Generation of Potential Sites for Sustainable Water Harvesting Techniques in Oum Zessar Watershed, South East Tunisia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

sustainability-1668750

Title: Generation of potential sites for sustainable water harvesting techniques in Oum Zessar watershed, South East Tunisia

1. The subject is interesting, but some major revisions should be considered. Also, please, start revision in MS-Word> Review menu, while the track change is on for the rapid referee in the next stage.
2. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. Add some stronger conclusions to it.
3. Add some quantified results in the abstract. Add some content with a percentage that is comparable.
4. Put some photos about water harvesting in the region such as Jessour and Tabias, gabion, recharge wells,.... refer to papers “Site suitability analysis for subsurface dams using Boolean and fuzzy logic in arid watersheds” and “Spatial Modeling Considering valley’s Shape and Rural Satisfaction in Check Dams Site Selection and Water Harvesting in the Watershed”
5. Maps margins for more clarification should change to DMS, not UTM.
6. Add hillshade on the watershed for more clarification.
7. Fig 3 had bad quality.
8. Table 3 should has a reference column for each row or criterion.
9. It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction. At the end of the introduction add a para including 1-Gaps in the backgrounds you try to fill them, 2-your novelty and unique aspects 3-Hypothesis 4-Objectives.
10. Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, hypothesis retain/reject, limitations, implications/applications, advantages/disadvantages, policies, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for your constructive comments, please see below a response to each comment made (in italics).

1. The subject is interesting, but some major revisions should be considered. Also, please, start revision in MS-Word> Review menu, while the track change is on for the rapid referee in the next stage.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we submitted the revised manuscript in two versions: clean and with track changes respectively.

2. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand-alone. Add some stronger conclusions to it.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we revised the abstract lines 14-27 as follows:

Water harvesting techniques (WHTs) are important climate change adaptation measures to better manage rainwater for domestic and agricultural purposes, but which WHT to plan where is subject to sustainability considerations. Moreover, suitability of different WHTs varies from one location to another, depending on physical and socio-economic conditions. This study aimed to identify suitable sites for WHTs taking into account stakeholders’ sustainability criteria. In a participatory assessment framework, Geographic Information Systems and the “Simple Multi-Attribute Rating Technique” were combined to generate suitability maps and to guide sustainable WHTs investments. Steps included the calculation of a sustainability index for a set of traditional and newly introduced WHTs from the perspective of two stakeholder groups, farmers and decision makers, and its integration with layers of biophysical constraints. An application of the framework in the Oum Zessar watershed, southeast Tunisia, shows that traditional techniques are the most suitable and sustainable for farmers and fall within the highly suitable class in 76.4% of the total area, while decision makers prefer innovative techniques that are highly suitable in 80.4% of the watershed. The framework offers a scalable transparent process for knowledge integration in support of WHT investment decisions that can be adapted to other dryland areas. 

3. Add some quantified results in the abstract. Add some content with a percentage that is comparable.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added a comparable percentage in line 22-25 as follows:

An application of the framework in the Oum Zessar watershed, southeast Tunisia, shows that traditional techniques are the most suitable and sustainable for farmers and fall within the highly suitable class in 76.4% of the total area, while decision makers prefer innovative techniques that are highly suitable in 80.4% of the watershed.

4. Put some photos about water harvesting in the region such as Jessour and Tabias, gabion, recharge wells,.... refer to papers “Site suitability analysis for subsurface dams using Boolean and fuzzy logic in arid watersheds” and “Spatial Modeling Considering valley’s Shape and Rural Satisfaction in Check Dams Site Selection and Water Harvesting in the Watershed”

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added a Figure 3 in line 193 with photos about water harvesting in the region such as Jessour, Tabias, and gabion recharge wells.

5. Maps margins for more clarification should change to DMS, not UTM.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we provided revised coordinate systems for Figures 1 and 12.

6. Add hillshade on the watershed for more clarification.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, reviewer’s comment we added hillshade on the watershed in Figure 1

7. Fig 3 had bad quality.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we changed Figure 3 (now Figure 6).

1. Table 3 should has a reference column for each row or criterion.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we mentioned in a note to Table 3 (now Table 2) the source of scoring.

9. It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction. At the end of the introduction add a para including 1-Gaps in the backgrounds you try to fill them, 2-your novelty and unique aspects 3-Hypothesis 4-Objectives.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we revised/rearranged the introduction in line 98-108 as follows:

This study aims at identifying suitable sites for sustainable traditional and newly in-troduced WHTs in Oum Zessar watershed. A GIS-based Multi-Attribute Rating Tech-nique, which combines feasibility criteria and a sustainability index (SI), was used. The objective was twofold: 1) to promote stakeholder participation in decision-making concerning water resources management that enhances decision efficiency and im-proves acceptance of WHTs; and 2) to integrate sustainability criteria in the suitability maps for traditional and newly introduced WHTs. It is assumed that preferences of farmers and decision makers in terms of sustainability evaluation of traditional and innovative WHTs diverge, and that the approach taken can help reach better IWRM decisions. In the following sections, we first present the study area and our methodo-logical approach (section 2), with results and discussion following in sections 3 and 4. Finally, conclusions are drawn in section 5.

10. Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, hypothesis retain/reject, limitations, implications/applications, advantages/disadvantages, policies, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

In response to reviewers (1 & 2) comments, we revised the conclusion as follows - lines 433-463:

Water harvesting techniques are promising techniques to deal with water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions. WHTs could be a component of an integrated land and water management strategy to cope with climate change and to promote social, economic and environmental sustainability. Nonetheless, engaging stakeholders in the identification of suitable areas while integrating a sustainability assessment remains a challenging task. This study adds to the existing literature on water resources planning by defining and integrating a sustainability index evaluated by stakeholders to generate WHT suitability maps. The main findings of this study are as follows:

First, results showed that farmers are more attached to the traditional small-scale WHTs and paid low attention to innovative techniques while decision makers are more interested in large structures, applicable at large scale. This requires decision makers to carefully reconsider the merits of traditional WHTs and to  integrate and disseminate among farmers the knowledge and practices derived from trans/interdisciplinary approach to facilitate, share and upscale good practice in water harvesting.

Second, results illustrate that farmers recognized social and environmental importance of WHTs other than just financial gains. Indeed, future investigation can incorporate such sustainability criteria into modelling approaches to enlarge the scope for more inclusive and sustainable solutions to water management issues.

Third, conducting a participatory approach that involves farmers and policy makers to identify suitability maps for WHTs is important for enhancing transparency of the planning process and improving acceptance and fuller implementation of the selected WHTs. Participatory approaches are deemed essential for enhancing collaboration and can also lead to establishment of social networks for water management at local level.

Overall, this study demonstrated that the combination of a multi-attribute decision making approach and GIS tools offers a powerful tool to identify the most sustainable water harvesting techniques and the most suitable areas for their implementation. Suitability maps are useful for decision makers for an efficient planning to ensure sustainable water supply for agricultural uses and to recharge the aquifers used for drinking water and for the tourism sector. Since the methodology and the analyses demonstrated in this study have generic applicability, they are also very useful for other parts of the world, particularly for arid and semi-arid regions.  

Reviewer 2 Report

Generation of potential sites for sustainable water harvesting 2 techniques in Oum Zessar watershed, South East Tunisia

Authors have introduced an interesting research based on identification of potential sites for sustainable water harvesting for some parts of Tunisia. However, while stating it is interesting, there is an issue of its novelty. I would rather like this to be a case report. Anyhow, I will let the editor to decide it. In addition, I have several concerns on the paper and stated below.

Presentation: The authors have generally presented their research work well.

Highlights – If you are introducing highlights, then the each point has to be self-explanatory to your research content. Unfortunately, I can’t find such.

For example: Highlight 1 is well known and how that can be one of your research highlights? Highlight 2 is a continuation of Highlight 1? If that is the case, why don’t you simply combine them and state a meaningful highlight.

Abstract: Jessour and Tabia – You need to tell what these are, if not the reader is lost in the abstract. Generally the other sections of the abstract are fine.

Introduction:  Can the authors present what has/had been done in other parts of the world? Specially in related work in other regions?

Materials and methods: “361 km2” – please make a note on these small typos. You need to state them correctly. In addition, some words are suddenly in bold texture. Why is that?

2.2 Before you state steps, it is better to give the clear explanations of SCI. Your whole research is based on this SCI. However, you have not given enough consideration for this in the beginning of the paper. I would rather give a short introduction on SCI before I state the steps. Then, the reader knows what this SCI is and how it can be used.

Figure 3: No one can read it.

Results: “Twelve farmers and eight decision makers participated in the weighting and scoring 273 session of different”

When you have 12 number of responders, how do you generalize it? Please work on this. Can this be controversial with higher participants? What are your thoughts on this? A discussion would be important of the number of participants.

Figure 6: Can we see any variance in contributions from each cluster. To me very little. Can you discuss this?

Can you have one section for Results and discussion?

Conclusion: Need to be more strong on your findings and the usability of this into the other areas.

Turnitin scores are at 21% and I think, the authors can reduce that to 20%.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for the constructive comments. Below, please find a reply to each comment made (in italics).

1. Authors have introduced an interesting research based on identification of potential sites for sustainable water harvesting for some parts of Tunisia. However, while stating it is interesting, there is an issue of its novelty. I would rather like this to be a case report. Anyhow, I will let the editor to decide it. In addition, I have several concerns on the paper and stated below.

Presentation: The authors have generally presented their research work well.

 In response to the reviewer’s comment, we think that article in Sustainability are either “articles” or “reviews”. Hence we think our submission as “article” is appropriate.

2. Highlights – If you are introducing highlights, then the each point has to be self-explanatory to your research content. Unfortunately, I can’t find such.

For example: Highlight 1 is well known and how that can be one of your research highlights? Highlight 2 is a continuation of Highlight 1? If that is the case, why don’t you simply combine them and state a meaningful highlight.

 In response to the editor’s comment, we deleted the Highlights so this comment is no longer relevant.

3. Abstract: Jessour and Tabia – You need to tell what these are, if not the reader is lost in the abstract. Generally the other sections of the abstract are fine.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we used traditional and innovative water harvesting techniques instead of Tabia and Jessour in the abstract. In the manuscript, we used references and added definitions (Table 1), and photos (Figure 3) to explain what these are.

4. Introduction:  Can the authors present what has/had been done in other parts of the world? Specially in related work in other regions?

In response to the reviewer’s comments, we rewrote the first two paragraphs of the Introduction. The main references to work in other regions are in the following section in lines 51-60:

Several studies have attempted to evaluate sustainability of water resources systems using a sustainability index (SI) [17-20]. Reliability, resilience, and vulnerability are the most commonly used criteria for evaluating SI.

Given the crucial role of WHTs for local stakeholders, it is striking that they are often not involved in the evaluation process. Several authors [21-23] argued that stakeholder engagement is needed to guarantee the sustainability of WHTs. In the context of enhancing participation of stakeholders and dealing with sustainability assessment, multi-criteria analysis can be useful to evaluate a set of decision alternatives by stake-holders and to deal with conflicting goals [18, 19].

5. Materials and methods: “361 km2” – please make a note on these small typos. You need to state them correctly. In addition, some words are suddenly in bold texture. Why is that?

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we corrected typos and words with bold texture.

6. Before you state steps, it is better to give the clear explanations of SCI. Your whole research is based on this SCI. However, you have not given enough consideration for this in the beginning of the paper. I would rather give a short introduction on SCI before I state the steps. Then, the reader knows what this SCI is and how it can be used.

In response to the reviewer’s comment, we added a paragraph at line 197-204:

Sustainability is a complex and multidimensional concept. Numerous indicators and indices are used to evaluate sustainability [47]. The use of a composite index is useful to enable policy monitoring, public communication, and generation of rankings [10,52,53]. However, even if an index is simple to understand and analyse, it is difficult to formulate. SI represents an aggregate measure of a combination of performance measures, or in other words, an index is a “synthesis of numerous factors into one given factor” [48-50]. Its construction requires “several choices, namely the selection of variables, methods of aggregation, normalization, and weighting to apply” [51] .

7. Figure 3: No one can read it.

In response to the reviewer’s comment we readjusted the figure (now Figure 6).

8. Results: “Twelve farmers and eight decision makers participated in the weighting and scoring 273 session of different”

When you have 12 number of responders, how do you generalize it? Please work on this. Can this be controversial with higher participants? What are your thoughts on this? A discussion would be important of the number of participants.

In response to reviewer’s comments, we added a paragraph at line 169-175:

 To deal with the problem of representativeness and upscaling we started first by identifying a representative sub-catchment for each compartment of the watershed (up-, mid- and downstream). Four farmers from each sub-catchment were selected to participate within the framework of project workshops. The main selection criteria for participants was a strong background and knowledge about WHTs. In total, 24 stake-holders were targeted: i) five scientists; ii) five decision makers; iii) two representatives of NGOs; iv) twelve farmers.

And a paragraph in the discussion section line 407-412:

Furthermore, we noticed a high level of agreement between stakeholders (12 farmers or 8 decision makers) in terms of sustainability assessment. Indeed, an ex-change of arguments and an open discussion between different groups as a follow up to the first scoring session lead to adjustments of the final choices and establishment of a common agreement between and within groups of involved stakeholders. Consequently, it gives an indication that further increasing the number of respondents will likely not lead to different results.

9. Figure 6: Can we see any variance in contributions from each cluster. To me very little. Can you discuss this?

In response to reviewer’s comments,  we have rewritten paragraph line 301-316 as follows (note that Figure 6 is now Figure 8):

Sustainability performances of the three dimensions are slightly different (Figure 8). Social sustainability presented the best performance among the three dimensions (the contribution of Social sustainability in the SI is accounting approximately for 40%), followed by economic sustainability (the contribution of economic sustainability in the SI is accounting approximately for 33%), and environmental sustainability (the contribution of environmental sustainability in the SI is accounting approximately for 28%). Sustainability evaluations of farmers and decision makers largely align. Subtle divergences between sustainability performances of the three dimensions and convergences between sustainability evaluation of farmers and decision makers can be explained as follows. Farmers value social sustainability based on their own need to re-duce unemployment rate and reinforce food security. The contribution of the environmental dimension to the SI was the lowest for farmers and decision makers in the different locations. In fact, the Tunisian revolution (14 January 2011) initiated a change in the socio-political and economic systems that created the need to re-think and adapt existing development strategies. Income disparity was assumed by stake-holders to increase, leading to higher poverty rates and social issues..

10. Can you have one section for Results and discussion?

In response to reviewer’s comments, we think that it is clearer to keep results and discussion separate given that in this research we devoted discussion part to come up with more generalized results while the results section is focused on the technical outcomes.

11. Conclusion: Need to be more strong on your findings and the usability of this into the other areas.

 In response to reviewer’s comments, we have rewritten the conclusion on lines 433-463 as below:

Water harvesting techniques are promising techniques to deal with water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions. WHTs could be a component of an integrated land and water management strategy to cope with climate change and to promote social, economic and environmental sustainability. Nonetheless, engaging stakeholders in the identification of suitable areas while integrating a sustainability assessment remains a challenging task. This study adds to the existing literature on water resources planning by defining and integrating a sustainability index evaluated by stakeholders to generate WHT suitability maps. The main findings of this study are as follows:

First, results showed that farmers are more attached to the traditional small-scale WHTs and paid low attention to innovative techniques while decision makers are more interested in large structures, applicable at large scale. This requires decision makers to carefully reconsider the merits of traditional WHTs and to  integrate and disseminate among farmers the knowledge and practices derived from trans/interdisciplinary approach to facilitate, share and upscale good practice in water harvesting.

Second, results illustrate that farmers recognized social and environmental importance of WHTs other than just financial gains. Indeed, future investigation can incorporate such sustainability criteria into modelling approaches to enlarge the scope for more inclusive and sustainable solutions to water management issues.

Third, conducting a participatory approach that involves farmers and policy makers to identify suitability maps for WHTs is important for enhancing transparency of the planning process and improving acceptance and fuller implementation of the selected WHTs. Participatory approaches are deemed essential for enhancing collaboration and can also lead to establishment of social networks for water management at local level.

Overall, this study demonstrated that the combination of a multi-attribute decision making approach and GIS tools offers a powerful tool to identify the most sustainable water harvesting techniques and the most suitable areas for their implementation. Suitability maps are useful for decision makers for an efficient planning to ensure sustainable water supply for agricultural uses and to recharge the aquifers used for drinking water and for the tourism sector. Since the methodology and the analyses demonstrated in this study have generic applicability, they are also very useful for other parts of the world, particularly for arid and semi-arid regions.  

12. Turnitin scores are at 21% and I think, the authors can reduce that to 20%.

 In response to reviewer’s comment, we think that an unpublished research report by the same authors in the framework of WAHARA project may have caused similarities. In addition, as we have added explanation the Turnitin score may have slightly reduced.

Procedure of Water harvesting technologies evaluation and selection – Oum Zessar watershed Tunisia case study – Authors: Abdeladhim.M. A, M. Ouessar, M. Sghaier.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. I had reviewed this before and the authors just corrected some. I make red and bold some should consider again.
2. The subject is interesting, but some major revisions should be considered. Also, please, start revision in MS-Word> Review menu, while the track change is on for the rapid referee in the next stage.
3. The abstract should state briefly the purpose of the research, the principal results, and major conclusions. An abstract is often presented separately from the article, so it must be able to stand alone. Add some stronger conclusions to it.
4. Add some quantified results in the abstract. Add some content with a percentage that is comparable.
5. Put some photos about water harvesting in the region such as Jessour and Tabias, gabion, recharge wells,.... cite in discussion and background “Jamali, A. A., Randhir, T. O., & Nosrati, J. (2018). Site suitability analysis for subsurface dams using Boolean and fuzzy logic in arid watersheds. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 144(8), 04018047.” and cite “Jamali, A. A., & Ghorbani Kalkhajeh, R. (2020). Spatial modeling considering valley’s shape and rural satisfaction in check dams site selection and water harvesting in the watershed. Water Resources Management, 34(10), 3331-3344.”  
6. Maps margins for more clarification should change to DMS, not UTM.
7. Add hillshade on the watershed for more clarification.
8. Fig 3 had bad quality.
9. Table 3 should have a reference column for each row or criterion.
10. It is suggested to present the structure of the article at the end of the introduction. At the end of the introduction add a para including 1-Gaps in the backgrounds you try to fill them, 2-your novelty and unique aspects 3-Hypothesis 4-Objectives.
11. Please make sure your conclusions section underscores the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results, as indicated previously. Please revise your conclusion part into more detail. Basically, you should enhance your contributions, hypothesis retain/reject, limitations, implications/applications, advantages/disadvantages, policies, underscore the scientific value added to your paper, and/or the applicability of your findings/results and future study in this session.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Revisions are acknowledged. 

Author Response

Thank you for your effort in reviewing our paper, and we are pleased to hear you deem our responses adequate.