Resilient Urban Water Services for the 21th Century Society—Stakeholder Survey in Finland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
It is necessary to clarify next issues:
Finnish survey results could be extended in some manners? The sample is relevant? Only 99 replies were received! How will be influenced the entire analyze, discussions and comments? Explain with evidence and robust arguments the idea from lines 72-73. In order to be perceived more correctly (eg lines 241-242) and integrated the value of entire research, particularly the section 3.2, could be added as appendix the entire survey to demonstrate with the 15 questions how was the research design. How about the necessity of some hypotheses according with the 2 mentioned questions (lines 57, 58) ? Could be useful to provide more accurate in introductions or in final sections some discussions related to interdependencies between water and other critical systems in the framework of urban resilience.
Author Response
Finnish survey results could be extended in some manners? The sample is relevant? Only 99 replies were received! How will be influenced the entire analyze, discussions and comments? Explain with evidence and robust arguments the idea from lines 72-73.
We have now explained this more properly in the article in the beginning of the section Material and methods. This is explained from the view that Finland is a country of small population and the 99 replies cover more than 80 percent of water consumers and a remarkable and most important share of stakeholders in the water services sector.
In order to be perceived more correctly (eg lines 241-242) and integrated the value of entire research, particularly the section 3.2, could be added as appendix the entire survey to demonstrate with the 15 questions how was the research design.
We totally agreed with this request and the questionnaire is now translated to English and added as Appendix 1 into the article.
How about the necessity of some hypotheses according with the 2 mentioned questions (lines 57, 58)? Could be useful to provide more accurate in introductions or in final sections some discussions related to interdependencies between water and other critical systems in the framework of urban resilience.
This is also a good proposal. However, since this study is largely of qualitative nature, to our understanding, the use of hypothesis would not be that appropriate. So, we did not add hypotheses into the article, but there is discussion about suggested interdependences in the section Discussion and conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper concerns the important issue of resilient urban water services for the 21th century society – stakeholder survey in Finland. The following suggestions should be referred to. Please check the resolution of Figures, they should be of a good quality. Poor quality of the following figure: Line 254. Figure 2.The relative importance of water services according to respondents, illustrated by occupational groups. Please check the resolution of Figures, they should be of a good quality More uniform of formatting should be made, spaces between two sentence, etc. Add units to the vertical axis of the figures, eg. in the following: Line 278. Figure 3. Policy instruments and pricing policy, illustrated by occupational groups. Separate section of conslusions from the section of discussion and conclusion. Conclusions should present more detail obtained through performed study. The main achievements of this study should be presented and underlined in the Conclusion.
Author Response
The paper concerns the important issue of resilient urban water services for the 21th century society – stakeholder survey in Finland. The following suggestions should be referred to.
Please check the resolution of Figures, they should be of a good quality. Poor quality of the following figure: Line 254. Figure 2.The relative importance of water services according to respondents, illustrated by occupational groups. Please check the resolution of Figures, they should be of a good quality More uniform of formatting should be made, spaces between two sentence, etc. Add units to the vertical axis of the figures, eg. in the following: Line 278. Figure 3. Policy instruments and pricing policy, illustrated by occupational groups.
The figures were not copied in the best possible way for the best resolution. We made a new version of each figure using the best possible quality. Unit to Figure 3 was added.
Separate section of conslusions from the section of discussion and conclusion. Conclusions should present more detail obtained through performed study. The main achievements of this study should be presented and underlined in the Conclusion.
We made a new section 4.4 Conclusions, and present clearly the main achievements in that part of the article.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Were provided enough arguments according to my observations.
I agree to be published the article in this new form.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and final acceptance of our revision.
Best regards, Jyrki Laitinen
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your valuable comments and final acceptance of our revision.
Best regards, Jyrki Laitinen
