Science Informed Policies for Managing Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The work presents an opinion of the author related to the relationship between scientists and decision makers. The author presents twelve examples. From the abstract I observed that he was not talking about the methodology used, nor the results, nor the concrete conclusions. There is a continued absence of references throughout the document that becomes obvious to highlight. Since there are many unsubstantiated claims. Many data and studies that are not properly referenced in this document. Furthermore, the figures are neither convenient nor appropriate. They can be safely omitted since they are also not mentioned in the text. The style used is informal and inappropriate for this type of publication. There are some sections with underlined words and highlighted phrases. Which gives the impression that it is still a preliminary version of the document.
Author Response
Attached please find the detailed response. Again the comments have really helped me write a more complete and coherent paper. At least I hope I have done that. My thanks to them.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear author,
Thank you for the opportunity to review this paper. I found it very well written and an interesting reflection on the field of science-water policy & management interface.
As a social scientist and having worked in the field of political ecology applied to water governance and public participation processes, I will try to discuss and introduce in my review complementary or opposed opinions.
I will follow the order of presentation on the manuscript.
Section 2. Materials and Methods
I am aware that this is an article under the opinion category, but the section devoted to methods could be improved by explaining how you are approaching and selecting the topics that are introduced in the following sections and what is the rationale behind their order of presentation. I think this could improve understanding the text. At present form I find the sections not very clear as I will try to explain later.
3.1. Scientists and Policy Makers
Under the rational planning model, I agree that policy makers desire evidence from scientists good enough to allow an evaluation of alternative policies. But under the political ecology paradigm we recognize that decision making takes place under circumstances of asymmetries of power and conflicts of interest. From my point of view, this theoretical approach allows to better understand decision-making in the real world. As scientist our duty is also to be aware of these circumstances and define alternatives taking into account different perspectives and interests. Transparency is a key point here.
I am not suggesting that the first is not truth, but the latter is also an important explanatory factor to be considered. I will get back to this idea later.
3.2. Science for Science vs. Science for Policy
I agree that Scientists contributing to policy making debates have convictions and values just like everyone else, that is why to be transparent about them is so important. However quite frequently scientist even do not recognize what is the theoretical paradigm they are using while approaching a certain issue (I.e. the rational planning model I was mentioning before) or they respond to particular interests of important economic or social actors. In water planning and management, we can consider them to be stakeholders with legitime interest (i.e. water for agricultural or industrial purpose versus environmental services), but it is very important to identify them and explain openly and transparently their interest and difference in power. In fact, many of the examples provided by author illustrate these aspects and inequalities while as explanatory factors they are not addressed neither mentioned in the paper.
3.3. Meeting the Science Needs of Policy Makers
I agree with author that Policy is not dictated by science. For many reasons that are also addressed latter that has to do with the complexity and uncertainties that scientist have to deal with, but also with the power structures and conflicts of interest that are not explicitly mentioned neither considered in this manuscript. I would suggest mentioning them.
3.3.1. Uncertainty
I agree with author that uncertainty is a key feature of science and modern societies as well. This is in line with Ulrich Beck’s seminal work of the risk Society (1992) that in social science had an important impact.
From my point of view uncertainty and complexity are two important factors that support the Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) Paradigm, so I would consider them at the same level.
With regards to sections “3.3.2. Information Constraints; 3.3.3. Time Constraints; 3.3.4. Time Horizons” I believe they are in fact aspects related to uncertainty, complexity or to the fact that there are different power structures that explain decision-making , so I would suggest reconsider this contents to be included as subcategories of the uncertainty section or as a new section focus on the power and conflicts of interest.
On the other hand, you might also refer to other types of uncertainties that we have to face and be aware of. According to Wynne, (1992) uncertainty can be understood under three different perspectives:
- Technical (or conventional) uncertainty which refers to the unavailability of data and, more generally, information and knowledge. In this case the problem is related to the lack of reliability or thoroughness of the historical data, a frequent situation in hydrology.
- Uncertainty in terms of indetermination. In these situations, the system parameters and their interrelationships are unknown, since they are so complex, and consequently the model results become completely unreliable.
- Uncertainty in terms of ignorance, which occurs when 'we ignore what we do not know'.
I agree with author that Policy makers (and society I would add) are less comfortable with uncertainty and expect scientific knowledge to be ‘more certain’ than other sources. In that case, from my point of view, it is our duty as scientist to inform policy makers and society about technical uncertainty, of course, but also recognize uncertainty in terms of indetermination and ignorance. That is why among other reasons, Lubchenco (1998) propose a New Social Contract for Science recommending scientist should “exercise good judgment, wisdom, and humility”.
3.3.5. Complexity and Interconnectedness
As I mentioned before I believe complexity to have a strong explanatory power in our work facing water planning and management. I would even suggest to addressed it before uncertainty because great part of the indetermination and ignorance we have about environmental issues come from here.
3.4. Communication
I agree with author that communicating is important but also, I would stress the need to make our results more transparent in the sense of making the assumptions and used parameters in a model clear, for example. Also, from my point of view is key to address the assessment and production of alternatives openly: taking into account the different interest and perspectives. This is key in water governance literature and is related with the participatory planning approach in the context of IWRM.
On the other hand, I disagree with the ‘honest brokers’ explanation because I believe in a constructivist view of science. As mentioned before either if you are aware or not your work is framed under a certain paradigm (in author’s paper the rational model as far as I can observed) that influences your definition of the problems, your goals, your methods, results, etc.
3.5. Science – Policy collaboration
3.6. The practice of integrating science and policy
As I have mentioned before, I placed myself in the political ecology and constructivism theoretical frameworks. In that sense, I believe that in the decision-making process different interest, perspectives and power asymmetries have an important explanatory role (as some of the examples provided by author show). So, I am in total disagreement of section 3.5’s content, especially on the idea that “While science remains the most reliable and systematic way of gathering knowledge about this world, simple opinions and anecdotes are part of the policy ecosystem and can influence final decisions”. Power and interests are more important that simple opinions or anecdotes.
Apart from that, being a defender of the IWRM approach I believe in the need for open the arena of decision-making to public participation in the water planning and water management processes, as the European Water Framework Directive does. In that sense, section 3.6. might also consider this key point: the collaboration between science – society- policy makers in the decision-making process.
There are many articles and authors sustaining these ideas, but I would specifically recommend considering FUNTOWICZ, S.O. and RAVETZ, J.R. in any of their work explaining their proposal of what they called ‘Postnormal science’ and the need to extend the peer communities in the face of environmental challenges.
3.7. Characterizing Policy Issues
I agree with the wicked problem presentation and I would connect this content with the complexity of the systems that was addressed before. As I have mentioned before I do not quite understand the rationale of the sections and their order. I would suggest reviewing the structure of the paper and/or clarify its rationale.
3.8. Modeling Policy Issues
I am afraid I do not quite understand the point of this section.
- Discussion
While I agree with most statements in this section, I would like to point out that scientists and politicians are not ‘neutral neither rational beings’ as the technocratic and rational model assumed. From my point of view, you cannot separate the facts from values. Scientist and politicians are under certain scientific paradigm and the latter specially represent specific power structures and interests.
That said, I believe in the role of science to inform policies and to help taking the ‘best’ negotiated solutions. In order to do that, transparency and public participation are a key element.
References
LUBCHENCO, J. (1998). «Entering the Century of the Environment: A New Social Contract for Science». Science, 279, p. 491-497.
FUNTOWICZ, S.O.; RAVETZ, J.R.
– 2003. “Post-Normal Science”. International Society for Ecological Economics, Online Encyclo- pedia of Ecological Economics.
– 1993. “Science for the post-normal age”. Futures, 25(7), 739-755.
– 1992. “Three Types of Risk Assessment and the Emergence of Post-Normal Science”, En Krimsky, S. y Golding, D. (eds.). Social Theories of Risk. Westport, CT: Praeger, 251-274.
– 1991. “A new scientific methodology for global environmental issues”, En Costanza, R. Ecological Economics: The Science and Management of Sustainability. Nueva York: Columbia University Press, 137-152.
– 1990. Uncertainty and quality in science for policy. Dordrecht, the Netherlands; Norwell, MA.: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
WYNNE, B. (1992): “Uncertainty and Environmental Learning: Reconceiving Science in the Preventative Paradigm” Global Environmental Change, 2, (June), 111-127.
Author Response
Attached please find the detailed response. Again the comments have really helped me write a more complete and coherent paper. At least I hope I have done that. My thanks to them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an interesting opinion article on the importance of evidence-based policies and the role of scientists therein, written by one of the world’s most experienced and highly esteemed water experts.
I read the article with a lot of interest. Although most of it was not new to me, but what makes this article interesting is that it provides a comprehensive overview of the various aspects of the science-policy interface, and that it is illustrated by real-world examples.
I have only three minor comments/suggestions.
1. The author refers the phenomenon of “unintended consequences” one time, as follows: “The scale and inevitability of unintended consequences stemming from a non-evidence-informed decision can be too large to risk.” (lines 404-406). The formulation of the sentence seems to imply that informed decisions do not have such consequences. But that is of course not the case. For any policy there are nearly always unforeseen ramifications, even if it was science-informed. In my view it would be nice to elaborate tis a bit more, and include a convincing example of a policy with such an unintended consequence. A frequently mentioned one (and I am pretty sure the author is aware of this one) is that “water can be saved by improving the water use efficiency of irrigation”. Evidence suggest that this may often result in the opposite: it may lead to an increase in consumptive water use and a decrease in water availability downstream (see e.g. Perry, 2007; Grafton et al., 2018; Lankford et al., 2020). Another (anecdotal, I have not found a reference) example is that the energy transition away from fossils and nuclear in Germany has led to an increase (and intensification) of maize cultivation as a biofuel, which led to an increase in N and P pollution of shallow groundwater, which then flowed into neighbouring The Netherlands. Trying to solve one environmental issue created another…
2. Example 6 focuses on the long-term consequences of short term decisions, and gives four examples of drying lakes, but all these examples concern the end lakes of endorheic basins, that are inherently vulnerable (and we can easily make the list of such drying end lakes or end lakes under threat much larger, e.g. Dead Sea, Gav Khuni (the end lake of the Zayandeh Rud in Iran), Turkana etc.). So do these examples say something on the long-term consequences of short term decisions, or (also and perhaps more so) that human interventions in vulnerable water systems can have enormous consequences...
3. I found one reasoning not entirely sound. The author writes:
“Policy makers need to find acceptable practical compromise solutions to problems or issues that meet the values held by all participants where there are no such solutions. These so called ‘wicked’ problems are hard to define, let alone solve, analytically. Thus inevitably their resolution is temporary and tentative and dependent on political judgements. As the saying goes, performing the hard sciences is easy, performing the soft sciences is hard. Participating in policy making is hard. [26].” (lines 472-477)
I largely agree with this argument, but I found the one but last sentence out of place: Isn’t the author conflating policy making with the social sciences when using the term “soft sciences” in that sentence? Aren’t these two entirely different things?
Grammar issues
I found some few typos and other small editorial stuff on the following lines:
Line 6: policy -> Policy
Line 72: The heading “Materials and methods” can be entirely omitted.
Line 182: do you mean “[9-11]”, as reference [10] is not referred to in the manuscript
Line 223: hyphen missing
Line 329: comma missing
Line 330: period (.) missing
Line469: replace period by comma
Line 474: “such”: which?
Line 558: period missing
Line 591: “consider” -> “considering”
Line 663: word missing?
Line 673: “involves”?
Line 688-689: word missing?
References
Grafton, R.Q., J. Williams, C.J. Perry, F. Molle, C. Ringler, P. Steduto, B. Udall, S.A. Wheeler, Y. Wang, D. Garrick, R.G. Allen, 2018. The paradox of irrigation efficiency - Higher efficiency rarely reduces water consumption. Science 361 issue 6404 (24 AUGUST 2018): 748-750; DOI: 10.1126/science.aat9314
Lankford, Bruce, Alvar Closas, James Dalton, Elena López Gunn, Tim Hesse, Jerry W.Knox, Saskia van der Kooij, Jonathan Lautze, DavidMolden, Stuart Orr, Jamie Pittock, Brian Richter, Philip J Riddell, Christopher A Scott, Jean-philippe Venot, Jeroen Vos and Margreet Zwarteveen, 2020. A scale-based framework to understand the promises, pitfalls and paradoxes of irrigation efficiency to meet major water challenges. Global Environmental Change 65 (November 2020), 102182, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2020.102182
Perry, C.J., 2007. Efficient irrigation; inefficient communication; flawed recommendations. Irrig. and Drain. 56: 367–378; DOI: 10.1002/ird.323
Author Response
Attached please find the detailed response. Again the comments have really helped me write a more complete and coherent paper. At least I hope I have done that. My thanks to them.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
My thanks again for your helpful comments and for forcing me to write what I hope is now a better paper. I really appreciate it.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
