the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 02 Apr 2024
Study on Multi-water Sources Allocation Based on Multi-scenario potential tapping under Extreme Drought: An Example from the Yellow River Water Supply Area in Henan
Abstract. The water supply of water resources allocation under extreme drought is insufficient, and the limited available water resources make it urgent to tap the potential of water supply. In this paper, the Yellow River water supply area in Henan Province is taken as an example to study the multi-water source allocation under extreme drought. According to the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), the extreme drought years are selected, and the water supply and demand balance in the extreme drought years is analyzed, and the water shortage degree of each water supply area is obtained. In this paper, unconventional water, flood resource utilization and elastic exploitation of groundwater are used as potential water sources. Different water supply scenarios are set up according to different potential tapping measures, and multi-scenario supply increase under extreme drought is explored. A multi-water source allocation model with the goal of minimizing water shortage is constructed, and a multi-scenario supply increase allocation scheme is proposed, which provides a basis for the study of water supply increase allocation to alleviate the drought degree of the the Yellow River Water Supply Area in Henan. Through the Multi-scenario potential tapping of multiple water sources, the existing potential water volume can be maximized, which is conducive to reducing the water supply pressure and water use restrictions of conventional water sources, improving the support capacity and guarantee capacity of water resources, and reducing the economic and social development bottlenecks caused by extreme drought.
- Preprint
(1106 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 14 May 2024)
-
RC1: 'Comment on nhess-2024-31', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Apr 2024
reply
Review of “Study on Multi-water Sources Allocation Based on Multi-scenario potential tapping under Extreme Drought: An Example from the Yellow River Water Supply Area in Henan” by Wan et al.
General comments:
The study assessed the potential to optimise water supply allocation during extreme drought years in the Yellow River Basin. Specifically, three water supply scenarios were created to optimise different management measures in order to minimise water shortages. The water supply scenarios aimed to explore the potential for rainwater harvesting, water storage and groundwater abstraction (i.e. “unconventional” sources) to supplement surface water abstraction (i.e. “conventional” sources) during an extreme drought year (2010). The authors provided interesting insights into the measures to mitigate drought impacts and maximise water supply security, including considering sustainable and equitable water use across sectors.
However, whilst the topic is relevant to NEHSS and the wider implications of the main results could be an important contribution to improving water resources management, the paper requires a clearer structure, a more comprehensive description of the methods and a more critical discussion of the results. I would therefore recommend major revisions before this paper can be reconsidered for publication. To improve the paper, I would suggest including distinct methods and results sections to make clear which sections of the paper are results generated by the authors and which sections are information taken from secondary sources. Additionally, it is unclear from the paper how the water supply scenarios were modelled, how the water resources allocation model is parameterised and how the scenarios are applied. A number of major and additional comments (denoted by line numbers) are further presented below. I hope my comments will help the authors improve their paper.
- Methods - There should be a Methods section clearly detailing the definition of each scenario and exactly how these scenarios are defined within the water resource allocation model. It is hard to decipher how the various equations presented fit together - perhaps a flow chart could help here to illustrate the various inputs, outputs, model parameters and what, if any, algorithms were used to solve for the optimal water resources allocation. There is mention of the genetic algorithm used to optimise the model solution in the Discussion section but that information should ideally be placed in a methods section and explained more fully. The authors could also consider providing details on whether the model has been tested or validated in the methods section. I would also appreciate more information on how the water supply scenarios were modelled (e.g. were the model coefficients presented varied in some ways to represent the specifications of each scenario?).
- Results – The results from this paper seems to be Table 7, which shows the water availability for each sector and each scenario after solving the water resources allocation model. However, this section is very short with limited description of the main results. Table 8 compares the scenario results with actual water resources availability during 2010 but this is just a repetition of what is already shown in Table 7. Instead of a large table like Table 7, perhaps some figures summarising the results visually would be helpful and could replace repeated information in Table 8. The inclusion of water demand satisfaction estimation in Table 10 is interesting and seems novel but it is not explained in the paper how water demand satisfaction is estimated, how water demand is considered in each of the scenarios and how they are included in the water resources allocation model.
- Discussion – This section is very short and there is very limited discussion of how the results fit with the wider literature on drought mitigation measures (such as relevant studies in nature-based solutions for drought mitigation) in the wider region and/or globally. While I appreciate that findings often differ between studies due to different methods and spatial scales, there should be much more critical discussion of how your results relate to the wider scientific literature in drought management. Additionally, there is no discussion of possible sources of uncertainties associated with the water resources allocation model. For example, the authors could consider providing some discussion of the assumptions of the model and how that may influence the reliability of the results.
Additional comments:
L38 – please explain what you mean by “uneven water cycle”. This does not seem to be consistent with the language used by the IPCC.
L49 – this is the first time “unconventional water resources” are used in the text. “Conventional” and “unconventional” should be introduced, perhaps with examples, from the start. For example, the section from L172-182 explaining rainwater harvesting, reclaimed water, water storage capacity and groundwater abstraction should be placed much earlier.
L56-91 – instead of listing out studies one after the other, it would be more insightful if you identified common themes, methods and findings from previous studies which motivated the study aims.
L129 – “drought change of the PDSI annual sequence” – do you mean drought occurrence?
L138 – “every 10 or so” – is this referring to years?
L140 – drought severity rather than “grade” might be clearer.
L144-145 – repetition of L139
L183 – What do you mean by “water richness” and how is it quantified?
L183 – As noted in general comments, it is not clear from the text what “tapping” means – do you mean the different scenarios are tested adopted depending on groundwater abundance of the region? Both “tapping” and “digging” potential are used throughout the text but neither terms are properly defined – are they different concepts or do they refer to the same thing?
Table 4 – What does q and Q stand for in the table? The relevance of this table is not clear and it is unclear how it relates to the water supply scenarios listed in Table 5.
Table 6 – Does this table report results obtained from the study or are they values taken from secondary sources.
Section 3.2 – Did the authors come up with the water demand hierarchy themselves? If not, there should be appropriate reference to previous studies which have applied similar concepts.
L264 – what does “enemy” mean?
Open research section – are these meant to be hyperlinks to the data source? If so, the links don’t seem to be working.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-2024-31-RC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 172 | 26 | 12 | 210 | 12 | 13 |
- HTML: 172
- PDF: 26
- XML: 12
- Total: 210
- BibTeX: 12
- EndNote: 13
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1