Uncovering Anthropogenic Changes in Small- and Medium-Sized River Basins of the Southwestern Caspian Sea Watershed: Global Information System and Remote Sensing Analysis Using Satellite Imagery and Geodatabases

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The title of the article needs to be revised. It is recommended to include the methods related to Anthropogenic Transformation.
2. Abstract. This section needs to be further condensed, especially with the addition of content related to data sources, research methods, and quantitative results.
3. 1. Introduction. This section is too fragmented and lacks necessary logic. Additionally, there are too many paragraphs. It is recommended to merge short paragraphs and keep the number of paragraphs between 3 and 5. Moreover, the last paragraph should clearly state the existing problems in the anthropogenic transformation of Small and Medium-Sized River Basins and highlight the innovative aspects of this study. These can be illustrated using 3–4 bullet points.
4. 2.3. Methods. This section is the most important part of the study, but the current version lacks a detailed description of the research methods. It is suggested to split Figure 2 into two parts: (1) presenting the overall technical route; (2) analyzing the methods related to Anthropogenic Transformation separately, especially placing the relevant calculation formulas in the main text.
5. 3. Results. (1) The current version has too many levels of subheadings (from 3.1 to 3.1.1.1.1.), and only three levels should be retained at most; (2) The writing style of this section leans more towards a technical report rather than a research paper. It merely lists indicators such as Population Density, Average Maximum and Average Population for the Sunzha, Sulak, Ulluchay, Karachay, Atachay, Haraz, and Gorgan River Basins, lacking comprehensive and in-depth analysis. For example, it should include analyses of driving forces and interannual variation trends. (3) There are too many related figures and tables, and some of the less important ones can be moved to the supplementary materials.
6. 4. Discussion. It is recommended to add subheadings based on the research results to conduct a thorough discussion and analysis, thereby enhancing the logic and structure of this section.

Author Response

Comments 1: The title of the article needs to be revised. It is recommended to include the methods related to Anthropogenic Transformation.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it. Thank you for your valuable comment. We have made corrections to the title of the scientific article.

Comments 2: Abstract. This section needs to be further condensed, especially with the addition of content related to data sources, research methods, and quantitative results.

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have made corrections to the abstract of the scientific article.

Comments 3: 1. Introduction. This section is too fragmented and lacks necessary logic. Additionally, there are too many paragraphs. It is recommended to merge short paragraphs and keep the number of paragraphs between 3 and 5. Moreover, the last paragraph should clearly state the existing problems in the anthropogenic transformation of Small and Medium-Sized River Basins and highlight the innovative aspects of this study. These can be illustrated using 3–4 bullet points.

Response 3: Section 1 is an introduction to a scientific paper. In it, we touched upon the most important aspects of the study of anthropogenic transformation using remote sensing and geoinformatics data. We have combined short paragraphs. Additionally, we have added the practical significance of the study.

Comments 4: 2.3. Methods. This section is the most important part of the study, but the current version lacks a detailed description of the research methods. It is suggested to split Figure 2 into two parts: (1) presenting the overall technical route; (2) analyzing the methods related to Anthropogenic Transformation separately, especially placing the relevant calculation formulas in the main text.

Response 4: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. We have reworked the general scheme of the study and provided a description and characterization of the formulas in text.

Comments 5: 3. Results. (1) The current version has too many levels of subheadings (from 3.1 to 3.1.1.1.1.), and only three levels should be retained at most; (2) The writing style of this section leans more towards a technical report rather than a research paper. It merely lists indicators such as Population Density, Average Maximum and Average Population for the Sunzha, Sulak, Ulluchay, Karachay, Atachay, Haraz, and Gorgan River Basins, lacking comprehensive and in-depth analysis. For example, it should include analyses of driving forces and interannual variation trends. (3) There are too many related figures and tables, and some of the less important ones can be moved to the supplementary materials.

Response 5: We agree with the reviewer that the structure presented in section 3 looks rather cumbersome, however, given the fact that the study examines 7 river basins within three countries, this block of work contains only a brief description of environmental management. Given the unlimited volume of electronic publications, we would like to distribute the data obtained during our research to all readers. The analysis of the results is given in sections 3 and 4. The purpose of this study was to accurately show the spatial variability of transformation indicators using GIS and remote sensing. We would not like to use the obtained cartographic materials in applications, but would like to keep them in section 3.

Comments 6: 4. Discussion. It is recommended to add subheadings based on the research results to conduct a thorough discussion and analysis, thereby enhancing the logic and structure of this section.

Response 6: Thank you for your valuable opinion, however, we believe that subheadings should not be highlighted within this section.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

From the review of the manuscript, it is not clear whether it has been proposed for review in the journal Sustainability or Water. In such a case, the authors should decide in which journal they want to publish.

They should substantially revise their work, adhering to the template of the journal in which they want to publish.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, Thank you very much for your comment. The manuscript of the scientific article has been submitted for publication in the journal Water (ISSN 2073-4441), Special Issue "Applications of Remote Sensing and GISs in River Basin Ecosystems". The manuscript of the scientific article has not been submitted to the journal "Sustainability". We simply used a template downloaded from the mdpi website by mistake. In the revised manuscript of the scientific article, we used the correct template

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article uses a comprehensive, multi-scale approach to examine the anthropogenic transformation of seven river basins. The authors base their analysis on high-resolution remote sensing data and global population grids and calculate seven different indicators. The manuscript represents a significant contribution to river basin-level anthropogenic research in the region but I have with some questions and suggestions to become an even stronger and more practice-oriented publication.

1. - The Materials section should include a summary table of all data sources used (spatial and temporal resolution and eventual preprocessing steps).

2. - Please provide linear regression p-values ​​for population and land use trends to determine whether increasing or decreasing trends are reliable.

3. - The Nature management chapters (subchapters of 3.1) are disproportionately long which distracts from the main results. They should be shortened.

4. - Examine on a correlation or multivariate regression basis, whether and, if so, where and how population density growth is related to the expansion of built-up areas.

5. - Which statistical procedure (e.g. correlation, regression) was used to test whether population density changes actually explain the expansion of built-up areas?

6. - The Karachay and Gorgan basins show the highest degradation values. What local economic or institutional factors are behind this high transformation and how are these reflected in management proposals?

7. - It would have been recommended to formulate management proposals at the river basin level in the Discussion section in order to make the study more practical. 

Author Response

Comments 1: The article uses a comprehensive, multi-scale approach to examine the anthropogenic transformation of seven river basins. The authors base their analysis on high-resolution remote sensing data and global population grids and calculate seven different indicators. The manuscript represents a significant contribution to river basin-level anthropogenic research in the region but I have with some questions and suggestions to become an even stronger and more practice-oriented publication.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it.

 

Comments 2: The Materials section should include a summary table of all data sources used (spatial and temporal resolution and eventual preprocessing steps).

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have added the corresponding table.

 

Comments 3: Please provide linear regression p-values for population and land use trends to determine whether increasing or decreasing trends are reliable.

Response 3: In this study, we did not touch upon the study of the regression relationship between population change and land use types, due to the fact that the pixel values for population size and density contain quantitative values of the indicator, while qualitative values for land use (LC/LU type).

 

Comments 4: The Nature management chapters (subchapters of 3.1) are disproportionately long which distracts from the main results. They should be shortened.

Response 4: We agree with the reviewer that the structure presented in section 3 looks rather cumbersome, however, given the fact that the study examines 7 river basins within three countries, this block of work contains only a brief description of environmental management. Given the unlimited volume of electronic publications, we would like to distribute the data obtained during our research to all readers. The analysis of the results is given in sections 3 and 4. The purpose of this study was to accurately show the spatial variability of transformation indicators using GIS and remote sensing. We would not like to use the obtained cartographic materials in applications, but would like to keep them in section 3.

 

 

Comments 5: Examine on a correlation or multivariate regression basis, whether and, if so, where and how population density growth is related to the expansion of built-up areas. Which statistical procedure (e.g. correlation, regression) was used to test whether population density changes actually explain the expansion of built-up areas?

Response 5: In this study, we did not touch upon the study of the regression relationship between population change and land use types, due to the fact that the pixel values for population size and density contain quantitative values of the indicator, while qualitative values for land use (LC/LU type). In the study, we showed the spatial and temporal variability of the indicators.

Comments 6: The Karachay and Gorgan basins show the highest degradation values. What local economic or institutional factors are behind this high transformation and how are these reflected in management proposals?

Response 6: The high degree of degradation and anthropogenic transformation of the Karachay and Gorgan river basins is due to a complex of interrelated economic, natural and social factors that manifest themselves most in these basins. This is due to the historical conditions of economic development within the territory of these basins, the large share of agricultural development in the river valleys, the development of urbanization and the growth of settlements.

 

Comments 7: It would have been recommended to formulate management proposals at the river basin level in the Discussion section in order to make the study more practical. 

Response 7: The purpose of the study is to systematize scientifically based data characterizing the degree of anthropogenic transformation and degradation of ecosystems in the basins of the rivers under consideration and to form objective conclusions on this basis for subsequent comprehensive analysis. The results obtained create the necessary empirical foundation for the development of specific practical management recommendations. The authors of the article fully share the importance of including proposals to reduce anthropogenic pressure at the river basin level. Indeed, the formulation of such management measures in the "Discussion" section will significantly increase the practical significance of the work. Currently, we have identified key areas for potential recommendations, however, their final justification and elaboration require the completion of processing and verification of a set of field materials. This will ensure an inextricable logical link between the identified degradation factors, confirmed by empirical data, and the proposed adaptive management solutions. Relevant scientific and practical proposals, taking into account the specifics of the economic and institutional conditions of the studied basins, will be described in detail in future scientific papers based on a full analysis of the collected data. At the moment, we can mention the following.

As emphasized in [91, 92, 93], for the sustainable development of the river basin territory, basin planning must be carried out, which will include elements of territorial and landscape planning. The sustainable development of river basin territories plays a crucial role in preserving and improving the ecological status of water resources and providing favorable living conditions for people. Based on the research and personal experience of the authors, several recommendations have been identified for the sustainable development of river basins: effective management of water resources, development of water conservation within the arid territories of river basins, protection of aquatic and coastal landscapes and ecosystems, and land use planning. The work [91] emphasizes that achieving sustainable development in river basins requires an integrated approach and the implementation of measures aimed at the conservation and rational use of resources within the river basin, protection of ecosystems and landscapes. The development of measures for the sustainable development of the river basin will help to find a balance between socio-economic development and nature protection, providing favorable conditions for all stakeholders, especially in a region such as the Caspian Sea catchment area.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted for review presents the studies of the analyze nature management, examine territory surface data using remote sensing methods, and quantify the anthropogenic transformation of the following Caspian Sea river basins: Sunzha, Sulak, Ulluchay, Karachay, Atachay, Haraz, and Gorgan.. I believe that the article is written well and clearly. Below I have included some general comments.

In Chapter 1, Introduction, the authors provide a very comprehensive presentation of the situation in the region in terms of natural resource management, sustainable resource utilization, landscape planning, environmental impact assessment, monitoring, forecasting, and conservation. Numerous examples from the literature are cited. 44 of 90 references are cited here. Reviewer has no comments, except that the choice of literature is sometimes selective. But it does the job.

In Chapter 2, the authors present the materials and methods, it means study area, materials (population data, density, nature management and land cover) and methods. From 45 to 55 of 90 references are cited here. Short and to the point. In this chapter the boundaries between subchapters are a bit blurred - the same names of chapters and subchapters. The text in Figure 2 is too small and blurry. Just provide the formulas and the main description. Please organize this.

In Chapter 3, the authors present the results of the conducted research. The authors present very detailed data on the Caspian Sea drainage basin. From 56 to 80 of 90 references are cited here. The authors have used division into many subchapters. Please correct this. Some of them can be replaced, for example, by bolding. Along with the presented results, a discussion is conducted based on references to the literature. Good job but authors need to consider whether there is too much content for the average reader. This is a scientific article, not a report of research. This also applies to drawings. Please consider and improve this.

In Chapter 4, the authors present a very detailed discussion of the obtained results of conducted analyses. Along with the presented results, a discussion is conducted based on references to the literature. Good job.

In chapter 5, the authors present main conclusions. Succinctly and properly. The reviewer has no comments.

The bibliography contains 90 items. The literature is selected correctly, and the citations in the text are also correct in terms of content. The reviewer has no comments.

Author Response

Comments 1: The manuscript submitted for review presents the studies of the analyze nature management, examine territory surface data using remote sensing methods, and quantify the anthropogenic transformation of the following Caspian Sea river basins: Sunzha, Sulak, Ulluchay, Karachay, Atachay, Haraz, and Gorgan.. I believe that the article is written well and clearly. Below I have included some general comments.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it.

 

Comments 2: In Chapter 1, Introduction, the authors provide a very comprehensive presentation of the situation in the region in terms of natural resource management, sustainable resource utilization, landscape planning, environmental impact assessment, monitoring, forecasting, and conservation. Numerous examples from the literature are cited. 44 of 90 references are cited here. Reviewer has no comments, except that the choice of literature is sometimes selective. But it does the job.

Response 2: We agree with the reviewer's comment on the description of the research methodology. We have significantly redesigned this section.

 

Comments 3: In Chapter 2, the authors present the materials and methods, it means study area, materials (population data, density, nature management and land cover) and methods. From 45 to 55 of 90 references are cited here. Short and to the point. In this chapter the boundaries between subchapters are a bit blurred - the same names of chapters and subchapters. The text in Figure 2 is too small and blurry. Just provide the formulas and the main description. Please organize this.

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer's comment on the description of the research methodology. We have significantly redesigned this section.

 

Comments 4: In Chapter 3, the authors present the results of the conducted research. The authors present very detailed data on the Caspian Sea drainage basin. From 56 to 80 of 90 references are cited here. The authors have used division into many subchapters. Please correct this. Some of them can be replaced, for example, by bolding. Along with the presented results, a discussion is conducted based on references to the literature. Good job but authors need to consider whether there is too much content for the average reader. This is a scientific article, not a report of research. This also applies to drawings. Please consider and improve this.

Response 4: The authors agree with the reviewer that the structure presented in section 3 looks rather cumbersome, however, given the fact that the study examines 7 river basins within three countries, this block of work contains only a brief description of environmental management. Taking into account the unlimited volume of electronic publication, we would like to convey to all readers the data that was obtained during our research.

Comments 5: In Chapter 4, the authors present a very detailed discussion of the obtained results of conducted analyses. Along with the presented results, a discussion is conducted based on references to the literature. Good job.

Response 5: Thank you so much for your valuable opinion.

 

Comments 6: In chapter 5, the authors present main conclusions. Succinctly and properly. The reviewer has no comments.

Response 6:  Thank you so much for your valuable opinion.

 

Comments 7: The bibliography contains 90 items. The literature is selected correctly, and the citations in the text are also correct in terms of content. The reviewer has no comments.

Response 7: Thank you so much for your valuable opinion.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the first - round review comments and answered all the questions. However, the following suggestions still need to be adopted. (1) All the figures in the text should be provided in high - resolution versions, but they are all compressed in the current version. (2) the formulas need to be numbered. (3) The template used on the page where “5. Conclusions” is located is that of the journal “Sustainability”.

Author Response

The authors have revised the manuscript according to the first - round review comments and answered all the questions. However, the following suggestions still need to be adopted. (1) All the figures in the text should be provided in high - resolution versions, but they are all compressed in the current version.

Response 1: Dear reviewer. We are grateful for your work done in reading the manuscript of the scientific article submitted by us and the time spent on it. Thank you for your valuable comment. 

The remark has been corrected.

(2) the formulas need to be numbered.

Response 1: The remark has been corrected.

(3) The template used on the page where “5. Conclusions” is located is that of the journal “Sustainability”.

Response 3: The remark has been corrected.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, thank you for your responses. I don't have any further observation or questions.

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for taking the time to read the manuscript of our article. Thank you for your valuable comments, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript of the scientific article.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I accept all corrections

Author Response

Dear reviewer. Thank you for taking the time to read the manuscript of our article. Thank you for your valuable comments, which helped to improve the quality of the manuscript of the scientific article.