Challenges of Urban Water Security and Drivers of Water Scarcity in Kathmandu Valley, Nepal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article focuses mainly on qualitative aspects of the water security problem, neglecting technical and quantitative analyses, such as detailed hydrological modeling of available water resources or assessing the performance of existing water supply infrastructure.
Although the article refers to reports and literature, there is a lack of detailed statistical data and quantitative modeling (e.g., no simulation of future water demand based on different urbanization scenarios, and a paucity of precise data on the state of water resources during dry and rainy periods.
Although the authors point out problems with stakeholder coordination, they do not provide detailed proposals for reforming the water management system.
The study's findings focus exclusively on the Kathmandu Valley, which limits their usefulness in other urban contexts. The conclusions are not sufficiently supported by comparisons with other regions to lend credibility to the proposed solutions.
Author Response
Round 1
Reviewer comments
The article focuses mainly on qualitative aspects of the water security problem, neglecting technical and quantitative analyses, such as detailed hydrological modeling of available water resources or assessing the performance of existing water supply infrastructure.
Although the article refers to reports and literature, there is a lack of detailed statistical data and quantitative modeling (e.g., no simulation of future water demand based on different urbanization scenarios, and a paucity of precise data on the state of water resources during dry and rainy periods.
Although the authors point out problems with stakeholder coordination, they do not provide detailed proposals for reforming the water management system.
The study's findings focus exclusively on the Kathmandu Valley, which limits their usefulness in other urban contexts. The conclusions are not sufficiently supported by comparisons with other regions to lend credibility to the proposed solutions.
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your insights and would like to clarify our approach:
- Qualitative Focus and Lack of Quantitative Analyses:
Our research intentionally adopts a qualitative approach to explore the systemic drivers of water scarcity in Kathmandu Valley through the Urban Water Security (UWS) framework. We believe that understanding the broader context, including urbanization, pollution, and management issues, is crucial before diving into technical analyses like hydrological modeling. While we acknowledge the importance of quantitative assessments, the aim of this study was to provide an in-depth qualitative understanding that can inform future technical studies.
- Absence of Statistical Data and Future Simulations:
Although we did not include hydrological models or simulations, we believe the focus of our study identifying key challenges in water security through qualitative methods lays the groundwork for future quantitative research. Our study provides valuable insights into the weak points of the urabn water security, which can guide future simulations and studies to project water demand and assess infrastructure performance.
- Stakeholder Coordination and Reform Proposals:
While we do not provide detailed proposals for system reforms in this article, our findings highlight key issues that can guide future policy discussions and stakeholder coordination. We aim to focus on the diagnostic aspect of the problem rather than propose comprehensive reforms in this phase of the research. - Scope of Study Kathmandu Valley:
The scope of our study is limited to Kathmandu Valley due to its unique water security challenges. While we recognize the limitations of focusing on a single region, our research offers critical insights into the specific factors affecting water security in a rapidly urbanizing area, and we believe it provides a valuable case for understanding urban water security issues.
We hope this clarifies the focus and intent of our study. We appreciate your feedback and will continue to work towards strengthening the manuscript.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsChallenges of urban water security and drivers of water scarcity in Kathmandu Valley-Nepal
This paper gives a good perspective of the particular water security challenges facing the Kathmandu Valley in Nepal. I particularly like the PUMI structuring, which captures the various factors at play and is useful framing for other similar studies. However, this paper needs more work before it will be ready for publication. I will provide general comments and specific comments.
General Comments
The paper structure is a bit disjointed; there are several sections of text that seem as though they belong elsewhere. The text about the two disasters that affected the Melamchi project is repeated in two different places in the paper, for example, and in the section about the lack of awareness, you talk about how garbage trucks aren’t collecting trash – that seems more about incentives. I recommend reading the paper carefully and asking if each bit of text is in the right place. Also, there are some places were the topic of the paragraph abruptly changes – this should be a new paragraph. Addiitionally, I would like to see the first section after the introduction be a description of the study area (the description comes much later) and what motivated the study.
I recommend rethinking the literature review: almost all papers include a literature review, but unless it is a systematic literature review, the findings are generally part of the introduction, to give context to the reader. A systematic literature goes through the process of the literature search (as you have done) and then once the papers are identified, the authors evaluate the papers using specific questions and present the findings systematically, like “10 papers found [conclusions] while 7 papers founds [a different conclusion].” But there doesn’t seem to be any common query uniting your literature review, therefore it reads more as introductory text for the paper, and I would recommend incorporating it there instead of its own section. Some of the text in the current literature review seems like it’s synthesis, such as the three pillars of water security. I think that makes sense to include that as framing in the methodology section.
Citations are missing for several claims that are made in the paper. I will provide a few examples below, but read through the paper carefully.
Finally, you make many claims about one thing causing another, but you do not provide information about how that happened. The Thames became cleaner – how? What are the processes that connect the cause with the effect? The readers need more information.
Specific Comments
[Please note that I will not be able to comment on all English mistakes – there are too many.]
Abstract: the first sentence doesn’t really make sense, because the three things (national, internation academic, and policy) are not at all distinct from each other.
Abstract: Second sentence, you give two examples (human health, development) and then say “multiple sectors”. Either name many more, or don’t name two first.
Abstract: What are the three pillars of water security? You should state them here. And you should be clear that the pillars define the manifestations of water insecurity, whereas the PUMI factors clarify that causes. Otherwise it’s hard to contextualize how these lists relate to each other.
Page 1: Make sure to delete the text about the template.
Page 1: Introduction: first sentence does not make sense – greatest pressure compared to what? What growing needs?
Page 2, Line 46: It doesn’t make sense to say something is “vulnerable to sustainable water management”
Page 2, line 54: “unveiled causes which have yet to be discovered…” doesn’t make sense.
Page 2, line 55: it doesn’t make sense to say that research will “help to understand” – research can examine things, but only the reader can understand. Maybe you could say “help the reader to understand” but honestly that’s a bit presumptuous. Stick to what the research is doing, which is examining the evidence.
Page 2, line 59: where do these 3 pillars come from? Are they your invention? Say so.
Page 2, text about 3 pillars: it seems that your pillars are inadequate quantity, inadequate quality, and damaging high quanitities. I think you should state this more clearly
Page 3: Figure 1: this process model needs work. Where did the included 21 studies come from? There is no arrow leading to them. And some of the boxes are dead ends, it’s not clear what happens. But I also don’t think this figure is necessary because you didn’t do a systematic literature review anyway.
Page 3: Line 1118: I encourage you to read and include the paper
Galaitsi et al . 2016“Intermittent domestic water supply: A critical review and analysis of causal-consequential pathways” Water. Volume 8 Issue 7, pp 274.
Page 3, 120: You say disaster incidents damage water infrastructure and cause scarcity – this is a good example of not saying enough about the process involved. You do say it later, but it would be better to say it here because this sentence seems quite vague.
Page 3 line 122: why have you only given examples of disasters in the United States? Try to be more global, or ideally include disasters that are relevant to Asia and Kathmandu.
Page 3 line 127: You say “The study” but because you have previously mentioned the study, you should say “A study” because this is the reader’s first introduction to it. This subtlety between “the” and “a” appears elsewhere in your paper – having an English speaker proof read the paper should help with this.
Page 4 Line 136-137: what exactly is the mechanism by which recovery crews staying home “leads to” water scarcity? Isn’t it the disaster that creates the scarcity? The recovery crew just doesn’t fix it quickly.
Page 4 line 138: You reference the “diversity of the city” but then give only one example, so the reader is not convinced. Say more.
Page 4 line 138: I recommend always avoiding the word “obvious” in academic writing. That is a value judgement that other people might disagree with. Avoid value judgements.
Page 4 line 153: It doesn’t make sense to say that abundance is unsustainable. This is a management/mismanagement issue, and should be presented as such.
Page 4, 158: now you’re talking about energy balance schemes, but you never say more about that or what they have to do with water security.
Page 4: I would like to see more of an introduction about these stone spouts. Ideally, you will have a section of the paper describing the study area and then summarize the types of water sources available, including these stone spouts. How old are they? Who built them? How do they work? How were they maintained previously, and why has that changed?
Page 4, line 167: it doesn’t really make sense to talk about extinction of infrastructure. You can talk about infrastructure that stops functioning, but infrastructure doesn’t go extinct, that’s something only animals do.
Page 5 line 173: “antibiotic resistance genes”? Do you mean antibiotic resistant bacteria?
Page 5 line 179-180: you say that unregulated alternation of land use and land cover...impose substantial strain on socio-environmental factors such as water security, flood hazards (reminder that this is supposed to be a pillar of water security, so including it here is redundant) and landslides, but you don’t say how.
Page 5, line 187: this sentence doesn’t make sense and also needs a citation, if you’re going to claim “reviews show”
Page 5, line 192: I don’t know what you mean by “border context”
Page 5, line 205: observations can clarify, but they cannot understand.
Page 5, lines 207-211: this is good introductory text of the study area.
Page 6, Figure 2: should really say “Nepal” on it somewhere.
Page 6, line 225: I see KUKL 2023b, but not 2023a.
Page 6, line 227: if you reference a figure in the text, it should be immediately after that sentence, or the paragraph, if it is a short paragraph. Showing it two pages later is too far.
Page 7, 249: protection like what?
Page 7, 251: impact like what?
Page 7, 253: what are the implications that the stone spouts are flowing without preservation? Is that good or bad?
Page 8, line 264: it’s redundant to say that water scarcity is due to a lack of water quantity.
Page 8, line 264: you seem to be saying that the interviews are conducted by the respondent, but that’s not right.
Page 9, lines 269-271: I could not understand this.
Page 9, line 275: reasons of what? Scarcity?
Page 9, Figure 4. Where do the numbers for demand come from? If it’s unmet demand, how are those numbers calculated? Also why is Figure 4 here and not where it is discussed a page later?
Page 9: Line 283 – “management” should read “inadequate management” I think.
Page 9, line 284: should read “are barriers to water production and water distribution.”
Page 10, line 294: incomplete sentence, should probably read “…before consumption”
Page 10, line 301: Figure 4 should be visible when it is discussed.
Page 10, line 302-303: say how these things are affecting groundwater.
Page 10, line 309: be clearer that this PUMI formulation is an invention of the author’s that emerged from the analysis of the information summarized up to this point.
Page 10, line 309: Figure has no number.
Page 10: line 309-310: whether local are aware of a small water source or not should not determine its relevance to the discussion about water security in KV.
Page 11: Figure has no label.
Page 11: lines 322-338: I think this section would be much easier to read if you structured it a little more. First summarize the situation, then the known causes and their effects on water security.
Page 11, line 327: what is Sundarijal? I don’t understand.
Page 12, lines 374-380: I don’t think it makes sense to include changing trends in the same category here (“paradigm shifts”) because their causes are different. I would consider them each independently.
Page 12, line 380: I don’t think behavior change should necessary fault visits to swimming pools, but it could fault the number of swimming pools that are being built. I would be cautious though – I don’t know the comparative demand of swimming pools vs. car washing in KV – it could be that one matters very little compared to the other. It would be great to have some quantifications here so the reader understands how much behavior causes for the system.
Page 13, line 396: How are vendors creating artificial scarcity?
Page 13, line 408: “four major factors” of what? Preventing investment?
Page 13, lines 413-415: these examples (timely inspections and coordination with the road department) are management issues, not investment issues.
Page 13, line 420: Again I assert that the three pillars are concern water quantity (too much, too little) and water quality – just say that, the terms you’re currently using are obtuse.
Page 14, line 339: you need to say what had to happn in order for the Thames to be clean again.
Page 14, line 441: needs citation.
Page 14, line 443-448: this is repeated text.
Page 14: line 463: I don’t know what you mean by “these results are not new”
Page 15, line 474: It would be great if you had devoted a little more text to the “shifting demand from winter to summer” earlier – and what about about the monsoon season?
Page 15, line 486: cite the “previous study”
Page 15, lines 486-497: this paragraph shifts topics ~3 times. It would be good to have separate paragraphs.
Page 15, line 495: I could not follow this sentence.
Page 16: Water tariffs could be adjusted based on usage: please do a literature search on this, there are several good articles examining different tariff systems and their effects on demand, sustainability, cost recovery, etc.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English in this paper has many mistakes, in grammar, punctuation, and sentence structure. It very much needs an English proof-reader – I have provided a few examples in the review, but I cannot document everything that needs fixing. Please find someone to proofread the paper.
Author Response
Round 2
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you so much for thoroughly reviewing each section of the manuscript and for your valuable time. I truly appreciate all of your comments, which have greatly helped improve the quality and potential for publication. I have made every effort to address your feedback to the best of my ability.
Please note that the line numbers have changed and may appear differently in some places. To make it easier for you to reference, I have added reference numbers.
I have also provided responses to each of your comments below. Thank you again for your thoughtful review.
General Comments
The paper structure is a bit disjointed; there are several sections of text that seem as though they belong elsewhere. The text about the two disasters that affected the Melamchi project is repeated in two different places in the paper, for example, and in the section about the lack of awareness, you talk about how garbage trucks aren’t collecting trash – that seems more about incentives. I recommend reading the paper carefully and asking if each bit of text is in the right place. Also, there are some places were the topic of the paragraph abruptly changes – this should be a new paragraph. Addiitionally, I would like to see the first section after the introduction be a description of the study area (the description comes much later) and what motivated the study.
Response:
Thank you for your detailed feedback. I have carefully addressed each of the concerns raised in the comments:
- Study Area Description and Motivation:
I have revised the manuscript to include a description of the study area immediately following the introduction, along with an explanation of what motivated me to conduct this research. This ensures a logical flow and provides readers with the necessary context early in the paper. - Other sections including, Interconnected Nature of Garbage Management Issues:
Regarding the section on garbage management and awareness, the example provided in the manuscript is intended to illustrate the interconnected nature of these issues. While the immediate act of throwing garbage near the riverbank may appear to stem from inadequate garbage collection services, the root cause also involves a lack of public awareness and education about sustainable waste disposal practices.
For instance, as highlighted in the manuscript, the tendency to dispose of plastic waste on roads or riverbanks reflects gaps in our education system and cultural practices, which do not emphasize proactive problem-solving. Additionally, the absence of effective incentives or penalties exacerbates the issue by failing to encourage responsible behavior.
- Repetition and Disjointed Structure:
I have carefully reviewed the manuscript to address the disjointed structure and any repeated content, such as the discussion of the two disasters affecting the Melamchi project. These sections have been consolidated to ensure clarity and avoid redundancy. - Paragraph Transitions:
I have also reviewed and revised sections where topics within paragraphs changed abruptly. Where necessary, I have split these into separate paragraphs to maintain logical transitions and coherence.
I recommend rethinking the literature review: almost all papers include a literature review, but unless it is a systematic literature review, the findings are generally part of the introduction, to give context to the reader. A systematic literature goes through the process of the literature search (as you have done) and then once the papers are identified, the authors evaluate the papers using specific questions and present the findings systematically, like “10 papers found [conclusions] while 7 papers founds [a different conclusion].” But there doesn’t seem to be any common query uniting your literature review, therefore it reads more as introductory text for the paper, and I would recommend incorporating it there instead of its own section. Some of the text in the current literature review seems like it’s synthesis, such as the three pillars of water security. I think that makes sense to include that as framing in the methodology section.
Response: Response: I have revised the literature review based on the specific comments provided and to enhance coherence. Additionally, I have reorganized and added some text to improve clarity and flow.
Citations are missing for several claims that are made in the paper. I will provide a few examples below, but read through the paper carefully.
Response : Thank you for pointing out. I have revised the text with citation.
Response: I have revised the manuscript to provide more detailed explanations and examples where claims about cause-and-effect relationships are made.
English proofreading
Response: English errors have been corrected in the clean version of the manuscript.
Abstract: the first sentence doesn’t really make sense, because the three things (national, internation academic, and policy) are not at all distinct from each other.
Response : I have revised the first sentence of the abstract to clarify the focus of the study. The updated sentence explicitly connects the importance of water security and quality to the International Hydrological Program's agenda, emphasizing its relevance without creating unnecessary distinctions between national, international academic, and policy domains. This ensures that the introduction aligns with the overall research context and avoids ambiguity.
Abstract: Second sentence, you give two examples (human health, development) and then say “multiple sectors”. Either name many more, or don’t name two first.
Response : The abstract now refrains from listing only two examples and instead directly emphasizes the broader impact of water scarcity on various sectors, including human health and socio-economic development. This change avoids inconsistency while maintaining the relevance of the mentioned sectors to the study.
Abstract: What are the three pillars of water security? You should state them here. And you should be clear that the pillars define the manifestations of water insecurity, whereas the PUMI factors clarify that causes. Otherwise it’s hard to contextualize how these lists relate to each other.
Response: In the revised abstract, I have defined the three pillars of Urban Water Security (UWS): water resource security, water environment security, and water disaster security. Additionally, I clarified that these pillars represent the manifestations of water insecurity, while the PUMI framework (Pollution, Urbanization, Management, and Investment) categorizes the underlying causes. This distinction provides a clearer context for understanding how the two frameworks relate to each other and contributes to the coherence of the abstract.
Page 1: Make sure to delete the text about the template.
Response : Thank you for pointing this out. I have removed the text about the template
Page 1: Introduction: first sentence does not make sense – greatest pressure compared to what? What growing needs?
Response : I have replaced first sentence to align with the context and have included a relevant citation.
Page 2, Line 46: It doesn’t make sense to say something is “vulnerable to sustainable water management”
Response: Removed the line and add relevant sentence [ reference (8)] since line number appearing different so would like to request check through reference number.
Page 2, line 54: “unveiled causes which have yet to be discovered…” doesn’t make sense.
Response : I have removed the sentence.
Page 2, line 55: it doesn’t make sense to say that research will “help to understand” – research can examine things, but only the reader can understand. Maybe you could say “help the reader to understand” but honestly that’s a bit presumptuous. Stick to what the research is doing, which is examining the evidence.
Response: I have revised the line ( Introduction, Last Paragraph)
Page 2, line 59: where do these 3 pillars come from? Are they your invention? Say so.
Response: Revised and explain (Last paragraph of Introduction)
Page 2, text about 3 pillars: it seems that your pillars are inadequate quantity, inadequate quality, and damaging high quanitities. I think you should state this more clearly
Response : I have revised the sentence from abstract and in introduction section as well.
Page 3: Figure 1: this process model needs work. Where did the included 21 studies come from? There is no arrow leading to them. And some of the boxes are dead ends, it’s not clear what happens. But I also don’t think this figure is necessary because you didn’t do a systematic literature review anyway.
Response : To address your concerns, we have revised the figure to improve clarity and ensure the process is accurately depicted. The 28 studies included in the review are systematically selected, with 16 studies sourced from ScienceDirect (Elsevier), 3 from MDPI, and 9 from other sources. These details are explicitly mentioned in the revised figure. Since this work involves a systematic literature review, the table summarizing the studies has been retained for transparency and to provide a comprehensive overview of the sources and findings.
Page 3: Line 1118: I encourage you to read and include the paper
Galaitsi et al . 2016“Intermittent domestic water supply: A critical review and analysis of causal-consequential pathways” Water. Volume 8 Issue 7, pp 274.
Response: I have incorporated article more especially causes of water scarcity.
Page 3, 120: You say disaster incidents damage water infrastructure and cause scarcity – this is a good example of not saying enough about the process involved. You do say it later, but it would be better to say it here because this sentence seems quite vague.
Response : I have revised the sentence, reference number (21, 22,23,24)
Page 3 line 122: why have you only given examples of disasters in the United States? Try to be more global, or ideally include disasters that are relevant to Asia and Kathmandu.
Response: I have incorporated examples from Asia and specifically from Kathmandu to support the points discussed.
Page 3 line 127: You say “The study” but because you have previously mentioned the study, you should say “A study” because this is the reader’s first introduction to it. This subtlety between “the” and “a” appears elsewhere in your paper – having an English speaker proof read the paper should help with this.
Response : After incorporating all the comments, I have sent the clean version of the manuscript for English proofreading. The clean version has been thoroughly.(Note: Not in track change version)
Page 4 Line 136-137: what exactly is the mechanism by which recovery crews staying home “leads to” water scarcity? Isn’t it the disaster that creates the scarcity? The recovery crew just doesn’t fix it quickly.
Response : Revised the sentence for clarifaction by adding “ . Thus, while the disaster initiates water scarcity, the absence of prompt recovery efforts prolongs and worsens the scarcity. “
Page 4 line 138: You reference the “diversity of the city” but then give only one example, so the reader is not convinced. Say more.
Response : Provided additional examples from other city
Page 4 line 138: I recommend always avoiding the word “obvious” in academic writing. That is a value judgement that other people might disagree with. Avoid value judgements.
Response : Thank you for pointing out minor mistakes. I attmept best to avoid such words. Removed from senence.
Page 4 line 153: It doesn’t make sense to say that abundance is unsustainable. This is a management/mismanagement issue, and should be presented as such.
Response : Revised the sentece, reference no [35 ]
Page 4, 158: now you’re talking about energy balance schemes, but you never say more about that or what they have to do with water security.
Response: In the revised text, I have clarified the connection between energy balance schemes and water security by emphasizing how these schemes contribute to more accurate water balance estimation.
Page 4: I would like to see more of an introduction about these stone spouts. Ideally, you will have a section of the paper describing the study area and then summarize the types of water sources available, including these stone spouts. How old are they? Who built them? How do they work? How were they maintained previously, and why has that changed?
Response : I added section after introduction addressing your comments and also added additional information in the text as well.
Page 4, line 167: it doesn’t really make sense to talk about extinction of infrastructure. You can talk about infrastructure that stops functioning, but infrastructure doesn’t go extinct, that’s something only animals do.
Response : Revised text accordingly reference no [40]
Page 5 line 173: “antibiotic resistance genes”? Do you mean antibiotic resistant bacteria?
Response: Yes, the term "antibiotic resistance genes" (ARGs) is used in existing literature, distinct from "antibiotic-resistant bacteria." ARGs refer to the genetic elements that confer resistance, which can be present in bacteria or free in the environment. In the context of this study, we highlight that the presence of ARGs in water sources contributes to concerns about water quality, making some water unsafe for drinking and exacerbating water scarcity fears.
Page 5 line 179-180: you say that unregulated alternation of land use and land cover...impose substantial strain on socio-environmental factors such as water security, flood hazards (reminder that this is supposed to be a pillar of water security, so including it here is redundant) and landslides, but you don’t say how.
Response : In the revised text, I have clarified the connection between land use changes and water security by emphasizing their impact on water quality and, consequently, drinking water shortages. I have also ensured that the mention of flood hazards as a pillar of water security is more concise to avoid redundancy. I hope this revision addresses your concern and strengthens the manuscript
Page 5, line 187: this sentence doesn’t make sense and also needs a citation, if you’re going to claim “reviews show”
Response : Removed the line.
Page 5, line 192: I don’t know what you mean by “border context”
Response: Revised the text and also removed the term boarder.
Page 5, line 205: observations can clarify, but they cannot understand.
Response: I have revised the line in methods part
Page 5, lines 207-211: this is good introductory text of the study area.
Response: This paragraph has been shifted after the introduction in study area Description
Page 6, Figure 2: should really say “Nepal” on it somewhere.
Response : modified in map
Page 6, line 225: I see KUKL 2023b, but not 2023a.
Response: Citation was missing so added (reference no [10 and 54]
Page 6, line 227: if you reference a figure in the text, it should be immediately after that sentence, or the paragraph, if it is a short paragraph. Showing it two pages later is too far.
Response : revised accodrdingly
Page 7, 249: protection like what?
Response :Protection of water source, I have revised the sentece as well.
Page 7, 251: impact like what?
Response” Revised such as water reserve area is completely dry.
Page 7, 253: what are the implications that the stone spouts are flowing without preservation? Is that good or bad?
Response : revised the text, reference no;
Page 8, line 264: it’s redundant to say that water scarcity is due to a lack of water quantity.
Page 8, line 264: you seem to be saying that the interviews are conducted by the respondent, but that’s not right.
Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The sentence was unclear and has been revised for accuracy.
Page 9, lines 269-271: I could not understand this.
Response: hank you for your feedback. I have revised the sentence to improve clarity and ensure the meaning is conveyed correctly.
Page 9, line 275: reasons of what? Scarcity?
Response : Yes, the sentence refers to reasons for water scarcity, and I have clarified this in the revision.
Page 9, Figure 4. Where do the numbers for demand come from? If it’s unmet demand, how are those numbers calculated? Also why is Figure 4 here and not where it is discussed a page later?
Response : Figure 4 (now Figure 3) has been repositioned to align with its discussion in the manuscript for better coherence. The data shown in the figure represent the gap between water production and demand, based on figures obtained from an official government website mentioned in figure. These data were compiled in Excel to create a clear visual representation of the water quantity gap. The figure specifically addresses water quantity, while the aspects of quality and resource availability are discussed in a separate paragraph to avoid redundancy.
Page 9: Line 283 – “management” should read “inadequate management” I think.
Response : Revised accordingly
Page 9, line 284: should read “are barriers to water production and water distribution.”
Response : Revised the sentence
Page 10, line 294: incomplete sentence, should probably read “…before consumption”
Response : Revised the sentence.
Page 10, line 301: Figure 4 should be visible when it is discussed.
Response : Figure 4 (now Figure 3) has been repositioned in the manuscript to ensure it is visible where it is discussed in the context of water quantity.
Page 10, line 302-303: say how these things are affecting groundwater.
Response : revised the sentece
Page 10, line 309: be clearer that this PUMI formulation is an invention of the author’s that emerged from the analysis of the information summarized up to this point.
Response : Revised accordingly before 5.4 section.
Page 10, line 309: Figure has no number.
Response : I have assigned a number to the figure
Page 10: line 309-310: whether local are aware of a small water source or not should not determine its relevance to the discussion about water security in KV.
Response : Removed the sentence
Page 11: Figure has no label.
Response : I have assigned a label to the figure
Page 11: lines 322-338: I think this section would be much easier to read if you structured it a little more. First summarize the situation, then the known causes and their effects on water security.
Response : Revised accordingly
Page 11, line 327: what is Sundarijal? I don’t understand.
Response : Sundarijal refers to a river. For clarity, I have revised the text to simply refer to it as "the river.
Page 12, lines 374-380: I don’t think it makes sense to include changing trends in the same category here (“paradigm shifts”) because their causes are different. I would consider them each independently.
Response : Yes it is different I changed the paragraph and add a sentence for clarity.
Page 12, line 380: I don’t think behavior change should necessary fault visits to swimming pools, but it could fault the number of swimming pools that are being built. I would be cautious though – I don’t know the comparative demand of swimming pools vs. car washing in KV – it could be that one matters very little compared to the other. It would be great to have some quantifications here so the reader understands how much behavior causes for the system.
Response : Thank you for raising this point. Unfortunately, data quantifying the comparative demand for swimming pools versus car washing in the Kathmandu Valley is not available. I have revised the text to explicitly mention this limitation while emphasizing the potential impact of behavior change on water usage.
Page 13, line 396: How are vendors creating artificial scarcity?
Response: A sentence has been added to clarify how vendors create artificial scarcity by manipulating supply to increase demand and prices.
Page 13, line 408: “four major factors” of what? Preventing investment?
Response : The text has been revised to specify that these are four major factors hindering investment.
Page 13, lines 413-415: these examples (timely inspections and coordination with the road department) are management issues, not investment issues.
Response : While these issues may initially appear to be management-related, they are often rooted in a lack of funding. I have clarified this in the manuscript by explaining that, for example, the road department frequently denies requests for digging due to the high labor costs associated with redoing work. This highlights how financial constraints hinder effective coordination and timely maintenance, making these challenges more investment-related than purely management issues
Page 13, line 420: Again I assert that the three pillars are concern water quantity (too much, too little) and water quality – just say that, the terms you’re currently using are obtuse.
Response : In the revised text, I have clarified the terminology used to describe the three pillars of urban water security, as taken from Liu et al., and aligned them with the broader concepts of water quantity and quality. The terms "Water Resource Security," "Water Environment Security," and "Water Disaster Security" are integral to Su et al.'s framework and were retained to preserve their original contex
Page 14, line 339: you need to say what had to happn in order for the Thames to be clean again.
Response : I have added additional text explaining the measures and actions taken to restore the cleanliness of the Thames.
Page 14, line 441: needs citation.
Response : A relevant citation has been added to support the statement.
Page 14, line 443-448: this is repeated text.
Response : The repeated text has been removed to avoid redundancy.
Page 14: line 463: I don’t know what you mean by “these results are not new”
Response : The sentence has been revised to clarify that the results are consistent with previous findings.
Page 15, line 474: It would be great if you had devoted a little more text to the “shifting demand from winter to summer” earlier – and what about about the monsoon season?
Response : Additional text has been included earlier in the manuscript to elaborate on the shifting demand from winter to summer (paradigm shift), as well as the impact of the monsoon season
Page 15, line 486: cite the “previous study”
Response : A citation for the previous study has been added.
Page 15, lines 486-497: this paragraph shifts topics ~3 times. It would be good to have separate paragraphs.
Response : The paragraph has been restructured into separate paragraphs to improve readability and coherence.
Page 15, line 495: I could not follow this sentence.
Response : The sentence has been rewritten for clarity and better comprehension
Page 16: Water tariffs could be adjusted based on usage: please do a literature search on this, there are several good articles examining different tariff systems and their effects on demand, sustainability, cost recovery, etc.
Response : Added examples with citation “ Additionally, water tariffs could be adjusted based on usage; for example, progressively higher rates as water consumption increases, effectively promoting conservation and ensuring affordability for essential use. A study published in Water discusses the application of IBTs and their role in discouraging water wastefulness”
Once again thank you so much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDespite references to reports and literature, the article still lacks comprehensive numerical data to support its conclusions
Author Response
Round -2 Reviewer -1
Reviewer comments
Despite references to reports and literature, the article still lacks comprehensive numerical data to support its conclusions
Response: Thank you for your time and effort in reviewing the manuscript for Round 2. I have carefully addressed your concern regarding the lack of numerical data by incorporating a frequency analysis of the identified challenges. Specifically, I have quantified the occurrence of each factor under Pollution, Urbanization, Management, and Investment (PUMI) based on interview data. A frequency analysis chart has been developed to illustrate the prominence of these challenges in water security within the Kathmandu Valley.
Since the manuscript already included descriptive and critical analysis, I have now integrated the percentage frequencies into the text (highlighted in yellow for clarity). Additionally, I have revised the methodology section as well. I believe these modifications strengthen the manuscript by providing concrete numerical support for the conclusions.
The clean version has been proofread.
I appreciate your valuable feedback.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for responding to my comments. I think this could still use a proof-read, but it seems much better. I would still recommend removing Figure 2 or putting in arrows to make the process clearer. Otherwise, it seems much improved.
Author Response
Round- 2 Reviewer 2
Thank you for responding to my comments. I think this could still use a proof-read, but it seems much better. I would still recommend removing Figure 2 or putting in arrows to make the process clearer. Otherwise, it seems much improved.
Response: Thank you for taking the time to review my work again. I appreciate your feedback. I have added arrows to Figure 2 to make the process clearer in the PRISMA diagram.The clean version has been proofread.I appreciate your valuable feedback.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
