Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

no

Author Response

Editor
MDPI-Agriculture

                                                                                                 15^th January 2022

Dear Editor,

Subject: Submission of revised paper ‘Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modelling. Thank you for your email dated 8^th January 2022 enclosing the comments for the above-mentioned manuscript. We appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript from the Editor and anonymous reviewers.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We attach here a tracked-changes version of our manuscript highlighting changes made directly to the manuscript.

 We believe that these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and we hope that you find that the revised version is now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

 

sabushoaib

Syed Abu Shoaib
Assistant Professor
Food Security, Water and Environment wing

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

+966563430815

[email protected]

 

Attached file:

 

1. Response to Editor and Reviewers
2. Manuscripts with track changes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewers’ comments – MDPI_Agriculture- 1519029

We thank the Reviewers, Editor, Managing Editor and the Assistant Editor for the comments which improve the readability and accuracy of this manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and the thorough nature of the review that has gone into improving this manuscript. Below are our responses to each of the comments and how they have been dealt with.

 

A.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The Reviewer completely agree with the introduction provided with sufficient background and include all relevant references. Reviewer find the research are designed appropriately and the methods are adequately described. Reviewer find the  results are clearly presented and the conclusions supported by the results.

 
 Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciation in all aspects of the review of the paper. We have updated the paper by incorporating the required corrections. Considerable effort has gone into improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript, and we believe the study is significantly improved as a result. 

We appreciate the comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication.

 

B.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context. Therefore I am really keen on to that paper and feel it should be published after major improvements are done.  This work deals with an important topic but its structure requires major changes. It presents very little of its own results and a lot of methods and results that were previously published elsewhere. This is good in sections introduction and Materials and Methods. The discussion section should also contain more references to the results obtained by the authors. The results and analysis section should definitely be expanded. Perhaps this article could also be turned into a review paper of other work on Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability.

 

We thank the reviwer for understanding the significance of the work and explaining the work as  “ The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context.” To make it more clear , we have improved the sections and organaziation of  the structure of the article. This article will be one of the new contribution in this domain. Article combining water security modelling with sustainability  and climate resilience is rare.

Detailed comments

Abstract

please decide: “mulit model” or “multi-model”. Both are fine for me, but please be consistent.

Thank you. We have followed your comments and remain consistent.

Line 11: did you put a dash on purpose? “climate re-siliency”? Further you use a formulation “climate-resilient” (cc. line 39).

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated.

Introduction

Lines 44-51: I really like the way you described types of resilience, through how it is measured. Do you see these types as disabling elements, gradable? Or rather, they can function side by side, in mutual dependence? Can I imagine a situation where the system is a bit more complicated and expresses resilience in some elements more as capacity to content and in others as capacity to cope with the next shock? A short explanation in this regard would help you understand your way of defining the vast concept of resilience. Figure 1 is very useful in this regard, but: “climate resilience” (or ”climate-resilience”)? Please be consistent throughout the paper.

Thank you very much. Glad to know, you like the way, we have described the types of resilience. We follow your comments and remain consistent. Extreme events like flood and drought are good example in this regard. Frequency and magnitude of flood discharge help to define the resilience of the city. For example, 2010 Queensland, Australia flood causes billion dollar damages and this disaster develop a mechanism to be prepared for future. " This article attempts to propose a modelling framework to assess the resilience of agriculture to climate change taking into consideration several biophysical, economical, and social aspects.

Line 68: after the first sentence a space is missing.

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

 

Line 69: space missing after “resources:” and replace the parenthesis with a semicolon after “projection”

Thank you. Updated as required.

Line 73: doubled space after “prediction”

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

Line 76: a double period at the end of a sentence

Thank you.  Updated as required.

 

2. Materials and Methods

Lines 93-95 The statement is a bit confusing because it initially refers to "business as usual" and later it says that data is available for each emission scenario. Perhaps it is best to simply list the RCP scenarios used in the research. It is also not clear from the text whether these are RCP scenarios or earlier.

 Projected data are available for 14 general circulation models (GCMs) under each emission scenario. The GCMs are bcc_csm1_1, ccsm4, cesm1_cam5, csiro_mk3_6_0, fio_esm, gfdl_cm3, gfdl_esm2m, giss_e2_h, giss_e2_r, ipsl_cm5a_mr, miroc_esm, miroc5, mri_cgcm3, and noresm1_m. The impacts of three CO2 emission scenario-the Representative Concentration Pathway, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, RCP 8.5

Line 100: correct space before “(i)”

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

 

C.

Reviewer 3

Dear Editor,

I went through the manuscript several times. I think the topic presented in the study is of scientific interest and fits the scope of the Journal. However, the English used by the authors to present and discuss the results is not suitable. I found numerous typos and grammatical errors. In several sections of the manuscript, it is difficult for me to understand what the authors are trying to say.

Thank you  for your kind guidance. We have updated the article by restructuring some of the content accommodating climate resilience and environmental sustainability to integrate water security modelling. As the topic of this article is scientifically complex and contain diverse issues, it’s difficult to accommodate all the things in a single paper.

However, in the current format, the manuscript accomplished this goal, due mostly to:

1. Innovative Narrative and organization:

 

We have rewritten part of the manuscripts and presented the main idea in more clear way so that readers can follow the path of the main objectives of the research article. In addition to that some parts are replaced and organization of the article is structured to make it worthy for publications.

Integrating climate resilience , environmental sustainability and water security modelling is a complex task. Considering socio-political , economical and technological diversity- it is possible to generate huge number of scenarios. We have  conceptualize this issues in a more simplified manner.

 

1. Description of methods:

We have tried to present the methods description in more structured way and does  allow the reader to assess how the analysis was conducted.

We have restructured the writing and explained the modelling process in a more simplified manner. This paper is unique, as no paper or article is written so far that integrate climate resilience, environmental sustainability and water security. In this study, we have applied framework for understanding structural error- a modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models,

 

3. Language and Study area: We have reduced colloquial expressions and further condensed into scientific expressions. We have applied both options. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication. We have taken the service of MDPI  English language editing service considering the importance of the article.

“The current study selected Australia as a study area due to readily available data and the region’s vulnerability to current and climate change scenarios.”

Availability of research data and authenticity of the data helped us to select  the Australian catchments, We have selected four different catchments of Australia with diverse catchment properties as well as climatic and seasonal variability. Here we showed how we can quantify uncertainty considering the availability of data across four different catchment in Australia name as (i) Richmond catchment at NSW, (ii) Seventeen Mile Catchment at Northern Territory (iii) Buchan River Catchment, Victoria, Melbourne; (iv)Barambah river catchment at Queensland. AWAP data set from Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, Australia is used for this analysis. Four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) are used in this experimental setup. Again, it’s the availability of the complete sets of data considering climate variability. Use of regionalization approach, selecting diverse catchment of Australia and thereby application of four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) are the representation of adopting the idea that we have presented . We have also big data sets of 279 USA catchments. In future research we may use that data sets. We have included some clarification in Results and Analysis sections. Thank you for your identification.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context. Therefore I am really keen on to that paper and feel it should be published after major improvements are done.  This work deals with an important topic but its structure requires major changes. It presents very little of its own results and a lot of methods and results that were previously published elsewhere. This is good in sections introduction and Materials and Methods. The discussion section should also contain more references to the results obtained by the authors. The results and analysis section should definitely be expanded. Perhaps this article could also be turned into a review paper of other work on Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability.

Detailed comments

Abstract

please decide: “mulit model” or “multi-model”. Both are fine for me, but please be consistent.

Line 11: did you put a dash on purpose? “climate re-siliency”? Further you use a formulation “climate-resilient” (cc. line 39).

Introduction

Lines 44-51: I really like the way you described types of resilience, through how it is measured. Do you see these types as disabling elements, gradable? Or rather, they can function side by side, in mutual dependence? Can I imagine a situation where the system is a bit more complicated and expresses resilience in some elements more as capacity to content and in others as capacity to cope with the next shock? A short explanation in this regard would help you understand your way of defining the vast concept of resilience. Figure 1 is very useful in this regard, but: “climate resilience” (or ”climate-resilience”)? Please be consistent throughout the paper. .

Line 68: after the first sentence a space is missing.

Line 69: space missing after “resources:” and replace the parenthesis with a semicolon after “projection”

Line 73: doubled space after “prediction”

Line 76: a double period at the end of a sentence

2. Materials and Methods

Lines 93-95 The statement is a bit confusing because it initially refers to "business as usual" and later it says that data is available for each emission scenario. Perhaps it is best to simply list the RCP scenarios used in the research. It is also not clear from the text whether these are RCP scenarios or earlier.

 

Line 100: correct space before “(i)”

Author Response

Editor
MDPI-Agriculture

                                                                                                 15^th January 2022

Dear Editor,

Subject: Submission of revised paper ‘Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modelling. Thank you for your email dated 8^th January 2022 enclosing the comments for the above-mentioned manuscript. We appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript from the Editor and anonymous reviewers.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We attach here a tracked-changes version of our manuscript highlighting changes made directly to the manuscript.

 We believe that these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and we hope that you find that the revised version is now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

 

sabushoaib

Syed Abu Shoaib
Assistant Professor
Food Security, Water and Environment wing

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

+966563430815

[email protected]

 

Attached file:

 

1. Response to Editor and Reviewers
2. Manuscripts with track changes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewers’ comments – MDPI_Agriculture- 1519029

We thank the Reviewers, Editor, Managing Editor and the Assistant Editor for the comments which improve the readability and accuracy of this manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and the thorough nature of the review that has gone into improving this manuscript. Below are our responses to each of the comments and how they have been dealt with.

 

A.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The Reviewer completely agree with the introduction provided with sufficient background and include all relevant references. Reviewer find the research are designed appropriately and the methods are adequately described. Reviewer find the  results are clearly presented and the conclusions supported by the results.

 
 Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciation in all aspects of the review of the paper. We have updated the paper by incorporating the required corrections. Considerable effort has gone into improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript, and we believe the study is significantly improved as a result. 

We appreciate the comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication.

 

B.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context. Therefore I am really keen on to that paper and feel it should be published after major improvements are done.  This work deals with an important topic but its structure requires major changes. It presents very little of its own results and a lot of methods and results that were previously published elsewhere. This is good in sections introduction and Materials and Methods. The discussion section should also contain more references to the results obtained by the authors. The results and analysis section should definitely be expanded. Perhaps this article could also be turned into a review paper of other work on Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability.

 

We thank the reviwer for understanding the significance of the work and explaining the work as  “ The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context.” To make it more clear , we have improved the sections and organaziation of  the structure of the article. This article will be one of the new contribution in this domain. Article combining water security modelling with sustainability  and climate resilience is rare.

Detailed comments

Abstract

please decide: “mulit model” or “multi-model”. Both are fine for me, but please be consistent.

Thank you. We have followed your comments and remain consistent.

Line 11: did you put a dash on purpose? “climate re-siliency”? Further you use a formulation “climate-resilient” (cc. line 39).

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated.

Introduction

Lines 44-51: I really like the way you described types of resilience, through how it is measured. Do you see these types as disabling elements, gradable? Or rather, they can function side by side, in mutual dependence? Can I imagine a situation where the system is a bit more complicated and expresses resilience in some elements more as capacity to content and in others as capacity to cope with the next shock? A short explanation in this regard would help you understand your way of defining the vast concept of resilience. Figure 1 is very useful in this regard, but: “climate resilience” (or ”climate-resilience”)? Please be consistent throughout the paper.

Thank you very much. Glad to know, you like the way, we have described the types of resilience. We follow your comments and remain consistent. Extreme events like flood and drought are good example in this regard. Frequency and magnitude of flood discharge help to define the resilience of the city. For example, 2010 Queensland, Australia flood causes billion dollar damages and this disaster develop a mechanism to be prepared for future. " This article attempts to propose a modelling framework to assess the resilience of agriculture to climate change taking into consideration several biophysical, economical, and social aspects.

Line 68: after the first sentence a space is missing.

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

 

Line 69: space missing after “resources:” and replace the parenthesis with a semicolon after “projection”

Thank you. Updated as required.

Line 73: doubled space after “prediction”

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

Line 76: a double period at the end of a sentence

Thank you.  Updated as required.

 

2. Materials and Methods

Lines 93-95 The statement is a bit confusing because it initially refers to "business as usual" and later it says that data is available for each emission scenario. Perhaps it is best to simply list the RCP scenarios used in the research. It is also not clear from the text whether these are RCP scenarios or earlier.

 Projected data are available for 14 general circulation models (GCMs) under each emission scenario. The GCMs are bcc_csm1_1, ccsm4, cesm1_cam5, csiro_mk3_6_0, fio_esm, gfdl_cm3, gfdl_esm2m, giss_e2_h, giss_e2_r, ipsl_cm5a_mr, miroc_esm, miroc5, mri_cgcm3, and noresm1_m. The impacts of three CO2 emission scenario-the Representative Concentration Pathway, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, RCP 8.5

Line 100: correct space before “(i)”

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

 

C.

Reviewer 3

Dear Editor,

I went through the manuscript several times. I think the topic presented in the study is of scientific interest and fits the scope of the Journal. However, the English used by the authors to present and discuss the results is not suitable. I found numerous typos and grammatical errors. In several sections of the manuscript, it is difficult for me to understand what the authors are trying to say.

Thank you  for your kind guidance. We have updated the article by restructuring some of the content accommodating climate resilience and environmental sustainability to integrate water security modelling. As the topic of this article is scientifically complex and contain diverse issues, it’s difficult to accommodate all the things in a single paper.

However, in the current format, the manuscript accomplished this goal, due mostly to:

1. Innovative Narrative and organization:

 

We have rewritten part of the manuscripts and presented the main idea in more clear way so that readers can follow the path of the main objectives of the research article. In addition to that some parts are replaced and organization of the article is structured to make it worthy for publications.

Integrating climate resilience , environmental sustainability and water security modelling is a complex task. Considering socio-political , economical and technological diversity- it is possible to generate huge number of scenarios. We have  conceptualize this issues in a more simplified manner.

 

1. Description of methods:

We have tried to present the methods description in more structured way and does  allow the reader to assess how the analysis was conducted.

We have restructured the writing and explained the modelling process in a more simplified manner. This paper is unique, as no paper or article is written so far that integrate climate resilience, environmental sustainability and water security. In this study, we have applied framework for understanding structural error- a modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models,

 

3. Language and Study area: We have reduced colloquial expressions and further condensed into scientific expressions. We have applied both options. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication. We have taken the service of MDPI  English language editing service considering the importance of the article.

“The current study selected Australia as a study area due to readily available data and the region’s vulnerability to current and climate change scenarios.”

Availability of research data and authenticity of the data helped us to select  the Australian catchments, We have selected four different catchments of Australia with diverse catchment properties as well as climatic and seasonal variability. Here we showed how we can quantify uncertainty considering the availability of data across four different catchment in Australia name as (i) Richmond catchment at NSW, (ii) Seventeen Mile Catchment at Northern Territory (iii) Buchan River Catchment, Victoria, Melbourne; (iv)Barambah river catchment at Queensland. AWAP data set from Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, Australia is used for this analysis. Four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) are used in this experimental setup. Again, it’s the availability of the complete sets of data considering climate variability. Use of regionalization approach, selecting diverse catchment of Australia and thereby application of four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) are the representation of adopting the idea that we have presented . We have also big data sets of 279 USA catchments. In future research we may use that data sets. We have included some clarification in Results and Analysis sections. Thank you for your identification.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor,

I went through the manuscript several times. I think the topic presented in the study is of scientific interest and fits the scope of the Journal. However, the English used by the authors to present and discuss the results is not suitable. I found numerous typos and grammatical errors. In several sections of the manuscript, it is difficult for me to understand what the authors are trying to say.
Considering all of this, I cannot express a complete evaluation of the study, at least, in the present form. 
However, I would be happy to review this study again if the authors are open to resubmitting the manuscript with an improved presentation.

Author Response

Editor
MDPI-Agriculture

                                                                                                 15^th January 2022

Dear Editor,

Subject: Submission of revised paper ‘Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modelling. Thank you for your email dated 8^th January 2022 enclosing the comments for the above-mentioned manuscript. We appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript from the Editor and anonymous reviewers.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We attach here a tracked-changes version of our manuscript highlighting changes made directly to the manuscript.

 We believe that these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and we hope that you find that the revised version is now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

 

sabushoaib

Syed Abu Shoaib
Assistant Professor
Food Security, Water and Environment wing

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

+966563430815

[email protected]

 

Attached file:

 

1. Response to Editor and Reviewers
2. Manuscripts with track changes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewers’ comments – MDPI_Agriculture- 1519029

We thank the Reviewers, Editor, Managing Editor and the Assistant Editor for the comments which improve the readability and accuracy of this manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and the thorough nature of the review that has gone into improving this manuscript. Below are our responses to each of the comments and how they have been dealt with.

 

A.

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

The Reviewer completely agree with the introduction provided with sufficient background and include all relevant references. Reviewer find the research are designed appropriately and the methods are adequately described. Reviewer find the  results are clearly presented and the conclusions supported by the results.

 
 Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciation in all aspects of the review of the paper. We have updated the paper by incorporating the required corrections. Considerable effort has gone into improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript, and we believe the study is significantly improved as a result. 

We appreciate the comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication.

 

B.

Reviewer 2

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comments

The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context. Therefore I am really keen on to that paper and feel it should be published after major improvements are done.  This work deals with an important topic but its structure requires major changes. It presents very little of its own results and a lot of methods and results that were previously published elsewhere. This is good in sections introduction and Materials and Methods. The discussion section should also contain more references to the results obtained by the authors. The results and analysis section should definitely be expanded. Perhaps this article could also be turned into a review paper of other work on Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability.

 

We thank the reviwer for understanding the significance of the work and explaining the work as  “ The authors have undertaken a very tough exercise of quantifying resilience. As far as this is almost an impossible task, due to a huge amount of theories on the concept, that often define the issue contradictory, this is extremely valuable to attempt to do that. Especially in the researched context.” To make it more clear , we have improved the sections and organaziation of  the structure of the article. This article will be one of the new contribution in this domain. Article combining water security modelling with sustainability  and climate resilience is rare.

Detailed comments

Abstract

please decide: “mulit model” or “multi-model”. Both are fine for me, but please be consistent.

Thank you. We have followed your comments and remain consistent.

Line 11: did you put a dash on purpose? “climate re-siliency”? Further you use a formulation “climate-resilient” (cc. line 39).

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated.

Introduction

Lines 44-51: I really like the way you described types of resilience, through how it is measured. Do you see these types as disabling elements, gradable? Or rather, they can function side by side, in mutual dependence? Can I imagine a situation where the system is a bit more complicated and expresses resilience in some elements more as capacity to content and in others as capacity to cope with the next shock? A short explanation in this regard would help you understand your way of defining the vast concept of resilience. Figure 1 is very useful in this regard, but: “climate resilience” (or ”climate-resilience”)? Please be consistent throughout the paper.

Thank you very much. Glad to know, you like the way, we have described the types of resilience. We follow your comments and remain consistent. Extreme events like flood and drought are good example in this regard. Frequency and magnitude of flood discharge help to define the resilience of the city. For example, 2010 Queensland, Australia flood causes billion dollar damages and this disaster develop a mechanism to be prepared for future. " This article attempts to propose a modelling framework to assess the resilience of agriculture to climate change taking into consideration several biophysical, economical, and social aspects.

Line 68: after the first sentence a space is missing.

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

 

Line 69: space missing after “resources:” and replace the parenthesis with a semicolon after “projection”

Thank you. Updated as required.

Line 73: doubled space after “prediction”

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

Line 76: a double period at the end of a sentence

Thank you.  Updated as required.

 

2. Materials and Methods

Lines 93-95 The statement is a bit confusing because it initially refers to "business as usual" and later it says that data is available for each emission scenario. Perhaps it is best to simply list the RCP scenarios used in the research. It is also not clear from the text whether these are RCP scenarios or earlier.

 Projected data are available for 14 general circulation models (GCMs) under each emission scenario. The GCMs are bcc_csm1_1, ccsm4, cesm1_cam5, csiro_mk3_6_0, fio_esm, gfdl_cm3, gfdl_esm2m, giss_e2_h, giss_e2_r, ipsl_cm5a_mr, miroc_esm, miroc5, mri_cgcm3, and noresm1_m. The impacts of three CO2 emission scenario-the Representative Concentration Pathway, RCP 4.5, RCP 6.0, RCP 8.5

Line 100: correct space before “(i)”

Thank you. Its typical error. Updated as required.

 

C.

Reviewer 3

Dear Editor,

I went through the manuscript several times. I think the topic presented in the study is of scientific interest and fits the scope of the Journal. However, the English used by the authors to present and discuss the results is not suitable. I found numerous typos and grammatical errors. In several sections of the manuscript, it is difficult for me to understand what the authors are trying to say.

Thank you  for your kind guidance. We have updated the article by restructuring some of the content accommodating climate resilience and environmental sustainability to integrate water security modelling. As the topic of this article is scientifically complex and contain diverse issues, it’s difficult to accommodate all the things in a single paper.

However, in the current format, the manuscript accomplished this goal, due mostly to:

1. Innovative Narrative and organization:

 

We have rewritten part of the manuscripts and presented the main idea in more clear way so that readers can follow the path of the main objectives of the research article. In addition to that some parts are replaced and organization of the article is structured to make it worthy for publications.

Integrating climate resilience , environmental sustainability and water security modelling is a complex task. Considering socio-political , economical and technological diversity- it is possible to generate huge number of scenarios. We have  conceptualize this issues in a more simplified manner.

 

1. Description of methods:

We have tried to present the methods description in more structured way and does  allow the reader to assess how the analysis was conducted.

We have restructured the writing and explained the modelling process in a more simplified manner. This paper is unique, as no paper or article is written so far that integrate climate resilience, environmental sustainability and water security. In this study, we have applied framework for understanding structural error- a modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models,

 

3. Language and Study area: We have reduced colloquial expressions and further condensed into scientific expressions. We have applied both options. We appreciate the reviewer’s comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication. We have taken the service of MDPI  English language editing service considering the importance of the article.

“The current study selected Australia as a study area due to readily available data and the region’s vulnerability to current and climate change scenarios.”

Availability of research data and authenticity of the data helped us to select  the Australian catchments, We have selected four different catchments of Australia with diverse catchment properties as well as climatic and seasonal variability. Here we showed how we can quantify uncertainty considering the availability of data across four different catchment in Australia name as (i) Richmond catchment at NSW, (ii) Seventeen Mile Catchment at Northern Territory (iii) Buchan River Catchment, Victoria, Melbourne; (iv)Barambah river catchment at Queensland. AWAP data set from Bureau of Meteorology, Canberra, Australia is used for this analysis. Four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) are used in this experimental setup. Again, it’s the availability of the complete sets of data considering climate variability. Use of regionalization approach, selecting diverse catchment of Australia and thereby application of four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) are the representation of adopting the idea that we have presented . We have also big data sets of 279 USA catchments. In future research we may use that data sets. We have included some clarification in Results and Analysis sections. Thank you for your identification.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

In the paragraphs to which I had the most objections, the authors made sufficient changes. In my opinion, the article may be published present form. I suggest you make one more change:
Figure 4a should be in the Materials and Methods section because it does not show the results, but the study area.

Author Response

Editor
MDPI-Agriculture

                                                                                                 23^th January 2022

Dear Editor,

Subject: Submission of revised paper ‘Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modeling. Thank you for your email dated 19^th January 2022 enclosing the comments for the above-mentioned manuscript. We appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript from the Editor and anonymous reviewers.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We attach here a tracked-changes version of our manuscript highlighting changes made directly to the manuscript.

 We believe that these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and we hope that you find that the revised version is now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

 

sabushoaib

Syed Abu Shoaib
Assistant Professor
Food Security, Water and Environment wing

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

+966563430815

[email protected]

 

Attached file:

 

1. Response to Editor and Reviewers
2. Manuscripts with track changes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewers’ comments – MDPI_Agriculture- 1519029

We thank the Reviewers, Editor, Managing Editor and the Assistant Editor for the comments which improve the readability and accuracy of this manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and the thorough nature of the review that has gone into improving this manuscript. Below are our responses to each of the comments and how they have been dealt with.

 

We have conducted Extensive editing of English language and style required with English edited Id 39078- English Editing Service by MDPI.

 

A.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

In the paragraphs to which I had the most objections, the authors made sufficient changes. In my opinion, the article may be published present form. I suggest you make one more change:
Figure 4a should be in the Materials and Methods section because it does not show the results, but the study area.

 
 We have replaced the  Figure 4a  in Materials and Method sections from result sections as per your directions. Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciation in all aspects of the review of the paper. We have updated the paper by incorporating the required corrections. Considerable effort has gone into improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript, and we believe the study is significantly improved as a result. 

We appreciate the comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication.

 

B.

Reviewer 3

Dear Editor,

Thank you for sharing with me the revised version of the manuscript. I would like to thank also the authors for the work done to improve the presentation of their research. 

I went through the article a second time. But, unfortunately, I have to say that my evaluation of the manuscript has not significantly changed. In my opinion, at least at the current state, this manuscript is not suitable for being recommended for publication in Agriculture.

Aside from the quality of the presentation, the article has two main issues:

 

1. The proposed methodology is not adequately described, and the chosen experimental design must be presented with further details. The authors try to achieve this goal by employing two schematics that are barely discussed in the main text.  The same observation applies to equations 1.1 - 1.3. It is unclear what these equations terms represent and how they are used to conduct the experimental process.  More details are needed to help the reader understand the work done.  Consider, for example, section 2.2. The authors introduce four models: (i) TOPMODEL, (ii) ARNOXVIC, (iii) PRMS, (iv) SACRAMENTO. Aside from their name, no further details are provided about the models. Not even a bibliographical reference.

 

We highly appreciate the comments of the reviewer. The proposed methodology includes the followings as reference (Shoaib et al.,2016 ; Shoaib et al.,2018). As detailed in Figure A1, the following simplifications were made to the model configuration adopted in this study:

1. Select between three possible upper layer architectures (i) Single State (SS) (ii) Separate tension storage (ST) (iii) Cascading buckets (CB).
2. Choose between three possible lower-layer architectures (i) Baseflow reservoir of fixed size (BRFS) (ii) Tension reservoir plus two parallel tanks (TRTPT) , (iii) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (frac rate) (BRUSfr) (iv) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (power recession) (BRUSpr) and their associated base flow parameterizations .
3. Select between three possible percolation parameterizations (i) Drainage above field capacity(DAFC) (ii) Gravity drainage(GD) (iii) Saturated zone control(SZC).
4. Select between three possible surface runoff parameterizations (i) Unsaturated zone Pareto (UZP) (ii) Unsaturated zone linear (UZL) (iii) Saturated zone topographic (SZT) to compute saturated areas and surface runoff.
5. The sequential and root weighting methods for evaporation were applied. Model selection will be based on one of these options.
6. Options of interflow were computed in some model structures. At the same time interflow was denied in some model structures.
7. Models were run using a daily time step, and hence infiltration-excess runoff was not computed by any of the models.
8. A gamma distribution was used to route runoff to the basin outlet in all most all cases and some cases considering type of experiment routing could be denied.

Four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) within the FUSE framework to represent the full spectrum of potential model [Clark et al.,2008] variability in the absence of specific information on the catchment hydrologic processes.  Twenty two (22) model parameters represent the hydrological system within FUSE [Clark et al. 2008]. Some of these parameters are inactive depending on the model configuration of interest. Figure A1 outlines the model structure that was considered in the simulation results presented.

 

Table1 : Adjustable Model Parameters (Clark et al., 2008)

Description	Units	Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Maximum storage in the upper layer	mm	50.000	5000.000
Maximum storage in the lower layer	mm	100.000	10000.000
Fraction total storage as tension storage	-	0.050	0.950
Fraction of tension storage in primary zone (upper layer)	-	0.050	0.950
Fraction of free storage in primary reservoir (lower layer)	-	0.050	0.950
Fraction of roots in the upper layer	-	0.050	0.950
Percolation rate	mm day-1	0.010	1000.000
Percolation exponent	-	1.000	20.000
Percolation multiplier for the lower layer	-	1.000	250.000
Percolation exponent for the lower layer	-	1.000	5.000
Fraction of percolation to tension storage in the lower layer	-	0.050	0.950
Interflow rate	mm day-1	0.010	1000.000
Base flow rate	mm day-1	0.001	10000.000
Base flow exponent	-	1.000	10.000
Base flow depletion rate for single reservoir	day-1	0.001	0.250
Base flow depletion rate for primary reservoir	day-1	0.001	0.250
Base flow depletion rate for secondary reservoir	day-1	0.001	0.250
Maximum saturated area (fraction)	-	0.050	0.950
ARNO/VIC ‘‘b’’ exponent	-	0.001	3.000
Mean of the log-transformed topographic index distribution	m	5.000	10.000
Shape parameter defining the topographic index distribution	-	2.000	5.000
Time delay in runoff	days	0.010	5.000

 

 

Figure A1. Multi-model structure built to model catchment processes. Details of  the different component multi-model structures are (i) Single State (SS) (ii) Separate tension storage (ST) (iii) Cascading buckets (CB). (iv) Baseflow reservoir of fixed size (BRFS) (vi) Tension reservoir plus two parallel tanks (TRTPT) , (vii) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (frac rate) (BRUS_fr) (viii) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (power recession) (BRUS_pr).(ix) Drainage above field capacity(DAFC) (x) Gravity drainage(GD) (xi) Saturated zone control(SZC). (xii) Unsaturated zone Pareto (UZP) (xiii) Unsaturated zone linear (UZL) (xiii) Saturated zone topographic (SZT). Model structural components used for the 4 models considered in this study are depicted as TOPMODEL = a; ARNOXVIC = b; PRMS = c; SACRAMENTO = d (after Shoaib et al.,2016)

The chosen experimental design is a combination of climate resilience, environmental sustainability and  water security modelling The equation was based on the basics of the theoretical context of quantifying the metrics of the methodological framework. More details on  Shoaib et al.,2016 and Shoaib et al.,2018

 

Presentation of the results. 

 

This section is too qualitative. Results should be presented quantitatively to sustain the author’s claims. The previous section discusses several indexes and metrics used in the analysis (see Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) and other metrics mentioned). The results section does not contain or discuss any value returned by any of these metrics. These numbers should be provided and discussed in the text. The authors can’t limit their discussion of the models’ performance to attributes like “the model was very wet, or very dry”.

I understand that the focus of the study is the presentation of a “methodological framework”, but any claim or conclusion by the authors should be supported by rigorously presented methodology and results.

 

 

 

Figure B1. Impact of Objective function variability

 

In this analysis we have used three objective functions NSE, LogNSE, SqrtNSE and in the latter case we have included the relative bias, i.e. bias as a fraction of the total observed flow, ∑ ( X - Q ) / ∑ Q . These results demonstrate that the results are not significantly changed by including additional objective functions that are quite different to the NSE.  

Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency has been presented  for model simulations of discharge and is widely used to assess the predictive power of hydrological models. We have undertaken additional analysis considering alternate objective functions to assess how sensitive our findings are to the objective function used. As Figure B1 illustrates, the change in the proportion of uncertainty by considering additional objective functions is not significant.

 

Thank you  for your kind guidance. We have updated the article by restructuring some of the content accommodating climate resilience and environmental sustainability to integrate water security modelling. As the topic of this article is scientifically complex and contain diverse issues, it’s difficult to accommodate all the things in a single paper. Our upcoming paper will demonstrate  more details with  output of the  experimental design.

We have conducted Extensive editing of English language and style required with English edited Id 39078- English Editing Service by MDPI.

 

References:

1. Shoaib, S.A.; Marshall, L.; Sharma, A. Attributing input uncertainty in streamflow simulations via the Quantile Flow Deviation metric. Water Res. 2018, 116, 40–55
2. Shoaib, S.A; Marshall, L.; Sharma, A. A metric for attributing variability in modelled streamflows. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 1475–1487, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.050.
3. Clark, M. P.; Slater, A. G.; Rupp, D. E.; Woods, R. A.; Vrugt, J. A.; Gupta, H. V.; Wagener, T.; Hay, L. E. Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models. Water Resources Research 2008, 44(12), W00B02.
4. Clark, M. P.; Kavetski, D.; Fenicia, F. Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resources Research 2011, 47(9), W09301.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Editor,

 

Thank you for sharing with me the revised version of the manuscript. I would like to thank also the authors for the work done to improve the presentation of their research. 

I went through the article a second time. But, unfortunately, I have to say that my evaluation of the manuscript has not significantly changed. In my opinion, at least at the current state, this manuscript is not suitable for being recommended for publication in Agriculture.

Aside from the quality of the presentation, the article has two main issues:

 

1. The proposed methodology is not adequately described, and the chosen experimental design must be presented with further details. The authors try to achieve this goal by employing two schematics that are barely discussed in the main text.  The same observation applies to equations 1.1 - 1.3. It is unclear what these equations terms represent and how they are used to conduct the experimental process.  More details are needed to help the reader understand the work done.  Consider, for example, section 2.2. The authors introduce four models: (i) TOPMODEL, (ii) ARNOXVIC, (iii) PRMS, (iv) SACRAMENTO. Aside from their name, no further details are provided about the models. Not even a bibliographical reference.
2. Presentation of the results. This section is too qualitative. Results should be presented quantitatively to sustain the author’s claims. The previous section discusses several indexes and metrics used in the analysis (see Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) and other metrics mentioned). The results section does not contain or discuss any value returned by any of these metrics. These numbers should be provided and discussed in the text. The authors can’t limit their discussion of the models’ performance to attributes like “the model was very wet, or very dry”.

 

I understand that the focus of the study is the presentation of a “methodological framework”, but any claim or conclusion by the authors should be supported by rigorously presented methodology and results.

Author Response

Editor
MDPI-Agriculture

                                                                                                 23^th January 2022

Dear Editor,

Subject: Submission of revised paper ‘Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modeling. Thank you for your email dated 19^th January 2022 enclosing the comments for the above-mentioned manuscript. We appreciate the valuable comments and suggestions on our manuscript from the Editor and anonymous reviewers.

We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. We attach here a tracked-changes version of our manuscript highlighting changes made directly to the manuscript.

 We believe that these revisions have substantially strengthened the manuscript and we hope that you find that the revised version is now suitable for publication. We look forward to hearing from you in due course.

Sincerely,

 

sabushoaib

Syed Abu Shoaib
Assistant Professor
Food Security, Water and Environment wing

Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia

+966563430815

[email protected]

 

Attached file:

 

1. Response to Editor and Reviewers
2. Manuscripts with track changes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Response to reviewers’ comments – MDPI_Agriculture- 1519029

We thank the Reviewers, Editor, Managing Editor and the Assistant Editor for the comments which improve the readability and accuracy of this manuscript. We appreciate the constructive feedback and the thorough nature of the review that has gone into improving this manuscript. Below are our responses to each of the comments and how they have been dealt with.

 

We have conducted Extensive editing of English language and style required with English edited Id 39078- English Editing Service by MDPI.

 

A.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

In the paragraphs to which I had the most objections, the authors made sufficient changes. In my opinion, the article may be published present form. I suggest you make one more change:
Figure 4a should be in the Materials and Methods section because it does not show the results, but the study area.

 
 We have replaced the  Figure 4a  in Materials and Method sections from result sections as per your directions. Thank you for your valuable comments and appreciation in all aspects of the review of the paper. We have updated the paper by incorporating the required corrections. Considerable effort has gone into improving the readability and clarity of the manuscript, and we believe the study is significantly improved as a result. 

We appreciate the comment and make sure we gave our utmost attention in proof-reading of the text. We gave significant attention to proof-reading of the text and addressed the points raised to make it worthy of publication.

 

B.

Reviewer 3

Dear Editor,

Thank you for sharing with me the revised version of the manuscript. I would like to thank also the authors for the work done to improve the presentation of their research. 

I went through the article a second time. But, unfortunately, I have to say that my evaluation of the manuscript has not significantly changed. In my opinion, at least at the current state, this manuscript is not suitable for being recommended for publication in Agriculture.

Aside from the quality of the presentation, the article has two main issues:

 

1. The proposed methodology is not adequately described, and the chosen experimental design must be presented with further details. The authors try to achieve this goal by employing two schematics that are barely discussed in the main text.  The same observation applies to equations 1.1 - 1.3. It is unclear what these equations terms represent and how they are used to conduct the experimental process.  More details are needed to help the reader understand the work done.  Consider, for example, section 2.2. The authors introduce four models: (i) TOPMODEL, (ii) ARNOXVIC, (iii) PRMS, (iv) SACRAMENTO. Aside from their name, no further details are provided about the models. Not even a bibliographical reference.

 

We highly appreciate the comments of the reviewer. The proposed methodology includes the followings as reference (Shoaib et al.,2016 ; Shoaib et al.,2018). As detailed in Figure A1, the following simplifications were made to the model configuration adopted in this study:

1. Select between three possible upper layer architectures (i) Single State (SS) (ii) Separate tension storage (ST) (iii) Cascading buckets (CB).
2. Choose between three possible lower-layer architectures (i) Baseflow reservoir of fixed size (BRFS) (ii) Tension reservoir plus two parallel tanks (TRTPT) , (iii) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (frac rate) (BRUSfr) (iv) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (power recession) (BRUSpr) and their associated base flow parameterizations .
3. Select between three possible percolation parameterizations (i) Drainage above field capacity(DAFC) (ii) Gravity drainage(GD) (iii) Saturated zone control(SZC).
4. Select between three possible surface runoff parameterizations (i) Unsaturated zone Pareto (UZP) (ii) Unsaturated zone linear (UZL) (iii) Saturated zone topographic (SZT) to compute saturated areas and surface runoff.
5. The sequential and root weighting methods for evaporation were applied. Model selection will be based on one of these options.
6. Options of interflow were computed in some model structures. At the same time interflow was denied in some model structures.
7. Models were run using a daily time step, and hence infiltration-excess runoff was not computed by any of the models.
8. A gamma distribution was used to route runoff to the basin outlet in all most all cases and some cases considering type of experiment routing could be denied.

Four parent hydrological models (TOPMODEL, ARNOXVIC, PRMS, SACRAMENTO) within the FUSE framework to represent the full spectrum of potential model [Clark et al.,2008] variability in the absence of specific information on the catchment hydrologic processes.  Twenty two (22) model parameters represent the hydrological system within FUSE [Clark et al. 2008]. Some of these parameters are inactive depending on the model configuration of interest. Figure A1 outlines the model structure that was considered in the simulation results presented.

 

Table1 : Adjustable Model Parameters (Clark et al., 2008)

Description	Units	Lower Limit	Upper Limit
Maximum storage in the upper layer	mm	50.000	5000.000
Maximum storage in the lower layer	mm	100.000	10000.000
Fraction total storage as tension storage	-	0.050	0.950
Fraction of tension storage in primary zone (upper layer)	-	0.050	0.950
Fraction of free storage in primary reservoir (lower layer)	-	0.050	0.950
Fraction of roots in the upper layer	-	0.050	0.950
Percolation rate	mm day-1	0.010	1000.000
Percolation exponent	-	1.000	20.000
Percolation multiplier for the lower layer	-	1.000	250.000
Percolation exponent for the lower layer	-	1.000	5.000
Fraction of percolation to tension storage in the lower layer	-	0.050	0.950
Interflow rate	mm day-1	0.010	1000.000
Base flow rate	mm day-1	0.001	10000.000
Base flow exponent	-	1.000	10.000
Base flow depletion rate for single reservoir	day-1	0.001	0.250
Base flow depletion rate for primary reservoir	day-1	0.001	0.250
Base flow depletion rate for secondary reservoir	day-1	0.001	0.250
Maximum saturated area (fraction)	-	0.050	0.950
ARNO/VIC ‘‘b’’ exponent	-	0.001	3.000
Mean of the log-transformed topographic index distribution	m	5.000	10.000
Shape parameter defining the topographic index distribution	-	2.000	5.000
Time delay in runoff	days	0.010	5.000

 

 

Figure A1. Multi-model structure built to model catchment processes. Details of  the different component multi-model structures are (i) Single State (SS) (ii) Separate tension storage (ST) (iii) Cascading buckets (CB). (iv) Baseflow reservoir of fixed size (BRFS) (vi) Tension reservoir plus two parallel tanks (TRTPT) , (vii) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (frac rate) (BRUS_fr) (viii) Baseflow reservoir of unlimited size (power recession) (BRUS_pr).(ix) Drainage above field capacity(DAFC) (x) Gravity drainage(GD) (xi) Saturated zone control(SZC). (xii) Unsaturated zone Pareto (UZP) (xiii) Unsaturated zone linear (UZL) (xiii) Saturated zone topographic (SZT). Model structural components used for the 4 models considered in this study are depicted as TOPMODEL = a; ARNOXVIC = b; PRMS = c; SACRAMENTO = d (after Shoaib et al.,2016)

The chosen experimental design is a combination of climate resilience, environmental sustainability and  water security modelling The equation was based on the basics of the theoretical context of quantifying the metrics of the methodological framework. More details on  Shoaib et al.,2016 and Shoaib et al.,2018

 

Presentation of the results. 

 

This section is too qualitative. Results should be presented quantitatively to sustain the author’s claims. The previous section discusses several indexes and metrics used in the analysis (see Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) and other metrics mentioned). The results section does not contain or discuss any value returned by any of these metrics. These numbers should be provided and discussed in the text. The authors can’t limit their discussion of the models’ performance to attributes like “the model was very wet, or very dry”.

I understand that the focus of the study is the presentation of a “methodological framework”, but any claim or conclusion by the authors should be supported by rigorously presented methodology and results.

 

 

 

Figure B1. Impact of Objective function variability

 

In this analysis we have used three objective functions NSE, LogNSE, SqrtNSE and in the latter case we have included the relative bias, i.e. bias as a fraction of the total observed flow, ∑ ( X - Q ) / ∑ Q . These results demonstrate that the results are not significantly changed by including additional objective functions that are quite different to the NSE.  

Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency has been presented  for model simulations of discharge and is widely used to assess the predictive power of hydrological models. We have undertaken additional analysis considering alternate objective functions to assess how sensitive our findings are to the objective function used. As Figure B1 illustrates, the change in the proportion of uncertainty by considering additional objective functions is not significant.

 

Thank you  for your kind guidance. We have updated the article by restructuring some of the content accommodating climate resilience and environmental sustainability to integrate water security modelling. As the topic of this article is scientifically complex and contain diverse issues, it’s difficult to accommodate all the things in a single paper. Our upcoming paper will demonstrate  more details with  output of the  experimental design.

We have conducted Extensive editing of English language and style required with English edited Id 39078- English Editing Service by MDPI.

 

References:

1. Shoaib, S.A.; Marshall, L.; Sharma, A. Attributing input uncertainty in streamflow simulations via the Quantile Flow Deviation metric. Water Res. 2018, 116, 40–55
2. Shoaib, S.A; Marshall, L.; Sharma, A. A metric for attributing variability in modelled streamflows. Hydrol. 2016, 541, 1475–1487, doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.050.
3. Clark, M. P.; Slater, A. G.; Rupp, D. E.; Woods, R. A.; Vrugt, J. A.; Gupta, H. V.; Wagener, T.; Hay, L. E. Framework for Understanding Structural Errors (FUSE): A modular framework to diagnose differences between hydrological models. Water Resources Research 2008, 44(12), W00B02.
4. Clark, M. P.; Kavetski, D.; Fenicia, F. Pursuing the method of multiple working hypotheses for hydrological modeling, Water Resources Research 2011, 47(9), W09301.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is well conceptualized and presented. Moderate English editing required to correct multiple typos etc., for example:

1. Line 14 - input instead of "Input"
2. Line 21- is instead of "are"
3. Line 37 - the resilience of communities instead of "resiliency of the community"
4. Line 53 - available instead of "avail-able"
5. Line 59 - Figure 1 instead of "figure 1"
6. Line 71 - Insert "is" between the words 'climate' and 'change"
7. Line 81 - Bureau of Meteorology  - capitalise
8. Line 94 - suggest instead of "suggests"
9. Line 113 - centered on instead of "centered with"
10. Line 116 - consideration is one word
11. Line 125 - focus on
12. Line 126 - high processing
13. Line 130 - Word missing after region-specific?
14. Line 139 - space after (iii)
15. Line 167 - functions are
16. Line 225 - check "is remain"
17. Line 307 - dilema
18. Murray Darling Basin
19.  

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper details Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modelling.

It is an interesting and complete study.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript "Climate Resilience and Environmental Sustainability: How to Integrate Dynamic Dimensions of Water Security Modelling" attempts to propose a modelling framework to assess the resilience of agriculture to climate change taking into consideration several biophysical, economical, and social aspects. However, in the current format, the manuscript does not accomplished this goal, due mostly to:

1. Narrative and organization: the narrative is redundant and lack focus. There is much ambiguity in the way the information is present, leaving the reader without a firm impression about what the authors are trying to state. As a result, I arrived at the end of the introduction section without a clear idea about the objectives of the work. I was also not certain what the proposed framework was and what attempts to achieve;
2. Improper description of methods: the methods description is incomplete and does not allow the reader to assess how the analysis was conducted. In particular, the description of the resilience model is flawed and insufficient.

Specific comments regarding the two major problems outlined above are provided in the annotated PDF file attached. Please note that the major deficiencies found in the introduction and methods sections did allow me to assess how sound the results were. As a result, the results and discussion sections were not reviewed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is based on the perspective of climate resilience and environmental sustainability . Considering the hydro climatic diversity, integrating dynamic dimensions of water security modelling is vital for ensuring environmental sustainability and associated full range of climate resilience. Improving climate resiliency depends on the attributing uncertainty mechanism. In this study, a conceptual resilience model is presented with the consideration of input uncertainty. Impact of Input uncertainty is analyzed through the multi model framework. A multi-model hydrological framework is shown to attribute the possible scenario to apply in decision-making process. Through this study a methodological framework is developed to attribute the water security modelling with the considerations of sustainability and climate resilience using highspeed computer and internet system. Then, a subsequent key point of this investigation is the accounting for the water security modelling to ensure food security and scenarios of model development. However, there are still the following problems in this paper, and the author is suggested to further modify it:

1. Language needs to be reduced to colloquial expressions and further condensed into scientific expressions.
2. In the "1.Introduction " part, the literature on decision support system (DSS) is poorly organized in the paper. It is not possible to see the existing research base and research progress of this method and the reliability of its application in this paper. According to the literature review, this method is not new and has been used in many fields (see literature [1] below), but its research progress is not presented in this paper. It is suggested that the authors add to the description.

3. In the section 2.1 Data Source and availability, about the projection of which there are four phases, as in the text " the projected periods are 2020-2039, 2040-2059, 2060 -2079, 2080-2099.", but in the subsequent conclusion section, the emission scenarios for different periods and the changes in different years are not mentioned. So, what is the purpose of dividing the time periods? It is suggested that the authors add clarification.
4. In the “Discussion- Scenarios of Model development ” part ,the authors propose four dimensions--a four-dimensional dynamic space that maps sources, resource availability, infrastructure and vibrant economy. what is the basis for the proposal? and is not provided. It is suggested that the authors add clarification.
5. In the Results and Analysis section, Study area of selected Australian catchment. whether it is representative or not, the authors did not specify. It is suggested to add a clarification.
6. The shortcomings and future prospects of this study are not mentioned in the Conclusion section. It is suggested that the authors should add a note.
7. There is no mention of policy implications in the conclusion section. This is different from the content of the abstract which mentions that the findings have some implications for policy makers. It is suggested that the authors should add a description of what the study findings can do for policy in the context of the study.
8. Some references still have errors in their format and corrections are recommended. At the same time, I think the following literature can be used as references and supplements.

Wearable multi-sensor enabled decision support system for environmental comfort evaluation of mutton sheep farming. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture.

Trade-offs in land-use competition and sustainable land development in the North China Plain. Technological Forecasting & Social Change.