General Comments

The manuscript "Combined Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Blue and Green Water Resources in the High-Intensity Development Watershed" presents a comprehensive and insightful study on the variations in blue water (BW) and green water (GW) resources in the Dongjiang River Basin (DRB). The use of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model to quantify the impacts of climate change and land use change (LUCC) on BW and GW provides robust and valuable findings. The study's relevance to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area (GBA) underscores its importance in guiding sustainable water resource management in a rapidly developing region. However, several issues need addressing to enhance the paper's clarity and impact.

 Major Concerns:

1. Formulation and Demonstration of GW and BW Derivation: The paper should clearly formulate and demonstrate how GW and BW are derived using the SWAT model. Without this critical information, the reader's understanding of the methodology and results is hindered. Additionally, for equations 10-11, it is necessary to specify clearly what "X" represents. This clarification is essential for comprehending these equations fully.
2. Language and Readability: The overall readability of the English text needs improvement. For example, in Line 162, "Both stations had simulation streamflow ..." should be corrected to "Both stations had simulated streamflow ...". Similar issues with unclear English should be checked and corrected throughout the manuscript to ensure the text is polished and easily understandable.
3. Abbreviation Clarity: The use of abbreviations in the paper often feels unnatural and can be confusing. Typically, abbreviations are created using the initial letters of the terms they represent. Abbreviations such as LUCC (Land Use Change) and BWR (BW withdrawals) do not follow this convention and may lead to confusion. Clear and consistent use of abbreviations is necessary.
4. Contradictions in Precipitation Trends: It is evident from Figure 3a that there are no significant increases or decreases in precipitation trends. However, the Discussion and main text cite precipitation trends as reasons for certain results, which appears contradictory. It would be more appropriate to present a figure showing statistically significant trends in precipitation and base the discussion on those results. Additionally, Table 3 is unclear and requires revision for better comprehension.
5. Additional References: I recommend adding the following papers to the citation in Line 24 to enhance the literature review and context:

• S. Berezovskaya et al. (2004), DOI: 10.1029/2004gl021277
• Suzuki et al. (2021), DOI: 10.3390/rs13214389

By addressing these concerns, the manuscript's quality and clarity will be significantly improved, making it more accessible and informative to the readers.

General Comments

The manuscript "Combined Impacts of Climate Change and Human Activities on Blue and Green Water Resources in the High-Intensity Development Watershed" presents an intriguing analysis of the variations in blue water (BW) and green water (GW) resources in the study area.

Major Comments:

1. Readability (Grammar): The overall readability of the English text needs improvement. There are several grammatical issues and problems that complicate the readability of the text. I suggest a thorough review and editing of the text to enhance its clarity and fluency before it can be considered for publication.

2. Literature Review: The literature review lacks some recent works that have also analyzed the effects of climate change and landscape change on the water cycle. Specifically, a refined search for studies using the SWAT model would reveal many works that should be mentioned in the introduction to provide a more comprehensive background.

3. Presentation of Results: The results of the calibration and validation are currently presented in the methods section. These should be moved to the results section for better coherence and logical flow of the manuscript.

4. Scenario Definition: The definition of the three scenarios is still confusing. Please clarify how each scenario was considered and defined to ensure readers can easily understand the distinctions and implications of each scenario.

By addressing these concerns, the manuscript can be further evaluated and considered for publication.