Karst Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (KAVA) Method—A Novel GIS-Based Method for Deep Karst Aquifers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A BRIEF SUMMARY

The paper titled “Karst Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (KAVA) method – a novel GIS-based method for deep karst aquifers”presents a good topic for readers of this Journal. However, several some lacks emerge after reading the paper. Below is the list of lacks:

•  The article was written in a confusing way.
• Lack of an adequate method description.
• Too little bibliography for this type of work, on a so broad topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.
• Figures quality is not adequate for the publication on an international Journal (with a good IF as "Sustainability" journal). In particular, I suggest to replace Fig. 1 and Fig.3. For example you can see the figures of following paper on Karst area. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7866-8
• Finally, you to replace all formulas with MDPI format.

Author Response

Point 1: The article was written in a confusing way.

Response 1: We assume that the problem arises when reading the paper and constantly referring to Table 1. It would be much more readable if the table were broken into several figures and that the figures strictly follow the text. The decision to present the method in one table is for the reason of saving space, but also because of later easier use of the method for other researchers. 

Point 2: Lack of an adequate method description.

Response 2: The KAVA method is presented in the shortest form, but in such a way that based on the paper other researchers can make an analysis of intrinsic vulnerability for their areas. The presentation of the method can be presented much more widely, especially if the description of the method would include the method of preparing intrinsic vulnerability maps using GIS tools.

Point 3: Too little bibliography for this type of work, on a so broad topic. I strongly suggest that the authors try to add some more references especially in the "part 1 (introduction)" of the paper to make the foundation for the arguments stronger.

Response 3: Some of the references and some paragraphs added in the section 1. Introduction. We hope that enough references have been added and that they now corroborate the arguments presented in the article.

Point 4: Figures quality is not adequate for the publication on an international Journal (with a good IF as "Sustainability" journal). In particular, I suggest to replace Fig. 1 and Fig.3. For example you can see the figures of following paper on Karst area. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-018-7866-8

Response 4: Figure 1 and figure 3 are replaced according to the suggestion of the reviewer.

Point 5: Finally, you to replace all formulas with MDPI format

Response 6: All formulas are replaced in the MDPI format.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript sustainability-1139950 presents the Karst Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (KAVA) method, a new GIS-based method for deep karst aquifers and its application to two characteristic karst basins of the Dinaric karst (Croatia). KAVA method, proposed within the EU project COST 620, is based on a conceptual model origin-pathway-target. It is a point count system (PCSM) expert-based method. The KAVA parameters are rated and evaluated by weight numerical indices to assess the intrinsic vulnerability to pollution. Four basic factors are considered in the KAVA method: Overlay protection, Precipitation influence, Infiltration conditions and Aquifer conditions.

I think that the manuscript can be useful for all the scientific community involved in Groundwater to pollution Vulnerability mapping and Karst Hydrogeology.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the review of the paper and we hope that the article will be useful to the karst hydrogeologist community.

Reviewer 3 Report

I have read this paper with interest. The paper is titled Karst Aquifer Vulnerability Assessment (KAVA) method – a novel GIS-based method for deep karst aquifers. What I liked is that it is clear, well structured, well substantiated. and right to the point. I can tell they are technical scientists from how they structured it.

While the scientific soundness is fine, I would suggest one edit. My comment is:

• The authors need to, before deepen into the specific case study and groundwater aquifer discussion, they need to highlighting how groundwater resources need to be contextualised within the multi-scalar dimensions. This is an important characteristic of groundwater resources, as well as the fact they are invisible and therefore add an additional challenge for their governance and management. This is an important aspect to mention in the introduction. Please read this paper of Luis de Silva and incorporate in your paper the multi-scalar dimensions Luis highlights: da Silva, L. P. B., et al. (2019). Production of scale in regional hydropolitics: an analysis of La Plata River Basin and the Guarani Aquifer System in South America. Geoforum, 99, 42-53.
• introduction: clearly state the relevant literature you are contributing to, why this study is important, and the gap you are filling

Author Response

Point 1: The authors need to, before deepen into the specific case study and groundwater aquifer discussion, they need to highlighting how groundwater resources need to be contextualised within the multi-scalar dimensions. This is an important characteristic of groundwater resources, as well as the fact they are invisible and therefore add an additional challenge for their governance and management. This is an important aspect to mention in the introduction. Please read this paper of Luis de Silva and incorporate in your paper the multi-scalar dimensions Luis highlights: da Silva, L. P. B., et al. (2019). Production of scale in regional hydropolitics: an analysis of La Plata River Basin and the Guarani Aquifer System in South America. Geoforum, 99, 42-53.

Response 1: A paragraph about contextualization within the multi-scalar dimensions is added according to the suggestion of the reviewer.

Point 2: introduction: clearly state the relevant literature you are contributing to, why this study is important, and the gap you are filling

Response 2: Added some paragraphs and references in the introductory part of the paper according to the comments of the reviewer.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has been improved. In my opinion now is ready for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Looks good