Response to Reviewer’s Comments

Dear Editor,
Coauthors and I very much appreciated the encouraging, critical and constructive comments on
this manuscript by the reviewer. The comments have been very thorough and useful in
improving the manuscript. We strongly believe that the comments and suggestions have
increased the scientific value of revised manuscript by many folds. We have taken them fully
into account in revision. We are submitting the corrected manuscript with the suggestion
incorporated the manuscript. The manuscript has been revised as per the comments given by the
reviewer, and our responses to all the comments are as follows:

Reviewer #1:

1. Abstract: remove line 16 from abstract.

Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Yes, we have restructured the sentence
for better understanding. Hopefully you will find it logical.

2. Abstract: You need to mention what BOD, COD and NO3 stand for (also line 82).

Response- Thank you so much for your minute observation and valuable comments. We
have mentioned it in revised manuscript.

3. Introduction: More comprehensive and recent literature review (you just have 2 citation
from recently published papers, and more than 70% are older than 2010) is needed to
discuss impact of climate change and social factors on water resources.

Response- We very much appreciate reviewer’s suggestion and we have updated literature
review with addition of recent publications not only suggested by the reviewers but many
others. Hopefully now you will find it rational.

4. Case study: As this paper is a case study, for readers it is important to know why you
have selected this case study and the results we learn from the research is more important
than methodology and description. I couldn’t find the contribution and role selecting
Ciliwung River as a case study in abstract, nor through the introduction, case study, or
conclusion and discussion.

Response- We have taken reviewer’s comment in full consideration and it will be well
reflected by the revised version of manuscript.

5. Figure 1: the map you use on middle and right side are not clear. I also suggest adding a
legend which presents the names of basins, based on colors. Also, show the outlet of
basin for the Ciliwung basin.
Response- Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. We have replaced it with new
figure with better understanding. Hopefully you will find it justified.

6. Line 109: I do not think it is right! Please describe how WEAP represent the wastewater
treatment process and system (not the water quality)?!

Response- Thank you so much for your comment. We have addressed it during the revision
of the manuscript.

7. Line 124: You already pointed out to the abbreviation of WEAP.

Response- Sorry for the repetition and we have deleted it as per suggested.

8. Line 155: How did you downscale the GCM outputs to the 3-hour temporal
resolution?!!!!

Response- A whole new paragraph mentioning the downscaling the GCM output is added in
the section 3.1 of methodology part.

9. Line 156: How did you incorporate for the uncertainty associated with climate models,
scenarios, and hydrologic modeling? Your work has a really high level of uncertainty as
you have not use the whole range of climate model outputs, as well as inputs and
parameters of hydrologic model (especially using the hydrologic model of WEAP which
is not precise for finer temporal and spatial scales). I seriously want you address this
issue.

Response- Thank you so much for your comment. Uncertainty in climate modeling and
scenarios development is taken care by statistical methodology and is now added in the
revised manuscript.

10. Line 235: How do you incorporate the WWTPs in your modeling?

Response- Water quality module of WEAP can incorporate WWTPs as pollution handling
facilities with design specifications including total capacity and removal rates of pollutants.

11. Figure 4: I suggest just showing the map and not the screenshot from WEAP.

Response- Reviewer’s suggestion is incorporated in the revised version of manuscript.

12. Figure 5 and 6: How you justify the calibration of the hydrologic model? increases in
May, Jan, and Dec rainfall. Also what do you mean by simulation?! Isn’t the rainfall
output of GCM?

Response- Thank you so much for your comments. Sorry for not describing it before. Now
we have added one table showing the factors and steps considered for calibration of the
model. Also, for the second part of the question about GCM output, you are right. Rainfall
 data for year 2030 presented in the figure 5 and 7 is the rainfall output of GCM. However,
rainfall data presented for validation in figure 6, is being simulated through WEAP model.
About increased values during January, May and December can be justified as this whole
result is acceptable statistically with an average error of ≤10%.

13. Figure 9: Plot the population growth and demand both in one plot. So, your demand
increase is just based on population growth? How do you account for the uncertainty of
per capita demand? And changes in demand based on changes in climate condition?

Response- Thank you so much for your precious suggestion. We have changed the graph
accordingly to show the population growth and water demand together in the revised version.
Yes, this is very simple projection solely based on population growth. We did not consider
changes in demand based on climate condition because of availability of data/information.

14. Finally, the pattern of simulated and observed are the same, however there is kind of a
shift between these two. Please describe what do you think is the reason of this problem?
Moreover, further comprehensive discussion about water quality results and key findings
of work is needed in Conclusion.

Response- Thank you so much for your comments and suggestion. I rechecked the simulation
result and just found a simple mistake in plotting graphs for figure 11, which is now been
rectified. Conclusion part is revised accordingly and hopefully you will find it justified.

Reviewer #2:

1. The Abstract is not very enlightening – be more insightful about findings. E.g. It appears
that climate effects are secondary to those arising from population growth.
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. Abstract section is thoroughly revised
considering your valuable suggestion. Hopefully you will find it justified.
2. l.23: what is an “unorganised” waste management system?
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. Here unorganized waste management system
refers to combination of poor wastewater treatment system, direct discharge of wastewater to
urban rivers and disintegrated sewerage and septage management system.
3. l.39: “this is because” – I don’t follow the logic here.
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. This sentence is restructured to make it more
clear for the reader.
4. l.43: Reference #4 is a specific South African case study – not a global review which
would be more appropriate to cite.
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. Yes although this is a regional case study but
it gives an updated information on the different dimensions of uses of WEAP model. Also based
on your suggestion, we have also updated our literature review and added many new articles of
relevance at global scale.
5. l.31-80: good Introduction but this paragraph is too long and needs subdividing
Response- Thank you so much for your comments and compliment. Yes, we have now divided
in one more section in the revised version.
6. Methods section: Table 1 suggests doubling of population since 2000. How does the
model capture population growth? Does it require separate steady state simulations or can
it be captured dynamically in a single simulation?
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. Yes, WEAP can capture population growth
in single simulation.
7. l.128-133: Delete as repeated later
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. This line is mentioned here to mainly giving
briefing about the source of different data set required during modeling. Also from our believe,
this is not repeated anywhere else.
8. l.137: Were rainfall inputs only at monthly resolution? This is insufficient. What was the
resolution of the climate model-derived rainfall? Daily rainfall data are necessary to
capture hydrological and chemical response of the system. Water resource and quality
problems largely arise under extreme conditions which cannot be accounted for under an
analysis at a monthly resolution.
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. I completely agree with your idea. However,
resolution of climate model derived rainfall used in this study is with a temporal resolution of 3
hours and a spatial resolution of 120 km, therefore no further refinement is required.
9. l.154-164: How is the climate expected to change in this region? Broadly describe the
likely changes as predicted by climate models.
Response- Thank you so much for your valuable suggestion. We have described about it in the
section 4.1.
10. l.166-167: provide reference to the original method
Response- Thank you so much for your valuable suggestion. We have added it in the revised
manuscript.
11. Section 3.3: problems with equation formatting
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. The mistake is corrected in the revised
version.
12. l.249: baseline reference year – is it just 2000? Use of just a single year would raise
concerns about robustness of the analysis  
Response- Thank you so much for your comments. Yes, base year in this study is 2000, it means
that all the simulation is done from 2000 onwards. However, calibration and validation is based
on the data from several years which is a standard approach. Also all calibration and validation
results are varied through statistical method which is now added in the revised version of the
manuscript.
13. l.263: Once again, one year only for each of the scenarios 2015 and 2030?
Response- Thank you so much for your comment. As mentioned above, we have simulated
future water environment from 2000-2030. But as a representative of current and future time we
have shown the result of year 2015 and 2030 respectively. Hopefully it has addressed your
concern.
14. l.284: Caption for Fig 5 is misleading – these are not observed and simulated patterns.
They presumably are both (2015 and 2030) coming from climate model output. This
needs clarification
Response- Thank you so much for your comment. Yes, there was typo mistake in the caption
which is now rewritten in the revised manuscript.
15. Fig 6: I don’t believe monthly resolution model testing of river flow to be sufficient to
gain confidence in the model. Given the shorter-time scale of event-based responses in
hydrological systems of this type.
Response- Thank you so much for your comment. We totally agree with your suggestion.
Therefore, kindly note that in this study to generate stream discharge, we have taken global
climate model with a temporal resolution of 3 hours and a spatial resolution of 120 km which is
statistically and logically accepted.
16. l.281-282: no demonstration of significance has been made here (as no statistical analysis
shown)
Response- Thank you so much for your important comment. Now we have added all results
from statistical analysis in the revised manuscript. We hope you will find it justified.
17. l.290: caption for Fig 7 is misleading – I cannot see how any of these can be observed
data
Response- Thank you so much for your comment. Yes, correction is made for this caption in the
revised manuscript.
18. Figure 8: What were the ranges of simulated and observed BOD values (use box-plots)?
What about model performance for nitrate? As it stands the level of testing of water
quality response is very limited.
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Ranges of simulated results with their rate of
increase in both simulations are also added in the revised manuscript and figure 10 and 11 also
changed accordingly.
19. l.297: Figure 9 is unnecessary – simply state the numbers in the text
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Now figure 9 is revised to include
population growth in parallel to water demand for better representation. Hopefully you will be
find it logical.
 20. l.310: Figs 10 and 11. Again, what are the rainfall inputs for model calculations for the
three applications 2000, 2015 and 2030 (monthly, or daily)? Regulatory standards are
usually percentile level (eg 90th), not a mean level, for nitrate and BOD. Justification is
needed for those used. What are the units for nitrate, mg NO3/L or mg NO3-N/L?
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Rainfall input for all three applications are
of three hourly basis. Nitrate data used in this study is of NO3-N type with unit mg/L.
21. l.313-315: climate change doesn’t appear to make a lot of difference
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Yes, you are right. In comparison to effect
of population growth, climate change has less impact on water quality.
22. Section 4: there is little in the way of insightful discussion in this section
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Whole section is significantly revised for
better interpretation and insight. Hopefully you will find it logical.
23. l.338-340: based on the data presented the authors cannot state that significant
correlations have been made and that the use of the hydrological and water quality
analysis performed using the model is justified
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Model Performance is justified using
statistical operation and results are added in the revised version of the manuscript.
24. Conclusions. It would appear that the main future issues are those due to population
growth (i.e. manifested in terms of increased water demand and pressure on treatment
facilities) and that climate issues are of secondary concern.  These conclusions are not
really justified in detail based on the evidence presented.
Response- Thank you so much for your suggestion. Conclusion section is also revised for better
interpretation.