Investigating Alternative Water Supply in Settlements: Cases from Turkana County in Kenya and Orangi in Karachi, Pakistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses the question of whether alternative water supply arrangements are sustainable in terms of system reliability, consumer acceptance, cost-effectiveness, convenience, perceptions of service levels, and ease of access to service providers. The paper examines the status of alternative water supply arrangements in Turkana County, Kenya, and Orangi in Karachi, Pakistan, using qualitative methods.

My comments to authors

1-Please remove the cities name from keywords and put more suitable keywords

2- the organization of the file seems not good

please try to use Letax 

3- the conclusion part is too long 

I suggest to put discussion part before it

Regards

Sultan 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comment

Author Response

Review Report 1
Remarks	Respond
Please remove the cities name from keywords and put more suitable keywords	Key words changed
The organization of the file seems not good please try to use Letax	Heading of section 2 changed to ‘Context’. The organization of the paper is such that it introduces the emergence of alternative arrangements in water supply in various contexts. It explains the contexts of Turkana and Orangi with reference to water supply arrangements – and the key challenges experienced by users. After outlining the research questions and the methodology, the findings and analysis of Turkana and Orangi are narrated. Then a section of ‘discussion’ is now added. Finally the conclusions are presented.
The conclusion part is too long	Conclusions section is now reduced
I suggest to put discussion part before it	Sub heading of ‘Discussion is added’

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the status of alternative water supply arrangements in Turkana County, Kenya, and Orangi in Karachi, Pakistan, it addresses the question of whether alternative water supply arrangements are sustainable in terms of system reliability, consumer acceptance, cost effectiveness, convenience, perceptions of service levels, and ease of access to service providers. While there were still some issues which should be clarified further.

1.       The logical sequence of the entire manuscript needs to be adjusted and refined.

2.       The numbering of chapters and sections is discontinuous or repeated, for example: “1. Introduction”, “1. Background”, “3.1. Alternative water supply arrangements in Turkana”, “3.1. Alternative Water Supply Option”, …

3.       Why is the methodology centered on Turkana, while Chapter 4 exclusively discusses another location, Orangi?

4.       Why were Turkana and Orangi chosen as the study sites? An additional chapter is required to compare the similarities and differences in alternative water supply options between these two locations, along with the reasons for selecting these particular sites.

5.       The conclusion is too lengthy and needs to be condensed.

Author Response

Review Report 2
Remarks	Respond
The logical sequence of the entire manuscript needs to be adjusted and refined.	Already done as per Reviewer 1’s comment
The numbering of chapters and sections is discontinuous or repeated, for example: “1. Introduction”, “1. Background”, “3.1. Alternative water supply arrangements in Turkana”, “3.1. Alternative Water Supply Option”, …	This is corrected.
Why is the methodology centered on Turkana, while Chapter 4 exclusively discusses another location, Orangi?	Now adjusted. Numbering arranged properly.
Why were Turkana and Orangi chosen as the study sites? An additional chapter is required to compare the similarities and differences in alternative water supply options between these two locations, along with the reasons for selecting these particular sites.	Section 2.2. covers the differences between Turkana and Orangi
The conclusion is too lengthy and needs to be condensed.	Conclusion already reduced as per Reviewer 1’s comment.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I read with interest this paper, which is an insightful investigation into alternative water supply arrangements in two distinct regions: Turkana County in Kenya and Orangi in Karachi, Pakistan. The study is commendable for addressing a critical issue of water access in underprivileged communities, highlighting the challenges and sustainability of alternative water supply systems.

 

The paper can be improved as follows:

1. The paper would benefit from a clearer presentation of data, especially quantitative findings. Tables and figures could be more effectively utilized to summarize key results.
2. While the paper provides a solid overview, the analysis could be deepened, particularly regarding the socio-economic impacts of alternative water supply systems on these communities.
3. The discussion section could better integrate existing literature to contextualize the findings within broader global practices of alternative water supply systems. For instance, the work of Timothy Liptrot “Between regulation and targeted expropriation: Rural-to-urban groundwater reallocation in Jordan” would be a good addition as it would better frame the paper and situate it within the literature of water policies. Also the work of Kevin Wheeler on water nationalism in Israel and Ethiopia would be useful for the same reason “Water research and nationalism in the post-truth era”. 

 

Author Response

 

Review Report 3
Sr.	Remarks	Respond
1.	The paper would benefit from a clearer presentation of data, especially quantitative findings. Tables and figures could be more effectively utilized to summarize key results.	As per the comments of Reviewer 1 and 2, the organisation of the paper has been adjusted. It systematically introduces context, research questions, methodology, findings & analysis, discussion and conclusions
2.	While the paper provides a solid overview, the analysis could be deepened, particularly regarding the socio-economic impacts of alternative water supply systems on these communities	Adequate information provided in sections 4 and 5 of the paper.
3.	The discussion section could better integrate existing literature to contextualize the findings within broader global practices of alternative water supply systems. For instance, the work of Timothy Liptrot “Between regulation and targeted expropriation: Rural-to-urban groundwater reallocation in Jordan” would be a good addition as it would better frame the paper and situate it within the literature of water policies. Also the work of Kevin Wheeler on water nationalism in Israel and Ethiopia would be useful for the same reason “Water research and nationalism in the post-truth era”.	Discussion section now added as per comments by Reviewers 1 & 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I appreciate that the editor invited me to review this article for Sustainability. Next, I would like to comment on Investigating alternative water supply in settlements: cases from turkana county in kenya and orangi in Karachi, Pakistan (Manuscript Number: sustainability-3172125).

This paper is so badly written, it is missing too many parts. I think it's just an investigative report, it is not a academic paper. I also didn't see in it the possibility that it could be revised as a research paper, so I suggested that the editor reject it.

Here are some suggestions offered to authors for revision:1. Page 2, “1. Background” you have made a numbering error.

2. You need to add the content, contribution and innovation of the article's research at the end of the Introduction, and you also need to introduce the significance of your doing this investigation or research. Also, you need a separate paragraph to introduce the organization of the rest of the article.

3. I understand from the introduction that you did a survey, but a research article is not quite the same as a survey, and you need to revise the presentation of this article to the standards of a research paper.

4. A serial number is required before “Turkana County” and “Orangi, Karachi” in Background. 5. “In Turkana County, the well-being of families is determined by water accessibility.” I strongly disagree with the idea that the well-being of families is determined by many factors. Solely water accessibility does not determine the well-being of families, factors such as income of family members, cognition, interpersonal relationships, etc. can affect the well-being of families. If this is unique to the area, the author needs to add citations to relevant literature to argue this point.

6. I read the Background section and I understand that you are trying to use it to argue the need for the study. However, I think that in a research article, this section should be shortened and merged with the Introduction, which should also present the significance and necessity of understanding the study.

7. The paper states that you used qualitative methods to do the survey, and the authenticity and reliability of the data is questionable for the study. You must at least analyze the data from the survey you did for reliability and validity and reflect your research process in the essay.

8. In section 3, Methodology, you describe your research methodology very briefly, but you devote a great deal of space to the results of your investigation and analysis, which does not seem to belong in this section, but rather in the “results” section.

9.     I am puzzled by the section on “4. Alternative Water Supply in Orangi”, which should be part of the findings of the study or a discussion of the findings.

10. Where is your discussion?

11. Where are your conclusions?

12. This paper does not fall into the category of research, it is just a survey, you have not researched the methodology, you have not analyzed the reliability of the qualitative data, you have not researched the theoretical framework, and you have not written the conclusions. I don't think this falls under the category of a research paper.

13. I think authors should read sci papers and emulate their writing style.

Author Response

Review Report 4
Sr.	Remarks	Respond
1.	This paper is so badly written, it is missing too many parts. I think it's just an investigative report, it is not a academic paper. I also didn't see in it the possibility that it could be revised as a research paper, so I suggested that the editor reject it.	The paper is revised and adjusted as per reviewer’s comments.
2.	Here are some suggestions offered to authors for revision:1. Page 2, “1. Background” you have made a numbering error.	Corrected
3.	You need to add the content, contribution and innovation of the article's research at the end of the Introduction, and you also need to introduce the significance of your doing this investigation or research. Also, you need a separate paragraph to introduce the organization of the rest of the article.	The paper puts across the argument that various contexts depend on alternative arrangements in water supply. It also illustrates the inadequacies in the conventional supply mode. The research outlines these concepts and the various related parameters that are explored in the paper.
4	I understand from the introduction that you did a survey, but a research article is not quite the same as a survey, and you need to revise the presentation of this article to the standards of a research paper.	The article comprises various research methods that are outlined in the methodology section of the paper. It provides findings and analysis in sections 4 and 5. The discussion and conclusion provides the final outcome of the research.
5.	A serial number is required before “Turkana County” and “Orangi, Karachi” in Background. 5. “In Turkana County, the well-being of families is determined by water accessibility.” I strongly disagree with the idea that the well-being of families is determined by many factors. Solely water accessibility does not determine the well-being of families, factors such as income of family members, cognition, interpersonal relationships, etc. can affect the well-being of families. If this is unique to the area, the author needs to add citations to relevant literature to argue this point.	Serial numbers are now re-organised. Water accessibility is mentioned as one of the important considerations in community wellbeing.
6.	I read the Background section and I understand that you are trying to use it to argue the need for the study. However, I think that in a research article, this section should be shortened and merged with the Introduction, which should also present the significance and necessity of understanding the study.	The background section is now removed and focuses on introducing the contexts of research.
7.	The paper states that you used qualitative methods to do the survey, and the authenticity and reliability of the data is questionable for the study. You must at least analyze the data from the survey you did for reliability and validity and reflect your research process in the essay.	Qualitative research methods have been applied to obtain first hand insights and information from respective communities. The body of text provides the reference as to how they have generated the important facts that were analysed to generate the outcome of this research.
8.	In section 3, Methodology, you describe your research methodology very briefly, but you devote a great deal of space to the results of your investigation and analysis, which does not seem to belong in this section, but rather in the “results” section.	Already answered in the above comments. The outcome of methodology is illustrated in the subsequent sections.
9.	I am puzzled by the section on “4. Alternative Water Supply in Orangi”, which should be part of the findings of the study or a discussion of the findings.	It is re-membered – it provides findings and analysis.
10.	Where is your discussion?	Now added as section 6 in the paper.
11.	Where are your conclusions?	It appears as section 7 in the paper.
12.	This paper does not fall into the category of research, it is just a survey, you have not researched the methodology, you have not analyzed the reliability of the qualitative data, you have not researched the theoretical framework, and you have not written the conclusions. I don't think this falls under the category of a research paper.	This paper is based upon extensive research, analysis, synthesis and conclusions.
13.	I think authors should read sci papers and emulate their writing style.	An extensive literature reading was done to benefit this research

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You did great job

Comments on the Quality of English Language

No comments

Author Response

Comment 1 : You did great job

Response : Appreciate your endorsement of revisions to the paper

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: I recommend for publication.

Response : Appreciate your endorsement of revisions to the paper

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors did not incorporate the comments I suggested about the relevant literature, such as the work I mentioned of Timothy Liptrot, and the paper of Kevin wheeler on water nationalism.

also, the reference list is wrong as it’s in alphabetical order and this is not the style used by mdpi. So please revise accordingly 

 

Author Response

Comments 1: The authors did not incorporate the comments I suggested about the relevant literature, such as the work I mentioned of Timothy Liptrot, and the paper of Kevin wheeler on water nationalism.

Response 1 : Both the references were accessed and reviewed. They were not found suitable for this paper.

Comment : also, the reference list is wrong as it’s in alphabetical order and this is not the style used by mdpi. So please revise accordingly 

Response: Revised

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although I still don't think this is a academic paper, if the editorial board thinks it can be published, I agree.

Author Response

Comment 1: Although I still don't think this is a academic paper, if the editorial board thinks it can be published, I agree.

Response : Appreciate your endorsement of revisions to the paper.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I had two comments:

- add two refs I suggested: the authors decided not to

- fix the reference list which is in the wrong format: the authors did not do so

 

my suggestion is therefore to reject this paper 

Author Response

Comment 1: - add two refs I suggested: the authors decided not to

Response 1 : Done

Comment 2 : fix the reference list which is in the wrong format: the authors did not do so

Response 2 : Done