The Potential of Wastewater Reuse and the Role of Economic Valuation in the Pursuit of Sustainability: The Case of the Canal de Isabel II
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review on Paper: The potential of water reuse and the role of economic valuation 2 in the pursuit of sustainability: the case of the Canal de Isabel II
Plagiarism – 10 %
Review:
Title
· The title contradicts where in abstract it is mentioned waste water reuse whereas title had water reuse.(title to be changed)
Introduction
· Figure 1 should be in the section of Materials and Methods.
Materials and Result Part:
· The representation of Tabulated values could be better with ROI site images along with map to visualize the Canal de Isabel.
· The tabulated SI units should be properly represented lime m3 instead of m3.
· Use of Pictorial representation will be good for survey based analysis.
· Mentioned Dams Project could have been with pictorial representation in paper.
· Inclusion of socio economic factors along with communities’ survey is important for sustainability.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments to improve our article. We have tried to follow them and have made several modifications. We have modified the title to avoid the contradiction between "water" and "wastewater", we have moved Figure 1 to the Materials and Methods section, where it is mentioned in the text, and we have added Figures in the Results section to facilitate interpretation. In addition, we have introduced some changes in the Discussion section and rewritten the Abstract and Conclusions so that they better reflect the work done and the argumentation of the article.
In the revised article the change control shows them one by one.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The Authors analyze the situation of water reuse in Spain, focusing mainly on regional differences, the financial aspect and the environmental costs and benefits of the activity. They used the general data on water supply and sanitation available on the website of the Spanish National Institute of Statistics, to the data presented in previous works on water productivity and reuse costs and to the public information about the Canal de Isabell II. They conclude that it is possible to stimulate new reuse projects in a significant number of regions in Spain, although the viability of these projects will have an important financial determining factor and it will be necessary to assess the non-financial benefits obtained, especially the reduction of the environmental footprint, to determine whether or not it is advisable to make the necessary investment.
The description of the work is not acceptable. Overall impression is that this manuscript can not be recommended for publication in Sustainability especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. My opinion is that this paper should be REJECTED. However, I would like to point out to several details:
- It is not clear what novelty in paper worth to publish is? There is no new data, new investigation, nothing.
- Abstract should answer the questions: What problem did you study and why is it important? What methods did you use? What were your main results? And what conclusions can you draw from your results? Please make your abstract with more specific and quantitative results while it suits broader audiences. This should be corrected.
- In the conclusions, in addition to summarizing the actions taken and results, please strengthen the explanation of their significance. It is recommended to use quantitative reasoning comparing with appropriate benchmarks, especially those stemming from previous work. This should be corrected.
- English language should be corrected by a professional lector. A proof reading by a native English speaker should be conducted to improve both language and organization quality.
I wish a lot of success to the authors in making this manuscript much better.
With kind regards!
Reviewer
Author Response
Thank you very much for your comments to improve our article, which we have tried to follow. We have made major changes to the abstract and conclusions to better reflect the work done and the argumentation of the article. The aim of this article is to show that there is potential for reuse in practically all of Spain, but that it is not possible without the involvement of the public sector. We exemplify this with a success case from Madrid, where without a complete analysis the result achieved would have been inefficient, but considering the environmental and social benefits, an efficient alternative is chosen. In summary, the article seeks to indicate where and how it is possible to develop water reuse in Spain.
Finally, although we are currently unable to have a professional proofread the text due to time constraints, we have no objection to this being done, so that if the article is accepted for publication we will make further corrections to the writing.
In the revised article the change control shows them one by one.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reviewer is highly appreciate the authors for this work under the title: The potential of water reuse and the role of economic valuation in the pursuit of sustainability: the case of the Canal de Isabel II. This paper presents a good effort for determining potential of water reuse and the role of economic valuation. Some comments which the authors must make to improve the paper as follows:
1- The abstract section is very short, authors must add results of analysis.
2- I would like to thank the authors for the introduction (very good).
3- In section 2. Materials and Methods, 2.2. Materials should come before section 2.1. Methods.
4- The results and discussion sections are very good, but, there is a lack of figures and maps representing the results.
5- Conclusion section is very long, focus should be on the findings of the research results regarding the subject of the study and how to benefit from it.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments made. We have rewritten the abstract and conclusions to better show the work done and the argumentation followed. We have also made changes to the results and discussion, especially adding Figures to make both sections easier to interpret. We have also repositioned the Materials and Methods sections.
In the revised article the change control shows them one by one.
Reviewer 4 Report
Report:
The article '' The potential of water reuse and the role of economic valuation in the pursuit of sustainability: the case of the Canal de Isabel II’’ is written well and I will recommend this manuscript after minor corrections/revision.
Points to be explained
1- There are few minor grammatical, spelling mistakes to be corrected.
2- Put the caption of figure-1 after the figure.
3- WEI+ index. The abbreviation should be explained in the first use.
4- Author should provide reference and permission for all the figures/images, especially for Figure-2 i.e., source of European Environment Agency.
5- Use same reference style throughout the manuscript. Here the author used mixed reference in numbers and name. Like in the paragraph ‘’In the case of industry, the economic yield obtained from water is higher than in agriculture (Maestu et al, 2018)’’.
Author Response
Thank you very much for the comments made. We have checked all Figures (and added new ones) to make sure that all sources and references are correct. All the data we have used are available online on the web pages of public institutions, so there is no problem with their use. We have also checked that all abbreviations are preceded by their meaning on first use. In addition, we have checked the citations so as not to mix between different styles. In any case, if the article is accepted for publication we will work to solve any extra problems with references, Figures or writing.
On the other hand, we have rewritten the abstract and conclusions to better show the work done and the argumentation followed. We have also made changes to the results and discussion, especially adding Figures to make both sections easier to interpret. We have also repositioned the Materials and Methods sections.
In the revised article the change control shows them one by one.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
plagiarism -10%
Result :-
Follow the Uniform Representation of Maps like scale ,direction and outline .
Author Response
ANSWER TO REVIEWER
Comment:
“Follow the Uniform Representation of Maps like scale ,direction and outline”
Response:
Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments that have made it possible to improve our manuscript. We have improved our maps by adding scale and the shape of the wind rose.
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
Interesting results are well presented. The description of the work is acceptable. The length of the manuscript is appropriate. Discussion and conclusion is detailed. In my opinion this manuscript can be PUBLISH in Sustainability especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. The authors correct all suggestions that reviewers gave about article.
I wish a lot of success to the authors.
Regards!
Reviewer
Author Response
ANSWER TO REVIEWER
Comment:
“Interesting results are well presented. The description of the work is acceptable. The length of the manuscript is appropriate. Discussion and conclusion is detailed. In my opinion this manuscript can be PUBLISH in Sustainability especially considering the scope and topics of this journal. The authors correct all suggestions that reviewers gave about article.
I wish a lot of success to the authors.
Regards!”
Response:
Thank you very much. We appreciate your positive feedback and comments that have made it possible to improve our manuscript. We thank you for your interest in our research.
