Geospatial Technologies Used in the Management of Water Resources in West of Romania
and Tamas Safar 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript of the authors from Romania and Hungary is concerned with „Geospatial technologies used in the management of water resources in West of Romania“.
Thank you for the opportunity to review this timely and useful research study of professional persons.
The manuscript presents the current issues concerning the proposals and perspective
solutions related to the use of 3D scanning technologies, used, for the first time in Romania for selected hydro-technical and hydromeliorative projects.
This submitted article could be with the aim and scope of the MDPI journal Water (ISSN 2073-4441)
As well as the section: Water Resources Management, Policy, and Governance,
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/water/sections/Water_Resources_Management_Policy_Governance
• Abstract & introduction: These two parts are focused on the main aim of the paper and what is new in the contribution of authors to the state of the art. The abstract with keywords very effectively summarizes the manuscript. The key objective for authors is to introduce and investigate the effective modern 3D scanning technologies, using, for the first time in Romania, a mobile 3D scanning equipment, which includes a sensory platform for capturing LiDAR data, backpack type, for performing mobile mapping system, in addition to the other equipment used (UAV, GNSS and
TLS).
• Materials & methods: Based on the existing research, a representative, independent, comparable, and operable evaluation system was constructed in this paper. The methods used by the authors are very progressive and adequate. They studied selected hydro-technical projects
(Topolovăţu Mic, Coşteiu and Sânmartinu Maghiar) and hydroameliorative
ones (Cruceni Pumping Station).
The data collection was carried out using the mobile scanning technology (MMS), type Backpack of the Leica Pegasus Backpack model, which is equipped with: a GNSS antenna, two Velodyne scanning systems (VLP16) which can collect up to 600,000 points / second, 5 cameras, IMU. Data
collection using terrestrial laser scanning technology (Terrestrial Laser Scanning) was carried out with the Leica C10 equipment with a recording capacity of up to 50,000 points /second, being provided with a compensator, similar to a total electronic station, with a camera capable of collecting
260 images from each station including a millimeter accuracy.
This section gives readers enough information so that they can repeat the study for other areas. It is clear how all of the data in the Results section were obtained and the methods used to collect and analyze the data are scientifically sound.
With some adaptation, this described methodology could be used more generally not only for a selected area of the world.
• Results & discussion: The data are well-controlled and robust and results are well-presented with relevant and current tables, figures, and references.
Discussion fit with the aims of the study stated in the Introduction. Authors adequately compared their findings with the findings of other studies.
• Conclusion: Authors provided useful verification and applicability of proposed technologies for chosen historical water projects according to their real status.
• References: All the references cited are relevant and adequate.
Minor issues for improvement of the manuscript before publishing:
Ø My suggestion for improving or for future research (the weak of the study) is to add more new data sets from last years in the frame of contemporary climate (as the authors write in the last sentences).
Ø Consideration should be given to the length and excessive detail of the post (48 pages). After consultation with the editor, it can be divided into two parts.
Ø Unify the writing of different names of technologies in the text (LIDAR - LiDAR; GPS - gps; Tmic - TMIC)
Ø A huge number of images (54) are sometimes not in sufficient size and quality - consider placement in the Appendix section
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable advice and suggestions! I answer to all your indications in the attachment file and I did all the improvements in the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is entitled 'Geospatial technologies used in the management of water resources in West of Romania'. The article proposes perspective solutions related to the use of modern 3D scanning technologies, using mobile 3D scanning equipment, which includes a sensory platform for capturing LiDAR data for hydrotechnical and drainage structures. My comments are as follows:
- the title needs to be changed, the article focuses on research methodology instead of water resource management. The content of the article is not adequate to the title
- the article is too long, it has 48 pages. In my opinion, it needs to be shortened
- too many photos, some can be omitted because they do not add anything new, e.g. figs. 18, 19, 20
- I propose to present a methodological diagram of the research carried out. Too much detail makes the article unreadable
- introduction requires modification. I consider lines 36 to 44 redundant. Part of the introduction contains a historical overview of measurement methods, and does not refer to the essence of the problem contained in the title. The introduction lacks the aim of the work, which should be clearly indicated.
- Chapter 2.2 describes the hydrotechnical and hydromelioration facility covered by the study, including a detailed discussion of how many hydrological, hydrogeological and other posts are located within the catchment area. These posts were not marked on the map, fig. 3. In my opinion, the entire description (lines 170-190) is redundant.
- in section3 the authors state the aim of study, saying that 'The purpose of this article is to conduct scientific research by creating a database of hydrotechnical objects with the latest technologies obtained from ground 3D laser scans with the latest technologies in order to complete and preserve the cultural heritage'. The collection of the database is not an end in itself. The scanning method itself is new, but in the case of permanent elements such as hydrotechnical facilities it is not needed. All hydrotechnical objects are inventoried, their coordinates are determined and it does not add anything new to the conducted research. It is a tool that can be used. In addition, each facility should have detailed technical documentation. A novelty of the research could be, for example, an inventory of changes resulting from the operation of these objects, e.g. blurring of the terrain, changes in the water level in the reservoir and fluctuations of the shoreline in combination with traditional hydrometric measurements at hydrological stations or in hard-to-reach areas. The obtained results indicate that the georeference error in the case of using control points (GCP) and checking them in AutoCAD is 2-4 cm for the tested hydrotechnical objects. For facilities as large as hydrotechnical facilities, the obtained results are not relevant
- the conclusions should be improved.
In my opinion, the entire article should be rewritten. As an example, select only 1 object for which the analyzes will be performed, along with the sample data that are subject to change Technical Notes
- in line 1251 there is' Calin Mariana, Damian George, Popescu Tiberiu, Manea Raluca, Erghelegiu Bogdan, Salagean Tudor (2015), 3D Modeling 'and should be' Calin M., Damian G., Popescu T., Manea R., Rghelegiu B., Salagean T. "
- in line 1147 there is "Iordan Daniela" and there should be "Iordan D.,"
- in line 1176 there is' Hauke Strasdat, J.M.M. Montiel, and Andrew J. Davison should be 'Strasad H., Montiel J.M.M., Davison A.J.'
The entire literature list should be adapted to the journal's guidelines –
- Table 4.22 is on page 43 and it should be Table 22
- line 202 is km2 and it should be km2
- line 203 is km / km2 and should be km / km2 and many others …
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable advice and suggestions! I answer to all your indications in the attachment file and I did all the improvements in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper is more like an introduction of project or tutorial of a software rather than a research article. Lidar is not a new technology. It has been widely used in many fields. It seems not that necessary to introduce this technology again. It is not clear what is specifically studied this this paper, and it is not clear what the novelty is.
Abstract should be rewritten. It looks like a manual of the Lidar equipment. The background information, study objective, experimental design, experimental results, and conclusion should be provided in the abstract. Acronyms such as LiDAR, UAV, GNSS, TLS, and IMU should be defined.
Too many keywords.
LiDAR or Lidar? Try to be consistent, and define it at the first time.
It is not necessary to introduce the history of “laser scanning” and the history of “Lidar” separately. They could be merged together. Meanwhile, the history of Lidar is well known knowledge. It could be shortened. The literature review should focus more on specific applications of Lidar and what algorithms have been developed to process Lidar data. What problems have been solved by using the Lidar technology? What problems are still not addressed? What’s the meaning of this study? These issues should be explained clearly in the introduction.
km2 should be km2
The paper should be reorganized. A lot of materials introduced in the “Results and Discussion” section should be moved to the “Materials and Methods” section. The paper should be shortened to make it more concise. Now it is confusing and distracting. There are too many figures and tables. Why section 3.2.3 is placed after section 3.3.3?
The conclusion is too long. It is not clear what the key points are. Table 4.22 should not appear in the conclusion section.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable advice and suggestions! I answer to all your indications in the attachment file and I did all the improvements in the manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors made a significant improvement to the article, however, in my opinion, the article still needs improvement. The article is too long, it needs to be shortened further. In my opinion, it is not necessary to describe the details of individual image processing programs or the detailed capabilities of the software (Figs 17-20 are unnecessary). Once again, I would like to remind you that such details should be included in a different type of journal than Water. More attention should be paid to the purpose of the work, the usefulness of the results obtained. There is no information in the article about financing and implementation of the project within the European Union. There is also no information on the navigable use of the facilities and future plans to modernize the facilities.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. I improved the manuscript. Please, find bellow the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
There are 43 figures and 20 tables. I have rarely seen a research article with so many figures and tables. A lot of figures and tables are just screenshots of the software for data processing, which are not necessary for a research article.
What’s the difference between DEM and DTM?
Why section 3.4.4 (line 746) appears before section 3.4.2 (line 771)? Where is section 3.4.3?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable suggestions. Please, find bellow the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
