The Types of Water Conflicts in an Irrigation System in Northern Mexico: Conflict as a Negative Link in Social Network Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article has a wealth of ethnographic information, and does a fine job of teasing out different dimensions of water conflict in the Rio Mayo irrigation district.  I would like to see this information made available to a broader public.  

That said, it still reads like a student paper, and it needs considerable reworking on several fronts.  First, in the first paragraph of your introduction you need to state your central question, tell us why it is important, and tell us how you have addressed the question in the research.  At some point, I wondered if you were asking whether ethnicity was the chief determinant of water conflict, and that you concluded that conflict occurred on several different axes, and that ethnicity wasn't all that important.  Was this the central question? 

Second,  you make a big deal out of you use of the Girvan-Newman algorithm to identify axes of conflict.  It seemed to me that you found it a way to legitimize conclusions that you could just as easily have reached with a careful reading of your field notes and interview data.  If it revealed information that you could not have gleaned otherwise, you need to tell us clearly and concisely how the algorithm is constructed and how it works.  Then tell us what information you teased out of the algorithm that you would NOT OTHERWISE have gleaned.  

Third, in section 2 you need to include a paragraph on cropping patterns in the district and the water demands of the various crops grown.  It would also be helpful to know what smallholders are growing and what large-scale producers are planting.  What are pesticide application practices like in the different sectors?  This is going to help us later when you talk about conflicts involving veg crop producers and domestic water users.

I would also have liked more ethnographic information about people we call "ditch tenders" in the US context--the people who make decisions on the ground about where and when water would be released.  They are important participants in water conflict.

Last, writing ranges from fluid to awkward.  The paper would benefit from more careful editing.  I also wondered about your use of words like "small fish" and "agrotitans".  Are these direct translations of terms commonly used in the Rio Mayo valley? If so, let us know the Spanish words.  That would give us more of a sense of locality.

So I would encourage you to revise with the aim of clarifying your question, rethinking the importance of the Girhan-Newman algorithm to your argument, and fleshing out even more the axes of conflict that you identify and the concerns of the different protagonists.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Apart from a few misused words and a number of clumsy sentences, the language quality is fine.  I saw few grammatical errors.   Some paragraphs are clearly written.  Others seem like they come from student papers.   Editing would make for a stronger  contribution. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper entitled “Types of water conflicts in an irrigation system in northern Mexico: conflict as a negative link in social networks analysis” aims to identify water-related conflicts between 118 individual users and 30 social/institutional actors in the Rio Mayo Irrigation District of Sonora, Mexico, where leaves the Yoreme Mayo indigenous group.

A bimodal social network analysis and the Girvan-Newman algorithm were used to identify four types of conflicts:

1) tensions between small-scale with large-scale farmers regarding water rights and land use;

2) disputes between large-scale farmers and the social actors to obtain more water;

3) struggles by rural indigenous women for domestic water supply; and

4) a structural remnant.

The paper proceeds in six sections: (1) introduction, (2) historical review of the study area, (3) methodology, (4) results, (5) discussion and (6) conclusions. However it is difficult to read, as it is lengthy with many repetitions and confusing in many aspects. I strongly recommend revising the paper, shortening and clarifying different issues, such as:

- Although the main topic in the title is the identification of conflicts related to irrigation water, the type 3 of conflicts refers to domestic water supply (see also Fig.3)

- The role of the 30 social actors is not explained but only mentioned in a previous study (line 88) and in Fig. 3

- Why only the bimodal water user-social actor conflicts are considered while those between user-user and among different social actors are neglected?

- The type 4 conflicts should be explained

- The figure’s captions should be shortened

- The use of the Girvan-Newman algorithm is unclear. Have the authors developed special software or used an existing commercial package?

- The conflicts are considered as negative links in the analysis. Are some benefits possible from those conflicts?

- There is no mention about water pricing for irrigation and its role in conflict generation

- Can the authors summarize their findings for policy and suggest ways for conflict resolution?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have completed the revision of the manuscript. Please separate the Appendix A from the list of references.