Pipeline Spills and Indigenous Energy Justice

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleagues, the topic of your manuscript and the result of your literature review seems very interesting. Please focus the whole presentation on the main results.Actually the abstract and the introduction (but also the title) are not those of a scientific communication. Cordially, Reviewer X

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer -2 Comments

 

I think the methodology and table 1 needs to be described in more details. Also, because there is so few references found in your review, why not expand the review to other areas of the world, that can have pipeline leaks and energy justice issues related to Indigenous communities. 

Author Response: since there is limited study in this area, therefore, we addressed this issue at last section (recommendation section)

The results and findings are weak, due to the low numbers of papers found, this is of course an important finding that there is not so much research on this area and a good reason for why you have finished your paper with a recommendation section. However there must be more work done in the global south also related to energy management/justice, drinking water rights and Indigenous people and communities. Could that be included? perhaps not, but worth to include somewhere why not.

Author Response: Thanks for suggesting this important issue. The geography and North American Indigenous perspective surrounding oil pipelines is unique and worthy of a focused discussion as per the paper. The global south's experience surrounding pipelines and indigenous peoples would constitute a comparative case study, which is not the work here. May be we can think in our future writing focusing on internationally.

I think that there is a need for a discussion section, perhaps putting the findings into a larger perspective related to other areas of the world where similar problems are occuring with lack of integration of Indigenous knowledge into environmental management?

Author Response: There is also a discussion a discussion section.  

 

You must have some kind of idea of What could Indigenous people actually contribute with of knowledge? I cannot understand what that could be, enlighten me and the readers.

Author Response: We have a discussion on possible research - participatory action research with indigenous people in the recommendations.

 

typos

Author Response: typos have been addressed.

 

Thanks you very much for your time and consideration. If you have any questions and the manuscript or changes that we have made, please do not hesitate to be in touch. We can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Ranjan Datta, PhD 

University of Regina

28 Campus Drive

Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X1

Phone-001-306-241-6798

Email: [email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I found the title and abstract very exciting and was looking very much forward to read a review in this field.

General comments:

The paper is a well written paper with interesting findings.. 

I think the methodology and table 1 needs to be described in more details. Also, because there is so few references found in your review, why not expand the review to other areas of the world, that can have pipeline leaks and energy justice issues related to Indigenous communities. 

The results and findings are weak, due to the low numbers of papers found, this is of course an important finding that there is not so much research on this area and a good reason for why you have finished your paper with a recommendation section. However there must be more work done in the global south also related to energy management/justice, drinking water rights and Indigenous people and communities.

Could that be included? perhaps not, but worth to include somewhere why not.

I think that there is a need for a discussion section, perhaps putting the findings into a larger perspective related to other areas of the world where similar problems are occuring with lack of integration of Indigenous knowledge into environmental management?

The discussion section could also include a discussion on what type of research is possible, when we are talking about pipelines (these are hard infrastructures that are not so easy to remove compared with other environmental issues, so what could Indigenous communities actually contribute with).

You must have some kind of idea of What could Indigenous people actually contribute with of knowledge? I cannot understand what that could be, enlighten me and the readers.

Specific comments:

There are a lot of typos that needs to be dealt with before published, see line 84, 89, 99, 100, 140 etc.

Why are lines 147-148 and lines 152-154 links to htlm?

 

Thanks

 

Author Response

Reviewer -2 Comments

 

I think the methodology and table 1 needs to be described in more details. Also, because there is so few references found in your review, why not expand the review to other areas of the world, that can have pipeline leaks and energy justice issues related to Indigenous communities. 

Author Response: since there is limited study in this area, therefore, we addressed this issue at last section (recommendation section)

The results and findings are weak, due to the low numbers of papers found, this is of course an important finding that there is not so much research on this area and a good reason for why you have finished your paper with a recommendation section. However there must be more work done in the global south also related to energy management/justice, drinking water rights and Indigenous people and communities. Could that be included? perhaps not, but worth to include somewhere why not.

Author Response: Thanks for suggesting this important issue. The geography and North American Indigenous perspective surrounding oil pipelines is unique and worthy of a focused discussion as per the paper. The global south's experience surrounding pipelines and indigenous peoples would constitute a comparative case study, which is not the work here. May be we can think in our future writing focusing on internationally.

I think that there is a need for a discussion section, perhaps putting the findings into a larger perspective related to other areas of the world where similar problems are occuring with lack of integration of Indigenous knowledge into environmental management?

Author Response: There is also a discussion a discussion section.  

 

You must have some kind of idea of What could Indigenous people actually contribute with of knowledge? I cannot understand what that could be, enlighten me and the readers.

Author Response: We have a discussion on possible research - participatory action research with indigenous people in the recommendations.

 

typos

Author Response: typos have been addressed.

 

Thanks you very much for your time and consideration. If you have any questions and the manuscript or changes that we have made, please do not hesitate to be in touch. We can be reached by e-mail at [email protected].

Ranjan Datta, PhD 

University of Regina

28 Campus Drive

Saskatoon, SK S7N 0X1

Phone-001-306-241-6798

Email: [email protected]

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleagues, your manuscript is not really a scientific communication. At least title, abstract and introduction should be profoundly revised (see attached).

Cordially,

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscripts (Manuscript ID: sustainability-650342). We made a careful revisions according to reviewers' comments. In following we detailed how we addressed our paper a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. We did keep tack changes during our revision.   

We appreciate your anticipation and look forward to hear from you.

Reviewer -1 Comments

The manuscript have really improved and is worth being published.

I only have some minor comments:

I like that a new table have been included (it should be renamed to table 2 (now it is named table 1)..see line 175.

Author Response: Thanks, we fixed this issue.

 

I think it there is something that needs to be added in the end of the paper. the paper ends with bullets on recommendations, but I think there needs to be a conclusion/summary of the findings in general.

Author Response: We added a concluding paragraph.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors of the paper Pipeline Spills: Sustainability in Indigenous Energy
Practice.

The manuscript have really improved and is worth being published.

I only have some minor comments:

I like that a new table have been included (it should be renamed to table 2 (now it is named table 1)..see line 175.

I think it there is something that needs to be added in the end of the paper. the paper ends with bullets on recommendations, but I think there needs to be a conclusion/summary of the findings in general.

 

Author Response

Thanks again for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our manuscripts (Manuscript ID: sustainability-650342). We made a careful revisions according to reviewers' comments. In following we detailed how we addressed our paper a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. We did keep tack changes during our revision.   

 

We appreciate your anticipation and look forward to hear from you.

 

Reviewer -1 Comments

The manuscript have really improved and is worth being published.

I only have some minor comments:

I like that a new table have been included (it should be renamed to table 2 (now it is named table 1)..see line 175.

Author Response: Thanks, we fixed this issue.

 

I think it there is something that needs to be added in the end of the paper. the paper ends with bullets on recommendations, but I think there needs to be a conclusion/summary of the findings in general.

Author Response: We added a concluding paragraph.

 

Reviewer -2 Comments

This title is not really clear: What is “Indigenous Energy Practice” and how is it related to “Pipeline Spills”?

Author Response: Thanks. Revised

Author’s affiliation is missing

Author Response: We think, it was removed for anonymous review process

 

The Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan transport their energy resources by pipeline to the eastern and western seaboards, and south into the United States. The used pipeline infrastructure reshapes the landscape and affects sustainability of the environment, traditional Indigenous livelihoods, and drinking water, particularly when spills and leaks occur. This scoping review is focused on Indigenous sustainability issues in relation to surrounding pipeline spills/leaks, impacts on drinking water and Indigenous communities in Western Canada.

Author Response: Many thanks. We used your above suggested text.

 

It is still not clear to this reviewer what is the aim of this scoping review as he is now moving to the methodology!

Author Response: Many thanks. We revised this section.

 

Indigenous people universally have their ancestral technologies (defined as applied science) for energy and water supply that is clear to any modern scholar! [Problems arise when the water is polluted by “foreign” contaminants (e.g. from pipelines including in the construction phase) that are alien to them – and they cannot not primarily cope with] Even in the “Western” scientific World there is a certain scholar arrogance, claiming that things are only known since they were given a scientific name (or that Western are better scientists and Eastern), but that is another issue. Indigenous people are living in peace in their ancestral homelands and are disturbed by designed, constructed pipelines and more when leaks and spills occur… So What? For this reviewer, the reader is left alone with this question. It should be clear at this stage before moving to the next section. Are there aspects of ancestral technologies which would help to better manage leaks/spills? Or during the design of pipelines? Are there behavioral attitudes that may help limiting the extent of destruction after an accident? This information is simply missing!

 

Author Response: Thanks for this in-depth comment. While we agree with these comments, we think, these comments would be very helpful for our future paper. Our purpose on this short paper was to analyse the existing research on this area with particular geographical location. Currently we are collecting Indigenous Elders and Knowledge-holders stories; we think, we can address reviewer 2 concern with our field research findings. We are addressing reviewer 2 concern with Indigenous Elders and Knowledge-holders.

 

MAJOR REVISIONS is still needed! The main problem of this manuscript is that It Is Not Written to present achieved results! So many other perspectives are considered in the introduction that would better come during the discussion of the result. Please re-think the whole presentation. Please write an Introduction to your results (not to the initial idea, not to your research topic….).

Author Response: As we mentioned that there are very limited scoping review and research focused on Indigenous perspective in this specific geographical location. Although we know we could extend our search, we wanted to see what has been done within this geographical location (i.e., Alberta and Saskatchewan). While it is one of the significant limitation of this study, energy impact and pipeline leaks in northern Alberta and Saskatchewan are of global importance and increasingly attract international attention from investors, scholars, the media, activists, and celebrities. Indigenous communities.

Thanks you very much for your time and consideration.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleagues, the made revisions are relevant, the abstract reads very good I have suggested some few amendments but the one with RWH is not mandatory. You could consider that in future works.

Sincerely!

Reviewer

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks again for the opportunity to third times revise and resubmit our manuscripts (Manuscript ID: sustainability-650342). We made a careful revisions according to reviewer's comments. In following we detailed how we addressed our paper a point-by-point response to reviewers' comments. We did keep tack changes during our revision.   

 

We appreciate your anticipation and look forward to hear from you.

 

Reviewer -1 Comments

This scoping review is focused on Indigenous sustainability issues in relation to surrounding pipeline spills/leaks, impacts on drinking water and Indigenous communities in Western Canada (please delete).

Author Response: Thanks, we did this change.

 

This reviewed has a minor suggestion. For drinking water issues, the authors can suggest Rainwater Harvesting (RWH) coupled to a green disinfection technology using metallic iron filters. The University of Regina presented interesting works around 2010 thereon (Gottinger 2010). Rationale: RWH is a known efficient tool and the management of biological contamination by iron filters makes Water Supply for Indigenous easier or at least less dependent on Pipeline Spills. Installing such decentralized systems everywhere could be part of “Energy Justice”. There are certainly ancestral tools for RWH in those community and also for water conservation.

 

Author Response: We sincerely appreciate for this important suggestion, and we will incorporate with our ongoing study. While this suggestion is very appropriate, our scoping review did not suggest this issue, therefore we can not include this in this paper. However, we definitively will consult this issue with community for our ongoing study. Thanks again for this suggestion.

.

Keywords: Energy; Indigenous; Pipeline Spills; Scoping Review; Sustainability; Indigenous Drinking Water (Could be alphabetically ordered!)

Author Response: Thanks, we did this change.

 

The following sentence comes twice: “The authors adopt a decolonizing perspective that recognizes the uniqueness of Canada’s Indigenous peoples, and their customs, necessarily privileging Indigenous perspectives, and the importance of Indigenous knowledge.”

Author Response: Thanks, we did this change.

 

The first sentences could be part of the introduction, announcing the work. The methodology starts with: “Our scoping review in this paper was used according to our keywords listed on Table 1” Please reword the following: “Our scoping review in this paper was used according to our keywords listed on Table 1, because we wanted to see how previous studies focused on Indigenous sustainability issues in relation to Indigenous issues, assess the quality of these studies, and review their conclusion.”

Author Response: Thanks, we did these changes.

Thanks you very much for your time and consideration.