Synergies and Trade-Offs in Water Resources Management in the Bafing Watershed under Climate Change
, Hagen Koch 3, Expédit Wilfrid Vissin 4, Jean Albergel 2 and Moussé Landing Sane 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review comments for “Synergies and trade-offs in water resources management in the Bafing watershed under climate change” by SAMBOU et al.
General Comments
The future hydro-power potentials (HPPs) in the Bafing watershed are investigated in this study with the Soil and Water Integrated Model (SWIM) and future climate change scenarios (ssp126 and ssp370) for the near future (2035-2065) and the far future (P2: 2065-2095). This research topic falls into the aims and objectives of Water (MDPI) and methods/models are widely used in the literature without significant problems. However, it does have some critical issues that a major revision is recommended.
Specific Comments
1. Line 18 and several locations in the manuscript: ssp370 or ssp3-7.0 is a scenario to explore internal variability and signal-to-noise characteristics of the different participating models. It is NOT really a high-emission scenario. If authors really want to explore high-emission scenario, then they should use ssp585.
2. Line 41-42. These numbers are from a reference in 2012, which is about 11 years old. Given the solar and wind energy development in the last decade, an update reference is needed.
3. Table 1, please use standard units. For example, use 106 m3 to replace Mm3.
4. Table 1, why does “Hydroelectric plant capacity” have a unit m3/s? It sounds like streamflow.
5. Figure 3, please explain the different colours.
6. Figure 4 and below sections. It is clear that different GCMs have different future rainfall projections: some with increased rainfall in the future and other reduced rainfall in the future.
It is acceptable to use multi-model mean for this type of research as what authors have done. However, it may not the best option. This is my main scientific concern. For example, some GCMs (as global-scale models) might not be suitable for the study region. Is it possible to select the most suitable GCM based on their regional simulation results for this study region?
The more serious concern for me is that rainfall in the historical period 1984–2014 has increased in a warming climate but decrease in the future warmer periods (Figure 3). What is the physical mechanism for this? What is observed rainfall trend in the last 50-60 years?
Trends of rainfall is essential for streamflow as well as hydropower generation. It is why this section is too concerned to me from physical process point of view.
7. Table 4, use 0 or 1 decimal for all numeric values.
8. Table 7 and Figure 7, Do authors conclude that more dams should be built? Will these dame result in ecological and environmental problems?
It is acceptable.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
We, scientists know the fact that climate change refers to long-term shifts in temperatures and weather patterns. The shifts can be resulted as based on changes in the sun's activity or large volcanic eruptions. However, we know also the fact that human activities have been the main factor on climate change since the 1800s. It would be better to explain what the climate change is and which factor / factors is acting on it, in the context of this study, especially in the Introduction section.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors
paper is writen well and the title Synergies and trade-offs in water resources management in the 2 Bafing watershed under climate change but still there are some comments should be before publish
1- write the main conclusion is the last paragraph of your abstract , what is the novelty of your research ? donot use abbriviaition in abstract
2- in the introduction part if possible ad some new references , and mention about the objective of your research
3- rewrite conclusion based on standard writing
english should be improved
i think english writing should also be improving
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
This is re-review manuscript. In general, I think authors have addressed my original review comments. However, I still think their response to my review comment 4 does not make sense.
Selecting the "most suitable models" to reduce the projection uncertainty is controversially discussed in the literature. Models that represent the historic climate best are not necessarily the best models to project the future.
While it could be true, but it is only half of the story. The argument is that if a GCM cannot capture regional climate physical processes in the current historical period, how can it project future climate accurately? It is a simple logic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
