Changes in Surface and Terrestrial Waters in the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor Due to Climate Change and Human Activities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this manuscript, the authors provide a detailed analysis of the variations in Soil Water Availability (SWA) and Total Water Storage (TWS) across different regions within the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) over the period from 2002 to 2018, and found that the changes in TWS are influenced by a combination of SWA, climate change, and human activities, with the impact varying significantly across different CPEC regions. This study is meaningful to a better understanding of water resource dynamics and can aid in the development of strategies for the efficient and sustainable use of water resources in CPEC. Literature review presented is sufficient and covers the required aspects. “Materials and methods” sections is clearly understood. The conclusions are clear. But some minor errors need be further fixed. I conclude that the manuscript could be accepted after some minor revisions.

General comments on the manuscript:

Page 1 – line 7,14,16,17,18

The Affiliation has two spaces, please delete one.

Page 1 – line 36

Please check whether it is groundwater storage or terrestrial water storage?

Page 4– line 125-126

The Surface Water Area (SWA) should change to SWA.

Page 4– line 151

China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) should change to CPEC.

Page 7– line250

six variables (e.g., SWA, CROP, EVA, POP, PRE, and TEM), please delete e.g.,

Page 10

There are too many two spaces in the paragraph 4.1, please revise them.

Page 12– line 345

Please check the if 3.02 × 105 km² is correct?

Page 12– line 359

Please change population to population, and check carefully the whole paper to delete the wrong -.

Page 12

In the 4 discussions, while you note changes in TWS and SWA, It is better to thoroughly their consequences for water availability, ecosystem health, and socio-economic development.

Page 17 – line 42

Please change the journal name (Inter. J. Adv. Sci. Technol) to full name.

Page 17

Due to your analysis base on regions of CPEC, it is better to give specific water management suggestions separately in the discussion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First of all you have done a very good job , however I have the following few comments

1- The title is very long and can be made shorter without loosing any impression you want the title reader to get ass he read it. Also it includes the word "but" ?

I would suggest "Changes in Surface and Terrestrial waters in the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor due to Climate change and Human activities"

you may choose you own

2- Section 2.2.1 under the Data used is very important and should be very clear , since your work is totally dependent on the data. My comments is as follows

A- Data period 2002-2018 is relatively short why not using bigger sample size, but you can justify the use of this period.

B- For the TWS you did not mentioned about the missing 21 months out of the 192 months , where they are distributed among time and space, this is very important to show and justify the linear interpolation filling missing data method.

C- also you should explain how did you manage in your spatial analysis with different data resolution for each set of data .

D- you had mentioned how you made the correlation analysis of the agricultural human activity using the crop land area , while you did not explain how this is done for reservoirs and dams (lines 146-149).

3- for section 2.3 the statistical analysis :

A- The symbols need to be explained  more

B- Define at the end of the section what out of your variables correlated considered as factors and what are considered as attributes.

c- Explain more clearly about the interaction detector, here you named Y as a the outcome variable, while in the ecological detector you named y as attribute please unify and make more clear by explaining more about fig. 2.

4- section 3.1:

a- Fig. 3.a is this the SWA for year 2018 i n ha/sq km ? the discussion should be more clear .

b- Fig. 4 has the slope and the p figure only?

4- section 4.3: I don't see  any thing in your work linked to the water crisis it is like a well known problem with a well known general recommendation.

6- Section 5 conclusions:  should be shorter and more specific for example point 1 ;

location       increase in SWA(number) , decrease in TWA (number)

and so on .

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf