Building Climate Change Adaptation Scenarios with Stakeholders for Water Management: A Hybrid Approach Adapted to the South Indian Water Crisis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is quite interesting, and would capture a wider readers. However, I have the following comments for improvement:

1. I see a bit of mis-match between the title and abstract of the MS. I would suggest revising the entire 'abstract section' by focussing on an overview of the research. To me, doesn't give a specific and a larger outcome of a research. I suggest a complete rewrite!
2. The introduction section could be improved further by state-of-the art review.
3. Under materials and methods, kindly include a site map (geospatial location) and a bit of a "case study" that has been mentioned.
4. Under various ABASS development and steps, some of the methods/procedures/processes/ warrant references. I am sure there will be many references on the steps and various components of ABASS processes. For example, references for the use of ZADA methods, participatory approaches, etc.....
5. Under the results section, the authors could think of presenting the findings only. Authors, Please think of including few pertinent results of the research, rather than having unnecessary inclusions, such as 'stakeholders' identification as result. I do not know if stakeholder identification is a result of this exercise, since it is also covered under the previous section. Please revise accordingly. Also figures require improvement. Figure 3 is totally hazy and would have to improve its resolution!
6. Another very pertinent issue that i spotted in this MS is that it talks abut policy but the 'policies' mentioned therein are more of strategies and i would like to recommend major revision. For exampleBuilding infrastructure to harvest water, to my knowledge could be a strategy, and cannot qualify to be a policy....Pls review other points as well (Table 1).
7. Under the discussion section, most of the climate chnage impacts lack references. I guess there is no dearth of information, specific to India, or the countries in the region. Also, kindly think of presenting the discussions in a logical sequences. It is well written but will benefit from proper sequencing of information.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting problem integrating the fields of physico-geographical, socio-economic and sociological issues.
The methodology used is correct.
The argument is logical and convincing.
The selection of literature corresponds very well with the content.
The article is of great practical importance thanks to the use of interdisciplinary knowledge and "The third step that involves local stakeholders, mainly policy-makers, or those who influence public development policies".

 

minor attention

Chapter 2.1. Study area should be supplemented with a map with the location of the research area.

Figure 1 Simplify the drawing - get rid of italics. The use of black, green and blue backgrounds should also be considered (refer to Figure 1 and Figure 4, 5). Why Black for Resource - Rainfall water, Surface water and Groundwater? Color should not be accidental. Color should support the content. In cartography and other studies, water is presented in blue. If the article will be published in shades of gray, it is also worth considering it properly. A more intense shade is, for example, 'importance level'.

Figure 3 is hardly legible. Larger fonts should be used.

The conclusions should also mention the versatility of this method. So about the possibility of using this method in other parts of India and in the world in general.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The proposed methodology and results, presented in the manuscript named  "Building climate change adaptation scenarios with stakeholders for water management: a hybrid approach adapted to the South Indian water crisis", looks consistent and innovative in my opinion. 

My only concern is the connection between what is been said in the text and what is presented in all figures. In my opinion, there is little connection between all the information presented in figures and the discussion/explanation of methods applied in the manuscript. 

I would rewrite the manuscript focusing on the information presented in each figure. For example, in figures 3 and 4 a lot of information regarding both, the "Assumption tree" ( in figure 3) and Stakeholders resources and interactions which are not explained in the text. 

In my opinion, all this vast knowledge on each step (presented in figures 3 and 4), for building the later discussed, "participatory approach" and the "relevance of stakeholder`s scenarios" needs further and deeper detailed explanation and discussion. 

With that I believe the manuscript should be published.

Best regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

I have gone through the MS and quite happy that you were able to add/make some necessary changes under different sections. For further improvement, I have the following concerns:

1. The abstract section looks much better, but i see there are many abbreviations. If the authors expand each of the abbreviations in their first use, it might make the abstract quite lengthy. Therefore, may I suggest the authors to think of having the abbreviations in brackets, as in line no. 20?. For this, authors might have to alter the sentences a bit but I am sure this is not so difficult! Also, please check if this journal accepts abbreviations.

2. I see that the figure (esp Fig 4) has improved and it is at least legible now, but try if the resolution could be improved further because various parts of the figure are still not clear/do not stand out!

 

3. I am still not convinced with the authors' response on the issue of "policy vs strategy?.... I am clear with authors explanation, but i still feel that every single strategy or activity (such as contruction of a dam) cannot be a policy. A policy should be able to holistically cover certain aspects/numbers of strategies. But I leave this to the editor.

Regarding the sequencing of information flow, it is alright if the authors donot want because we have different perceptions.

 

So all the best and hope to see this paper published soon.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx