Sustainable Water Management and the 2030 Agenda: Comparing Rain Forest Watersheds in Canada and Brazil by Applying an Innovative Sustainability Indicator System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is well written

I only have few comments as follows 

1. Table two should be adjusted and not allowed to move to the next page 

2. The justification of the work is poor? Please, why are you working on this subject matter

3. What are the problems encountered in these watershed and what differentiate their sustainable managements. 

The manuscript is well written

I only have few comments as follows 

1. Table two should be adjusted and not allowed to move to the next page 

2. The justification of the work is poor? Please, why are you working on this subject matter

3. What are the problems encountered in these watershed and what differentiate their sustainable managements. 

Author Response

1. Corrected, thank you.
2. We have added further justification to the Introduction.
3. This has not really been addressed adequately. Thank you for your thorough review. By addressing your comments we feel we have improved the paper.

Reviewer 2 Report

The title of the work encourages you to familiarize yourself with the subject of the article.

The literature review and the description of the applied statistical methods are adequate, clearly defined and supported by relevant literature references. The number of literature references is sufficient. Almost all of the referenced literature is up to date (dated in the last few years). The figures are legible but table but the tables (in my opinion) are not presented in a way that conforms to the MDPI template.

However, I have a few basic remarks about the work:

1. The chapter "Materials and Methods" is far too long in relation to the rest of the work (it starts on line 84 and ends on line 420).

2. The text of chapter "Materials and Methods" in its current form is difficult to read when the issues in this chapter are mixed up. This chapter should be divided into parts (subchapters) and information that does not apply to method descriptions or data descriptions should be moved to Introduction and Results.

3. The chapter “Results” is completely unfinished but first of all: where is the text of this chapter?

4. However, I have the impression that the text of the Results chapter is in the Discussion chapter. Therefore, please arrange the texts according to the titles and add a discussion.

5. The conclusions are interesting, but it is necessary to refer to the title in which "comparing rain forest watersheds in Canada and Brazil " was announced

Please read the text of the entire work carefully (for example, I don't know where the Appendix mentioned on line 134).

Author Response

1. Some of the methods section has been moved elsewhere, we understand the length was inappropriate.
2. This has been addressed by reworking sections and moving text to more appropriate sections. By doing so, figures were renumbered.
3. Results and Discussion has been combined for consistency with other Sustainability manuscripts.
4. Corrected, thank you.
5. This comment has been addressed and further addresses the issue in the conclusion. Thank you for your thorough review. By addressing your comments we feel we have improved the paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study conducted Thrivability Appraisal for two watersheds. It is an interesting study, however, it currently does not meet the standards for publication. My suggestions are as follows:

1. Section 2. Materials and Methods is too long. Consider condensing or moving some of the content into the Introduction.
2. The description of results is too simple. Consider conducting statistical analysis to provide more in-depth insights.
3. Please discuss the accuracy of the evaluation.
4. Figure 1 cannot be split into two parts. Consider "Output 1#" present only once in the figure.

Please address these points to enhance the quality and comprehensiveness of your study for potential publication.

Author Response

1. The section has been condensed and some text has moved to other sections within the paper. By doing so, figures were renumbered.
2. The results are based on qualitative data so statistical analysis is not possible; however, we added text to address this in the Materials and Method section
3. Similar to above, accuracy is based on the participants knowledge, which we added some text to as well.
4. The figure has been changed to not have two parts, and is now figure number two in the paper. Thank you for your thorough review. By addressing your comments we feel we have improved the paper.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The publication has been improved based on comments. I recommend the article for publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

The revised version is acceptable for publication.