Impact of Hydrological Infrastructure Projects on Land Use/Cover and Socioeconomic Development in Arid Regions—Evidence from the Upper Atbara and Setit Dam Complex, Kassala, Eastern Sudan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments to Authors

Like the paper’s topic and approach.

Some things are not clear and require more detail.

Other parts are repeated and the paper can be edited to reduce these and make it more succinct.

More explanation is needed in the Methods section, so that other researchers who wanted to apply this methodology could follow along.

Spell check and editing are suggested. Some sentences are unclear. Commas are often missing and periods appear where they don’t belong, such as two periods at the end of a sentence. Singular/plural misuse, certain words are capitalized when it is not necessary and maps and graphics have a low resolution, making them hard to examine.

The positive benefits mentioned that were generated by the dam and the overall infrastructure improvements bodes well for this type of project in the area. However, less attention is given to the communities downstream. This is a major topic, for example in the GERD dam in Ethiopia and the potential adverse effects to Egyptian farmers way downstream. It does seem that the negative or adverse effects have been downplayed in this paper. At least they should be better identified, and a case could be made that the positives outweigh the negatives.

 

Specific comments:

Lines 49-50 state “The hydrological infrastructure serve the core needs in the arid regions with- 49 out compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystem,” 

This cannot be true. Perhaps adverse effects can be reduced, but to claim that the system is not compromised sounds like the rationality of an economist, not an ecologist.

Lines 60 and 62 repeat “climate change”

Lines 70-74 state “Land use zoning is based on the complete understanding of the evolutionary laws of 71 natural and socio-economic conditions, hence the zoning structure and layout of land is 72 performed according to the regional differences of land and the requirements of social 73 development[9].”

This is a stretch and does not give agency to developers, large land owners, lobbyists or special interest groups/government officials that are furthering their agenda.

Line 75 mentions spatio-temporal patterns. 

Spatio-temporal patterns of what?

Lines 76-79 mention disadvantages of dam construction, but does not mention (potential) loss of archeological sites.

Line 82 mentions ecological compensation. Briefly define for the reader.

Lines 107-110 discuss RS in relation to LULC. What is not mentioned is that the use of drones and aerial surveillance systems is already changing LULC significantly. 

Paragraph consisting of lines 161-173 is confusing.

Section 2.3 Datasets mentions the use of Landsat 5. Why Landsat 5 and not a newer satellite such as Landsat 7? Path and Row information is not provided, so the reader cannot confirm/find the Landsat footprint used. Also the Acquisition dates are unclear— see Table 1. 22.1.2002 is understood to mean January 22, 2002. What about the Sentinel data? What does 30.2.2018 mean, Feb 30, 2018? That cannot be right. Also, identification information, such as Tile ID, is missing. Why weren’t 2002 Sentinel data used, instead of Landsat 5?

Table 1 mentions the use of Google Earth, but insufficient information is provided.

Line 215 mentions bio-intelligence based optimization model, without defining what bio intelligence is.

Lines 225-226 mention digitizing in Google Earth. Need to explain what was digitized and how this was consolidated with other data.

Figure 2, Image A is hard to make out. Don’t know what we are looking at. Also the images appear out of order and should be labeled. 

Table 2 mentions water bond. What is this? It also mentions forest, but it’s suggested that this is managed forest for economic use and that natural forests do not exist.

Lines 241-251 discuss image classification, but it’s not clear which images were classified— Sentinel, Landsat, Google Earth? And if it was Google Earth, how? 

Paragraph in lines 255-265 is unclear.

Figure 4- very hard to read.

Accuracy Assessment beginning in line 281 needs additional explanation. 

Line 299 mentions topographic evolution. How does topography evolve, particularly at human time scales?

Figure 5 maps cannot be read, the resolution is too low.

Paragraph beginning on line 311 mentions temperature and rainfall. Would be nice to see a climograph of the study area so the reader can better understand. 

Figure 7 mentions forest buffering. It is not clear what this is, how and why it was conducted.

Line 348 mentions that the dam boosts the ecosystem. How does this occur? Don’t dams usually adversely affect the ecosystem? Many dams, especially in the US, are being dismantled due to years of adverse affects, for example to migrating fish species such as salmon. 

Line 353 mentions the fishery sector improved. OK, but fish number increased for harvesting purposes only, not for ecosystem advantages necessarily.

Lines 356-360 mention positive social effects of the dam. Good.

Line 365 mentions increased electricity production for the national grid. What about electricity benefits for local residents?

Lines 367-368 mention increased crop production and multi seasonal cropping. Could this lead to soil exhaustion? 

4.4 paragraph beginning on line 374 is unclear.

Paragraph beginning on line 381 mentions an ecological benefit where forests increased. The buffer concept needs explaining.

Line 387 mentions adequate and safe drinking water. It’s implied that “safe” drinking water was treated to make it potable. If so, for who? How far does this benefit extend in terms of people affected? Those living within a specific boundary or distance from the dam?

Figure 9 is hard to read and interpret.

Finally, line 445 mentions people affected by resettlement. Perhaps this should be mentioned earlier. 

Paragraph beginning on line 448 does not mention the (potential) loss of archeological sites or artifacts.

Lines 456-459 do make it clear that positive social changes were brought on by the dam. Good.

Table 7 a little unclear, particularly the use of statistics. Perhaps I missed it, but what statistical analysis was conducted and how significant were the results?

Paragraph beginning on line 497 mentions improved social metrics. Good.

Line 540 mentions that increased water surface and forest land would be influencing the precipitation pattern in the region. Has this been observed? 

Line 548 mentions 51 indicators. Where and what are these? It seems that this part has been given little explanation and the resulting Table 8 and Figure 11 overly simplify this process?

Not until lines 617-625, and 632-635, do we see some of the negatives of the project. 

Conclusion, lines 641-645 is confusing. 

Lines 649-650 mention that increasing forest area reduces air pollution. Perhaps. But is this more an issue of C02 absorption? Also, does the pollution hover over the forest, or more along the urbanized areas? We don’t know. Perhaps a map would help.

Lines 653-655 mention that limited adverse environmental effects were observed. This might be problematic, since long term effects may take a while to show up. 

Lines 665-667 make a case that the type of impact assessment undertaken in the paper is important because it focuses on social benefits. I agree.

Author Response

Subject: Author's Reply to the Review Report 

 

Dear Sir,

 

According to your comments, we have revised the manuscript and provide a point-by-point response as follows:

 

Note: (Lines sequence would have change in the revised manuscript version)

• General Comments to Authors

Point 1: Some things are not clear and require more detail.

Response 1: We have cleared the opacity with providing more details to some parts of the manuscript

Point 2: Other parts are repeated and the paper can be edited to reduce these and make it more succinct.

Response 2: We have synthesized some parts of the manuscript with avoiding repetition.

Point 3: More explanation is needed in the Methods section, so that other researchers who wanted to apply this methodology could follow along.

Response 3: The Methods section has been revised, and we were adding more details in this section of (Accuracy assessment, Datasets and Logical framework).

Point 4: Spell check and editing are suggested. Some sentences are unclear. Commas are often missing and periods appear where they don’t belong, such as two periods at the end of a sentence. Singular/plural misuse, certain words are capitalized when it is not necessary and maps and graphics have a low resolution, making them hard to examine.

Response 4: We have improved the figures to the high resolution. Spelling and commas location have been revised. The study aim to find out the change on LUC before and after the dam construction and the impacts

Point 5: The positive benefits mentioned that were generated by the dam and the overall infrastructure improvements bodes well for this type of project in the area. However, less attention is given to the communities downstream. This is a major topic, for example in the GERD dam in Ethiopia and the potential adverse effects to Egyptian farmers way downstream. It does seem that the negative or adverse effects have been downplayed in this paper. At least they should be better identified, and a case could be made that the positives outweigh the negatives.

Response 5: According to the available data and results we have mention that the dam have advantage and disadvantage to the  community in downstream, we have mentioned the negative effect to the community and environment.

 

• Specific comments:

Point 1: Lines 49-50 state “The hydrological infrastructure serve the core needs in the arid regions with- 49 out compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystem,” 

Response 1: We have Reformulated this section according to the data analysis on Land use/cover.

Point 2: Lines 60 and 62 repeat “climate change”

Response 2: We have removed repetition in this section.

Point 3: Lines 70-74 state “Land use zoning is based on the complete understanding of the evolutionary laws of 71 natural and socio-economic conditions, hence the zoning structure and layout of land is 72 performed according to the regional differences of land and the requirements of social 73 development[9].”

This is a stretch and does not give agency to developers, large land owners, lobbyists or special interest groups/government officials that are furthering their agenda.

Response 3: We have improved this section of introduction with concepts of land use literature.

Point 4: Line 75 mentions spatio-temporal patterns. Spatio-temporal patterns of what?

Response 4: The study aiming to detect the spatial changing of LUC through the time before and after the dam construction. We have improved this section with more examples.

Point 5: Lines 76-79 mention disadvantages of dam construction, but does not mention (potential) loss of archeological sites.

Response 5:  Submerging of villages by dam backwater, affect these communities, they lost their heritage, housing, some livelihood activities, farms and historical features of the community in area.

Point 5: Line 82 mentions ecological compensation. Briefly define for the reader.

Response 5: We improved this section mentions ecological compensation with more details.

Point 6: Lines 107-110 discuss RS in relation to LULC. What is not mentioned is that the use of drones and aerial surveillance systems is already changing LULC significantly. 

Response 6: We have expanded the examples of RS method in relation with LUC like drones Arial photograph.

Point 7: Paragraph consisting of lines 161-173 is confusing.

Response 7: Through the study area we have tried to mention the reasons behind land use/cover change and the dam construction decision.

Point 8: Section 2.3 Datasets mentions the use of Landsat 5. Why Landsat 5 and not a newer satellite such as Landsat 7? Path and Row information is not provided, so the reader cannot confirm/find the Landsat footprint used. Also the Acquisition dates are unclear— see Table 1. 22.1.2002 is understood to mean January 22, 2002. What about the Sentinel data? What does 30.2.2018 mean, Feb 30, 2018? That cannot be right. Also, identification information, such as Tile ID, is missing. Why weren’t 2002 Sentinel data used, instead of Landsat 5?

Response8: We have added information, explain that why we use data of Landsat5 and Sentinel2A and Google Earth. We have corrected the acquisition date mistakes.

Point 9: Table 1 mentions the use of Google Earth, but insufficient information is provided.

Response 9: We have added more information for mapping with Google Earth and the reason to use this method.

Point 10: Line 215 mentions bio-intelligence based optimization model, without defining what bio intelligence is.?

Response 10: We have explained how the Support Vector Machine (SVM) algorism work, and have been utilized in LUC classification.

Point 11: Lines 225-226 mention digitizing in Google Earth. Need to explain what was digitized and how this was consolidated with other data.

Response 11: We have added explanation about the importance of using Google Earth for delineation and mapping of some features of LUCC.

Point 11: Figure 2, Image A is hard to make out. Don’t know what we are looking at. Also the images appear out of order and should be labeled. 

Response 11: This was removed due to unnecessary for using it.

Point 12: Table 2 mentions water bond. What is this? It also mentions forest, but it’s suggested that this is managed forest for economic use and that natural forests do not exist.

Response 12: We have brought descriptions of Land use type features because we used supervised classification method.

Point 13: Lines 241-251 discuss image classification, but it’s not clear which images were classified— Sentinel, Landsat, Google Earth? And if it was Google Earth, how? 

Response 13: We have improved this section and explain the classification was generated to Landsat5 and Sential2A images by supervised classification method and SVM in ENV5 interface. We have used Google Earth for digitizing of fine features 

Point 14: Paragraph in lines 255-265 is unclear.

Response 14: We have improved this paragraph more clear in addition to information mentioned in Figure3 and Table3.

Point 15: Figure 4- very hard to read

Response 15: We have improved the Figure4 resolution.

Point 16:  Accuracy Assessment beginning in line 281 needs additional explanation. 

Response 16: We have expanded this section with more details.

Point 17: Line 299 mentions topographic evolution. How does topography evolve, particularly at human time scales?

Response 17: We have changed the to explain this issue.

Point 18: Figure 5 maps cannot be read, the resolution is too low.

Response 18: Now we have improved figure5 resolution

Point 19: Paragraph beginning on line 311 mentions temperature and rainfall. Would be nice to see a climograph of the study area so the reader can better understand. 

Response 19: The data of climo-graph of temperature and rainfall is very limited and un available, but we recommended future studies in this domain in study area.

Point 20: Figure 7 mentions forest buffering. It is not clear what this is, how and why it was conducted.

Response 20: We have added more information about forest buffer on water class to show distribution and changes of forest through the study period for buffer 1,2 and 3 generated in ArcGIS interface.

Point 21: Line 348 mentions that the dam boosts the ecosystem. How does this occur? Don’t dams usually adversely affect the ecosystem? Many dams, especially in the US, are being dismantled due to years of adverse affects, for example to migrating fish species such as salmon. 

Response 21: We have improved this section according to the study result.

Point 21: Line 353 mentions the fishery sector improved. OK, but fish number increased for harvesting purposes only, not for ecosystem advantages necessarily.

Response 21: We have mentioned fisheries improvement as apart of socioeconomic development but fish development sector is open to both economically and environmentally.

Point 22: Lines 356-360 mention positive social effects of the dam. Good.

Response 22: Thank you for you consideration this

Point 23: Line 365 mentions increased electricity production for the national grid. What about electricity benefits for local residents?

Response 23: Locals are part of national electricity network and connected with national services of electricity.

Point 24: Lines 367-368 mention increased crop production and multi seasonal cropping. Could this lead to soil exhaustion? 

Response 24: This a cropping system beside adoption of soil conservation process, however this issue need more study to scrutinized the effect on soil for long time.

Point 25: 4.4 paragraph beginning on line 374 is unclear.

Response 25: We have improved this section with more clear

Point 26: Paragraph beginning on line 381 mentions an ecological benefit where forests increased. The buffer concept needs explaining.

Response 26: We have added more information in this section regard to forest increase area through buffer analysis.

Point 27: Line 387 mentions adequate and safe drinking water. It’s implied that “safe” drinking water was treated to make it potable. If so, for who? How far does this benefit extend in terms of people affected? Those living within a specific boundary or distance from the dam?

Response 27: We have explained the information regard the use of water for Agriculture and civil use for all people near the dam and whose located in a distance from the dam.

Point 27: Figure 9 is hard to read and interpret.

Response 27: We have improved this figure

Point 28: Finally, line 445 mentions people affected by resettlement. Perhaps this should be mentioned earlier. 

Response 28: We have mentioned this in the section of (the importance of the dam to the society).

Point 29: Paragraph beginning on line 448 does not mention the (potential) loss of archeological sites or artifacts.

Response 29: According to the available information and study results we have mentioned the negative effects to the people around the dam site.

Point 30: Lines 456-459 do make it clear that positive social changes were brought on by the dam. Good.

Response 30: Yes, the data for social is important for assessing the dam impact

Point 31: Table 7 a little unclear, particularly the use of statistics. Perhaps I missed it, but what statistical analysis was conducted and how significant were the results?

Response 31:We have explained this in logical framework by using relative ratio methods for statics analysis.

Point 32: Paragraph beginning on line 497 mentions improved social metrics. Good.

Response 32: Yes, social needs is important to be consider in such projects

Point 33: Line 540 mentions that increased water surface and forest land would be influencing the precipitation pattern in the region. Has this been observed? 

Response 33:We have recommended this issue for future studies

Point 34: Line 548 mentions 51 indicators. Where and what are these? It seems that this part has been given little explanation and the resulting Table 8 and Figure 11 overly simplify this process?

Response 34: Yes these indices related statistics data, from official reports and RS data analysis, and our discussion focus on these resulted data .

Point 35: Not until lines 617-625, and 632-635, do we see some of the negatives of the project.

Response 35: According to the study result we have mentioned several negative effect to the environment and society.

Point 36: Conclusion, lines 641-645 is confusing.

Response 36: We have improved this section.

Point 37: Lines 649-650 mention that increasing forest area reduces air pollution. Perhaps. But is this more an issue of C02 absorption? Also, does the pollution hover over the forest, or more along the urbanized areas? We don’t know. Perhaps a map would help.

Response 37: Yes, we have recommended this issue for further studies I the future due to change in vegetation area.

Point 38: Lines 653-655 mention that limited adverse environmental effects were observed. This might be problematic, since long term effects may take a while to show up. 

Response 38:Yes, our assessment according to the current result but new round of study in the future would detect new result negative or positively.

Point 39: Lines 665-667 make a case that the type of impact assessment undertaken in the paper is important because it focuses on social benefits. I agree.

Response 39: We all agree, Social situation must be considered positively at hydrological infrastructure project.

 

Thank you for your consideration!

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences,

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

The manuscript presents an important analysis of the Impact of Hydrological Infrastructure Projects on land use/cover and socio-economic development in arid regions. The article fits the theme of the special issue very well and is unpublished for the study region. It is an interesting manuscript, but the introduction, figures and description of the methodology must be improved. It presents a case study and, as far as I can be competent to judge, it is a good paper.  Next, I place my suggestions:

Lines 16-34: It must be synthesized. The abstract should not exceed 200 words.

Lines 35-36: I suggest using more common and simple keywords. You can use the WOS or Scopus databases to see which keywords have the largest number of documents, which is understood as the most widely used in the scientific world. Personally, I do not see attractive to use the keywords: Importance of Revoir to Society; RS and GIS. They can consider other keywords that relate the same. (It's just a suggestion, It's not mandatory. I leave it at the judgment of the authors)

Lines 38-121: This section is without citations, it is necessary that you have them as it is an introduction. Only as an example, in line 91 they mention that several researchers have identified the LULC effects, but at the end of the line the authors place only one paper. The introduction is poor in extension, development and appointments. I suggest expanding this section, a good approach is to place a paragraph at the beginning the general context of the worldwide dams, the following paragraph to place the local context (this if it meets). The following paragraph can address the most common impacts of dams, this if it partially meets, but it must improve the references used. Then I should go paragraph that, from an idea of the methodologies used in this study, compared to other similar studies in other regions and can finally close with the paragraph that includes the target of the Paper. There are several recent studies that demonstrate the impacts of large dams. The authors place quotes from ancient. I suggest complementing your references with current jobs, I put several suggestions here: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9100583, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.013, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.015, https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1630/htm

Line 145: Figure 1 needs to be improved. Maps of the study area is more common to see vector data than a satellite or LULC view. I suggest that the countries around the study area. This thinking more of your non-African readers, who may not be very familiar with the territory of Africa. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details. Place the image imported directly from the GIS program with 300 dpi. Try to place Figure 1 inside section 2.1. After the line 132.

Line 142-144: It is necessary to place the names of the entities and references where the secondary data obtained.

Lines 237-251: I was not clear how to make the validation of the data. I want to see more details of this section, so that it is replicable.

Line 252: Figure 3 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Line 275: Figure 2 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Lines 281-285: I do not see discussion of these results. The data validation section is not clear.

Line 307: Figure 5 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Line 394: Figure 5 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Lines 640-682: This section should be synthesized. Comment exclusively as relevant.

Line 704-881: I invite the authors to consider more current works.

Author Response

Subject: Author's Reply to the Review Report 

 

Dear Sir,

 

According to your comments, we have revised the manuscript and provide a point-by-point response as follows:

 

Note: (Lines sequence would have change in the revised manuscript version)      

Point1:  Lines 16-34: It must be synthesized. The abstract should not exceed 200 words. Response1: The Abstract have been synthesized to less than 200 words.             Point 2: Lines 35-36: I suggest using more common and simple keywords. You can use the WOS or Scopus databases to see which keywords have the largest number of documents, which is understood as the most widely used in the scientific world. Personally, I do not see attractive to use the keywords: Importance of Reservoir to Society; RS and GIS. They can consider other keywords that relate the same. (It's just a suggestion, It's not mandatory. I leave it at the judgment of the authors)

Response 2: Lines 35-36: Keywords have been updated with most widely used in the scientific world and more attractive in the revised manuscript version.

Point 3: Lines 38-121: This section is without citations, it is necessary that you have them as it is an introduction. Only as an example, in line 91 they mention that several researchers have identified the LULC effects, but at the end of the line the authors place only one paper. The introduction is poor in extension, development and appointments. I suggest expanding this section, a good approach is to place a paragraph at the beginning the general context of the worldwide dams, the following paragraph to place the local context (this if it meets). The following paragraph can address the most common impacts of dams, this if it partially meets, but it must improve the references used. Then I should go paragraph that, from an idea of the methodologies used in this study, compared to other similar studies in other regions and can finally close with the paragraph that includes the target of the Paper. There are several recent studies that demonstrate the impacts of large dams. The authors place quotes from ancient. I suggest complementing your references with current jobs, I put several suggestions here: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9100583, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.013,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.015,https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1630/htm                      Response 3: Lines 38-121: The Introduction was improved, complement and became more rich. We placed a paragraph at the beginning include general context of the worldwide dams, The following paragraph addressed the most common impacts of dams and improve the references used. We improved a paragraph of the methodologies used in this study and have compared to other similar studies in other regions. finally we closed with the paragraph that includes the aim of the Paper.

Point 4: Line 145: Figure 1 needs to be improved. Maps of the study area is more common to see vector data than a satellite or LULC view. I suggest that the countries around the study area. This thinking more of your non-African readers, who may not be very familiar with the territory of Africa. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details. Place the image imported directly from the GIS program with 300 dpi. Try to place Figure 1 inside section 2.1. After the line 132.

Response 4: Line 145: We have improved the figure1 quality , the neighboring  of Sudan now is more clear, the map create with vector data. The map quality improved to 300 dpi.

Point 5: Line 142-144: It is necessary to place the names of the entities and references where the secondary data obtained.

Response 5: Line 142-144: We have added  references as a report from Ministry of Agriculture - Kassala state, Drinking water corporation in Gadaref and (Dams Implementation Unit) in Khartoum.  

Point 6: Lines 237-251: I was not clear how to make the validation of the data. I want to see more details of this section, so that it is replicable.

Response 6: Lines 237-251: We have showed more details regard to the overall Accuracy Assessment for the classified raster data.

Point 7: Line 252: Figure 3 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Response 7: Line 252: Image quality of Figure 3 was improved to higher resolution,

Line 275: Figure 2 is removed due to no need with this figure.

Point 8: Lines 281-285: I do not see discussion of these results. The data validation section is not clear.

Response 8: Lines 281-285: We have provided wide discussion regard to data validation on discussion part.

Point 9: Line 307: Figure 5 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Response 9: Line 307: Figure5 was improved by increase the quality of the image and showed more details and clearly.

Point 10: Line 394: Figure 5 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Response 10: Line 394: Figure5 was improved by increase the quality of the image and showed more details and clear.

Point 11: Lines 640-682: This section should be synthesized. Comment exclusively as relevant.

Response 11: Lines 640-682: Conclusion and recommendation section was synthesized to relevant topics exclusively..

Point 12: Line 704-881: I invite the authors to consider more current works.

Response 12: Line 704-881: We have paid more attention to the more current works

 

Thank you for your consideration!

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences,

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper has a high potential and discusses an important topic for a region that needs more studies about its environmental impacts.

The points to be reviewed are:

1) The resolution of some figures (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10) needs to be adequated (more than 300 dpi).

2) Figure 2 is not necessary.  Don't add anything.

3) Table 2 could present the image key for each land-use class.

4) Figure 6 needs an adjustment (a and b are duplicated).

5) (4.3 The importance of the dam to society) - It could be moved to the study area presentation.

6) In the "Conclusion and Recommendation" must be an authorial text, without references.

The figures low resolution harmed the paper evaluation.

In general, the text needs a heavy review, with many formatting errors.

The methodology, results, and discussion are understood but need more than one read.

Topics 4.5 (Detail case study of land use /land cover change) and 4.6 (The impact of the dam up/downstream, regional climate, and groundwater) could form a single, more objective, and centralized discussion on the relationship between the dam and the impacts assessed and their social aspects.

Author Response

Subject: Author's Reply to the Review Report 

 

Dear Sir,

 

According to your comments, we have revised the manuscript and provide a point-by-point response as follows:

 

Note: (Lines sequence would have change in the revised manuscript version)

Point 1: The resolution of some figures (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10) needs to be adequate (more than 300 dpi).

Response 1: We have improved the image resolution for figures (1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10)with more than 300 dpi.

Point 2:  Figure 2 is not necessary.  Don't add anything.

Response 2: Figure 2 was removed (unnecessary)

Point 3:  Table 2 could present the image key for each land-use class.

Response 3: We have added the image key to the Table 2.

Point 4:  Figure 6 needs an adjustment (a and b are duplicated).

Response 4: We have adjusted Figure 6 without duplicate of a and b.

Point 5: (4.3 The importance of the dam to society) - It could be moved to the study area presentation.

Response 5: We have moved the topic of (4.3 The importance of the dam to society) to the part of the study area presentation.

Point 6:  In the "Conclusion and Recommendation" must be an authorial text, without references.

Response 6:We have removed references from Conclusion and Recommendation part.

Point 7: Topics 4.5 (Detail case study of land use /land cover change) and 4.6 (The impact of the dam up/downstream, regional climate, and groundwater) could form a single, more objective, and centralized discussion on the relationship between the dam and the impacts assessed and their social aspects.

Response 7: We have integrated the tow topic of 4.5 (Detail case study of land use /land cover change) and 4.6 (The impact of the dam up/downstream, regional climate, and groundwater) to form single subject.

 

Thank you for your consideration!

 

Sincerely,

 

Dr. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences,

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revised version shows improvement. Well done.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

This is the second revision of the manuscript; the authors partially attended the suggestions made. The figures continue to be of poor quality, it is not possible to read the information presented. The references are not with the correct format. It is necessary to improve points 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, suggested in the previous review. The manuscript can be accepted after attending to all suggestions.

Author Response

Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences (CERS),

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

E-mail: kassalakamal@yahoo.com

 

February 25, 2022

 

Subject: Author's Reply to the Review Report 

 

Dear Sir, Prof. Dr./ Reviewer2

 

On behalf of my co-authors, I am pleased to resubmit our manuscript, “sustainability-1589524,” entitled “Impact of Hydrological Infrastructure Projects on land use/cover and socio-economic development in arid regions- Evidence from Upper Atbara and Setit Dam Complex, Kassala, Eastern Sudan.” for consideration for publication in Sustainability Journal.

Each author participated actively in the second revision process, drafting sections of the manuscript, writing—review and editing, validation, visualization and approving the resubmitted version. None of the authors has a conflict of interest. The manuscript has not been previously published or submitted to another journal for publication.

 

According to the your valuable comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript (Minor revision) and provide a point-by-point response as follows:

Note: (Lines sequence would have change in revised manuscript version)   

Second revision Point: This is the second revision of the manuscript; the authors partially attended the suggestions made. The figures continue to be of poor quality, it is not possible to read the information presented. The references are not with the correct format. It is necessary to improve points 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 12, suggested in the previous review. The manuscript can be accepted after attending to all suggestions.   

Point 3: Lines 38-121: This section is without citations, it is necessary that you have them as it is an introduction. Only as an example, in line 91 they mention that several researchers have identified the LULC effects, but at the end of the line the authors place only one paper. The introduction is poor in extension, development and appointments. I suggest expanding this section, a good approach is to place a paragraph at the beginning the general context of the worldwide dams, the following paragraph to place the local context (this if it meets). The following paragraph can address the most common impacts of dams, this if it partially meets, but it must improve the references used. Then I should go paragraph that, from an idea of the methodologies used in this study, compared to other similar studies in other regions and can finally close with the paragraph that includes the target of the Paper. There are several recent studies that demonstrate the impacts of large dams. The authors place quotes from ancient. I suggest complementing your references with current jobs, I put several suggestions here: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijgi9100583, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2014.07.013,https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.015,https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1630/htm                     

Response 3: Lines 38-121: The Introduction was improved, complement and became more rich. We placed a paragraph at the beginning include general context of the worldwide dams, the following paragraph have placed the local context of the dam. The following paragraph addressed the most common impacts of dams and we have improved the references used and its required format. We have improved a paragraph of the methodologies used in this study and have compared to other similar studies in other regions. finally we closed with the paragraph that includes the aim of the Paper.

Point 4: Line 145: Figure 1 needs to be improved. Maps of the study area is more common to see vector data than a satellite or LULC view. I suggest that the countries around the study area. This thinking more of your non-African readers, who may not be very familiar with the territory of Africa. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details. Place the image imported directly from the GIS program with 300 dpi. Try to place Figure 1 inside section 2.1. After the line 132.

Response 4: Line 145: We have improved the figure1 resolution and zooming function, the neighboring countries of Sudan now is more clear, the map create with vector data. The image quality have improved to 300 dpi .

Point 7: Line 252: Figure 3 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Response 7: Line 252: Image quality of Figure 3 was improved to higher resolution up to(300dpi) and now it became more clear by using page zooming,

Point 9: Line 307: Figure 5 needs to be improved. The quality of the image is terrible, it is impossible to appreciate details.

Response 9: Line 307: Figure5 was improved by increase the quality of the image and showed more details and clearly.    

Point 12: Line 704-881: I invite the authors to consider more current works.

Response 12: Line 704-881: We have paid more attention to the more current works

 

I attached copy of the revised manuscript showing our response according to the comments. We genuinely appreciate your contribution of suggesting us several Websites for complementing our references, and I am really thankful to you for presenting such excellent support and guidance. Finally, I appreciate your taking the time to review our manuscript, and I will be most pleased to give you any further information you may desire.

 

Thank you for your consideration!

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences,

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article available to review presents the figures without resolution, but the authors say they made the requested adjustment. 

I agree with all corrections.

 

Author Response

Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences (CERS),

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

E-mail: kassalakamal@yahoo.com

February 25, 2022

 

Subject: Author's Reply to the Review Report 

 

Dear Sir, Prof. Dr./ Reviewer3

On behalf of my co-authors, I am pleased to resubmit our manuscript, “sustainability-1589524,” entitled “Impact of Hydrological Infrastructure Projects on land use/cover and socio-economic development in arid regions- Evidence from Upper Atbara and Setit Dam Complex, Kassala, Eastern Sudan.” for consideration for publication in Sustainability Journal.

Each author participated actively in the second revision process, drafting sections of the manuscript, writing—review and editing, validation, visualization and approving the resubmitted version. None of the authors has a conflict of interest. The manuscript has not been previously published or submitted to another journal for publication.

 

According to the your valuable comments and suggestions, we have revised the manuscript (Minor revision) and provide a point-by-point response as follows:

Note: (Lines sequence would have change in revised manuscript version)   

Second revision Point: The article available to review presents the figures without resolution, but the authors say they made the requested adjustment. 

I agree with all corrections.

I attached copy of the revised manuscript showing our response according to the comments. We genuinely appreciate your contribution of suggesting us several Websites for complementing our references, and I am really thankful to you for presenting such excellent support and guidance. Finally, I appreciate your taking the time to review our manuscript, and I will be most pleased to give you any further information you may desire.

 

 

Thank you for your consideration!

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Kamal Abdelrahim Mohamed Shuka

Institute of Agricultural Remote Sensing and Information Technology

College of Environmental and Resource Sciences,

Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf