Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic is timely, and the authors emphasize it with good effect. The research question is also handled simply, but effectively, in any case, in such a way that it can lead to relevant conclusions. However, the overall approach is affected by a few errors in both literature review and analysis.

In the review of the literature, the authors omit to highlight some of the things that should support their presentation. They point out that the value chain requires "a large amount of water", but there is no understanding of scale (Why and how large? Compared to what?), and references to literature are absent. In general, facts are not referenced, as shown in the following statements.

-          “Tunisia which suffers from a water shortage” (how could the reader be convinced about that?)

-          “olive oil sector which is the first strategic agro-industrial sector in Tunisia”, “a very important processing industry” (no data and references to support the claim about the economic role of the olive oil sector)

-          “the average annual rainfall varies from 87 less than 100 mm in the extreme south and more than 1500 mm in the extreme north of 88 the country”; “There are 1,672 olive oil mills…”, ”a trituration capacity of (10,750 tons of olives per day)”, etc.

In the analysis sections, the most visible error is to properly deal with data collection. More information is needed about data collection: What data could farms and mills provide for the research? What data they could not. For what period? How are surveys structured? The data set should also be made available.

A few slips:

-          “The integration of these two concepts is required by need taking into account…”;

-          “si” in equation (1) seems to be an “if”;

-          “UR” and “RU” in equation (1) seem to refer to the same variable

-          GM does not factor in Total costs, but only Variable costs, why? Are “fixed” costs important?

-          The “weight” in “For each of the calculated parameters, the weighted averages were estimated” refers to what?

Moderate editing is required

Author Response

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read this study. The topic of this paper is interesting, and with potential to dive deep inside, however, I have some comments and recommendations to be addressed as follows:

1. In the introduction, it is necessary to add the structure of the study under consideration.

2. In paragraph 2.1, it is necessary to provide a map indicating all the necessary natural and climatic conditions, precipitation, accessibility to external water sources (rivers, reservoirs, lakes ...)

3. In formula 1, it is necessary to replace RU with UR

4. In line 237, the authors did not provide a formula for calculating the indicated indicator

5. The given author's calculations cannot be supported by actual data. It is necessary to provide primary (initial) data in tabular form on all described processes using technical and economic indicators

6. There is no technical description (at least a brief one) about the system for the production of olive oil using water in 3 processing systems

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments, 

Comments from 1 to 6 were taken into consideration and responses are given in the manuscript and highlighted in yellow in the text. 

POINT 4: formula of indicators are provided by equation 6 and 7

An appendix is added to complete information to response to point 5

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The comments in the 'reply to reviewer' should be part of the methodological section as describing in part 'the limits' of research.

 

There are still slips here and there, some uncorrected (eg, 'si'), some new (eg, 'Mai').

Author Response

All responses to reviewer 1 are in the pdf document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors didn't take into consideration my previous comments.

Therefore you must provide a revised version of the manuscript and full responses to my comments in a separate file.

2. In paragraph 2.1, it is necessary to provide a map indicating all the necessary natural and climatic conditions, precipitation, accessibility to external water sources (rivers, reservoirs, lakes ...)

4. In line 237 (266 now), the authors did not provide a formula for calculating the indicated indicator

5. The given author's calculations cannot be supported by actual data. It is necessary to provide primary (initial) data in tabular form on all described processes using technical and economic indicators

  Also, the supplemented data testify to the studies carried out in 2018. What held back the authors from publishing the results of their work in 2019 or 2020? This indicates obsolescence and lack of relevance of the conducted data.   You must add the questionnaire form used to collect and analyze the data. Provide processed summary data for classified groups in tabular form.

Author Response

The responses to reviewer 2 are in the pdf document

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf