Towards Circulating and Ecological Sphere in Urban Areas: An Indicator-Based Framework for Food-Energy-Water Security Assessment in Nagpur, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript dealt with the Food-Energy-water security assessment in Nagpur India using the indicator-based framework for circulating and ecological sphere in urban areas.   The manuscript can be accepted after minor revision.

Comments

1.      Abstract: The authors should add the data collection and analysis methods in the abstract. Also, please add the significant finding of the data analyses using the PRISMA method and how these findings would apply to the Food-Energy-water security assessment in other cities.

2.       The weakness of the manuscript is the arrangement of topics. For example Section 4 Research methods and then, Section 5 5. Indicator Framework for Urban FEW Security, and Section 6. Discussion and conclusion.

I would like to suggest to revise these sections as, 5. Results (data analyses) and discussion, and 6. Conclusion.

3.      Figure 3: Delete source. It does not require to mention of “ prepared by author”.

4.      Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 are major findings from Meta analyses of data using PRISMA method. Better to replace in the main text of the manuscript.

5.      All Figures and Tables replace after it has been cited in the immediate text.

6.      Conclusion: Please add major findings from the Meta analyses. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments, which we believe have helped clarify and improve our paper. The paper has been accordingly revised, and all the changes have been accommodated in the modified paper. The suggested corrections in the text are cautiously done and the changes made are systematically reported below pointwise. Please find our response (in red) to the reviewer’s specific comments (in black) below.

Specific Comments and Suggestions / Corresponding Improvements

1) Abstract: The authors should add the data collection and analysis methods in the abstract. Also, please add the significant finding of the data analyses using the PRISMA method and how these findings would apply to the Food-Energy-water security assessment in other cities.

- Thank you for your kind suggestion. In the revised manuscript, the authors have now made modifications to the abstract. Also, findings of the data analyses using the PRISMA method has been included.

2) The weakness of the manuscript is the arrangement of topics. For example Section 4 Research methods and then, Section 5 5. Indicator Framework for Urban FEW Security, and Section 6. Discussion and conclusion. I would like to suggest to revise these sections as, 5. Results (data analyses) and discussion, and 6. Conclusion.

-In agreement with the comment, the structure of the paper has been redesigned and the arrangement of topics has been revised. Now section 5 is renamed Results (from line 379, page 10) with two subsections (5.1 and 5.2) and 6 is Discussion and Conclusion. In doing so it is hoped that the comment is resolved.

3) Figure 3: Delete source. It does not require to mention of “prepared by author”.

- In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have removed the source (Source: Prepared by authors) for each figure.

4) Appendix 1 and Appendix 2 are major findings from Meta analyses of data using PRISMA method. Better to replace in the main text of the manuscript.

-Thank you for your kind suggestion. In agreement with the same, the authors have included Appendix (which is now Table 2 and 3 of section 5.1.1.) in the main text of the manuscript. However, as it is not feasible to put a larger number of tables in the manuscript, the indicator framework (previously captioned as Table 2) was shifted to Appendix section and merged with the criteria for scoring (Appendix A: Table 1).

5) All Figures and Tables replace after it has been cited in the immediate text.

-In the revised manuscript, all figures and tables are placed after they are cited in the immediate text.

6) Conclusion: Please add major findings from the Meta analyses.

-In agreement with the comment, the authors have included the major findings of the meta-analysis in the conclusion section (lines 588-594, section 6.2, page 21).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript has scholarly importance and it seems very interesting. However, the authors should try to improve the abstract, and introduction, and add more citations; you can search some papers and methods to link with modeling approaches which are the main vision and scope of the journal. The manuscript must include clear evidence of scientific advancement and novelty in relation to the state of the art. The authors should point out the shortcomings in other literature and highlight the differences between this paper and other literature. The main concern is around the purpose of the paper, and how the outputs could be used. The title, abstract, and conclusions do not make this clear. There is no real consideration of the usefulness of the results. In its current form, the novelty of the paper is not clear and does not include any significant scientific data

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments, which we believe have helped clarify and improve our paper. The paper has been accordingly revised, and all the changes have been accommodated in the modified paper. The suggested corrections in the text are cautiously done and the changes made are systematically reported below pointwise. Please find our response (in red) to the reviewer’s specific comments (in black) below.

Specific Comments and Suggestions / Corresponding Improvements

 1) The manuscript has scholarly importance and it seems very interesting. However, the authors should try to improve the abstract, and introduction, and add more citations.

-Thank you very much for your comment. In agreement with the same, the authors have tried to improve the introduction section by adding a few more citations (lines 115-119 and 127-132, page 3). The authors have also made a few updates to the abstract.

2) The manuscript must include clear evidence of scientific advancement and novelty in relation to the state of the art. The authors should point out the shortcomings in other literature and highlight the differences between this paper and other literature.

- In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have now incorporated the shortcomings of other literature studies in the introduction section (lines 122-127, page 3) and a detailed assessment of the same is a part of the theoretical background (lines 275-284, section 2.3, page 6). Also, Table 1 of the manuscript shows the research gap in other FEW security domain studies at the urban/local level. It is hoped that the revised version of the manuscript ensures clarity on the novelty of the study.

3) The main concern is around the purpose of the paper, and how the outputs could be used. The title, abstract, and conclusions do not make this clear. There is no real consideration of the usefulness of the results. In its current form, the novelty of the paper is not clear and does not include any significant scientific data.

- In agreement with the reviewer's comments, the authors have worked to improve the discussion and conclusion of the study (section 6). Also, it is explained how the results of the study can be used (lines 541-563, section 6.1, pages 20-21) and how it can be a way forward for other developing urban areas in the matter of FEW security (lines 564-574, section 6.1, page 21). In doing so, it is hoped that the comment is being resolved by the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

“Towards Circulating and Ecological Sphere in Urban Areas: An  Indicator-Based Framework for Food-Energy-Water Security  Assessment in Nagpur, India” describe the application of FEW indicators within the concept of Circulating Ecological Sphere.  The article fits the special issue of sustainability since it targets the topics required by editors.

I have two main concerns I would like to be addressed:

1)      The goal of the paper is not clear.  Authors states CES’ meaning in lines 61 and following.  However, even if FEW indicators are well described and correctly adapted to the case of Nagpur, by reading the paper it is not clear how the indicators and results should provide information about the CES in Nagpur.  In other words, results depict a situation where the population of Nagpur perceive the availability, accessibility and utilization of FEW  as “satisfactory”, but this doesn’t mean that this situation, as perceived by population and evidenced by indicators, is sustainable.  Reader could guess that (so far), resources (such energy, water and food) available for Nagpur’s population are sufficient to maintain the population with satisfactory well being. For this latter purpose the paper therefore offers a way to asses this condition of perceived well being in terms of availability of FEW, but not if the condition itself is sustainable in the long run.  Authors should better define the goal of the article or argument differently their findings.

2)      Methodology is well defined, but weakly applied.  In section 4.3.2 authors indicate that 183 responses were collected.  Over a population of 2.5 million people 183 responses are not enough to drive conclusions.  Do authors have assessed the minimum number of responses necessary to get meaningful results? Besides, questionnaires were supplied both via “google forms” L.344 and offline.  What was the influence of this approach on the collected answers?  Is there any bias associated with the way the responses were collected? How was it managed?

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments, which we believe have helped clarify and improve our paper. The paper has been accordingly revised, and all the changes have been accommodated in the modified paper. The suggested corrections in the text are cautiously done and the changes made are systematically reported below pointwise. Please find our response (in red) to the reviewer’s specific comments (in black) below.

Specific Comments and Suggestions / Corresponding Improvements

1) The goal of the paper is not clear. Authors states CES’ meaning in lines 61 and following.  However, even if FEW indicators are well described and correctly adapted to the case of Nagpur, by reading the paper it is not clear how the indicators and results should provide information about the CES in Nagpur.  In other words, results depict a situation where the population of Nagpur perceive the availability, accessibility and utilization of FEW as “satisfactory”, but this doesn’t mean that this situation, as perceived by population and evidenced by indicators, is sustainable.  Reader could guess that (so far), resources (such energy, water and food) available for Nagpur’s population are sufficient to maintain the population with satisfactory well-being. For this latter purpose the paper therefore offers a way to asses this condition of perceived wellbeing in terms of availability of FEW, but not if the condition itself is sustainable in the long run.  Authors should better define the goal of the article or argument differently their findings.

-Thank you very much for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have worked to improve the discussion section and build arguments differently to put forth the findings of the study in a systematic manner. An outline has been established to better depict the results to explain the situation of Nagpur city, which clears out that it is not very sustainable (lines 541-557, section 6.1, pages 20-21). Also, it is explained how this study can be a guiding framework for other study areas in the matter of FEW security (lines 564-574, section 6.1, page 21).

2) Methodology is well defined, but weakly applied.  In section 4.3.2 authors indicate that 183 responses were collected.  Over a population of 2.5 million people 183 responses are not enough to drive conclusions.  Do authors have assessed the minimum number of responses necessary to get meaningful results? Besides, questionnaires were supplied both via “google forms” L.344 and offline.  What was the influence of this approach on the collected answers?  Is there any bias associated with the way the responses were collected? How was it managed?

- Thank you for your comment. To ensure wider outreach across the city, offline surveys were conducted at the outset. Considering the fast-changing scenarios in COVID times, there was a perceived necessity for situation analysis in the defined time interval of 10 days (29 Oct 2021 to 7 Nov 2021). The online method was chosen particularly for that purpose. Hence, later the emphasis while collecting the samples was more on collecting proportionate responses from all zones in the given time interval. Even so, it was difficult to reach out to city residents and get an ample number of responses. Hence, the authors do acknowledge the limitation of the number of samples collected for this study (lines 368-373, section 4.3.2, page 9). In response to that, the future scope of the study is stated in lines 517-521, section 6.1, page 20.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors responded to all the comments. 

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate author’s efforts to address the points raised after the first-round review.  I fully understand the hurdles and issues caused by COVID pandemic.  However, even if the explicit acknowledgment about the shortcoming from the limited number of responses collected is appreciated, it doesn’t address the issue.  With just 183 responses over a population of 2.5 million, results are not statistically meaningful.  The need to speed up the response collection due to pandemic rapid evolution shouldn’t affect the value of the data, and thus the conclusions and the goal of the paper.  The research is interesting and can provide useful results to the scientific community, but I recommend to submit the paper again when more data is collected and thus with more robust conclusions. 

Author Response

The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewer for their valuable comments, which we believe have helped clarify and improve our paper. The paper has been accordingly revised, and all the changes have been accommodated in the modified paper. The suggested corrections in the text are cautiously done and the changes made are systematically reported below pointwise. Please find our response (in red) to reviewer’s specific comments (in black) below.

Specific Comments and Suggestions / Corresponding Improvements

1) I appreciate author’s efforts to address the points raised after the first-round review.  I fully understand the hurdles and issues caused by COVID pandemic.  However, even if the explicit acknowledgment about the shortcoming from the limited number of responses collected is appreciated, it doesn’t address the issue.  With just 183 responses over a population of 2.5 million, results are not statistically meaningful.  The need to speed up the response collection due to pandemic rapid evolution shouldn’t affect the value of the data, and thus the conclusions and the goal of the paper.  The research is interesting and can provide useful results to the scientific community, but I recommend to submit the paper again when more data is collected and thus with more robust conclusions.

-Thank you very much for your comment. In the revised version of the manuscript, the authors have tried to reach as close as possible to the expected sample size. Since this was a pilot study authors decided to collect the samples with a confidence level of 85-90% which gives a z-score of 1.44 -1.65. The survey was performed under the supervision of authors; hence the margin of error was decided to be 5%. The sample size (SS) was calculated using formula SS=((z^2  ×p (1-p))/e^2 )/((z^2  ×p (1-p))/(e^2  N)+1), (N= population size, e=Margin of error, z= z-score), which came to be 208-273. Finally, a total of 243 samples were collected. The survey area is not covering the whole city but only the selected parcels for which we consider this sample size to be adequate. The changes thus made are incorporated in section 4.3.2., page 9, lines 376-381. The authors have worked to improve the results and discussion section. The arguments are differently put forth from the findings of the same. Doing so, it is hoped that the comment is resolved.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I confirm my last comment. Research is interesting but it should include more data.