Councils or population of all the sectors was provided? Or it was a point data that was interpolated to cover the complete region? Also, brief the background logic/methodology of final map of population density.

COMMENT # 10. Whether Sentinel-2A was utilized in study or authors adopted Sentinel-2B? What was the acquisition date? How many bands were utilized to perform the classification? Also mention the classification technique used for supervised classification. Whether it was minimum distance, maximum likelihood or other machine learning based algorithms used for classification.

COMMENT # 11. Authors reported the sieve analysis was performed and hydrometric based soil mapping was carried out (See line 141). Better to mention that the final soil map was either AASHTO based or it was USCS derived classification? What was the sampling depth for soil samples? Also, present the test results by gradation curve for final soil classification in section of data sources and report the resolution of soil raster.

COMMENT # 12. Table 1 reports that Slope raster was obtained from CDA/field survey, but line 264 highlights the fact that Slope was derived from DEM? Which one of the two statement is correct?

COMMENT # 13. Some of the text in Figure 2 is written in Calibri/Arial font whereas majority of the other text in Times New Roman. Use same font for all the figures.

COMMENT # 14. Authors mentioned that they used ArcGIS 10.5 for the processing the raster/vector data in line 178, 191 but line 265 reports that they used 10.3 version of ArcGIS. Authors are recommended to use same/updated version for complete analysis.

COMMENT # 15. Which technique of interpolation was adopted to produce the soil map? And whatever it was, what is the justification of adopting that? Likewise, authors mentioned that they used kriging method to interpolate the water table, why not IDW?

COMMENT # 16. What was the source of shapefile utilized to outline the Islamabad region in all the maps?

COMMENT # 17. These are the tables on Line 316 and 339 and not figures. Recheck and update the table/figure numbers accordingly.

COMMENT # 18. Numbering/sequence on line 325 starts from (b) instead of (a). Why is it so?

COMMENT # 19. Recheck the total effect of factor influencing (%) in Table 4 (line 337). It should be 100 but adding all the factors in the last column i.e., 21+21+28+9+7+11+4 it comes to be 101. Recheck the error and update accordingly.

COMMENT # 20. Recheck the line 370 for typing error as ‘normally and in general’ are the synonyms and are repeated unnecessarily.

COMMENT # 21. In section 4.2 starting from line 485, it is not clear that whether the technical design of ground water recharge wells is proposed by authors (as shown in Figure 11) or CDA provided the same design. Whatever the case is, add background methodology for the final design with proper/updated references. Also brief whether the same design will be applicable to all the proposed sites or not?

COMMENT # 22. Text above Figure 11 on right, may be re-written in the form of table for better visualization.

Author Response

Please see the uploaded response to comments file. Thanks for your attention and assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Application of multicriteria analysis, specifically AHP method, is not new in estimating the location suitability. AHP is straight forward and simple method that is easily integrated with GIS. I have several concerns with this paper.

AHP method is usually used to determine the priorities of each criterion based on the pairwise comparison. It is no clear why the authors ranked the factors (lines 303-315) in an absolute scale (from 1 to 7) since the priorities of each factor relies on its relative importance in the observed pair. Furthermore, it is not clear why the maximum intensity of importance value that was assigned in the pairwise comparison is 5 (strong importance). Furthermore, how were the calculated priorities (scaled from 0 to 1) used or were they used at all?

How did the authors calculate fuzzy membership values? Which functions did they use? Please explain the fuzzy membership values assigned in the Table 7.

The use of WLC method is not clear either. What is written here is a simple summation of the weighted factors. The WLC value function is usually used to standardize the input factors and then the standardized factors are multiplied by the weights that resulted from the AHP.

Please explain how you chose the sites for validation of the results. It would also be useful to perform a sensitivity analysis i.e. change the intensity of importance in pairwise comparison and test the change of results.

In Table 1 the sources of the data should be checked (water table especially). 

Author Response

Please see the uploaded response to comments file. Thanks for your attention and assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

The topic of the article is interesting and well structured. The overall quality of the article at the moment is not fully satisfactory but it can be certainly improved after major revisions.

Here you can find my comments:

ABSTRACT: Please, introduce all the indicators (i.e., LULC), by reporting the entire names. It is mandatory in a correct abstract. Th reader must be guided in the understanding of the novelty of your study.

OVERALL: - Please, enlarge and re-arrange all Figures and font sizes in order to guide the reader properly in all sections. All figures must be composed of HD images. It is mandatory to improve the scientific quality of the whole manuscript.

-   Please, pay attention to the JOURNAL TEMPLATE in all sections.

INTRODUCTION: Please, consider in the scientific background of your study the use of soft-computing techniques in the management of natural resources broadly speaking (i.e.,

Sarhadi, A., Burn, D. H., Johnson, F., Mehrotra, R., & Sharma, A. (2016). Water resources climate change projections using supervised nonlinear and multivariate soft computing techniques. Journal of Hydrology, 536, 119-132.

Sadeghifar, T.; Lama, G.F.C.; Sihag, P.; Bayram, A.; Kisi, O. Wave height predictions in complex sea flows through soft computing models: Case study of Persian gulf. Ocean Eng. 2022, 245, 110467, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110467)

METHODS: - Please, insert a Figure for each sub-section. This will improve the scientific quality of your study, as a great support to all the equations proposed here.

-The methodology section must be re-arranged accordingly, aiming at clearly indicating the novel aspects of your research.

CONCLUSIONS: The conclusions need to be re-structured after the corrections indicated by the reviewer.

Author Response

Please see the uploaded response to comments file. Thanks for your attention and assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

After the first revision, some of the remarks were accepted and changes were made, but there are still some significant remarks which indicate that the paper is not acceptable for publishing in the presented form.

The authors did not fully follow the next recommendations:

• Suggestion no.6 ``Describe in more detail the fuzzy inference engine.``

I expect a mathematical and conceptual form, not just descriptive. 

• Suggestion no.7 ``Аre there alternative methods? Is the method stable and robust?`

How the authors prove the claim from their answer. Validation is required. 

Also, asimilar model was already presented and published in the paper (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11356-020-11975-7 ), just used in selecting the optimal Landfill site in the same capital city of Pakistan (Islamabad). In that situation the contribution of the paper is questionable. The main question is what is novel in this model in the scientific field?

Author Response

Please see the upload response file. Thanks a lot!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Please consider improving the quality of the figures:

- figures 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9 seem to be stretched in the south-north direction in comparison with the figure s 1 and 3,

- parts of figure 11 are in coarse resolution comapring to the photographs.

Also, the validation is still not entirely clear (please consider using confusion matrix or some other tool to demonstrate the validity of the results in comparison with the ground truth).

Author Response

Please see the upload response file. Thanks a lot!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

The article has been improved, but still few corrections are needed:

INTRODUCTION: Please, consider in the scientific background of your study the use of advanced statistical techniques in the management of natural resources broadly speaking (i.e.,

Lama, G.F.C., Errico, A., Pasquino, V., Mirzaei, S., Preti, F., Chirico, G.B. 2022. Velocity uncertainty quantification based on Riparian vegetation indices in open channels colonized by Phragmites australis. J. Ecohydraulics 7(1), 71–76. https://doi.org/10.1080/24705357.2021.1938255

Sarhadi, A., Burn, D. H., Johnson, F., Mehrotra, R., & Sharma, A. (2016). Water resources climate change projections using supervised nonlinear and multivariate soft computing techniques. Journal of Hydrology, 536, 119-132.

- Please re-arrange Figure 11 in terms of both dpi quality and size.

Author Response

Please see the upload response file. Thanks a lot!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx