Contributions of Organizational Levels in Community Management Models of Water Supply in Rural Communities: Cases from Brazil and Ecuador
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper gives relevant information for water practitioners who are working in rural areas. Conclusions can be improved. The Ecuatorian case should be mentioned in the conclusions.
Author Response
Dear Reviwer 1,
We appreciate your review and we are sending attached a document with further details.
Sincerely,
Anna Machado.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper provides an interesting comparative assessment of institutional models for rural water service delivery in Latin America. The paper does a good job at presenting the models and where the different roles and responsibilities lie. However it is unclear how the methods/data collection supports some of the assertions about the relative performance of different arrangements. As per my final three comments below, there are mentions of 'sustainability' 'efficiency', 'success rates' , 'safety', and 'positive outcomes' associated with different models - but these statements appear to be based on anecdotal evidence rather than empirical evidence. It would therefore be helpful to clarify how these outcomes were measured/assessed.
Here are some specific comments:
Line 29: unclear what is meant by the term "national territory" - is this meant to be "public land" or signify some other concept?
Lines 36-39: these sentences seem to imply that 'community management' are necessary for ensuring 'community participation'. These are two different concepts (see https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsl001 for a good explanation) and it is possible to have community participation without necessarily imposing a community management model. (e.g. if a community chooses an alternative to community management then that is a good example of participation)
Various lines: the term 'life quality' is used throughout. Suggest changing to 'quality of life' which is a more commonly used phrase.
Line 60: should be "...points to the recent trend..."
Line 98: consider changing text to "establishment of Ecuador's 2008 constitution initiated..."
Line 191: suggest change text to "Women's involvement..."
Line 299: I'm not familiar with the term "micro-measurements technologies" - is there a more conventional/commonly used term for this? or if not, could it be explained?
Line 376: refers to "success rates and water safety achievements" in Ceara and Canar. How were 'success' and 'safety' measured and at what scale was data collected to back up this statement? I couldn't locate any empirical data presented in the paper to support claims about "success rates" and "water safety".
Line 421-422: refers to the "efficiency and sustainability of the service" - again, it is unclear how these were measured/assessed.
Line 427: refers to "positive results in system's functionality" - what empirical data underlies this assertion? how was functionality assessed?
Author Response
Dear Reviwer 2,
We appreciate your review and we are sending attached a document with further details.
Sincerely,
Anna Machado.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Overall, the paper does an effective job of giving a succinct high level overview of the designs of different systems of implementation and administration of water management systems in rural areas of different Latin American countries. This provides some value to the reader.
The paper is also well written and concise with only a few minor edits needed.
However, the paper is presented as though there is empirical research (interviews, site assessments) behind it and yet there is no evidence that the empirical research informs the findings or discussion. The number of interviews needs to be clarified as does the method of analysis. It is difficult to know where the authors are deriving their conclusions from. Indeed, the results section seems to be a literature review.
The findings section outlines the planned functioning of the systems, but provides limited evidence of their success or failure. More information needs to be provided regarding this as it is the crux of the paper’s discussion and conclusions that different approaches lead to different program success rates. From the methodology, the reader is left to believe that some kind of assessment was done by the researchers, but this assessment is not presented in the paper with the authors instead relying upon other sources to assess the successes and failings of the systems.
In summary, the paper is provides a good summary of the design of the management systems in place for the cases they look at. They provide very limited (too limited) evidence (from other literature, not their own empirical work) into the current functioning and effectiveness of those systems. They then present a discussion and conclusions based upon that limited evidence.
The paper should either be reframed as being dependent upon existing literature (it could be a good paper rooted in existing research and literature provided some addition evidence is provided regarding the effectiveness of the different systems) or the findings from their empirical research should be presented (evidence from their site visits and interviews). It needs to be clear if this is a literature review and analysis or empirical research.
It is always possible that I am somehow missing something regarding the empirical results, but if that is the case, there is a need for the authors to clarify when they are presenting their own research findings. Indeed, I would suggest they should avoid having many references at all in their findings section unless they decide that this is really a analysis based on existing published research.
Author Response
Dear Reviwer 3,
We appreciate your review and we are sending attached a document with further details.
Sincerely,
Anna Machado.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Revisions are adequate and the methodology is substantially clearer as a result.
Reviewer 3 Report
No additional comments.
