Sustainable Water Management: Understanding the Socioeconomic and Cultural Dimensions
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript can be interesting, however it's quality low and have to improve.
The references are used only in one subchapter, rest of the manuscript is without references.
The introduction does not bring the appropriate information about the topic of the article.
Materials and methods do not present any name of database, number of studied documents or other details. It is not clear, if authors compare only Portugal and Brazil, or they include also other European countries. Some parts of the manuscript reference for PT and BR, some include European countries.
Source of figures is only one and is not listed in the list of references.
Conclusion is weak and contain only general comment.
I advise to improve the manuscript and resubmit later.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your careful evaluation and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each of your comments and suggestions, and we are pleased to submit this revised version of the manuscript, which incorporates the changes and improvements based on your feedback. In this response letter, we aim to address each of your comments individually, providing explanations for the changes we made and addressing any concerns or queries you raised.
- References: We appreciated your feedback on reference usage. We ensured proper citation throughout the manuscript.
- Introduction: We thanked you for highlighting the need for clearer introductory information. We provided a more informative introduction that set the context effectively.
- Materials and Methods: We valued your suggestion regarding database details and study documents. We included the necessary information and specified the scope of comparison.
- Figure Source: We ensured the figure source was cited and listed in the references.
- Conclusion: Your feedback on the conclusion's strength was noted. We worked on enhancing the conclusion's clarity and depth. We thanked you for your guidance.
Warm regards,
The authors
Reviewer 2 Report
I have gone through the manuscript entitled "Sustainable Water Management: Understanding the Socio-economic and Cultural Dimensions". The manuscript is fall in the Aim & Scope of Journal. However, below listed modification is required to reach on the decision.
1. The research gap need to be improved further and supported well by the recent investigation.
2. The repetitive information need to be avoided to keep the interest.
3. Brazil and Portugal bears diverse socio-economic, Industrialization, population load, agricultural capacity and practices. Author should streak out about the scale of dissimilarity and the mechanism opted for bringing the comparison between the Brazil and Portugal
4. A flow chart of the study considered and criteria of selecting the study need to be provided essentially.
5. All figure having the same source. So it is possible to convert them into a single figure and according discuss the results.
6. Results need to be supported with the quantitative data of each section for better comparison.
7. Irrigation is subject to crop-specific and region recommendation and soil condition. Thus simple comparison with one data set is advisable to reach on conclusion. It will be good, if different scenario may be created considering dominant irrigation requirement, water use efficiency, irrigation efficiency, water availability in both of the countries and compare the final results.
8. The above listed suggestion is applicable to almost all the different hypothesis. It is suggested that the results need to be augmented further with the quality data.
9. It is suggested that the Hypothesis deals with the similar requirement need to be bring together and scale down the total number of the hypothesis tested. The hypothesis test need to be improved further and well supported with quality dataset and statistical comparison.
10. In the light of the modified results, the discussion need to be revised further with the possibility of the changes suggested.
11. According conclusion need to be redraw.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your careful evaluation and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each of your comments and suggestions, and we are pleased to submit this revised version of the manuscript, which incorporates the changes and improvements based on your feedback. In this response letter, we aim to address each of your comments individually, providing explanations for the changes we made and addressing any concerns or queries you raised.
- Research Gap: We acknowledged your recommendation to improve the research gap. We provided more recent investigations to strengthen the gap.
- Repetitive Information: We revised the manuscript to eliminate redundant content as you pointed out.
- Comparison Clarity: We clearly outlined the differences between Brazil and Portugal and provided a clear mechanism for the comparison.
- Consolidating Figures: We noted your suggestion to merge figures for better results presentation. We consolidated and discussed results accordingly.
- Supporting Quantitative Data: Understanding the importance of quantitative data, we provided quantitative insights for better comparison.
- Scenario-Based Analysis: We explored various scenarios to enhance the analysis, as your idea of considering different irrigation scenarios for comparison was valuable.
- Hypothesis and Statistical Comparison: We improved the hypothesis testing, incorporated quality dataset, and enhanced statistical comparisons.
- Discussion and Conclusion: We revised the discussion to align with modified results and redrew the conclusion accordingly.
Warm regards,
The authors
Reviewer 3 Report
Review of manuscript titled "Sustainable Water Management: Understanding the Socio-economic and Cultural Dimensions". The authors aim to examine the socio-economic and cultural factors that shape the sustainability of water management strategies in Brazil and Portugal. The manuscript seems like a review article and could be published after the below comments are addressed.
1. No units of quantity mentioned in Figures 1, 2, & 4.
2. The authors need to further explain with some numerical data or maps published in literature on "Climate change resilience impacts".
3. What effect does the water crisis have on cultures around the Europe?
4. In SWOT analysis, the Opportunities mentioned are not enough. The authors need to further dig in and analyze for more opportunities.
5 Future research directions or methodologies for thorough analysis needs to be provided in conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your careful evaluation and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each of your comments and suggestions, and we are pleased to submit this revised version of the manuscript, which incorporates the changes and improvements based on your feedback. In this response letter, we aim to address each of your comments individually, providing explanations for the changes we made and addressing any concerns or queries you raised.
- Figure Units: We thanked you for your observation and ensured units were included for Figures 1, 2, and 4.
- Supporting Evidence: We incorporated literature to strengthen our arguments on climate change resilience impacts.
- Water Crisis Effect: We provided a comprehensive explanation of the water crisis's impact on European cultures.
- SWOT Analysis: Your suggestion to expand Opportunities was noted. We enhanced the SWOT analysis with a broader perspective.
- Future Research and Methodologies: We included future research directions and methodologies in the conclusion to offer a more comprehensive outlook.
Warm regards,
The authors
Reviewer 4 Report
Dear Authors,
The manuscript employs only one qualitative method, SWOT analysis. The results in the charts in the Results section are not from the authors' results, but rather from external sources. I suggest that the manuscript include additional quantitative assessment methods and that the author's results be included in the results section.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your careful evaluation and thoughtful comments on our manuscript. We have carefully reviewed each of your comments and suggestions, and we are pleased to submit this revised version of the manuscript, which incorporates the changes and improvements based on your feedback. In this response letter, we aim to address each of your comments individually, providing explanations for the changes we made and addressing any concerns or queries you raised.
- Qualitative and Quantitative Methods: We included additional assessment methods alongside the qualitative SWOT analysis.
- Figure Source and Author's Results: We apologized for any confusion and clarified the source of figures. We incorporated the author's results into the manuscript as recommended.
Warm regards,
The authors
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I very much appreciate the work the authors have done in revising the paper. I have only two comments:
1. there is no need to state hypotheses in the material and methods section. It is enough to mention them in the introduction;
2. you write about the use of quantitative methods, but these are nowhere mentioned in detail, qualitative. It would be useful to specify them further.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
We would like to express our gratitude for taking the time to review our manuscript. Your insightful comments and suggestions are highly valuable to us and have significantly contributed to the enhancement of our work. We have carefully considered your feedback and made the necessary revisions to address the concerns you raised. Below, we outline our responses to your comments:
- Hypotheses in Material and Methods. The hypotheses have been removed from the Materials and Methods section.
- Clarification on Quantitative and Qualitative Methods: In response to your feedback, we have expanded the explanation of both quantitative and qualitative methods used in our research. This revision will provide readers with a comprehensive understanding of the research methodologies applied.
Thank you once again for your commitment to the peer-review process and your invaluable contributions to our research.
Sincerely,
Eleonora Santos
Reviewer 2 Report
manuscript has been improved significantly
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
We are delighted to learn that you found the manuscript's improvements significant. Your feedback has guided us in enhancing the clarity and coherence of the content. We appreciate your time and expertise in evaluating our work, and we are pleased to have met your expectations for refinement.
Thank you once again for your time, expertise, and commitment to advancing scientific discourse through the peer-review process.
Sincerely,
Eleonora Santos
Reviewer 4 Report
Accept in current form
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 4,
Thank you for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We are thrilled that the current form of the manuscript meets your acceptance criteria. Your assessment validates our efforts to present a comprehensive and well-structured piece of research.
Sincerely,
Eleonora Santos
