Assessing the Role of Water Resources Protection Practice for Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This review article is about the protection of water resources. The work is well written and covers major aspects of this field. The review may be published after revision. My points and suggestion to be considered are as follows:

- It is better to outline the whole review content before the introduction. This will help the readers to go through the specific topic.

- Figure 1 should be reconstructed to make it more clear and attractive.

- It is better to provide comparative data about year-wise water management steps,if possible.

- The abstract should be on solid facts, not based on literature survey, please reconstruct.

Author Response

attached is the authors response to Reviewer 1 together with the manuscript showing track changes

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The review is well written and describes a key topic for your journal: protection of surface and groundwater. All the specific comments need to be addressed before publication

 

Specific comments

Lines 13-31. Some issues: (i) avoid to start a new sentence with “it”, (ii) specify the type of water resources that you have studied, and (iii) avoid repetition of the word “water resource” in the abstract

Lines 36-113. Your review focuses on protection of natural resources in South Africa. Several issues affect the country from this point of view. I recall pressures due (i) groundwater scarcity in arid areas, (ii) protection of surface and groundwater from shale gas production, (iii) pollution related to agriculture in areas also affected by shale gas production, and (iv) point source of contamination related to chemical industry

Lines 47-113. You need to specify the type of water resources that you are studying, both surface and groundwater according to the following paragraphs

Lines 47-70. You mention the concepts of sustainability and vulnerability of water resources to pollution. You need to mention the recent review papers at the scale of states and countries, see below:

For protection of springs from contamination

- Medici, G. and West, L.J., 2021. Groundwater flow velocities in karst aquifers; importance of spatial observation scale and hydraulic testing for contaminant transport prediction. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(32), 43050-43063.

For management of both surface and groundwater protection

- Medici, G. and Langman, J.B., 2022. Pathways and Estimate of Aquifer Recharge in a Flood Basalt Terrain; A Review from the South Fork Palouse River Basin (Columbia River Plateau, USA). Sustainability, 14(18), 11349.

- Wang, L., Stuart, M.E., Bloomfield, J.P., Butcher, A.S., Gooddy, D.C., McKenzie, A.A., Lewis, M.A. and Williams, A.T., 2012. Prediction of the arrival of peak nitrate concentrations at the water table at the regional scale in Great Britain. Hydrological Processes, 26(2), 226-239.

- Wang, L., Stuart, M.E., Lewis, M.A., Ward, R.S., Skirvin, D., Naden, P.S., Collins, A.L. and Ascott, M.J., 2016. The changing trend in nitrate concentrations in major aquifers due to historical nitrate loading from agricultural land across England and Wales from 1925 to 2150. Science of the Total Environment, 542, 694-705.

 

Line 113. Specify (i) the principal aim of your review, and (ii) the 2-3 specific objectives of your manuscript

Line 148. You mention lakes, rivers and springs. Therefore, you treat in your manuscript both surface (rivers and lakes), and groundwater (springs). You need to clarify this point earlier in the paper

Line 148. What about freshwater from boreholes in shallow aquifers? I think they are part of your methodological review

Lines 220-228. You mention karst terrains. Note that, some of the publications suggested above cover karst environments

Line 276. You mention only here the word “groundwater”. You should do that earlier in the paper

Lines 275-276. You mention “modelling”, “aquifer recharge”, and “groundwater”. One of the review papers suggested above treats the relation between modelling and groundwater recharge.

Line 385. No need of capital letters when you mention “karst”. Here, as throughout the manuscript

 

Lines 386-388. Add these review papers on water scarcity, pollution and policies on specific African countries

- Agbotui, P., Anornu, G., Agbotui, T., Gyabaah, F., Amankwah-Minkah, A., Brookman-Amissah, M., Blankson-Darku, D. and Sallah, J., 2022. Risk-based contaminated land management policy mindset: A way out for Ghana’s environmental challenges. African Geographical Review, 41(2), pp.226-239

- MacDonald, A.M., Bonsor, H.C., Dochartaigh, B.É.Ó. and Taylor, R.G., 2012. Quantitative maps of groundwater resources in Africa. Environmental Research Letters, 7(2), p.024009.

 

Lines 595-615. Specify the types of water resources that have studied in the conclusions

Lines 614-615. You mention “future work” and indeed all the reviews should open new research scenarios. Do you fully discuss future work above? You cannot introduce any new element in the conclusions

Line 627-883. Add all the suggested papers

 

Figures and tables

Figure 1. Unclear why you count from 3 to 7, and not from 1 to 5

Figure 2. Reporting to who? All the public, or just the stakeholders?

Author Response

Point 1: Lines 13-31. Some issues: (i) avoid to start a new sentence with “it (ii) specify the type of water resources that you have studied, and (iii) avoid repetition of the word “water resource” in the abstract

Response 1: (i) Comments addressed (ii) Comments addressed and (iii) Comments addressed

Point 2: Lines 36-113. Your review focuses on protection of natural resources in South Africa. Several issues affect the country from this point of view. I recall pressures due (i) groundwater scarcity in arid areas, (ii) protection of surface and groundwater from shale gas production, (iii) pollution related to agriculture in areas also affected by shale gas production, and (iv) point source of contamination related to chemical industry

Response 2: The comments were addressed

 Point 3: Lines 47-113. You need to specify the type of water resources that you are studying, both surface and groundwater according to the following paragraphs

Response 3: The comments were addressed water resources are specified.

 Point 4: Lines 47-70. You mention the concepts of sustainability and vulnerability of water resources to pollution. You need to mention the recent review papers at the scale of states and countries, see below

Response 4: The comments were addressed, additional literature provided and recommened literature were considered.

 Point 5: Line 113. Specify (i) the principal aim of your review, and (ii) the 2-3 specific objectives of your manuscript

Response 5: The comment was addressed, the aim and 3 objectives of the riview paper were provided.

 Point 6: Line 148. You mention lakes, rivers and springs. Therefore, you treat in your manuscript both surface (rivers and lakes), and groundwater (springs). You need to clarify this point earlier in the paper

Response 6: The recommendation was considered

 Point 7: Line 148. What about freshwater from boreholes in shallow aquifers? I think they are part of your methodological review

Response 7: The statement was provided to indicate that in ancient times there were no infrastructure such as boreholes hence people were relocating closer to the already existing water sources.

 Point 8: Lines 220-228. You mention karst terrains. Note that, some of the publications suggested above cover karst environments

Response 8: The comment has been addressed

 Point 9: Line 276. You mention only here the word “groundwater”. You should do that earlier in the paper

Response 9: The comment was addressed

 Point 10: Lines 275-276. You mention “modelling”, “aquifer recharge”, and “groundwater”. One of the review papers suggested above treats the relation between modelling and groundwater recharge.

Response 10: The comment was addressed

 Point 11: Line 385. No need of capital letters when you mention “karst”. Here, as throughout the manuscript

Response 11: The comment was addressed

 Point 12: Lines 386-388. Add these review papers on water scarcity, pollution and policies on specific African countries

Response 12: The recommended literature were added

 Point 13: Lines 595-615. Specify the types of water resources that have studied in the conclusions

Response 13: The recommendation was done

 Point 14: Lines 614-615. You mention “future work” and indeed all the reviews should open new research scenarios. Do you fully discuss future work above? You cannot introduce any new element in the conclusions

Response 14: The comment has been addressed

 Point 15: Line 627-883. Add all the suggested papers

Response 15: all suggested papers were added in the reference section

 Point 16: Figures and tables

Figure 1. Unclear why you count from 3 to 7, and not from 1 to 5

Response 16(1): The comment has been addressed the numbers have been removed

Figure 2. Reporting to who? All the public, or just the stakeholders?

Response 16(2): (Stakeholders has been added on figure 2)

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx