A Systematic Review of Water Resources Assessment at a Large River Basin Scale: Case of the Major River Basins in Madagascar

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript present a systematic review on water resources assessment at a large river basin scale, intending to present an assessment method for the major river basins in Madagascar. This review investigated articles from Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed databases.

 The topic of manuscript is important and interesting, but the manuscript is in the initial step of research. The reviews of backgrounds are good and complete, but the application of suggested method for the case study was not applied.

Most part of the methods and results of the manuscript were presented based on the previous reviews. The manuscript suggested a method for the Madagascar, but it is necessary to apply and test the method for this basin and present the results and discuss the suitability of method for this case study.

 The quality of figures are weak (Foe example Figure 2 is not clear).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We appreciate the positive assessment of our work and thank the Reviewer for raising an important point.

Please find below our response to your comments: 

This manuscript presents a systematic review of water resources assessment at a large river basin scale, intending to present an assessment method for the major river basins in Madagascar. This review investigated articles from Google Scholar, Web of Science, and PubMed databases.

Point 1: The topic of the manuscript is important and interesting, but the manuscript is in the initial step of research. The reviews of backgrounds are good and complete, but the application of the suggested method for the case study was not applied. Most parts of the methods and results of the manuscript were presented based on the previous reviews. The manuscript suggested a method for Madagascar, but it is necessary to apply and test the method for this basin and present the results and discuss the suitability of the method for this case study.

Response 1: We totally agree with the reviewer that it is necessary to test the suitability of the method for the major basins. The main purpose of our paper is to develop a systematic review on water resources assessment at a large river basin scale which would allow to propose a new method for their assessment. Therefore, this systematic literature review was conducted to synthesize the current state of knowledge of water resources assessment at a large river basin scale and propose a method for the major river basins in Madagascar. The next stage of our research will be to apply the method proposed in this review (use of the SWAT model in combination with the Inter-and Intra-basin approach and multiple GCMs) for the major river basins. The manuscript was revised accordingly adding the limitations of this work.

See the change on Page 13, lines 484-487.

Point 2: The quality of the figures are weak (For example Figure 2 is not clear).

Response 2: We apologize for that. The figures were revised accordingly.

Best regards,

RAKOTOARIMANANA Zy Harifidy

PhD. candidate, Special Doctoral Course on Integrated River Basin Management

University of Yamanashi, 400-8511, Japan

Reviewer 2 Report

Some recommendations are:

·         The introduction needs to be improved. It is very simple.

·         Abbreviations should be described from the time they are first mentioned (for example, GCMs and SWAT).

·         Tables 1-3 are not relevant; they are not necessary.

·         The mentioned models should be described further.

·         The Materials and Methods section does not describe any method.

·         For a Review-type article, more references need to be added.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to thank the Reviewer for the helpful comments provided for our paper.

Please find below our response to your comments: 

Point 1: The introduction needs to be improved. It is very simple.

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The introduction has been revised. See the change on Page 2, lines 61-102.

Point 2: Abbreviations should be described from the time they are first mentioned (for example, GCMs, and SWAT).

Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comments. We added descriptions for the abbreviations in the manuscript.

Point 3: Tables 1-3 are not relevant; they are not necessary.

Response 3: We agree with the reviewer and removed Tables 1-3 in the manuscript.

Point 4: The mentioned models should be described further.

Response 4: We thank the Reviewer for having suggested those important points. The following section is added to the manuscript for more clarification: “3.5. Combination of multiple- GCMs, hydrological models, and Inter- and Intra-basin analysis”. See the change on Page 11-12, lines 388-438

Point 5: The Materials and Methods section does not describe any method.

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comments. We understand your concern about the core of our manuscript. We added Figure 1 to explain the conceptual design of the systematic research. See the change on Page 4, lines 117-119.

Point 6: For a Review-type article, more references need to be added.

Response 6: We have added more references to the manuscript. See the change on Page 14-17, lines 503-729.

Best regards,

RAKOTOARIMANANA Zy Harifidy

PhD. candidate, Special Doctoral Course on Integrated River Basin Management

University of Yamanashi, 400-8511, Japan

Reviewer 3 Report

The study lacks addressing V&V processes for the modelling tools.

The conceptual design of systematic research is unclear.

The study needs to address the uncertainty of analysis and sensitivity of parameters.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank the reviewer for the valuable time reviewing our manuscript and comments. 

Please find below our response to your comments:

Point 1: The study lacks addressing V&V (Verification&validation) processes for the modeling tools.

Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. The following section is added to the manuscript for more clarification: “3.5. Combination of multiple- GCMs, hydrological models, and Inter- and Intra-basin analysis”. See the change on Page 11-102, lines 388-438.

Point 2: The conceptual design of systematic research is unclear.

Response 2: We thank the Reviewer for having raised this important point. We added Figure 1 to explain the Flow diagram of the systematic review process. See the change on Page 4, lines 117-119.

Point 3: The study needs to address the uncertainty of analysis and sensitivity of parameters.

Response 3: We thank the Reviewer for having suggested this important point.

We added a paragraph to discuss about the uncertainty of analysis and sensitivity of parameters. See the change on Page 12, lines 422-435.

Best regards,

RAKOTOARIMANANA Zy Harifidy

PhD. candidate, Special Doctoral Course on Integrated River Basin Management

University of Yamanashi, 400-8511, Japan

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion, I think it can be accepted

Reviewer 3 Report

No extra comment.