Revisiting a Water Conflict in Southeastern Oklahoma 6 Years Later: A New Valuation of the Willingness to Pay for Ecosystem Services
, Michelle Busch 2,†, Edward Higgins 2,3,†, Steven Bittner 2,†, Nuwanthika Perera 2,3,†, Kevin Neal 1,†, Lawrence Burkett 1, Antonio J. Castro 4,5 and Christopher Anderson 6Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The attached file contains all the comments.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The purpose of the paper is interesting and laudable, since it addresses ecosystem services from a not very common perspective.
1) The paper lacks any originality, since it is based on a surveying method created and applied in 2013 to the same case study. Consequently, I cannot see any merit in this work to make it publishable in a scientific journal. An update in the results obtained some years ago for the same case study does not justify the suitability of this report to be published as a scientific paper.
2) Lines 215-223. The use of statistical tests is not properly justified. The use of one test or another should be preceded by checking the distribution patterns of the samples, in order to determine whether parametric or non-parametric tests must be applied.
3) Apparently, the use of the Wilcoxon test does not make sense in this case, since it is targeted to related samples. I would say that the proper test to use is Mann-Whitney. Also, the Spearman correlation coefficient might be more suitable than linear regression if there are semi-quantitative variables involved.
4) The acronym for AIC is not provided. I assume this is the Akaike Information Criterion.
5) Line 270. Please, specifiy the post-hoc test used and why: Bonferroni, Scheffé, Tukey...?
6) Conclusions: they are a reptition of the abstract and the results achieved. What about the limitations, implications and future lines of research derived from this work?
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In my opinion the manuscript seems suitable to be published in the Sustainability after suggested changes (See Information for Authors).
The article addresses an important and interesting issue of ecosystem services in water management. It is also an interesting attempt to evaluate WTP after six years in the same region. However the authors could have better ensured comparability of results. Only 242 responses were collected in a newer study. It is more than half less than in the old study (505). The methodology of the first study and the characteristics of the group of respondents should be described in more detail.
The work should contains information on the number of inhabitants, including the administrative division and with the reference to the divisions used at work (e.g. residents near the river).
How you tried to ensure the representativeness of the group of respondents. What level of significance was adopted?
Please explain in more detail how was political participation measured?
“More surveys were completed by residents of Cleveland, Oklahoma, and Tulsa counties (49.5%)” – please show respondents place of residence on the map (in the form of cartodiagram.
The paper should present newer data on the area development structure (not from 2011).
I suggest using abbreviation M.A. (metropolitan area) instead of “metro” used in the manuscript.
Fig. 1. Please indicate on the map mentioned in the text (two dams and Sardis and Hugo Lakes and also Lake Atoka …).
Annex 1. Please correct the illegible signatures under the charts.
The OKC shortcut has not been introduced by post.
The section Introduction should refer to more publications describing ecosystem services in water management also in Europe (i.e. some authors in Poland: A. Mizgajski, J. Kronenberg, K. Mrozik at all). It would be worth extending the issue of conflicts between the upper and lower course of the river.
The conclusions should be presented in points (if possible) and clearly indicate the need for further research.
In addition, please adjust the manuscript text to editorial requirements (citations – numbers, not dates in brackets.
There are also some small mistakes and typos at work.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is well-revised. I accept the manuscript in it present form.
Author Response
Reviewer,
Thank you again for your feedback during the revision process.
Sincerely,
Claire Burch
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors are commended for their efforts to improve the manuscript. I am now satisfied with it in its current condition and think it is ready to be published.
Author Response
Reviewer,
Thank you again for your feedback during the revision process.
Sincerely,
Claire Burch
