Holistic Environmental Risk Index for Oil and Gas Industry in Colombia

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

Can be improved

We have included a comprehensive literature review in the introduction chapter of our paper.

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

We have expanded our literature review to include additional studies on the impact of armed conflicts on environmental risk factors, as well as the use of risk assessment models in similar contexts. We have provided a more detailed explanation of our methods and analytical techniques to estimate the probability functions and weights.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

We have incorporated a more comprehensive discussion of the limitations of our study, including the challenges associated with data availability and the potential impact of confounding variables.

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

We conducted a comparative analysis of alternative models in environmental risk assessment. This comparison allowed us to demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed methodology in several key aspects

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

Can be improved

We have developed a separate section for conclusions to improve the structure and readability of the research article. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive and organized overview of the key findings and implications of our study

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: Abstract: the abstract should include the study aim, methodology, finding, and recommendations. The results are not clear in it.

Response 1 Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the abstract to include the study aim, methodology, findings, and recommendations, as per your suggestion. The revised abstract now provides a clear overview of the research objectives, the approach taken, the key findings, and the implications of our study (Page 1).

Comments 2: The paper needs "Literature Review". It is very important to show us the results of the similar studies and what the current results differ.

Response 2: Agree. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have included a comprehensive literature review in the introduction section of our paper. This review covers the current methodologies used for environmental risk assessment, including their results and differences (Page 2-3). We believe that this addition enhances the context and relevance of our research.

Comments 3: Introduction: The introduction typically offers an overview of the research topic, its relevance to existing literature, research objectives, and the study's necessity. However, the justification for this study is lacking. Authors should include a paragraph to clarify the study's rationale and significance.

Response 3: Agree. We have revised the introduction of our paper to include a paragraph that clarifies the rationale and significance of our study (Page 4). This addition provides a clear justification for the research topic, its relevance to existing literature, and the necessity of our study.

Comments 4: For enhanced clarity, the study would benefit from a thorough examination of alternative models employed in environmental risk assessment, juxtaposed with the outcomes of the proposed model. Such comparative analysis would enhance the effectiveness and reliability of the proposed model, fostering a deeper understanding of its performance relative to established methodologies.

Response 4: Agree. We agree that a comparative analysis of alternative models in environmental risk assessment would enhance the effectiveness and reliability of our proposed model. In our study, we have conducted such a comparison by juxtaposing the outcomes of our proposed methodology with the methodology employed by ECOPETROL S.A., an oil company in Colombia (Page 14). This comparison allowed us to demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed methodology in several key aspects.

Comments 5: Also, validation of uncertainties often necessitates additional workshops involving diverse sector companies. Restricting the study to Colombia's oil and gas industry may constrain its findings and limit generalizability by excluding other sources of pollution. A broader sample size could have bolstered the study's outcomes.

Response 5: Agree. We acknowledge the limitations of our study and the need for additional workshops involving diverse sector companies to validate uncertainties. We also appreciate your understanding of the decision to restrict the study to Colombia's oil and gas industry, as each country may have different socioeconomic conditions. We proposed in the discussion section (Page 15-16) that the methodology should be adapted for each country. Regarding the exclusion of other sources of pollution, such as air quality, we have indicated in the discussion section that these factors should be considered for future studies, as we currently lack sufficient information for Colombia (Page 16). We have also included another case study to provide a broader perspective and a better understanding of the results of our study (Page 15-16).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: Minor editing can be conducted

Response 1:  Thank you for your feedback. I would like to inform you that before submitting the article, we used the English Language Editing Services of MDPI to ensure the quality of the language. We will ensure that all minor editing suggestions are addressed before resubmitting the article after the acceptance of all reviewers' revisions.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding /corrections  highlighted in the re-submitted files.

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Can be improved

We have included a comprehensive literature review in the introduction chapter of our paper.

Can be improved

We have improved the cited references.

Can be improved

We have expanded our literature review to include additional studies on the impact of armed conflicts on environmental risk factors, as well as the use of risk assessment models in similar contexts. We have provided a more detailed explanation of our methods and analytical techniques to estimate the probability functions and weights.

Can be improved

We have incorporated a more comprehensive discussion of the limitations of our study, including the challenges associated with data availability and the potential impact of confounding variables.

Must be improved

We conducted a comparative analysis of alternative models in environmental risk assessment. This comparison allowed us to demonstrate the superior performance of our proposed methodology in several key aspects

Can be improved

We have developed a separate section for conclusions to improve the structure and readability of the research article. This addition aims to provide a more comprehensive and organized overview of the key findings and implications of our study

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: the text "Abstract" should be formed and reveal: 1) the issue under consideration in a broad context and highlight the purpose of the research; 2) methods; 3) results; 4) conclusions.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have revised the abstract to include the study aim, methodology, findings, and recommendations, as per your suggestion. The revised abstract now provides a clear overview of the research objectives, the approach taken, the key findings, and the implications of our study (Page 1).

Comments 2: Clearly formulate the research objectives, without such information it is difficult to assess the scientific novelty of the work and check their correlation with the conclusions.

Response 2: Agree. We have taken your suggestion into consideration and have included the research objectives in the introduction section of our paper (Page 3).

Comments 3: the term "Integrated approach to risk assessment" is used in the manuscript, but "Systematic approach to risk assessment" is generally accepted. It is not clear how the proposed one differs from the generally accepted one?.

Response 3: Agree. We have revised the manuscript and have replaced the term "Integrated approach to risk assessment" with the term "Holistic approach risk assessment". Additionally, we have clarified in the text how our proposed approach differs from the generally accepted one. We have also retained the term "holistic approach to risk assessment" as it accurately reflects the comprehensive nature of our methodology. This approach is explained in the article, highlighting the differences from current environmental risk assessment methodologies

Comments 4: It is not clear how probabilistic risk indicators could be "developed". They can only be assessed qualitatively and quantitatively.

Response 4: Agree. We have revised the manuscript to include a paragraph on page 5 that explains that transformation functions were utilized to represent the outcomes of E_R and F, resembling risk probability distributions. Though this approach is not universally viewed as realistic, it has been embraced in specific situations due to uncertainties and imprecise data, along with the necessity to streamline analysis. Employing progressively refined nonlinear functions may be more fitting and advantageous considering the inherent complexity of risk and its role in enabling comparisons between diverse results.

Comments 5: the manuscript takes into account such indicators as the affected area, affected fauna, affected soil cover and ecological impact. The question arises whether damage to air and water resources is taken into account?.

Response 5: Agree. We acknowledge the limitations of our study. We proposed in the discussion section (Page 15-16) that the exclusion of other sources of pollution, such as air quality, should be considered for future studies, as we currently lack sufficient information for Colombia (Page 16). Damage to water is included in the affected land cover.

Comments 6: It is not clear why the duration of the response and the duration of liquidation of emergency situations by rescue formations (with an oil spill) are not taken into account, because this significantly affects the quantitative indicators of environmental risk.

Response 6: Agree. We have revised the manuscript and have added an additional paragraph to clarify the duration of the response and the duration of liquidation of emergency situations by rescue formations (Page 7). These aspects are indeed taken into account in our study, and we have expanded on this in the revised version of the manuscript. Additionally, we would like to clarify that the training of rescue teams is considered in the variable "environmental disaster risk management index." This variable encompasses various aspects related to the preparedness and effectiveness of response teams in managing environmental disasters.

Comments 7: In the presented manuscript, reactions to risks that will ensure their reduction are not substantiated.

Response 7: Agree. We would like to clarify that the manuscript doesn’t address the reactions to risks that will ensure their reduction. In the discussion section of the article (Page 16), we emphasize that while indicators are essential for identifying potential risks, they are not intended to pinpoint risk management measures. Instead, these measures should be identified using integrated models and thorough analysis, which is crucial for effective risk reduction.

Comments 8: I recommend that recommendations be made in the text of the manuscript regarding the use of the obtained research results and the expediency of further research.

Response 8: Agree. We have revised the manuscript to include recommendations regarding the use of the obtained research results and the expediency of further research. These recommendations are now included in the discussion section of the manuscript (Page 16).

Comments 9: Discussion and conclusions should be divided into separate sections. The discussion needs to be compared with existing achievements in environmental risk management.

Response 9: Agree. We have revised the manuscript to separate the discussion and conclusions into distinct sections, as per your suggestion. Additionally, we have compared the discussion with existing achievements in environmental risk management, as requested (Page 15-16).

Comments 10: Conclusions require specification of the obtained results in accordance with the research tasks (which need to be formulated).

Response 10: Agree. We have revised the conclusions to specify the obtained results in accordance with the research tasks, which have been formulated in the introduction. The revised conclusion now provides a clear overview of the research objectives, the approach taken, the key findings, and the implications of our study.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections  highlighted in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

Can be improved

We have expanded our literature review to include additional studies on the impact of armed conflicts on environmental risk factors, as well as the use of risk assessment models in similar contexts. We have provided a more detailed explanation of our methods and analytical techniques to estimate the probability functions and weights.

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

Can be improved

We have incorporated a more comprehensive discussion of the limitations of our study, including the challenges associated with data availability and the potential impact of confounding variables.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The paper is very vague about the source of the percentage allocations in Tables 1-3.  What is the source, or who are the experts who estimated these numbers, and how many experts contributed?.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added a new paragraph on page 5, explaining that the values in tables 1 - 3 were established by applying the Saaty matrix to input from eight experts in the oil industry.

Comments 2: The financial index adds up to 101%, all others add up to 100%.

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We adjusted the values to emphasize that significant figures were used as an approximation at the time of presenting the table. (Page 10).

Comments 3: Around line 283, shortcomings are mentioned, but I could find no discussion in the paper of what the shortcomings are or where they could be found in the tabled results.  No one needs to know what the company here is, but an index like this should point out where the problems are.

Response 3: Agree. We added a paragraph explaining the company's shortcomings according to the identification performed, to emphasize this point (Page 15).

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: English language fine. No issues detected