Water Resource Management of Salalah Plain Aquifer Using a Sustainable Approach

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

1. Summary

Thank you much for your time to go through this document. Below you will find my responses, along, with the revisions and corrections marked in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

[The arrangement of research ideas and logical sequences has been modified to improve the clarity of the research concepts. The introduction has been refined to provide a context.]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

The citations were updated by removing sources with low relation and adding new references that show a clear connection

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

The papers final thoughts and recommendations have been revised.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Some equations have been adjusted to enhance the logical structure and increase reliability.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

I have included literature that is closely connected to the subject of my research

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response and Revisions

The paper discussing the Water resources management of Salalah plain aquifer using 2 sustainable approach seems technically sound. However, a few potential areas might require clarification and improvement.

Thank you.

In the abstract section

Abstract should be written in a single paragraph.

Done.

The first scenario is to stop groundwater pumping from Salalah and Saada wellfields and compensate groundwater supply from both wellfields by surplus desalinated water during the predictive period from 2023 to 2027 (Scenario A)." - This sentence is a bit unclear. Consider rephrasing for clarity.

Done– [page number 1, Abstract, and line 11-14].

The second scenario is business as usual and continue pumping from both wellfields during the same predictive period (Scenario B)." - "Continuing pumping" instead of "continue pumping" for grammatical correctness.

Done– [page number 1, Abstract, line 14, also in page number 4, Table 1, line 167, and page number 6, Materials and Methods, line 213, and in page number 20, Conclusion, line 553].

Seawater Intrusion (SWI) was delineated in land up to 2000 m, 1700 m, 0 m, 800 m, and 0 m or 750 m, in years 2011, 2014, 2018, 2022 and 2027 under scenario A, and B, respectively." - The use of "or" seems redundant here. It would be clearer to state the exact values for each year under each scenario

Done– [page number 1, Abstract, line 18 to 23].

1.2. Aims and objectives section

"Salalah aquifer" should be consistent with its naming convention used elsewhere in the document, possibly "Salalah coastal aquifer."

Done.

2. Materials and Methods section

The research utilized modeling methods, such, as 3 D groundwater flow simulation 177 modeling and predictive modeling of solute advection transport to analyze the behavior 178 of the Salalah plain aquifer." - "such, as" should be "such as.

Done.

The theoretical framework of the model was elucidated by Shammas (2007 to 2009)." - Ensure clarity by specifying what aspects of the theoretical framework were elucidated by Shammas.

Done–[page number 6, Materials and Methods section, line 223 to 226].

3. Results and Discussions

Use "Scenario A" instead of "Scenario (a)" for consistency.

Done.

Replace "Versing" with "In contrast" or "On the other hand" for clarity.

Done.

Use "Scenarios" instead of "assumptions" to match the context when discussing the simulations.

Done.

Try to fit figures 4 to 9 in the single layout. And the same for figures 10 to 15.

Done–[figures 4 to 9 in page number 8, Results section, line 284 , and figures 10 to 15 in page number 12, line 398].

Include the recent citations.

Done.

Clarify the term "underflow" to ensure understanding.

Done–[page 2, Introduction section, line 53 to 58].

Submission Date

07 April 2024

Date of this review

11 Apr 2024 06:05:49

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

1. Summary

Thank you much for your time to go through this document. Below you will find my responses, along, with the revisions and corrections marked in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

[The arrangement of research ideas and logical sequences has been modified to improve the clarity of the research concepts. The introduction has been refined to provide a context.]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

The citations were updated by removing sources with low relation and adding new references that show a clear connection

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

The research questions and ideas have been improved to make the framework supporting the hypotheses clearer.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

The papers final thoughts and recommendations have been revised.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Some equations have been adjusted to enhance the logical structure and increase reliability.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

I have included literature that is closely connected to the subject of my research

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

By revising the manuscript, the paper conclusion is enhanced.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response and Revisions

In this paper about groundwater management in the case of Salalah in Oman, the author discusses scenarios and ways forward for solving this problem. The paper is well written and discussed, and I like the visualization of the data used by the author. 

Thank you.

There are ways however in which the paper can be improved:

1) The abstract must be of one paragraph, not different paragraphs.

Done.

2) The aims and research questions should be at the top of the introduction and of section 1, not of section 2. 

Done– [page number 2, Introduction, and line 80-90].

3) The literature review in the introduction must be more comprehensive instead of relying on one main author. Read and discuss in the introduction also the case of groundwater management of the other most water scarce countries the world, Jordan, and the work if Timothy Liptrot recently published in Water Alternatives is a must paper for discussing the link between policy and groundwater management and governance in water scarce countries (please use it as a starting point to frame the literature, and then it would make sense to dig deeper with the case study of Oman).

Done– [page number 2, Introduction, and line 75-79, and page number 6, Materials and Methods, line 228-230].

4) better link the introduction and the key questions you ask about the research, with the framework you use and the discussion section. At the moment they feel a bit disconnected

Done– [page number 6, Introduction, line 195-205].

Happy to review an updated version

Thank you.

Submission Date

07 April 2024

Date of this review

13 Apr 2024 15:14:35

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

1. Summary

Thank you much for your time to go through this document. Below you will find my responses, along, with the revisions and corrections marked in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thank you.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thank you.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response and Revisions

I'd like to express my appreciation for the authors' effort in revising their paper titled 'Water Resources Management of Salalah Plain Aquifer Using a Sustainable Approach' according to my comments and suggestions.

Thank you.

Submission Date

07 April 2024

Date of this review

23 Apr 2024 15:16:33

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

1. Summary

Thank you much for your time to go through this document. Below you will find my responses, along, with the revisions and corrections marked in red color.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Yes

Thank you.

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Yes

Thank you.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Yes

Thank you.

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Yes

Thank you.

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response and Revisions

Looks good.

Thank you.

Submission Date

07 April 2024

Date of this review

19 Apr 2024 10:22:24

Response to Reviewer X Comments

1. Summary

Thank you much for dedicating your time to go through this document. Below you will find an overview of my responses, along, with the revisions and corrections marked in the updated files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

[Yes! The topic has been well. The arrangement of research ideas and logical sequences has been modified to improve the clarity of the research concepts. The introduction has been refined to provide a context.]

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

The citations were updated by removing sources with low relation and adding new references that show a clear connection

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

The research queries and ideas have been adjusted to improve the clarity of the structure supporting the assumptions.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

The papers final thoughts and recommendations have been revised.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

Some equations have been adjusted to enhance the logical structure and increase reliability.

Is the article adequately referenced?

Can be improved

I have included literature that is closely connected to the subject of my research

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

The article conclusion is determined through analysis. By revising the analysis, the paper conclusion becomes more dependable.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [- expand the section on materials and methods section as it is now too succinct.]

Response 1: [I appreciate your suggestion to provide details, in the materials and methods section of my paper. In terms of restrictions, on Processing MODFLOW related to the data editing component the study only utilized 3 layers despite being able to accommodate up to 80 layers. Likewise, while MODFLOW allows for a maximum of 100 stress periods each stress period in this research corresponds to a year within 35 years timeframe from 1993 to 2027 for analysis. As such any limitations, within the MODFLOW model did not affect the methodology or results of this investigation. the manuscript text is updated, in the materials and methods section of my paper– page number 6, paragraph 3: Materials and Methods, and line 186-191].

Comments 2: [better situate the paper in the literature; to do so, in the introduction clearly explain 1) the guiding research question 2) gap in the literature 3) what is the literature you are contributing to?]

Response 2: 1) Agree. Accordingly, I already revised manuscript and I added guiding research question– page number 2, paragraph: Problem identification part, and line 75-80. 2) I recognize the importance of recognizing and bridging gaps, for the progression of knowledge in water resources management. My research endeavors to address the existing gap in literature pertaining to water resources management in regions specifically focusing on the Salalah plain aquifer. my goal is to deepen insights into implementing a strategy, for overseeing this aquifer and enhancing its enduring viability.

3) Furthermore, my goal is to enhance the pool of knowledge, on water resource management and sustainable development by building upon my prior research from 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2022. These studies are cited in this paper focusing on the Salalah aquifer. I predict that this research will offer a framework and practical guidance for stakeholders engaged in decision making processes and real-world applications within this field. This endeavor is anticipated to support the enhancement of policies and methodologies, in water resource management (A new paragraph was added at the start of the introduction section– page number 1, paragraph 1, and line 32-42.).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: (x) English language fine. No issues detected

Response 1: (thank you)

5. Additional clarifications

[find other clarifications to the journal editor/reviewer below]

Editor Decision

Editor’s Comments

Response and Revisions

The author used MODFLOW to examine and contrast the groundwater levels and salinity of an aquifer in two distinct situations. The paper reads like a technical report from a consulting firm and does not offer any new insights into the methodology or analysis of results for the readers.

Decision Date: 26 March 2024

[My intention is to revise the manuscript so that it goes beyond being a report offering readers valuable insights, into both the research methodology and analysis of results.

In this study two novel scenarios were suggested, constructed, implemented, and investigated to restore the aquifer to a balance state. The first scenario involves ceasing the extraction of groundwater for domestic purposes and relying on both desalination plants for water supply for the period 2023 to 2027 (Scenario A). The second scenario is business as usual (Scenario B). This study shed light on the aspects of my proposed scenarios and their implications for managing Salalah aquifer.]