Management Models and the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: An Analytical Investigation in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
REVIEW
General Comment
The paper presents an interesting case study regarding the influence of water supply management on its sustainability. However, some points could be better explained to provide the readers an easier understanding of the methodology and results. In addition, the discussions of the results are too shallow, they just report the values obtained. It should weigh what are the causes to achieve these values. I also think some of the conclusions could be biased by the lack of normalization of some data. Finally, I think the authors have to clarify in the abstract and the introduction sections what is the novelty to the current available researches that the paper is providing. As it is, maybe the paper would be better suited for the “Case Study” type.
Specific Comments
1. Introduction
The introduction needs to be improved in two major points: i) the authors have to clearly define what they consider “sustainable”, as several definitions can be used for this; and ii) explain better how the management model affect the water supply: it affects social, economic or technical aspects?
Line 28 – define UNICEF and WHO
Line 34 – it could be useful for readers to detail the differences of “water, sanitation and hygiene”
Line 40 – it should be clear what the authors consider as “sustainable” as this is the major goal of the paper
Line 44 – highlight advantages/disadvantages of each model
Line 45 – if the problem is widely discussed, why there is no examples and citations here?
2. Management Models and Sustainability Assessment of Rural Water Supply: a Review
2.1. Management models of rural water supply
This section must be improved showing examples and discussing in more detail why one or other model would be implemented, and again, what are the advantages/disadvantages. As subsection of a “Review” section, there is a lack of citations here to support the text.
2.2. Sustainability of water supply systems
Line 107 – what is “organizational sustainability”?
Line 117 – what is the difference between “water service” and “water supply”?
3. Rural Water Supply and Management Models in Vietnam
This section describes very well the rural water supply models in Vietnam. My major suggestion here is to add some examples (with references) with a short discussion for each model to the readers have better understand of the Vietnam scenario.
Line 150 – explain and if possible exemplify these conditions
Line 156 – defining UNICEF previously only the acronym can be used here
Line 190 – number each topic as a subtopic, for e.g.: “3.1. Community Management Model”
Line 271 – create a summary or discussion subsection about the models
Line 277 – these lifespans are correct? No system is between 15-20 years?
Line 279 – what the authors mean by “dynamic pumping station”? Is this different of a normal pumping station?
Line 291 – if possible, replace table 2 for maps showing the percentage of each model by region. Also, what is “Q” in the table? Number of systems? If yes, I think these columns could be removed and maintain only the percentage column
4. Methodology
Line 365 – I think this is the most important part of the paper, and there is a lack of information about how these scores were given. Is this subjective, given by the authors and experts? The indicators provided table 3 are all qualitative, as no reference is given to what is desirable (e.g.: what is a “modest value for water losses”?). The procedure adopted to give the score should be very detailed, as well of what indicators and benchmarking values were used to establish the limits of High, moderate and low sustainability. In my opinion, a quantitative approach should be used here to avoid any kind of bias.
Line 390 – remove this paragraph, it is the same as the text above
Line 437 – table 5 should be cited on the text
5. Results and Discussion
5.1. Data
Line 454 – figure 2 has a poor quality
Line 471 – the 52 systems represent what percentage of the total systems of the region? This information should be presented here.
5.2. Results and discussion
Line 484 – present the standard deviation also in percentage in table 6. The same for the mean values (relate to the maximum value), as this can clearly indicate which parameter is closer to the desirable conditions
Line 488 – “accept” should be “except”?
Line 499 – considering the percentage, “Environmental” is the highest one. As discussed previously, it confirms the interest of the systems to preserve the water sources. I think that for this comparison among the indicators, the weight should not be considered
Line 510 – if possible, replace figure 3 with a map with colored dots representing the sustainability category of the system. This could also provide a possible relation between the sustainability and geographical location in this region
Line 518 – present the standard deviation also in percentage in table 7
Line 520 – this paragraph is almost useless, all the information is in table 7. Only the final comments about investments should be maintained
Line 539 – table 8 should be better explained. This paragraph is quite confusing, and only with the examples below it is possible to understand its meaning
Line 569 – I think these, design_cap and performance examples, could be removed, maintaining only the model_type. In addition, what “increase by a unit” means? Is this a normalized value? Because, increase a unit in design cap would be much less relevant than increase a unit in lifespan for example. Please explain this
Line 594 – the same as table 8. I think these results could be presented in a different way to attract the readers, providing an easy understanding of what was achieved
Line 597 – I think the text from here to the end of the section is unnecessary. The authors should discuss the results, not only relate the values achieved. For example: what are the most relevant variables? Why design_cap and model_type has negative impact until the sustainable condition? Why invest_rate has a negative value for the sustainable condition? For low sustainable system it would be recommended to improve the invest_rate first, as it is the only with positive value? If yes, what could be the implications in the future? These are just a few examples of what could be explored with the results presented
Author Response
23 May 2023
Dear Professor
The reviewer for the Journal of Sustainability
We thank you very much for your insightful comments on the manuscript entitled “Management Models and the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: An Analytical Investigation in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam” submitted to the Journal of Sustainability with the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2388292. We have carefully taken into account individual comments and made major revisions to the manuscript. We hope our revisions address key points from you. We think that thanks for the comments from you, the quality of the manuscript has been much improved.
We believe that the results presented in this manuscript would add to the literature in the field of rural water supply. The weighing method for sustainability assessment of rural water systems proposed in this paper helps to clarify the importance of each sustainability dimension is taken into account in different contexts. In addition, the application of ordered logit regression model would help to indicate the relationship between the management models and other characteristics (independent variables) and the sustainability of the water systems (dependent variable). We think that the paper provides some lessons learnt for researchers and practitioners in the field of rural water supply in selecting appropriate approaches to assess the sustainability of water systems and policy makers in modifying current polices toward more sustainable development of water infrastructure in the future, especially in developing countries.
We thank you again for your comments and that is highly appreciated.
With best regards,
Truong Duc Toan (PhD)
Department of Economics
Thuyloi University
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dang Ngoc Hanh (PhD)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dao Thi Thu (MSc)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
In addition to the 52 water supply systems in the Vietnamese province of Ha Nam, comparisons could be made with those in other provinces of Vietnam.
What about the physico-chemical quality of the drinking water produced? Was the drinking water quality the same in all 52 cases? Is it a parameter that was considered in the methodologies and models used?
If possible, it could be interesting to indicate which of the systems generates the lowest carbon footprint.
Author Response
23 May 2023
Dear Professor
The reviewer for the Journal of Sustainability
We thank you very much for your insightful comments on the manuscript entitled “Management Models and the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: An Analytical Investigation in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam” submitted to the Journal of Sustainability with the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2388292. We have carefully taken into account individual comments and made major revisions to the manuscript. We hope our revisions address key points from you. We think that thanks for the comments from you, the quality of the manuscript has been much improved.
We believe that the results presented in this manuscript would add to the literature in the field of rural water supply. The weighing method for sustainability assessment of rural water systems proposed in this paper helps to clarify the importance of each sustainability dimension is taken into account in different contexts. In addition, the application of ordered logit regression model would help to indicate the relationship between the management models and other characteristics (independent variables) and the sustainability of the water systems (dependent variable). We think that the paper provides some lessons learnt for researchers and practitioners in the field of rural water supply in selecting appropriate approaches to assess the sustainability of water systems and policy makers in modifying current polices toward more sustainable development of water infrastructure in the future, especially in developing countries.
We thank you again for your comments and that is highly appreciated.
With best regards,
Truong Duc Toan (PhD)
Department of Economics
Thuyloi University
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dang Ngoc Hanh (PhD)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dao Thi Thu (MSc)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This manuscript attempts to investigate the relationship between management models and the sustainability of rural water supply systems, which is an interesting study. However, I think this manuscript is very much like a report, and there is a certain gap between it and a scientific paper. It is not suitable for publication at present, for the following reasons:
The abstract lacks information about the results obtained in this manuscript, and it is not clear that this manuscript is innovative.
The introduction looks similar to the abstract. I don't see the importance of the problem studied, nor do I know what has been reported and how to fill the Gap with the research content of this manuscript.
In my opinion, there is no logical difference between the review in Section 3 and Section 2, which should be considered in one section.
In the section on Methodology, I do not see how to apply the Ordered Logit regression model, especially regarding the determination of variables such as π in Eq.2.
The logical structure is confusing. Section 5.1 should not appear in Section 5. The title of subsection 5.2 duplicates the title of subsection 5, which is clearly unacceptable.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
23 May 2023
Dear Professor
The reviewer for the Journal of Sustainability
We thank you very much for your insightful comments on the manuscript entitled “Management Models and the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: An Analytical Investigation in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam” submitted to the Journal of Sustainability with the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2388292. We have carefully taken into account individual comments and made major revisions to the manuscript. We hope our revisions address key points from you. We think that thanks for the comments from you, the quality of the manuscript has been much improved.
We believe that the results presented in this manuscript would add to the literature in the field of rural water supply. The weighing method for sustainability assessment of rural water systems proposed in this paper helps to clarify the importance of each sustainability dimension is taken into account in different contexts. In addition, the application of ordered logit regression model would help to indicate the relationship between the management models and other characteristics (independent variables) and the sustainability of the water systems (dependent variable). We think that the paper provides some lessons learnt for researchers and practitioners in the field of rural water supply in selecting appropriate approaches to assess the sustainability of water systems and policy makers in modifying current polices toward more sustainable development of water infrastructure in the future, especially in developing countries.
We thank you again for your comments and that is highly appreciated.
With best regards,
Truong Duc Toan (PhD)
Department of Economics
Thuyloi University
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dang Ngoc Hanh (PhD)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dao Thi Thu (MSc)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I just have a few comments that I think are still necessary:
- Figure 2 remains with poor quality
- I still think that a percentage or a normalized value for the parameters has to be presented, as it shows how close to the optimal condition in this parameter a system is. Iam not saying that the parameter will gain importance, it is just to show that in a particular area, there is no room for improvement in a given system. At least the authors could discuss this in the text.
- The term “increase by a unit” is still not clear, as it has different impacts in the parameters due to the limit values of each one
Author Response
1 June 2023
Dear Professor
The reviewer for the Journal of Sustainability
We thank you very much for your insightful comments on the manuscript entitled “Management Models and the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: An Analytical Investigation in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam” submitted to the Journal of Sustainability with the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2388292. We have carefully taken into account your comments and made revisions to the manuscript. We hope our revisions address key points from you. We think that thanks for your comments, the quality of the manuscript is much improved.
We thank you again for your comments and that is highly appreciated.
With best regards,
Truong Duc Toan (PhD)
Department of Economics
Thuyloi University
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dang Ngoc Hanh (PhD)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dao Thi Thu (MSc)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Comments and responses to the comments:
Comments:
I just have a few comments that I think are still necessary:
Response: We thank you for your additional comments to improve the quality of the manuscript.
Comments:
- Figure 2 remains with poor quality
Response: We have inserted another version of the figure with better quality.
Comments:
- I still think that a percentage or a normalized value for the parameters has to be presented, as it shows how close to the optimal condition in this parameter a system is. I am not saying that the parameter will gain importance, it is just to show that in a particular area, there is no room for improvement in a given system. At least the authors could discuss this in the text.
Response: We thank you for your comments. We added the calculation of the percentages and inserted a column in Table 6 then presented the results with clearer explanation about the case study. Some further explanation was aslo added to the manuscript.
Comments:
- The term “increase by a unit” is still not clear, as it has different impacts in the parameters due to the limit values of each one
Response: We have checked and revised the explanation to the term to make it clearer. In addition, we added more interpretation in the text.
Reviewer 3 Report
I think this manuscript has been revised and improved for many times and is close to the standards of Sustainability journal. The expression of the manuscript is clearer and the legibility has improved significantly. However, I still hope that the authors of this manuscript will make some modifications to the logic of the manuscript, the operability of the method and the refinement of the conclusion.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
1 June 2023
Dear Professor
The reviewer for the Journal of Sustainability
We thank you very much for your insightful comments on the manuscript entitled “Management Models and the Sustainability of Rural Water Supply Systems: An Analytical Investigation in Ha Nam Province, Vietnam” submitted to the Journal of Sustainability with the Manuscript ID: sustainability-2388292. We have carefully taken into account your comments and made revisions to the manuscript. We hope our revisions address key points from you. We think that thanks for your comments, the quality of the manuscript has been much improved.
We thank you again for your comments and that is highly appreciated.
With best regards,
Truong Duc Toan (PhD)
Department of Economics
Thuyloi University
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dang Ngoc Hanh (PhD)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Dao Thi Thu (MSc)
Institute for Water Resource Economics and Management
Vietnam Academy for Water Resources
Hanoi, Vietnam
Comments and responses to the comments:
Specific comments:
Comments:
I think this manuscript has been revised and improved for many times and is close to the standards of Sustainability journal. The expression of the manuscript is clearer and the legibility has improved significantly. However, I still hope that the authors of this manuscript will make some modifications to the logic of the manuscript, the operability of the method and the refinement of the conclusion.
Response: We thank you for your comments.
- Regarding the logic of the manuscript we are wondering about the appropriateness of Section 3. Study Area since it comes before the Methodology section. However, by looking at some articles published in Sustainability we saw the same structure. So we would like to keep the structure of the manuscript.
- We have added explanation in more detail to make the operability of the method become clearer.
- We have refined the conclusion and added more implications of the study.
Comments:
Minor editing of English language required.
Response: The manuscript was checked through for English mistakes.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
