Why Don’t Scientists Follow the Water Footprint Assessment Manual? Example of One Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Libor Ansorge, after analyzing your wise letter to the editor and the manuscript that is the subject of the letter. I believe that the authors of the manuscript should be informed about it and clarify the significant deviations found. Additionally, they should clarify other points identified by a server regarding the manuscript. Which I do not mention in this report, considering that it is not the subject of analysis.
The letter could be published in its current form, after making some minor corrections to the form and which will not take more than five minutes to adapt:
L56.- The correct abbreviation for liter is “L”.
L97.- Define the abbreviation Crb, but does not use it again on the letter.
L99.- Define the abbreviation Cnat, but does not use it again on the letter.
L116.- Use the abbreviations COD & TSS, but define them later (L123).
L127.- Define the abbreviation DO, but does not use it again on the letter.
L143.- Use the abbreviation WPL, but define them later (L146).
Kind regards.
Minor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Libor Ansorge, after analyzing your wise letter to the editor and the manuscript that is the subject of the letter. I believe that the authors of the manuscript should be informed about it and clarify the significant deviations found. Additionally, they should clarify other points identified by a server regarding the manuscript. Which I do not mention in this report, considering that it is not the subject of analysis.
Response: Thank you for your support.
The letter could be published in its current form, after making some minor corrections to the form and which will not take more than five minutes to adapt:
L56.- The correct abbreviation for liter is “L”.
Response: changed
L97.- Define the abbreviation Crb, but does not use it again on the letter.
Response: thanks for this comment, Crb is used by Parra-Orobio et al. and is used in Eq. 1. I change the text to be clear.
L99.- Define the abbreviation Cnat, but does not use it again on the letter.
Response: It is used in the sentence on lines 109-111 in the revised manuscript where I cite Dr. Jamshidi: As reported by Jamshidi et al. [3] “Cnat equals the concentration of pollutants in the receiving water on the condition that the interferences of human activities are eliminated.”
L116.- Use the abbreviations COD & TSS, but define them later (L123).
Response: Thanks. The definition of abbreviation was added on lines 90-91 in the revised manuscript.
L127.- Define the abbreviation DO, but does not use it again on the letter.
Response: The abbreviation was deleted
L143.- Use the abbreviation WPL, but define them later (L146).
Response: Thanks for this comment, abbreviation of WPL is now immediately after the first use of the term “Water Pollution Level” on line 147 in the revised manuscript.
Kind regards.
Reviewer 2 Report
Opinion:
In this paper, the author critically analyzed the recently published study of Parra-Orobio et al. (DOI 10.3390/su15097115) related to water footprint. The author studied the deviation in different parts of the methodology of the water footprint assessment manual. Moreover, a study recommended that the authors of the above-mentioned study should modify or expand their article to elucidate the deviations from the water footprint standard methodology.
Strength side:
The MS is properly organized, clearly, and concisely.
The article is developed at a high quality and scientific level.
The discussions are supported by the water footprint assessment manual. Therefore, I would recommend the manuscript to be accepted.
Weaknesses side:
- The article has no weaknesses.
Minor Revisions:
· In line 78 subheading 2 replaces ‘blue’ by ‘Gray’
Author Response
In this paper, the author critically analyzed the recently published study of Parra-Orobio et al. (DOI 10.3390/su15097115) related to water footprint. The author studied the deviation in different parts of the methodology of the water footprint assessment manual. Moreover, a study recommended that the authors of the above-mentioned study should modify or expand their article to elucidate the deviations from the water footprint standard methodology.
Strength side:
The MS is properly organized, clearly, and concisely.
Response: Thank you very much.
The article is developed at a high quality and scientific level.
Response: Thank you very much.
The discussions are supported by the water footprint assessment manual. Therefore, I would recommend the manuscript to be accepted.
Response: Thank you very much.
Weaknesses side:
The article has no weaknesses.
Response: Thank you very much.
Minor Revisions:
In line 78 subheading 2 replaces ‘blue’ by ‘Gray’
Response: Changed; sorry for this error
Reviewer 3 Report
The author of the proposed communication (or letter to the editors) reviews a published paper by Parra-Orobio et al. (DOI 10.3390/su15097115 ) who looked at 7 water footprint assessments in low-income urban neighbourhoods from developing countries and point out several deviations from the standard Water Footprint methodology specified by Hoejstra et al, at "The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard"
The communication is organized into 3 points, which are all relevant and clearly stated. I concur with the author's comments and would also add the following concerns.
Regarding the first point, the definition of the blue water footprint of the original paper (lines 31 to 34 of the proposed communication) is not clear. In addition to the confusion between water used and water consumed, the blue water footprint is not "the freshwater that evaporates from roads...", but rather the water consumed that does not return to the water body.
When discussing point 2 (lines 56-58), I would also add that it is not clear how a monthly water consumption of 8.9 m3/month for 368 persons leads to 74.2 l/hab/day.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the proposed communication should be accepted and that the authors of the article "Assessment of the Water Footprint in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods from Developing Countries: Case Study Fátima (Gamarra, Colombia)" should expand or modify this article to clarify any deviations from the standard water footprint methodology.
Author Response
The author of the proposed communication (or letter to the editors) reviews a published paper by Parra-Orobio et al. (DOI 10.3390/su15097115 ) who looked at 7 water footprint assessments in low-income urban neighborhoods from developing countries and point out several deviations from the standard Water Footprint methodology specified by Hoejstra et al, at "The Water Footprint Assessment Manual: Setting the Global Standard"
The communication is organized into 3 points, which are all relevant and clearly stated. I concur with the author's comments and would also add the following concerns.
Response: Thank you very much.
Regarding the first point, the definition of the blue water footprint of the original paper (lines 31 to 34 of the proposed communication) is not clear. In addition to the confusion between water used and water consumed, the blue water footprint is not "the freshwater that evaporates from roads...", but rather the water consumed that does not return to the water body.
Response: Thank you for this comment, that is true. I added the explanation on lines 35-36 in the revised manuscript.
When discussing point 2 (lines 56-58), I would also add that it is not clear how a monthly water consumption of 8.9 m3/month for 368 persons leads to 74.2 l/hab/day.
Response: Thank you for this comment, that is true. I added the discussion on lines 61-63 in the revised manuscript.
It is, therefore, my opinion that the proposed communication should be accepted and that the authors of the article "Assessment of the Water Footprint in Low-Income Urban Neighborhoods from Developing Countries: Case Study Fátima (Gamarra, Colombia)" should expand or modify this article to clarify any deviations from the standard water footprint methodology.
Response: Thank you for your support.
