Water Resource Management and Sustainability: A Case Study in Faafu Atoll in the Republic of Maldives

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for submitting this work to sustainability. I think this is a good fit and I hope we can publish this soon.
Below a few comments I would like you to consider as I think that they can further improve the quality of your work.

Abstract:
-Provide a short outlook on the results of this study here

Introduction:
-something is of with your reference style - make sure to fix that
-you need more reference in the introduction part - 61.4% is that linked to ref. 1 - that is not clear to me - all above does not show any references, provide more references for this and try to quantify, this is hard for the beautiful scenary that should be preserved, but I am sure you could show the economic dependence for instance
2. can be a subchapter, this is still part of the introduction
chapter 2, this is all very interesting, try to quantify it even more, the different cases could also be presented in a table and figure and compared using some quantiative criteria
chapter 3. - for me this is still part of the introduction and can be anoterh subchapter here

I am missing a methods chapter somewhere, you basically doing an investigation in the current and potential future technologies, this should be briefly mentioned somewhere and how you systematically searched for your data

Figure 1, maybe provide a larger zoomed out view next to this figure to give readers an idea where this is - do I notice correctly that North is not top of the map? this should be changed
table 1 - this is nice, maybe include the total requirements for all people as well
do you have pictures of the RO plant etc. if so include them

the current scenario - I would call this "business as usual" - doing nothing is a bit harsh - even though no progress is frustrating, this is really ip to you
use the same metrics for all different scenarios that you investigate

Fig. 5 what are the three alternatives here? use better graphics
Benchmark is "doing nothing"? use the same wording for all three scenarios throughout the paper

The conclsusions should be better linked to your work, and your work should be better organized.
The study is interesting, and I think it is of relevance to the readers of sustainability, get it done, do it will

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Review of “Water resource management and sustainability: a case study in Faafu Atoll in Maldives Islands.”

Report

This paper discusses issues related to fresh water shortage, energy demands, carbon emission, possible scenarios of future adaptation actions in an eclectic and disparate manner. The objective of this paper is not yet clear to me; and, therefore, methodologies and data sets are not yet clearly tied to the discussion on results. The title of this paper seems to suggest that it is about sustainable water management for residents in Faafu Atoll, especially Maghoodhoo Island. However, the paper tends to shift back and forth between disparate topics without clear thread to connect them. Overall, I think this paper at this current state is premature to be considered for publication, very unfortunately. A shortage of safe drinking water and impacts of climate change are important topics to be examined more concerning the Republic of Maldives. Hope the authors go through a substantial editorial service to refine argument and discussion clarity as well as its focus. Below, I made some notes to aid their revision works in the future, if they choose to improve this paper.

Specific Notes

Abstract

This abstract has a few awkward sentences, making it difficult to understand what the authors examine in this paper. Also they want to clarify terms like “natural water supply system,” “energy renewable production,” and “financial and environmental analysis.” Also, discuss the result of what the authors calculated with the LCOW. The name of the country should be either “the Maldives” or “the Republic of Maldives.” Correctly sing country’s names and personal names are very basic requirement for any professionals to share their “professional” opinions. Keywords include desalination, photovoltaic energy, and carbon emission reduction, but the abstract does not mention these terms. If these terms are KEY, discuss them here as well. Also, “photovoltaic energy” is redundant in keywords.

1. Introduction

Overall, this introduction confuses readers about the focus of this paper. It tends to emphasize energy and climate change, while the title of the paper suggests its focus on water and sustainability on one atoll. If possible, discuss the significance of focusing on this atoll or specific island (Maghoodhoo).

2. Similar studies on SIDS

This section again tends to focus on energy issues. One study on the Philippines (lines 68-69) appears to show a connection between electricity and water though how these seemingly disparate topics are interconnected and relevant to this paper remain vague.

              The discussion from line 114 sounds more relevant to this paper’s title. So far, readers are not yet clear what objectives the authors have for this paper.

3.1 Understanding the community water demand

Tables 1 and 2 are not clear due to some letters being overlapped. Explain what dollar values mean in Table 1. The authors, all of a sudden, discuss MaRHE Center and “the project.” Even though the Center was footnoted, it is very helpful if the authors clarify what this Center is connected to this paper’s discussion and analysis. Also, what is “the project”? Is the Center involved in desalination plant establishment? Or is this project funded by some other international organization or the Maldives government?

3.3 Technological and economic analysis

The abstract says that the authors provide “financial and environmental analysis.” Now they want to discuss technological and economic analyses? Very confusing. Please clarify focus. The first sentence here (lines 263-264) sounds like methodology. It is helpful if the authors discuss methodologies earlier.

5. Conclusions

This is hardly responding to what the authors intended to achieve in this paper. Please clarify their objectives for this paper, especially in connection to water management and sustainability, if these are their focus in this paper. Otherwise, the authors rewind the whole paper and reconstruct argument.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper proposes an integrated approach to water management and renewable energy production in the Maldives Islands. The case study was selected because it was defined as a "fragile environment" and in fact, the Maldives Islands in 2004 had a tsunami and the natural supply water system was interrupted, leading to a significant increase in costs as well as an increase in the scarcity of drinking water . Electricity is also dependent on imported fuel and the level of CO2 emissions is quite high. The study therefore aims to analyze very important and vast aspects: the water, energy, environmental and economic aspects. Furthermore, in the study the LCA is cited in the analysis of the current scenario for water bottles, for this purpose, given the purpose of the article, it is advisable to deepen the bibliographic research with studies on the LCA conducted for the entire integrated water system (examples: "LCA methodology for the quantification of the carbon footprint of the integrated urban water system", Sambito, M. et al., Water, 2017, 9 (6), 395 / "Life cycle assessment of the City of Atlanta, Georgia's centralized water system ", 2015, The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, Hyunju Jeong et al.). As regards the method, it is suggested to deepen the bibliographic research by evaluating other studies already conducted on decision-making approaches for water-energy analyzes in water systems ("A decision support tool for water and energy saving in the integrated water system", Notaro, et el. Procedia Engineering, 2015, 119 (1), pp. 1109–1118 / "Energy saving and recovery measures in integrated urban water systems" Freni, G. et al. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2017, 1906, 190008)
Regarding the form, in the paper there are several typos (e.g. in line 401 the reference to the figure was not found, the tables have different fonts from the text, some written, as for figure 3, are very small, the caption of figure 1 did not follow the same formatting as the others, tables 1 and 2 should be reorganized better, the bulleted list in the introduction should be revised etc.), regarding the structure, this too could be improved. It could be better reorganized by distributing the various paragraphs in the chapters: Introduction / Materials & Methods / Results / Conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you - I can see you put a lot of work into this - the manuscript is ready now and can be published

Author Response

Thanks for the careful revisions.

Minor English spells revised

Reviewer 2 Report

Review report

Revision to “Water Resource Management and Sustainability: A Case Study n Faafu Atoll in Maldives Islands.”

The revision shows substantial improvement from the last one. It is now clear what the authors want to investigate in this paper. However, an overall shape of the paper is still very rough with many typos. It is also very difficult to read with track changes. I do encourage to clean this paper before submission. Otherwise, this paper may be published.

As a footnote, I have comments. In line 331, the authors discuss the annual cost for water. What does this $193 mean for an average resident on this island? With actions 1 and 2, how much does an individual pay for water? Also, Table 1 does not seem to show sources of information. There are many typos. For example, check lines 110, 137, 199, 207, 208, 254, 441, and 658.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
thanks for your contribution firstly, the suggestions given have all been executed. The paper has been completely restructured and now has a more logical and consequential structure, also the aimof your work is clearer and the scientific originality emerges more. Finally, I advise you to look again further because there are still some small typos (eg line 658 table 12).

Author Response

Thanks for the careful revision.

Typos checked throughout the paper in particular line 658 table 12.