Assessing Water Resource Sustainability in the Kabul River Basin: A Standardized Runoff Index and Reliability, Resilience, and Vulnerability Framework Approach
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAssessing Water Resource Sustainability in the Kabul River Basin: A Standardized Runoff Index and Reliability, Resilience, and Vulnerability Framework Approach
The paper is very interesting and addresses a relevant issue related to water availability under climate change scenarios. The paper is generally well written and comprehensive. The main issues are clearly communicated.
The paper can be published. However, the authors need to improve the discussion section considerably. As it is, the authors do no more than emphasise the advantages of the methodology and do not have a real picture of the ways in which the work can be of use. Lines 436 to 487 can easily be part of the introductory section. Line 488 mentions the importance of the work, but gives no specific example. This statement is repeated (line 495) but not further elaborated. The paper is very well structured, but when it comes to the discussion, several improvements need to be done.
I would also like to comment on the following:
Line 23 - "formidable" is not a very scientific way to start the introduction.
Line 39 - "These indicators...". Authors present only one, why plural?
Figure 1 - Precipitation is not in the input data, but is the main input to SWAT and is the variable output from the GCM. There is also a typing error in the two boxes in step 4, the time period for the NF and the FF are the same.
Line 121 - Why is RCM not used? Please explain and discuss. RCM is more accurate than downscaled GCM
Table 1 - Discuss how the precipitation values in Table 1 correspond to an annual precipitation of 450 mm (line 107). Is not explained in the text where temperature was used. (Perhaps in evapotranspiration, but the method should be explained.)
Line 156 - explain why the calibration period is 2010-2016 and validation 2016-2020 if the historical period is 1975-2014.
Table 2 - The river discharge is not a meteorological data.
Line 168 - GDF stands for (all acronyms need to be explained in detail)
Table 3 - Why inclusion of SPI, it hasn't been calculated
Line 255 - has calibration been carried out monthly? If so, the NSE and R2 values are not so good, please rephrase.
Figure 4 - all figures have the same problem, they have a notation a), b), c), c), d),.... But the legend does not explain what each figure represents and why each is labelled as shown. Comment all figures with this notation.
Line 312 - prior to this paragraph, it is important to show that the future runoff used in the calculation of the indicators is from the SWAT simulations.
Legend of Figures 6 and 7, correct them, write exactly what is shown, do not link to the legend of Figure 5. This is not the way to do it.
Line 358 - "...illustrated and anticipated..." replace with projected
Section 3.3 - when referring to results please include the percentages along the text instead of majority, highest....
Lines 369 to 380 - there are several considerations of what will increase or decrease. The discussion needs to illustrate the reasons for these trends.
Line 511 - it is stated that the sustainability of the basin will be negatively affected, although in previous sections the authors have shown an increase in sustainability. Please justify this.
Row 522 - there is a need for effective water resource management strategies, please help the stakeholders and illustrate with some measures.
Author Response
We greatly appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Their feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. In the attachment, we address each comment in a point-by-point manner to clarify the revisions and actions taken in response to the reviewers' valuable input.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGenerally, the study is interesting and analyse the sustainability in terms of impacts and resilience in the water management sector of the Kabul River catchment. The manuscript is well organised, but it could be improved and some additional information are needed, especially in the method section. So, I report some comments for this part and for the result and discussion sections.
Materials and Methods
-line 116: How did they select the GCMs in the study [3]? Report some additional information.
-Line 112: Can you add a comment on the features of the five sub-catchments beyond table 1? How do you do the subdivision?
-Line 113: How many stations do you consider? Do the have available data for the control run period?
-Line 113: Which is the source of the hydrometric stations?
-Line 117: This sentence is not clear.
-Line 119: Do you mean that both SSP4.5 and SSP8.5 describe past GHG emissions?
-Line 120: I suggest to add a sentence on the functioning of the quantile mapping.
- It is necessary to add something in the methods on the climate projections.
-Line 121: Higher accuracy with respect to?
-Line 143: Do IDW consider altitude variation?
-Line 154: Which data do you use for calibration?
-Table 3: You don’t speak of SPI in the text
Result
-Lines 240-254: This has to be moved to the methods section: generally it is necessary to explain better the calibration process in the methods section.
-Line 255: Do you use only this section for the calibration?
-Line 256: I suggest to avoid using expressions like “impressive” or similar, also in other parts of the text.
-Line 257: Which is the section whose these values of NSE refer to? Are they daily or monthly values? It is necessary to add a table with NSE values for the calibration and validation for all the considered section. If you consider only this section, specify it.
-Figure 6, 7, 8: You have to change this captions, saying what the figure represents.
Discussion
-You have to add comparisons with other studies, compare the results, cite other studies on the hydrology of the Kabul River catchment, etc. The references are not sufficient.
Comments on the Quality of English Languagenot relevant
Author Response
We greatly appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions provided by the reviewers. Their feedback has been invaluable in enhancing the quality of our manuscript. In the attachment, we address each comment in a point-by-point manner to clarify the revisions and actions taken in response to the reviewers' valuable input.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAccepted
Author Response
Dear reviewer;
We are grateful for your review and the acceptance of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing this work.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI found some common points with this study that I suggest to cite.
Casale, F., Bombelli, G.M., Monti, R. et al. Hydropower potential in the Kabul River under climate change scenarios in the XXI century. Theor Appl Climatol 139, 1415–1434 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-03052-y
In this paper you could find also other references useful for your work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer;
Thank you for your valuable feedback and for suggesting the reference.
I have thoroughly reviewed the suggested paper and found it indeed important and relevant to my study. Accordingly, I have incorporated this reference into my paper.
