Framework for Healthiness Assessment of Water Cycle to Decide the Priority of Enhancement and Restoration Plans

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The submitted article represents a framework for assessing water cycle healthiness in watersheds based on the previous and current states. The topic of the manuscript is quite interesting as there is an increasing need for robust and sustainable watershed management plans to deal with different water quality issues induced by climate change. The article, in general, is well-written with sufficient details and can be used as a resource material for watershed managers in South Korea. However, there are a couple of suggestions that could be incorporated into the manuscript to improve its quality and scientific soundness.
1. It would be better for the readers if the authors can include a table showing the characteristics of the study watersheds, including elevation, annual precipitation, and land use characteristics (although the authors provide information regarding land use patterns in Fig. A2).
2. The reviewer also would like to know if the suggested framework is applicable to the highland mixed land use mountainous watersheds which is a unique feature of South Korea.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Framework for healthiness assessment of water cycle to decide the priority of enhancement and restoration plans

 

General comments:

In this study, authors describe a framework for a healthiness assessment of the water cycle of a watershed to provide a guideline for systematic watershed management considering the previous and current states. Though the paper is an interesting case study, it has to be more clear in its works and contributions. Paper needs major revision by considering following:

·         Authors may highlight the major contributions and innovations in the paper in the abstract and conclusions, so that it clear to the readers.

·         Table 2 needs much better explanation. Say for example, for column 3, non-point source, unit is mm?. What does it mean?. Similarly, more explanation is needed for other columns!.

·         Did authors develop a new model base don AHP?. Or used existing packages?.

·         Eq. 1, how WCHI calculated?. Is this equation derived by authors?.

·         In section 2.1, though a flowchart is given, the methodology adopted is not clear. Give step by step procedure and provide details.

·         Did authors collected any data for this study, or just used the available data?.

·         Please give details about the data sources, the number of data and time periods, location etc with all details.

·         Did authors conduct any statistical analysis of the data and produced any statistical correlations?.

·         What are the advantages and limitations of the framework for the healthiness assessment of the water cycle developed in the present study?.  Give a discussion section on it before Conclusions.

·         Conclusions are very generic, without proper justification. It is more discussion. Some of these can be shifted to a Discussion section.

·         Provide concise and important conclusions from the study.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The revision is  fine. All queries taken care.