Strategy for Realizing Regional Rural Water Security on Tropical Peatland
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The title is somehow ambiguous, so need improvement
The term resilience must, normally, include a hazard or disaster or emergency and the system that is affected. The first part is not clearly discussed, so it has been difficult for the authors to establish the resilience aspects or factors thereby using them for the study. In so doing, the study seem to be a normal subject.
Lab results for water quality are difficult to find, the results would enhance the decision on the best strategy to improving the water supply in the area
The discussion is not conclusive as to whether there is adequate resilience or not and what exactly should be done to improve the resilience
Ethical matters should clearly presented, especially, consents should be obtained from the respondents and other participants before using their images.
The language should be improved
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Henny Herawati
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The study is interesting, original, and contains many recommendations. This paper try to formulate a management strategy for providing, by 2030, access to clean water and sanitation in the context of SDGs for rural communities living on peatlands in Indenosia. There is a articulation and coherence between the different sections of the article and the research methods (research and development method, participatory method, etc.), used are appropriate to the subject of the paper. However, I quote some comments as follows:
- In the sub-section 4.1.1 (Controlling groundwater level): It is recommended to add some data on the fluctuation of the groundwater level compared to the previous years, because of the drawdown of the water table.
- Some elements of the discussion part can be added to the conclusions which remains excessively summarized;
- I also find that there are a large number of figures. I suggest to the authors to limit to those which bring an added value to the analysis;
- There are some clumsinesses of English, for example :1-“[…] of the world's population and is projected to continue to increase” ligne 41 and 42; 2-In the ligne 43: “things” should be replaced by “factors”; 3-Ground water in ligne 275 should writed groundwater.
- The acronyms should be develpped in the text in the first citation like in the ligne 65 : BPS; 2-In the scientific framework of SDGs, we found ; “basic sanitation service” instead “proper sanitation” in this paper.
- English needs to be carefully checked by a native English speaker.
I judge that this paper can be published in Water journal with minor revisions
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Henny Herawati
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Please find attached the manuscript .pdf file with my comments typed directly into the file. Only my summary comments are included below:
My summary comments:
The paper presents an interesting case study of selected water strategies that can be used to improve availability of water supplies in West Kalimantan Province. However, significant editing and re-organization is required before the paper can be published.
First, the authors should decide whether they are truly studying resilience. If so, resilience needs to be defined in the paper, and factors that affect water resilience in Indonesia, especially rural Indonesia need to be provided.
Second, following this closely, the authors do not carefully discuss the specific challenges involved in: a) rural Indonesia water supplies; and b) rural tropical peatland water supplies. As such, insufficient context is provided to the reader.
Third, the research methodology description needs to be carefully re-considered. "Research and Development" is not a method. This is a case study of an implementation. It can be exploratory, intrinsic, or instrumental. Additionally, more details should be provided on background and implementation of the participatory aspects of the study.
I would also like to note that the paper will benefit from technical English editing. I would highly recommend this service or a careful proof reading before re-submission.
Overall, it is an interesting study that will make a stronger contribution with edits that take these thoughts into consideration
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
Thank you.
Best Regards,
Henny Herawati
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Substantial work has been done for improving the manuscript
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We have revised according to your comments.
We thank and appreciate the corrections and recommendations for improvement to improve the quality of our articles.
Thanks again for you.
Best regards,
Henny Herawati (Author Team)
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have taken care to address many of my concerns, although I still believe the English style could be improved to make the details of the case more clear.
For more substantive issues, I have a couple things that the authors must address before publication of the present version:
- While the manuscript has been revised as a case study, more details should be provided about the strategies used. Were there alternatives, or is there only one strategy under consideration by West Kalimantan? This aspect should be made more clear. If there is only one strategy under consideration, that should be noted and perhaps only limited edits are needed to the paper. If the community pursued multiple strategies, it remains unclear what those were and how they were compared.
- Water treatment, or "processing" in the words of the authors, is mentioned, but the details of this treatment are not presented. For water engineers or community members interested in understanding how to apply the lessons of this case study in their own communities, the type of treatment should be described briefly.
Since the paper has been reframed away from resilience, I will defer to others for judgments on additional details of the case study.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Please see the attachment.
We thank and appreciate the corrections and recommendations for improvement to improve the quality of our articles.
Thanks again for you.
Best regards,
Henny Herawati (Author Team)
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
