Utopian River Planning and Hydrosocial Territory Transformations in Colombia and Spain
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments on Utopian river planning and hydrosocial territory transformations in Colombia and Spain
General comments. I have to say that When I saw the word utopic I though of a quite different subject. It indeed is not quite my area of knowledge. So I asked a friend Historical Geographer to take a look at the article to make a more consistent evaluation.
Regardless the fact that the article is not a common subject in water, I understand that the author submitted to this journal, because she wanted to direct the research for the public of this journal. I fully agree with her choice, because the approach is different, but is extremely valuable. Understanding the history and the bases of the formation of planning water resources seem to me a need. I think this article is goingo to be largely cited by hydrologists and water planners.
The article is written in a very good English and I see no need for further improvements. However I notice an issue in the structure of the article, because the author proposes the application of different techniques in two specific basins (see line 128-136). But I could not see any discussion on the results of this work. Figure 2 also presents two equal maps, one next to the other. It is probably some material that was meant to be proposed to another article. I’d just suggest the authors to remove this material.
Comments of a colleague Geographer: Professor Jacob Binsztok
The article presents theoretical and empirical relevance, considering it investigate the philosophical roots that inspired two projects of economic modernization funded on the recovery of hydrographic basins located in Spain, during the authoritarian period of Franco, and in Colombia within the democratic governments recently constructed in the country.
Therefore, the author demonstrates that regardless the geographic distance, distinct historic periods and different modalities of popular participation, a regional recovery politics predominates, which are considered by the French economist and geographers as “depressed” and subject to governmental interventions, because the liberal stakeholders who are influenced by the interests of the market are not willing to promote the desired and necessary economic development.
The philosophic roots that directed these enterprises were largely inspired by the experience implemented by the Tenenessee Valey Authority (TVA) in the south of US in a region where cotton monoculture dominated in a strong slavery tradition which is underlined by the author, Besides a marked influence of keynesinian theories, the author mentions the merging of different regional planning concepts, anchored in the recovery and conservation of hydrographic basins.
The contribution of the positivism and utilitarism concepts are examined in detail by the researcher. Regardless de fact that the positivist are considered great readers, Sergio Buarque de Holanda considers that they are not quite efficient in interpreting the reality of the country (mainly in the case of Brazil). Under my view, the contribution of the positivists, including those in Colombia and in Spain was rather bookish and little effective. I think this a point that should also be addressed in your text.
The author emphasizes the incorporation of a technical background with a positivist inspiration that in a sense would broaden the rational fundaments of planning. However, a few questions should be posed with respect to the success of these interventions. Were they able to break a long cycle of stagnation and destruction of the natural resources, submitted to the colonialist policies, internally or externally influenced? Or, were they just mitigators and promoters of punctual interventions, without the possibility to show any modification in the background of these regions? This is a point that should be cleared.
Finally, my opinion is favorable for the publication of the present article, after the recommended adjustments proposed by this referee.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The overall structure of this paper is complete, but there are still some problems. Specific suggestions are as follows:
1. Introduction: L69-90. In the last two paragraphs of your introduction, you briefly describe the main structure of your essay. Combining these two paragraphs into one might make the logic more coherent and make it easier for the reader to understand your structure. At the same time, it is suggested to further improve the language expression.
2. Figure 2. (a) and (b) in Figure 2 seem to be the same picture. Please modify it.
3. Section 5. L271-273. There seems to be something wrong with the language organization here and there is no complete logic, please revise it. At the same time, please check the article carefully, modify similar problems, and improve the language expression.
4. Section 5. You have divided this part into two subsections for elaboration, but only the second section has a subheading (L342). It is suggested to add a subheading to both subsections. Meanwhile, L342 needs to be modified.
5. Section 6. Similar to the previous suggestion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript "Utopian river planning and hydrosocial territory transformations in Colombia and Spain" is submitted as a full research article and deals with a very interesting subject to scholars in the field. The paper provides interesting insights into the historical and political factors that have shaped hydrosocial territories in Colombia and Spain, analyzing similarities and differences in river governance history using the disjunctive comparison method. The use of Thomas More's work as an analytical reference is insightful and helps to understand how utopian tendencies have traveled through time and space to shape territorial planning and water governance. However, there are some problems, which must be solved before it is considered for publication. If the following problems are well-addressed, this reviewer believes that the essential contribution of this article is important for the understanding of utopian tendencies in river planning.
Major issues:
(1) The paper lacks empirical findings to illustrate the impact of utopian river planning on hydrosocial territories in two countries. Could the author provide more empirical evidence to support the impact of utopian river planning on hydrosocial territories in two countries?
(2) Limited evaluation and ablation studies for the proposed method.
(3) Has the author considered the role of other factors, such as cultural and social differences, in shaping river governance history in two countries?
(4) It would be helpful to clarify how the three analytical categories of positivism, utilitarianism, and expertocracy can illuminate the differences and similarities in river governance history between the two countries.
Minor issues:
(1) There are some issues with the reference number identification.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
