The Dialectics of Nature–Human Conflicts for Sustainable Water Security

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper describes a very interesting philosophical view and thought leadership on Water Resources Management. It show a novel way of critical thinking about how humanity manages water.

I find the abstract is difficult to read. It uses many terms that readers might not understand. I strongly recommend to use more plain English in the abstract. This will make the article more appealing to a wider audience.

The article could furthermore benefit from a look towards the future. How can the dialectic WRM be mainstreamed? It could also look at some new developments like for instance the water footprint of new global markets and supply chains (e.g. metals and minerals for batteries and renewable energy technologies) and the role geopolitics.

Line 61: The Directive: The EU has many directives. Which one do you mean? I guess the WFD?

Lines 114-115: explain ontological and epistemoligical. What do these terms mean?

Line 316: What about non-democratic countries like China and Singapore? Same in line 326. These countries also have interesting WRM programmes (Sponge Cities, 4-taps policy). How do these countries fit in the dialectic view?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

Thank you for your comments.

See below our response to your questions and the revised manuscript as a pdf file.

Jacques Ganoulis

Rev 1

The paper describes a very interesting philosophical view and thought leadership on Water Resources Management. It shows a novel way of critical thinking about how humanity manages water.

Thank you for your general comment

I find the abstract is difficult to read. It uses many terms that readers might not understand. I strongly recommend to use more plain English in the abstract. This will make the article more appealing to a wider audience.

Lines 8-22: See the revised abstract in an easier-to-read version.

The article could furthermore benefit from a look towards the future. How can the dialectic WRM be mainstreamed? It could also look at some new developments like, for instance, the water footprint of new global markets and supply chains (e.g., metals and minerals for batteries and renewable energy technologies) and the role of geopolitics.

Thank you for this question on how dialectics can serve to resolve future global water issues and risks. These topics can be discussed and included in future papers. In the conclusions, lines 522-528, see an additional response to your comment.

Line 61: The Directive: The EU has many directives. Which one do you mean? I guess the WFD?

In lines 64-65, it’s indeed the EU-WFD 60/2000.

Lines 114-115: explain ontological and epistemoligical. What do these terms mean?

Ontology and ontological refer to existence. For example, human ontology is the study of human existence. Epistemic and epistemological mean a scientific approach. In lines 118-120: See the new text in color.

Line 316: What about non-democratic countries like China and Singapore? Same in line 326. These countries also have interesting WRM programmes (Sponge Cities, 4-taps policy). How do these countries fit in the dialectic view?

Lines 332-339. The following sentence was added:

In more authoritarian public societies, the dialectical approach to nature-human relations can be connected to religious Daoist and Buddist Dialectics. Examples are the view of nature as eternally changing and the aim of attuning human activities to natural processes.
See the new version in track changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper Nature-Human Conflict Dialectics for Sustainable Water Security presents an example of the application of a different, new model for solving possible or actual conflict situations between humans and the environment, i.e. water resources. The integration of philosophical concepts into practical engineering solutions is an interesting and innovative approach, which surely could have a practical value. The goals and purpose of the article are well explained, the methodology is understandable, and the literature is comprehensive. However, there are certain minor ambiguities in the text, as well as deficient descriptions of the application of the mentioned methodology within the case study, as well as deficiencies in the quality of individual figures, which need to be resolved before publication.

General and specific comments are presented below.

General comments:

1. Although only one author is listed, the description in the text gives the impression that this work is the work of several authors, so please clarify.

2. The descriptions of all case studies are too brief and from them it is not possible to conclude about the effectiveness of the application of the new model in practice. The author must expand the descriptions to clearly indicate the effectiveness of the model, its good sides, but also the bad, in terms of possible limitations of the application of this model in practice.

Special comments:

1. Line 61: which directive?; be specific!

2. The quality of figures 1, 3 and 4 is bad: the resolution is weak, and the graphic additions made by the author to the existing pictures are poorly done.

3. Line 288: "...as shown in Fig. 3" - what is stated in the text is not shown in Fig. 3, it needs to be corrected.

4. Line 387: specify precisely which categories of stakeholders are involved.

5. In the text of the paper or in the conclusion, it is necessary to state very clearly: what are the prerequisites for the application of this model, what are the good sides of the application, and what are the limitations, and it is necessary to state the guidelines for the integration of this model in the RBMP.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

Thank you for your comments. Below are my responses in detail.

Jacques Ganoulis

Rev 2

The paper Nature-Human Conflict Dialectics for Sustainable Water Security presents an example of the application of a different, new model for solving possible or actual conflict situations between humans and the environment, i.e. water resources. The integration of philosophical concepts into practical engineering solutions is an interesting and innovative approach, which surely could have a practical value. The goals and purpose of the article are well explained, the methodology is understandable, and the literature is comprehensive. However, there are certain minor ambiguities in the text, as well as deficient descriptions of the application of the mentioned methodology within the case study, as well as deficiencies in the quality of individual figures, which need to be resolved before publication.

I want to thank the reviewer for his general evaluation of the paper. I agree with his comment that philosophical arguments that don't use supernatural entities to explain observations can contribute to producing innovative, practical solutions. The more specific changes in the manuscript below aim to improve the text and figures, following the reviewer's recommendations.

General comments:

1. Although only one author is listed, the description in the text gives the impression that this work is the work of several authors, so please clarify.

I understand that using "we" instead of "I" can be interpreted as a possible contribution of several authors. This misinterpretation was avoided in the revised text (see track changes, lines  11, 68, 84-89, 112-113, 117-119, 289-293, 300, 392, 445, 546-549).

2. The descriptions of all case studies are too brief, and from them, it is not possible to conclude about the effectiveness of the application of the new model in practice. The author must expand the descriptions to clearly indicate the effectiveness of the model, its good sides, but also the bad, in terms of possible limitations of the application of this model in practice.

In lines  444-524, the revised text extended the description of case studies to better clarify the efficiency and some properties of the new model. Figures 7 and 8 were also added.

Special comments:

1. Line 61: which directive?; be specific!

In line 63, the EU Water Framework Directive (EU/WFD) 60/2000 is now specified.

2. The quality of figures 1, 3 and 4 is bad: the resolution is weak, and the graphic additions made by the author to the existing pictures are poorly done.

Figures 1, 3, and 4 were redrawn to better quality.

3. Line 288: "...as shown in Fig. 3" - what is stated in the text is not shown in Fig. 3, it needs to be corrected.

A closer view of the Fig. 3 can justify the following (lines 290-293):

As shown in Fig. 3, the water consumption curve from 1900 to 1950 is concave up and then concave down. That means a slower increase of water consumption in recent years. See the correction in yellow in the new version.

4. Line 387: specify precisely which categories of stakeholders are involved.

The four categories are described in Chapter 5 (Lines 297-347). The explanation is in the new text.

5. In the text of the paper or in the conclusion, it is necessary to state very clearly: what are the prerequisites for the application of this model, what are the good sides of the application, and what are the limitations, and it is necessary to state the guidelines for the integration of this model in the RBMP.

See lines 429-442 of the revised text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article suggests a new model for water-human relationship and its manipulation. The manuscript is interesting and mostly gives an overview of historical data on water(nature)-human interaction that serves as primary data for the new model. The article should be revised before it is published. My concerns follow:

1.      Lines 26-27: Energy and food are not natural resources. [1] gives no evidence for this statement. Primary fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium are natural resources. Food systems depend on natural resources.

2.      Line 27-29: “Humans rely on natural assets that constitute the basis they develop through education, intelligence, science and technology, human values, and additional economic goods.” This is a very very limited statement. Explain.

3.      Line 34: Why agriculture, industry, and tourism are the most important economic activities connected to water?

4.      Line 34: Energy is not an economic activity. It has a significant impact on economic activities.

5.      Lines 35-37: “In contrast to saltwater in seas and oceans, which represent about 97% of the total water on Earth, only 3% is freshwater available in rivers, lakes, and aquifers and as a solid 36 state in polar glaciers.” Give reference.

6.      Lines 37-38: Reference [3] is not appropriate for the statement in the sentence.

7.      Lines 38-40: “Therefore, how countries use and allocate their natural water resources to various economic sectors is crucial to ensure water supply, healthy ecosystems, and socio-economic prosperity.” This sentence is not complete. Not only countries decide on the use and allocation of water resources. Not only “water supply, healthy ecosystems, and socio-economic prosperity” must be ensured by good, fair, and equal distribution of water.

8.      Lines 42-43: Can you give a reference for the Water Resources Management (WRM) model?

9.      Line 47: What are restricted areas? Can you explain?

10.   Lines 48-50:  Reference [5] says nothing about hurricanes in the area of the Mediterranean Sea. It only describes the changes in the Mediterranean climate caused by shifts in midlatitude storms or subtropical high-pressure cells. But there is another chapter on “Relations between climate variability in the Mediterranean region and the tropics: ENSO, South Asian and African monsoons, hurricanes and Saharan dust” (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-9197(06)80005-4).

11.   Lines 65-70: This paragraph is a mere speculation. The author gave no evidence for this statement except for his other published papers.

12.   Line 72: I do not consider reference [13] relevant as Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that can be modified by anyone even without scientific or any other assistance.

13.   Line 73: What is “our case”?

14.   Line 77: What about holistic or other systematic “clusters”? e.g. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:808778/FULLTEXT01.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12653, …

15.  The Introduction section should also give a novelty. Borrowing the idea that “This anthropocentric human behavior is reflected in the IWRM model's structure, and for us, it is the main reason for producing substantial adverse environmental impacts that economists call "externalities" [15].” is not a reason for new IWRM model and not explaining the need for it.

16.  As the manuscript will be published as a scientific paper, not a review, the second paragraph must be Materials and Methods. I would really like to know the basic sources for writing the article and the methods used.

17.   Lines 96-98: “Geological epochs” is not the best terminus technicus. It should be replaced by a more suitable one used not only by paleontologists but also by geologists.

18.   Lines 98-100: This is just one of the theories. Is this piece of information important for the merit of the article? It should be omitted.

19.   Lines 121 and 127: Water is not an environmental indicator because it is a part of the environment. Environmental indicators are usually parameters defined by law or some regulation.

20.   Line 136 – Figure 1: Explain all the abbreviations in the figure.

21.   Line 141: The word years in “12 kyr years ago” is unnecessary.

22.   Lines 155-160: A reference is missing.

23.   Lines 193-194: What is the difference between global warming (WG) and Global Warming (GW)?

24.   Line 199 – Figure 4: Explain all the abbreviations in the figure.

25.   Lines 209-212: Explain, why the Acheloos River from ancient Greece and a giant snake, defeated by Hercules, are a typical example of “dualistic behavior”.

26.   Lines 213_214: The sentence “our aim is not to analyze the GW phenomenon from a scientific point of view” should be reformulated. I do not agree with this statement.

27.   Line 216: It is strange to call the WRM model predictions a “narrative.”

28.   Line 220: It is not necessary to define the abbreviation again (GW). Use only the abbreviation.

29.   Line 255: Rephrase: “…third more CO₂…”

30.   Lines 299-302: Explain, why management is included in this level. The presented explanation is not sufficient. Why do you call science the lowest level? If there was no science, there would be no Policy/Law or Governance/Decision-making. My words are confirmed in lines 335-342. You should clarify this.

31.   Line 329: The abbreviation NGO has been used in the text before this use.

32.   Line 347: Give references to the econometric studies.

33.  Line 424 – Case studies section: Why are they included? If they are examples of the EDM-IWRM model, then what is the novelty? If not, then they should be placed at the beginning of the discourse and serve as a starting point instead of the historical data that are so widely presented.

34.   Line 487 – Conclusion: the future direction of the EDM-IWRM model might be briefly outlined.

35.   The use of abbreviations should be revised throughout the manuscript.

36.   In the whole article, personal pronouns should be avoided.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3

Below are my responses to your useful comments.

Jacques Ganoulis

Rev. 3

The article suggests a new model for water-human relationship and its manipulation. The manuscript is interesting and mostly gives an overview of historical data on water(nature)-human interaction that serves as primary data for the new model. The article should be revised before it is published.

I thank the reviewer for his pertinent comments, which can improve the manuscript by providing more precise explanations.

My concerns follow:

1. Lines 26-27: Energy and food are not natural resources. [1] gives no evidence for this statement. Primary fuels such as coal, oil, natural gas, and uranium are natural resources. Food systems depend on natural resources.

The reference [1]: UNESCO, WWDR 2021, aims to evaluate and report the value of water and water management in its different services and socio-economic uses, such as water supply, food and agriculture, energy production, and industry. The first paragraph was rewritten to more precisely reflect the reference. See the revised text in track changes, lines 26-28.
In the list of references, [1] was published in 2021 and not in 2018 (see the correction).

2. Line 27-29: "Humans rely on natural assets that constitute the basis they develop through education, intelligence, science and technology, human values, and additional economic goods." This is a very very limited statement. Explain.

See the revised text in track changes, lines 28-31.

3. Line 34: Why agriculture, industry, and tourism are the most important economic activities connected to water?

See the revised text in track changes, lines 38-39.

4. Line 34: Energy is not an economic activity. It has a significant impact on economic activities.

Energy production, e.g., hydropower generation, is an activity with economic consequences for private or state stakeholders and agencies, similar to food production (agriculture) and industrial production of goods and services (industry). See the revised text in track changes, line 39.
I also added the reference [1] on the economic value of water in socio-economic activities.

5. Lines 35-37: "In contrast to saltwater in seas and oceans, which represent about 97% of the total water on Earth, only 3% is freshwater available in rivers, lakes, and aquifers and as a solid 36 state in polar glaciers." Give reference.

The following new reference [3] was replaced the old reference [3] in line 42:

Bralower, T. and Bice, D. (2024). Earth in the Future: Distribution of Water on the Earth's Surface, Open Course, The Pennsylvania State University. Available online:
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/node/701

6. Lines 37-38: Reference [3] is not appropriate for the statement in the sentence.

It was removed in line 43.

7. Lines 38-40: "Therefore, how countries use and allocate their natural water resources to various economic sectors is crucial to ensure water supply, healthy ecosystems, and socio-economic prosperity." This sentence is not complete. Not only countries decide on the use and allocation of water resources. Not only "water supply, healthy ecosystems, and socio-economic prosperity" must be ensured by good, fair, and equal distribution of water.

This sentence was reformulated in track changes in lines 44-46 as follows:

How countries allocate water resources to various socio-economic sectors, like agriculture, energy production, industry, and business, and how these sectors manage water is crucial to achieve economic growth and the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals (UN-SDGs).

8. Lines 42-43: Can you give a reference for the Water Resources Management (WRM) model?

See the revised sentence, line 48.

9. Line 47: What are restricted areas? Can you explain?

“Restricted” means "small scale". See the correction in line 52.

10. Lines 48-50: Reference [5] says nothing about hurricanes in the area of the Mediterranean Sea. It only describes the changes in the Mediterranean climate caused by shifts in midlatitude storms or subtropical high-pressure cells. But there is another chapter on "Relations between climate variability in the Mediterranean region and the tropics: ENSO, South Asian and African monsoons, hurricanes and Saharan dust" (https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-9197(06)80005-4).

Thank you for this precision. The new reference [5] is now quoted as:

Pinhas A., Baldi, M., et al. Chapter 2 Relations between climate variability in the Mediterranean region and the tropics: ENSO, South Asian and African monsoons, hurricanes and Saharan dust. In: Lionello, P., Malanotte-Rizzoli, P. and Boscolo R. (eds.), Vol. 4, Mediterranean, pp. 149-177. Developments in Earth and Environmental Sciences, Elsevier (2006) https://doi.org/10.1016/S1571-9197(06)80005-4

11. Lines 65-70: This paragraph is a mere speculation. The author gave no evidence for this statement except for his other published papers.

See the revised paragraphs in track changes, lines 71-90.

12. Line 72: I do not consider reference [13] relevant as Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia that can be modified by anyone even without scientific or any other assistance.

Reference [13] was replaced by a more reliable one. Line 91.

13. Line 73: What is "our case"?

"Our case" is "the paper." See the track change in line 92.

14. Line 77: What about holistic or other systematic "clusters"? e.g. https://uu.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:808778/FULLTEXT01.pdf, https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12653, …

Thank you for suggesting these two references. Both are not directly related to the paper's dialectic analysis. The first is on a systemic approach to environmental education without focusing on Human-Nature conflict resolution. The second on Human Exceptionalism (HE) from a psychological perspective provides a lengthy discussion of the Human-Nature separation on environmental policy. Both references and some other conceptual frameworks on human-nature interaction, such as Nature-Based Solutions (NBS) and Ancestral Environmental Technologies (AET), could be included in future papers on Human-Nature dialectics.

15. The Introduction section should also give a novelty. Borrowing the idea that "This anthropocentric human behavior is reflected in the IWRM model's structure, and for us, it is the main reason for producing substantial adverse environmental impacts that economists call "externalities" [15]." is not a reason for new IWRM model and not explaining the need for it.

See the last paragraph of the introduction. Lines 103-148.

16. As the manuscript will be published as a scientific paper, not a review, the second paragraph must be Materials and Methods. I would really like to know the basic sources for writing the article and the methods used.

The second chapter is now entitled Material and Methods, line 149. The main arguments of the dialectical theory and more on the methodology are reported in this section.  

17. Lines 96-98: "Geological epochs" is not the best terminus technicus. It should be replaced by a more suitable one used not only by paleontologists but also by geologists.

See in track changes, line 158.

18. Lines 98-100: This is just one of the theories. Is this piece of information important for the merit of the article? It should be omitted.

The reference [17] was replaced by

Potts, R. Evidence of Human Evolution. Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History (2024). Available online:https://humanorigins.si.edu/education/introduction-human-evolution

19. Lines 121 and 127: Water is not an environmental indicator because it is a part of the environment. Environmental indicators are usually parameters defined by law or some regulation.

Water quality, water scarcity, excess and lack of water are environmental indicators included in policy regulation. See the revised text, lines 182-189.

20. Line 136 – Figure 1: Explain all the abbreviations in the figure.

The abbreviations were used in the original figure cited in the literature. I removed them for clarity.

21. Line 141: The word years in "12 kyr years ago" is unnecessary.

Ok. It was removed in line 202.

22. Lines 155-160: A reference is missing.

The new [26] reference in line 221 was added instead of the old that was omitted as unnecessary.

23. Lines 193-194: What is the difference between global warming (WG) and Global Warming (GW)?

No difference. See the correction lines 255-256.

24. Line 199 – Figure 4: Explain all the abbreviations in the figure.

These abbreviations come from the original figure. They are unnecessary and were removed.

25. Lines 209-212: Explain, why the Acheloos River from ancient Greece and a giant snake, defeated by Hercules, are a typical example of "dualistic behavior".

As explained in the text, lines 270-274, the dualistic character of Acheloos River results from the fact that at the same time, it was considered a God (producing food) and an adversarial snake (producing floods). “Cooperation and conflict” together.

26. Lines 213_214: The sentence "our aim is not to analyze the GW phenomenon from a scientific point of view" should be reformulated. I do not agree with this statement.

See the new paragraph in track changes, lines 275-278.

27. Line 216: It is strange to call the WRM model predictions a "narrative."

Ok.It was removed, line 278.

28. Line 220: It is not necessary to define the abbreviation again (GW). Use only the abbreviation.

Ok. See the correction, line 282.

29. Line 255: Rephrase: "…third more CO₂…"

“A third more” means “one third more”, line 318.

30. Lines 299-302: Explain, why management is included in this level. The presented explanation is not sufficient. Why do you call science the lowest level? If there was no science, there would be no Policy/Law or Governance/Decision-making. My words are confirmed in lines 335-342. You should clarify this.

In Ch. 5 we distinguish management from policy and governance in order to demonstrate how a WRM model can be translated into policy and used as a tool for governance. Science is the main tool for WRM modeling that serves management.
See more explanations in the Fig.3, reference [12], in line 372.

31. Line 329: The abbreviation NGO has been used in the text before this use.

Ok, line 393

32. Line 347: Give references to the econometric studies.

The reference [41] on biodiversity economics contains econometric models. It was placed before the reference [42] on the World Water Forum (WWF), lines 411, 413.

33. Line 424 – Case studies section: Why are they included? If they are examples of the EDM-IWRM model, then what is the novelty? If not, then they should be placed at the beginning of the discourse and serve as a starting point instead of the historical data that are so widely presented.

The case studies aim to clarify the new theoretical aspects of the EDM-IWRM. In the revised text, together with the conclusions, they have been rewritten to highlight the theory.

See the revised text, lines lines 501-609.

34. Line 487 – Conclusion: the future direction of the EDM-IWRM model might be briefly outlined.

Constraints and prerequisites for future applications of the model are added.

See the revised text, lines 487-500

35. The use of abbreviations should be revised throughout the manuscript.

Done.                                                            

36. In the whole article, personal pronouns should be avoided.

Ok. Done. See the revised text.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the author for the revised version of the manuscript. The clarity has been much improved. I have no more comments and the manuscript can be accepted in present form.