Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The study examines the important issue of the water recharges suitability in Kabul aquifer system within the Upper Indus Basin. The present research aims to identify the potential recharge sites through employing of GIS and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and incorporating remote sensing data with in situ and geospatial data obtained from related organizations in Afghanistan. These data sets were employed to document nine thematic layers which includes slope, drainage density, rainfall, distance to fault, distance to river, lithology, and ground water table, land cover, and soil texture. All the thematic layers were allocated and ranked, based on previous studies, field survey and extensive questionnaire survey was carried out with national experts. Based on the collected and processed data output the groundwater recharge values were determined. Remarks: How do you define faluts?  On what base the parameters rank were assumed? as presented in the Table 1. Ranking of the suitability parameters (from 5 to 1). In the equation (1) sth is missing? Lambda max minus what? Why the AHP method was chosen to convert experts' opinions about options? Particularly, since the authors state that the use of expert knowledge is a relevant point of their work, I believe that further details are needed on this. More specifically, which experts were involved? Did you find any differences and/or inconsistencies in their belief? Did you find relevant literature identifying the key variables to be considered in the analysis? The abstract doesn’t show the accurate content and the main findings of the study area. Please add the main findings of the research work. What is the added value of this new study? Clearly define the objective of the work in the introduction. Please add more discussion material to the Results and Discussion section. What were perhaps different results from other studies, and why? The conclusion should be specific. It is recommended to just highlight the novelty and key findings of the work. Details of used method concenring the equations form one to ten should be placed in the appendix.

Author Response

Reviewers/Editor comments:

Reviewer #1: The study examines the important issue of the water recharges suitability in Kabul aquifer system within the Upper Indus Basin. The present research aims to identify the potential recharge sites through employing of GIS and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and incorporating remote sensing data with in situ and geospatial data obtained from related organizations in Afghanistan. These data sets were employed to document nine thematic layers which includes slope, drainage density, rainfall, distance to fault, distance to river, lithology, and ground water table, land cover, and soil texture. All the thematic layers were allocated and ranked, based on previous studies, field survey and extensive questionnaire survey was carried out with national experts. Based on the collected and processed data output the groundwater recharge values were determined. Remarks: How do you define faults?  On what base the parameters rank were assumed? as presented in the Table 1. Ranking of the suitability parameters (from 5 to 1). In the equation (1) sth is missing? Lambda max minus what? Why the AHP method was chosen to convert experts' opinions about options? Particularly, since the authors state that the use of expert knowledge is a relevant point of their work, I believe that further details are needed on this. More specifically, which experts were involved? Did you find any differences and/or inconsistencies in their belief? Did you find relevant literature identifying the key variables to be considered in the analysis? The abstract doesn’t show the accurate content and the main findings of the study area. Please add the main findings of the research work. What is the added value of this new study? Clearly define the objective of the work in the introduction. Please add more discussion material to the Results and Discussion section. What were perhaps different results from other studies, and why? The conclusion should be specific. It is recommended to just highlight the novelty and key findings of the work. Details of used method concerning the equations from one to ten should be placed in the appendix.

Response: Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions. The faults play an important role in groundwater recharge due to its empty space. Therefore, water can readily flow in faults and fractures. Thus, faults are considered a significant parameter in artificial groundwater recharge. The main classification criteria of parameter are the importance of each parameter. Therefore, based on the importance of each parameter and consideration of previous and similar studies, the number of categories was selected between 1 and 5. As you know, AHP is a partially qualitative approach, and one of the main advantages of this method is consideration on characteristics of the study area and idea of water experts. The ideas of national water experts were gathered through questionnaire surveys, and then the importance of parameters was determined. We revised the abstract accordingly. The results of this study are in accordance with previous studies which have been conducted in other parts of the world. The results indicated that hydraulic conductivity and geological characteristics are the primary parameters in artificial groundwater recharge. Highlighted is the novelty of the research accordingly. Please kindly see the revised manuscript.  

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

With weighting factors derived from AHP approach, This paper has integrated multiple spatial datasets to assess the water recharges suitability in Kabul aquifer system. With its focus on groundwater and its recharges from surface, it is suitable to be part of targeted special issue. The application of GIS-based modelling in a data-poor environment is commendable and the use of AHP approach is refreshing. But I found the paper is poorly written and difficult to read. It needs some serious restructuring and reformatting to get it to a publishable status. Major issues are outlined below:

1) There is no need for authors to explain how useful GIS and RS techniques are in general and describe the various common GIS procedures, e.g. clipping, overlaying, etc. There should be an overview of the existing application of GIS and RS specific in the country or similar countries.  The unique challenges for the study should be more about choice of data sources, resolutions, qualities assurances.

2) Paper structure need to be modified: The logical chain should be: describe your concept model to identify relevant data layers--> describe individual data layers (sources, resolution, quality, etc) --> AHP weighting --> mapped results --> result validation. The methodology section is too long and result section is too short. The outputs were introduced in the 'methodology' (Equation 2) before its presentation in the 'result' section. 

3) Too little information on the AHP procedures: this is the interesting part of the paper but it is very vague at moment. Is it based on authors' judgement, expert reviews, workshop discussion, ... ? how many samples were used to produce Table 3.

4) There should be a summary statistic table for all the layers to show their ranges, median, average, 5th percentile and 95th percentiles. This will support the maps shown.

5) Pattern validation: more discussion should be on the match and mis-match and then describe any limitations of the current approach. 

6) References: relative speaking the reference list is too long. Some statements have > 10 reference listed. Authors should considered only list only relevant and recent literatures.

3) English writing need significant improvement. Some sentences do not make sense, got grammar problems, etc. I have highlighted the parts which need authors' attention in the annotated version of the paper attached. Please consider replace 'soil texture' with 'soil type'. Most people think the former is more about clay, silt and sand content.  

Figures and Tables

There are too many maps. Not all maps need to be shown and reclassified maps could be supplied in a supplement document if necessary.  

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewers/Editor comments:

Reviewer #2: With weighting factors derived from AHP approach, this paper has integrated multiple spatial datasets to assess the water recharges suitability in Kabul aquifer system. With its focus on groundwater and its recharges from surface, it is suitable to be part of targeted special issue. The application of GIS-based modelling in a data-poor environment is commendable and the use of AHP approach is refreshing. But I found the paper is poorly written and difficult to read. It needs some serious restructuring and reformatting to get it to a publishable status. Major issues are outlined below:

Response: Thank you for your valuable comments and constructive suggestions. The manuscript has been significantly improved in grammar and style by a professional English editor. Please kindly see the revised manuscript.

1. There is no need for authors to explain how useful GIS and RS techniques are in general and describe the various common GIS procedures, e.g., clipping, overlaying, etc. There should be an overview of the existing application of GIS and RS specific in the country or similar countries.  The unique challenges for the study should be more about choice of data sources, resolutions, qualities assurances.

Response: Many thanks for raising this point. We revised the manuscript accordingly. Please kindly see the revised manuscript. 

1. Paper structure need to be modified: The logical chain should be: describe your concept model to identify relevant data layers--> describe individual data layers (sources, resolution, quality, etc.) --> AHP weighting --> mapped results --> result validation. The methodology section is too long and result section is too short. The outputs were introduced in the 'methodology' (Equation 2) before its presentation in the 'result' section. 

Response: Many thanks for your careful review and insightful comments. We revised the manuscript according to your suggestions. Fig. 2 indicates the conceptual model in the revised manuscript. The source, resolution and quality of each layer are specified and revised. Please kindly see the revised manuscript. 

1. Too little information on the AHP procedures: this is the interesting part of the paper but it is very vague at moment. Is it based on authors' judgement, expert reviews, workshop discussion, ... ? how many samples were used to produce Table 3.

Response: Thanks for raising this point. We significantly improved the AHP section according to your suggestions. Please kindly see the revised manuscript. 

1. There should be a summary statistic table for all the layers to show their ranges, median, average, 5th percentile and 95th percentiles. This will support the maps shown.

Response: Actually, this research has been conducted and completed based on qualitative criteria using a weighted approach.  Therefore, it is not possible to provide a summary statistic table for all the layers.

1. Pattern validation: more discussion should be on the match and mis-match and then describe any limitations of the current approach. 

Response: Many thanks for your kind constructive suggestions. We revised the manuscript accordingly. Please kindly see the revised manuscript. 

1. References: relative speaking the reference list is too long. Some statements have > 10 reference listed. Authors should consider only list only relevant and recent literatures.

Response: Thank you for raising this point. We revised and reduced the reference according to your suggestion. Please kindly see the revised manuscript. 

1. English writing needs significant improvement. Some sentences do not make sense, got grammar problems, etc. I have highlighted the parts which need authors' attention in the annotated version of the paper attached. Please consider replace 'soil texture' with 'soil type'. Most people think the former is more about clay, silt and sand content.  

Response: Thank you very much for your constructive criticism. The manuscript has been remarkably improved in grammar and style by a professional English editor. Please kindly see the revised manuscript. We carefully reviewed and implemented your comments in the revised manuscript.

Figures and Tables

There are too many maps. Not all maps need to be shown and reclassified maps could be supplied in a supplement document if necessary.  

Response: Many thanks for your careful review. To maintain the structure of the article and the continuity of the content, it is preferable to have the related  maps in the text; maps were reviewed and reclassified. as you recommend. Please kindly see the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The study examines the important issue of the water recharges suitability in Kabul aquifer system within the Upper Indus Basin. The present research aims to identify the potential recharge sites through employing of GIS and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) and incorporating remote sensing data with in situ and geospatial data obtained from related organizations in Afghanistan. These data sets were employed to document nine thematic layers which includes slope, drainage density, rainfall, distance to fault, distance to river, lithology, and ground water table, land cover, and soil texture. All the thematic layers were allocated and ranked, based on previous studies, field survey and extensive questionnaire survey was carried out with national experts. Based on the collected and processed data output the groundwater recharge values were determined. Remarks: Remarks: The choice of reference could be supplemented with respect to the other methods, which are based on according to bivariate and multivariate statistical analysis with decision making in prioritization of the collected information [4938,3950] (page 2). e.g. Ref. Modelling water distribution network failures and deterioration, 2017, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2017-December, pp. 924-928. DOI 10.1109/IEEM.2017.8290027. In the abstract, please underline the academic contribution of your work. Add some information about the perspective of the future work.

Author Response

Thank you for your insightful comments and constructive suggestions. 

The recommended reference was added: 

Valis, D; Hasilova, K; Forbelska, M.  Modeling water distribution network failures and deterioration, 2017, IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management 2017-December, pp. 924-928. DOI 10.1109/IEEM.2017.8290027.

The academic contributions to our work are related to the application of the cross-disciplinary approach to investigate the complicated region, areas with the limited data, complexities in collecting data in Afghanistan, where the proper research with sufficient data is a challenge. The selection of climatic characteristics and geological characteristics as the most important criteria in the artificial recharge of the aquifer are investigated in many regions with good access to data and opportunities for validation and verifications. The novelty of this research is the cross-disciplinary approach with incorporation of a compiled set of input  data with the set of various criteria (nine criteria based on which layers are formed, including slope, drainage density, rainfall, distance to fault, distance to river channel, lithology, ground water table, land cover, and soil texture) and experts questionnaires.

Sustainability of water resources and availability are complicated issues worldwide and under stress in developing countries where we are faced with difficulties to provide the proper local research works. Many countries have decreased their water  resources dramatically and continue to deplete underground water. Underground water resources are not given proper investigation in regards to sustainability supply chains. At the same time, it is important to use groundwater efficiently, as the UN recommends. Groundwater makes up 99% of all Earth’s fresh water and requires appropriate attention (UN, 2022). Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) should work for keeping the required groundwater sustainability, but is difficult to apply in some complicated regions worldwide, including many regions in Afghanistan and Central Asia. The AHP methodology expanded with the  cross-disciplinary approach by adding the local experts’ questionnaires can be very handy in areas with limited access to data, to provide the preliminary investigations, reduce expenses and circumvent often dangerous field works. We plan to continue our research in Afghanistan and Central Asia.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.