Integrating Environmental, Geographical and Social Data to Assess Sustainability in Hydrographic Basins: The ESI Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The description of the study area was improved by adding more data, but not including the demographic info (population, age groups, old-young dependency ration, etc.).

Figure 1 is still not very easy to read.

Conclusions are still general and can be improved.

The typos I mentioned specifically (page and line) in my first review were not corrected.

Page 4 line 137 trough instead of through (not corrected). The authors did not pay attention to previous reviews.

Page 6 line 229 – the correct use of the closer is “the closer …., the better” (the closer the value is to one, better the sustainability condition)

Besides, I could find more mistakes, such as:  

Page 2 – line 70 – “in the basin hydrographic” – the topic in English is reversed “in the hydrographic basin”

Author Response

Response to reviewers
Both reviewers requested a review of English. This new review was made by the proofreading
company and I send the certificate and emails exchanged with the attached company.
Sti
ll in the first round Reviewer 1 asked for a better explanation of references 12 to 24 in the
introduction. This was done see that this text was incorporated in lines 85 to 109 and 116 to 121
lines. in addition to that, in the second round, although this t ext had already been incorporated,
Reviewer 1 maintained his position that explanations were lacking. However, we have done a vast
review of the literature and we have not found new sustainability indexes for river basins and we
understand that the index a s it is being proposed in this paper fills a scientific gap and this is well
described in the text.
#Reviewer 1 The description of the study area was improved by adding more data, but not including
the demographic info (population, age groups, old young de pendency ration, etc.).
#response As for the first round, the Reviewer 1 asked for more details of the study area, but did not
say which ones. I inserted more details related to the natural aspects and now in the second round he
asks for socio economic asp ects, a review on socio economic and historical aspects has been
incorporated see the lines 138 to 178.
#Reviewer
Figure 1 is still not very easy to read.
#response
The changes were made and now figure 1 is a new version.
#Reviewer 1
Conclusions a re still general and can be improved.
#response
Requests for changes in the conclusions were considered, the text was rewritten and we
added a line paragraph 516 to 518. However, the authors prefer to keep the item short in view of the
fact that the pape r is a methodological proposal.
#Reviewer 1
The typos I mentioned specifically (page and line) in my first review were not
corrected.
#response
This is not true, all requests indicated by the reviewer have been incorporated. The
editor can verify by checking item by item, we did everything that was requested.
#Reviewer 1
Page 4 line 137 trough instead of through (not corrected). The authors did not pay
attention to previous reviews.
#response
Done. There were really problems in the equations, problems with file configuration
and they have all been resolved.
#Reviewer 1
Page 6 line 229 the correct use of the closer is “the closer …., the better ” (the
closer the value is to one, better the sustainability condition)
#response
Done. The paper went through a new round of English review.
#Reviewer 1
Besides, I could find more mistakes, such as:
Page 2
line 70 “in the basin hydrographic” the topic in English is reversed “in the
hydrographic basin”
#response
Done. The paper went through a new round of English review. He says we made a
English error on page 2 line 70 'in the basin hydrographic " the topic in English is reversed" in the
hy drographic basin "But on page 2 line 70 it is spelled correctly" However, this time we were more
careful and corrected all the work again with a new round of English review.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors are advised to check carefully the entire manuscript for typing as well as grammar errors.

Author Response

Response to reviewers
Both reviewers requested a review of English. This new review was made by the proofreading
company and I send the certificate and emails exchanged with the attached company.
Sti
ll in the first round Reviewer 1 asked for a better explanation of references 12 to 24 in the
introduction. This was done see that this text was incorporated in lines 85 to 109 and 116 to 121
lines. in addition to that, in the second round, although this t ext had already been incorporated,
Reviewer 1 maintained his position that explanations were lacking. However, we have done a vast
review of the literature and we have not found new sustainability indexes for river basins and we
understand that the index a s it is being proposed in this paper fills a scientific gap and this is well
described in the text.
#Reviewer 1 The description of the study area was improved by adding more data, but not including
the demographic info (population, age groups, old young de pendency ration, etc.).
#response As for the first round, the Reviewer 1 asked for more details of the study area, but did not
say which ones. I inserted more details related to the natural aspects and now in the second round he
asks for socio economic asp ects, a review on socio economic and historical aspects has been
incorporated see the lines 138 to 178.
#Reviewer
Figure 1 is still not very easy to read.
#response
The changes were made and now figure 1 is a new version.
#Reviewer 1
Conclusions a re still general and can be improved.
#response
Requests for changes in the conclusions were considered, the text was rewritten and we
added a line paragraph 516 to 518. However, the authors prefer to keep the item short in view of the
fact that the pape r is a methodological proposal.
#Reviewer 1
The typos I mentioned specifically (page and line) in my first review were not
corrected.
#response
This is not true, all requests indicated by the reviewer have been incorporated. The
editor can verify by checking item by item, we did everything that was requested.
#Reviewer 1
Page 4 line 137 trough instead of through (not corrected). The authors did not pay
attention to previous reviews.
#response
Done. There were really problems in the equations, problems with file configuration
and they have all been resolved.
#Reviewer 1
Page 6 line 229 the correct use of the closer is “the closer …., the better ” (the
closer the value is to one, better the sustainability condition)
#response
Done. The paper went through a new round of English review.
#Reviewer 1
Besides, I could find more mistakes, such as:
Page 2
line 70 “in the basin hydrographic” the topic in English is reversed “in the
hydrographic basin”
#response
Done. The paper went through a new round of English review. He says we made a
English error on page 2 line 70 'in the basin hydrographic " the topic in English is reversed" in the
hy drographic basin "But on page 2 line 70 it is spelled correctly" However, this time we were more
careful and corrected all the work again with a new round of English review.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made changes to the manuscript and due to the extensive English review, the paper sounds much better.