Identifying Potential Sites for Rainwater Harvesting Structures in Ghazi Tehsil, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan, Using Geospatial Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents a very interesting approach to address the technical problem of planning the location of structural soil conservation measures. While a matter of planners rather than scientists, providing robustly designed methods and tools to assist in technical decisions definitely falls in the scientific ground and the paper fulfills this purpose. That is why the paper is judged scientifically sound and relevant, although with much more relevance in technical terms.

In fact, the water harvesting structures analyzed in the paper are also structural soil conservation measures, applied to control soil loss and reduce sediment load on the stream network. In this sense, the paper reaches an application ground wider than that stated in its objectives.

The paper is well structured and provides the necessary background science in the Introduction, where objectives are clearly stated.

The methodology is presented in a very detailed way so that it turns the article larger than usual. However, this option is fully justified by the large number of steps involved. The description of structure types is important, especially for readers that might be no so much aware of their design and function. A further illustration of an example of each one of the 4 structures analyzed would be welcome to improve the final version of the manuscript and is very much recommended.

Results are well presented and discussed, highlighting the usefulness of the methodology presented on the particular study area selected.

The paper is strongly recommended for publication. Yet screening and correcting exercise along the manuscript is still required to avoid meaningless expressions as the following one, certainly detectable by the authors:

“…which has consequently eroded about 65 % of potable water.”, line 64.

Considering the above, the manuscript is recommended with minor revision.

Some questions are also conveyed to the authors that they may consider valuable to be taken into account when reviewing the manuscript:

1 – Spatial scale

Authors may address the scale range where the approach might be most applicable. This is an important issue when dealing with low resolution input data, namely DEM resolution.

2 – Time of concentration

While the basic formula for calculating peak discharge with the SCS method is presented, a critical step to determine storm duration – time of concentration – is omitted. Authors could not only address the issue but also discuss its influence on results obtained. Of course, this added information would be useful for the readers more focused on hydrology rather than those focused on GIS and RS.

 

Author Response

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

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Review

 

This study tried to identify the potential sites of rain water harvesting structures to maximize water availability and land productivity in the Ghai Tehsil region of Pakistan. The description of the data used for this purpose is well presented in sequence, and the methodology is explained in detail through the schematic diagram. However, it is thought that additional content is needed in the part explaining the reasons for the adoption of the four structures adopted for the study and the suitability of the four structures in the discussion. If these problems are improved, the results of this study will be helpful in rain water management in Pakistan.

 

2. comments

 

1) In Section 2.1, the authors mentioned that the precipitation data for the study area show distinct rainfall periods. If you present a precipitation graph together, I think it will support the content of the text.

 

2) In section 2.2, the authors mentioned that they performed terrain preproces- sing. However, I think the description of the terrain preprocessing is lacking. Please add a description of the terrain preprocessing.

 

3) “Initially, the soil map comprised seven soil types, and they were reclassified and assigned to four classes based on infiltration values given by USDA natural resource conservation service (NRCS)” is mentioned repeatedly in the text. I wonder how the soil type has changed. I think it will be possible to explain if you add pictures before and after the change to the text.

 

4) Section 2.6 is used twice and needs correction. In addition, “2.6. Methodology for identification of the potential sites for RWH” describes Fig. 2, but Figure 2 is already described in Section 2.2. Since it is repetitive content, it would be better to delete the content.

 

5) In “2.6. Rainwater harvesting techniques (structures)”, four structures were selected as optimal structures and the study was conducted. I wonder in what areas the adopted structure and the conditions of the study area were judged to be suitable. Please add this to Section 2.6 a, b, c, and d.

 

6) The current discussion refers to the tables and figures already presented and shows the degree of fit of the four structures in %. However, this does not seem to be much different from the contents of the results. I think it should be described in more detail so that the content and difference of the results are different in the discussion.

 

Author Response

Please see the uploaded response file. Thanks a lot for assistance.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is recommended for publication in the present form

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors carefully responded to all comments of the reviewer. In particular, the reason why the optimal structure used in the study was chosen was sufficiently described. In addition, it is judged that the revision of the discussion was carried out faithfully. The author's answer and revised paper fully reflected all requests, so I think the current manuscript can be published.