Assessment of Measures to Increase Water Efficiency in Public Swimming Pools

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The manuscript has been improved in comparison with the previous version. Nevertheless, it is necessary to clearly formulate the purpose of the study, the scientific (not practical! And not technical!) results obtained during the study, the theoretical justification for the importance of this particular study, including the addition of a reference.

Reconsider after revision

Author Response

The authors agree that this is an experimental research, in the area of engineering, and not a theoretical research. But the intention to publish this work in the journal Sustainability was deliberate, considering the Aims & Scope of this journal, which is partially transcribed: “Our aim is to encourage researchers to publish their experimental, computational, and theoretical research relating to natural and applied sciences, engineering, economics, social sciences, and humanities in detail to promote scientific and other understanding and to permit predictions and impact assessments of global change and development related to sustainability. As a transdisciplinary journal, Sustainability encourages researchers to provide full experimental and methodological details so that results can be reproduced and assessed. “

Anyway, understanding the doubt raised by the Referee and trying to answer the question, some notes were added throughout the text to make it clear that this is an "experimental research, in the engineering area, providing experimental and methodological details so that can be reproduced and evaluated, aiming at greater sustainability", as encouraged in the Journal's Aim & Scope.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

I appreciate the authors' response to my query about the abstract. This is an interesting topic, and the authors presented a well-organized manuscript that is currently ready for publication.

Author Response

Thank you!

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The authors did already all the suggestions.

Can be accepted .

Author Response

Thank you!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Accept in present form

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overview:

The article analyzes two measures proposed for a public swimming pool complex in the municipality of Cascais, aimed at increasing water use efficiency and using alternative water sources for some purposes, including sanitation.

The article only partially meets the criteria set for scientific articles. It covers the substantive scope of the journal to a minor extent. Some stylistic, grammatical errors were found in the text. In general, however, the form of the text and its standard is appropriate in terms of language, or punctuation. A minor shortcoming is the repetition of some key words from the title of the article, which should not be the case. Their selection is appropriate and adequate to the topic and scope of the article.

The overall level of the study is satisfactory: even if it is rather simple, it is well written and illuminates some important issues related to water scarcity in Portugal. However, there are notations that the swimming pools are located in the southern part of the country, meanwhile they are near Lisbon, in the central part.          

 Specific remarks:

 

This paper has some potential, but some important points need to be clarified or fixed. The list of comments is below:

1. Too many tables have been rearranged in the article. However, a map of the location of research facilities (basins) is missing and should be added. In addition, it is proposed to combine tables: 4,5,6 into one common summary table.

2. Beside, the tables should not be placed in the "conclusions" paragraph, hence Table 10 should be placed in the results and discussion paragraph. The conclusions, or rather in this case the summary, should be concise and relevant to the objectives of the study.

 

3.  row 268: I propose to change the phrase "the public network," to the public water supply system.

 

4. Table 9 as well as the whole aspect of the cost analysis does not take into account the inflation and the increase in distribution costs and energy consumption. It should be considered, for example, for the operation of pumps system. The entire return on investment may  be significantly prolonged.

 

5. The bibliography is too poor for an article of a scientific nature. I suggest expanding the literature.

 

 Summary:

 

The article is not innovative, although the authors relate to the topic of climate change and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, the analysis is too simple, and can be treated as a scientific opinion or a case study.

            

Reviewer 2 Report

Excellent topic and excellent paper. I suggest writing the Keywords in alphabetical order.

The main question addressed by the research is: how can be used the water from public swimming pools.

The approach is original. The paper is structured, organized, and well-written. The conclusions are concise and related to the objective.  

The topic is relevant and necessary for this type of public service.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors to present an interesting topic. The methods and results are well-designed and well-structured. The abstract, however, is poorly worded and organized. Instead of outlining the background of the research, the authors should concentrate on their methods and findings. Therefore, the abstract as a whole need to be revised.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article is not scientific. The article presents the technical characteristics of water supply and sewerage systems in 3 swimming pools. However, this does not correspond in any way to the goal of preserving drinking water stated in the abstract

The article does not meet any of the Sustainability requirements.

Publication of the article is not possible.