Water Scarcity Management to Ensure Food Scarcity through Sustainable Water Resources Management in Saudi Arabia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The quality of English can be improved,

The manuscript is not assisted by other research work,

I see no significant contribution or novelty. The manuscript seems just a collection of information about SA supported by some applications,
The manuscript is not well categorized according to integrated water resources management fundamentals.  

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude for taking time out of your busy schedule to provide your scholarly feedback and make valuable comments on our paper. We have made every possible effort to include all of your suggestions and comments in the revised manuscript. We hope, we were able to address all the points, you were kind to make. We also anticipate that it will undoubtedly increase the quality of our research.

Comment: Does "7 billion cubic meters of water daily" mean that the annual use is more than 2500 billion? Are you sure about this magnitude? Does this match what you said in line 76?

Authors response: The above sentence needs to be corrected as “Saudi Arabia uses almost 700,000 bbl/d of oil in power generation.”

Comment: 23,933 MCM in

Authors response: This should be corrected as “23,933 MCM in 2016.”

 

Comment: The quality of English can be improved,

Authors response: English is edited and improved.

 

Comment: The manuscript is not assisted by other research work,

Authors response: We would like to thank the reviewer for the positive comments given on improving the manuscript. This manuscript has cited 51 research works published in Journals as given below

References Numbered: 1-6, 8-9, 11-12, 14-17, 25, 27, 29, 32, 34-35, 37-46, 50-54, 56, 60-61, 63-69, 73, 76-79, 81

 

Comment: I see no significant contribution or novelty. The manuscript seems just a collection of information about SA supported by some applications. The manuscript is not well categorized according to integrated water resources management fundamentals.

Authors response: The authors tried to address the water scarcity management to achieve food security with major consideration on sustainable water management in Saudi Arabia. The authors tried to analyze the past and present scenario in water management in the Kingdom to highlight the need in achieving sustainable water resources management.  The authors would like to thank the reviewer for highlighting the concept IWRM. The authors are planning to develop another manuscript highlighting the application of IWRM concepts in water management in Saudi Arabia.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this manuscript, the results of this research are conveyed thoughtfully and completely, and they are consistent with the experimental findings. However, the authors failed to explain and draw out the novelty of the work, this aspect needs to be improved. This work is worthwhile to be publish in this journal after minor revision. The following issues should be addressed:

 

 

1. Introduction part, if possible, some important and relative reports should be added.

 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-023-02604-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.106806

 

2. Abstract and conclusion not targeted; the authors should rephrase it.

 

3. The author should better improve the beauty and quality of the figures.

 

4. Error bar should be added in all figures‏

 

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude for taking time out of your busy schedule to provide your scholarly feedback and make valuable comments on our paper. We have made every possible effort to include all of your suggestions and comments in the revised manuscript. We hope, we were able to address all the points, you were kind to make. We also anticipate that it will undoubtedly increase the quality of our research.

 

Comment 1. Introduction part, if possible, some important and relative reports should be added.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10904-023-02604-0, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.107168, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.est.2023.106806

Authors Response: We would like to thank the reviewer for suggesting to incorporate some important reports in the introduction section. However, the above publications are not related to the theme of the manuscript. It seems, while copying the above links, some other links are copied. Please let us know the relevant reports so that we may incorporate those to the manuscript.

Comment 2. Abstract and conclusion not targeted; the authors should rephrase it.

Authors Response: The abstract and the conclusion sections are rephrased

Comment 3. The author should better improve the beauty and quality of the figures.

Authors Response: Figure 3 is fully revised

Comment 4. Error bar should be added in all figures‏

Authors Response: The figures represent statistics on water available and used in relation to different years. Hence, inserting an error bar will not improve the figures.

Reviewer 3 Report

We are faced with a very good article, susceptible of providing excellent, comprehensive, and powerful information, data, and perspectives to social, agricultural, economic, and political praxis. The methodological choice is appropriate to these purposes, and the collection of sources and the data treatment must be valued. The research performed is very relevant and addresses very significant issues on the country’ situation concerning the dealing with water scarcity, alternative sources, and all its implications in what has to do with sustainable water policies of SA; I consider this a sound aspect of the article. The article is well referenced and has good writing quality. It is also very well based in theoretical terms and its application to data research and treatment. The conclusions are very relevant and able to give insight into management and political decisions. Congratulations to the authors and all the best for their article's future career.

- A "0" has to be removed on the titles: 4.0 Management of surface flow,...; 5.0 Management of Subsurface...; 6.0 Management of desalinized water...; 7.0 Managing treated Wastewater; 8.0 The Management...; 9.0 Concluding Statements....

Author Response

First of all, we would like to express our deepest gratitude for taking time out of your busy schedule to provide your scholarly feedback and make valuable comments on our paper. We have made every possible effort to include all of your suggestions and comments in the revised manuscript. We hope, we were able to address all the points, you were kind to make. We also anticipate that it will undoubtedly increase the quality of our research.

 

Comments: We are faced with a very good article, susceptible of providing excellent, comprehensive, and powerful information, data, and perspectives to social, agricultural, economic, and political praxis. The methodological choice is appropriate to these purposes, and the collection of sources and the data treatment must be valued. The research performed is very relevant and addresses very significant issues on the country’ situation concerning the dealing with water scarcity, alternative sources, and all its implications in what has to do with sustainable water policies of SA; I consider this a sound aspect of the article. The article is well referenced and has good writing quality. It is also very well based in theoretical terms and its application to data research and treatment. The conclusions are very relevant and able to give insight into management and political decisions. Congratulations to the authors and all the best for their article's future career.

- A "0" has to be removed on the titles: 4.0 Management of surface flow, 5.0 Management of Subsurface...; 6.0 Management of desalinized water...; 7.0 Managing treated Wastewater; 8.0 The Management...; 9.0 Concluding Statements...

Authors Response: Thank you so much for your positive feedback. All "0" have been removed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

You have answered my questions and give details about my comments but I still feel the problem of the contribution.

The quality of English need some improving.