Examining the Prospects of Residential Water Demand Management Policy Regulations in Ethiopia: Implications for Sustainable Water Resource Management
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This most recent version of the article is much improved. It includes a lot of clarifying language to make things clearer. Likewise, it is much more descriptive in what the data/information means. And the research process is much better explained through the additions and the structural reorganization.
These changes allow the paper to better set the stage to provide a broader perspective to the issue of drinking water supply, telling what is not present in Ethiopia. For example, the paper now specifically notes that approaches found elsewhere are not present in Ethiopia.
The paper also includes additional explanation on the similarities of the communities studied, However, there are still some areas that need improvement -- and more details. The discussion with respect to Assessment of Policy Effectiveness was still very broad. There needs to be some specifics here in this discussion. In case studies, there are generally details from each point listed. Instead there is just a summary. (The statement on Line 468 talks about how the information was collected and notes improvements are needed. It would have been useful to have outlined some of those improvements.)
Also, the mention of "information from Arba Minch and Debra Birhan" (Line 453) makes no sense. It is unclear who this is and does not appear to be any reference to them. Thus, it is unknown if this is general information or information central to the Ethiopian experience.
These types of issues need to be resolved before the paper is ready for publication.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Brief summary
Authors took into consideration the reviewer comments and so the paper should be published, taking into consideration the comments presented below.
Specific comments
Figure 1 is not in its correct place.
Line 771: IWRM was already introduced in Line 130.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. We have corrected and incorporated all your comments accordingly
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is not a research paper, rather concept paper.
Lack of originality and significant overlap with existing literature on water management policies in developing countries. While the manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of residential water demand management in Ethiopia, it does not sufficiently advance the existing body of knowledge in a way that justifies publication in Water journal.
Specifically, the study relies heavily on general reviews of policy frameworks and does not offer new empirical data or innovative methodologies that distinguish it from previous work. The findings largely confirm well-established practices without providing new insights or suggesting innovative solutions tailored to the Ethiopian context. Moreover, the theoretical contribution is limited, as the paper does not sufficiently engage with current debates or theoretical frameworks in water resource management.
In addition, the paper would benefit significantly from a more rigorous methodological approach, particularly in the analysis of the effectiveness of existing policies. The discussion on policy implementation lacks depth and the necessary critical analysis that could provide meaningful recommendations for policymakers and practitioners in the field.
Author Response
We have corrected all the given comments, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The author(s) responded to the review comments successfully. Except for a typo in Figure 3 (demand was misspelled), I do not have any specific comments to this version of the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English editing helped the readability of the manuscript. I do not suggest any further detailed language editing of this version.
Author Response
Thank you for your comment we have corrected it accordingly in the revised version of the manuscript.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I felt the paper was markedly improved on the previous revision. These few additions bring it "over the finish line."
The clarifications on the time periods (with regard to the pre and post policy periods) and the descriptions of the water use data for the three cities provide the framing that the paper had lacked before.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable comments to improve the quality of the article.
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
It is not a research paper, rather concept paper.
Lack of originality and significant overlap with existing literature on water management policies in developing countries. While the manuscript provides a comprehensive overview of the current state of residential water demand management in Ethiopia, it does not sufficiently advance the existing body of knowledge in a way that justifies publication in Water journal.
Specifically, the study relies heavily on general reviews of policy frameworks and does not offer new empirical data or innovative methodologies that distinguish it from previous work. The findings largely confirm well-established practices without providing new insights or suggesting innovative solutions tailored to the Ethiopian context. Moreover, the theoretical contribution is limited, as the paper does not sufficiently engage with current debates or theoretical frameworks in water resource management.
In addition, the paper would benefit significantly from a more rigorous methodological approach, particularly in the analysis of the effectiveness of existing policies. The discussion on policy implementation lacks depth and the necessary critical analysis that could provide meaningful recommendations for policymakers and practitioners in the field.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 5)
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Reject.
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
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Dear Authors: I find this topic interesting, and think you are potentially doing very relevant work. The writing and logic of this manuscript do not live up to the importance of the topics. After reading it, I don't know where the literature review was, what the central questions were in any precise fashion, or how your different methods interact. It is unclear how your interviews influenced the conclusions. Therefore, I cannot suggest this article be published. However, if you would like to take a de novo look at its organization and development, I would be happy to review it again.
1) The title should be revised to Examining…
2) Literature Review:
a. I think the authors are missing some broader review literature and more focused articles on behavioral interventions, e.g.: Bernedo, M., Ferraro, P. J., & Price, M. (2014). The persistent impacts of norm-based messaging and their implications for water conservation. Journal of Consumer Policy, 37, 437-452.
b. This may involve a brief review of different policy frameworks for water demand management generally, to understand where Ethiopia’s is comparatively and from where it originated.
c. Take-away from a. and b.: More structure and context of the policy questions and policy context.
3) Background:
a. This applies to the literature review as well, what is the structure of provision and billing for water in Ethiopia. A first point of comparison among all the countries mentioned would seem to be how the price water. I would like the literature review to be more organized in terms of framing 1) How water is priced and delivered, 2) How interventions fit into this basic matrix, 3) Then where does Ethiopia, or the jurisdictions studied in Ethiopia, fit into this prospect.
b. You provide locational data on Ethiopia in the study area context, but that is really the least important information for this particular study.
i. You have three case studies, those all require background data, not just for Ethiopia, population, social, income, environmental, water sources, water provision structure, water infrastracture.
1. These are all background data, not part of your questions.
c. Questions:
i. scarcity of water availability
ii. challenges faced by resi-125 dents in urban areas of Ethiopia in accessing drinking water supply services.
4) Study Content:
a. I am struggling with the logic of the study. It includes interviews and document analysis, which make sense together but no strong methodology or justification is presented for either the interviews, their interpretation and analysis (or how experts were identified), how the documents were gathered or analyses, or how the literature review was conducted. Also, it would seem to make more sense to a reader to do a systematic literature review, then design the other components, so it is not clear how the different elements of the research design are related to the two question
i. Six water management experts from each urban area were inter-163 viewed, and unstructured questions were posed to two officials from each water office 164 regarding the status of policy implementation and current water demand management 165 activities in their respective towns. The interviews focused on topics such as water de-166 mand management regulations, national and federal government policies, implemented 167 measures, and any applicable restriction techniques. The interviews were approximately 168 half an hour long, with answers recorded for easy reference during data analysis.
ii. Document Analysis: Additionally, various documents available at the municipal water offices, including water 170 production records, water demand data, reports, and analyses, were reviewed by the au-171 thors.
iii. Literature Review: This study includes a literature review covering a variety of developing water 172 demand management policies and a field survey on the urban water supply situation in 173 three Ethiopian towns. Articles published in scientific journals from the 2000-2023 were 174 reviewed, especially as concerns factors related to sustainability of urban water supply 175 service.
1. You say you conduct a literature review, but no evidence of methods for this are presented. You note that few articles exist, but frankly, I am not convinced by this conclusion, and without an examination of your search terms or approach it is impossible to verify without a reviewer doing a parallel literature review.
5) Policy Framework and Results
a. Some diagram of the many policies and their inter-relationships, differences, and linkage to the paper’s question is needed in Section 4, which I don’t see how it can be a Result’s section.
b. Generally, this gets very confusion. There is a discussion of many policies, then a discussion of effectiveness, but effective as to what? This needs clarification. Furthermore, there is no clarity as to how the different research methods (case studies, interviews, documents, literature) each contributes to these different findings.
c. The conclusions or discussion: Identification of Gaps is both a diagnosis, but includes lots of normative language, without explaining how the study lead to these conclusions about best practices, etc. This reviewer cannot clearly link the research methods to the findings. They may be there but it needs to be explained in greater detail referring to Questions -> Methods -> Findings in relation to the questions and methods.
i. This study needs a complete revision, diagrams, and revisiting the central questions.
ii. Note: At the beginning, you mention 6 experts from each urban area, but then there is no discussion of the context or issues from the different urban areas, who they are, or what you asked them.
6)
Comments on the Quality of English Language
Language and Editing:
a. See, the Title, which is grammatically awkward
b. Line 152: Sequency, the study mainly focuses on ?? What is “sequency?”
c. When discussing the 1999 Policy, it might be clearer to name it and call it the 1999 Policy (or a more formal name), instead of “the policy”. Also, it is not directly cited when introduced, as is done with the National Water Policy (2012). Is this Proclamation No. 114/1999?
i. This background should be more focused on relating it to the questions you pose:
1. scarcity of water availability
2. challenges faced by resi-125 dents in urban areas of Ethiopia in accessing drinking water supply services.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have been revised all comments in the revised manuscript carefully.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
There are a lot of good points made in this paper. However, the overall package needs improvement before it can be publishable.
The paper proports to be a research report, combining quantitative and qualitative information. However, there is little quantitative data and no real analysis – the coefficient of determination (R2) on Figure 2 (which is actually Figure 1) is never explained. Meanwhile, the quantitative information is presented to support policy positions rather than examining each municipality individually in a case study format as was expected.
Essentially, the paper says it is going to be one thing but turns out to be something else. Thus, it needs to be redone as the policy paper it essentially is. It uses information from what has occurred in the three municipalities studied – as well as comparisons to and best practices from other places – to create recommendations for Ethiopia municipalities to follow with respect to water resource management.
Most of the information is already presented in that way. This would involve some changes to the Introduction as well as a complete rewrite of the methodology section (so that is reflects what was actually done). Furthermore, the conclusion could also be redone to include the policy recommendations discussed in the paper.
And there needs to be some additional detail. Stavenhagen et al. (Reference 10) should be listed in the text or the sentence re-written so that the study authors are not needed [Line 46] – listing the reference as the authors is not appropriate. There should be more elaboration on information from the previous studies that are germane to this work, not just stating that it came from the dissertation [Line 122]. And there needs to be more details on the water restrictions from other countries as some of the places listed – i.e., the United States – are too large to make general statements about their use. [Line 544].
Overall, there is much here to work with. But in my opinion, what is presented needs to be repacked to more fully present the ideas put forward.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
There are some technical issues that should be addressed. Some phrases are overused (e.g., “as a result” [Line 16 & 18]). Other times the word choice is awkward (e.g., “in the present times” [Line 41]; “such that” [Line 91]; “Sequency” [Line 152’; and “Absolutely” (Line 557]). There is also irregular capitalization (“Irrigation” [Line 187]) and improper superscripts (“10” {Line 46) and “34 [Line 544]).
Overall, the English is generally fine but these minor miscues give it the impression the authors were trying to be too formal. Working with an editor for the revised submission is recommended to ensure the use of language is both consistent and appropriate.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have been revised all comments in the revised manuscript carefully.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Please find my comments attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English editing is necessary. There are many repeating arguments in the text.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have been revised all comments in the revised manuscript carefully.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Brief summary
This paper is interesting for those interested in water resources management, particularly concerning developing countries.
The paper presents an interesting case study, including three Ethiopian urban towns, evaluating the existing policy regulations and analyzing their effectiveness in promoting efficient water use and conservation practices in residential areas.
The paper follows a traditional structure, it is well written, and it has a good set of references.
In my opinion the paper should be accepted for publication, taking into consideration the comments presented below.
Specific comments
Line 5: Should it be “Matthias Barjenbruch”?
Line 121: Suggest changing to “as part of the first author PhD research”.
Line 135: Suggest changing to “to extract the information needed”.
Line 171: Suggest changing to “and analysis”.
Line 234: Suggest deleting “there is”.
Line 490: avoid using “we”.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
English is fine!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have been revised all comments in the revised manuscript carefully.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate a novel contribution to the existing literature on residential water demand management. The insights provided seem to align with well-established concepts without introducing new perspectives or methodologies. The methodology section lacks clarity and detail, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the research design. A more comprehensive explanation of the research methods employed and the rationale behind their selection is necessary for readers to evaluate the validity of the findings.
The presentation of data and analysis needs improvement. Clarity is essential for readers to follow the research process and understand how the results align with the study's objectives. Additionally, more detailed statistical analyses would enhance the credibility of the findings. The manuscript should engage more deeply with the existing literature on water demand management policies, particularly in Ethiopia. A more thorough literature review would help place the study in the context of previous research and highlight the gaps the current study aims to address.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I do not see the chance to improve the manuscript.
The manuscript does not sufficiently demonstrate a novel contribution to the existing literature on residential water demand management. The insights provided seem to align with well-established concepts without introducing new perspectives or methodologies. The methodology section lacks clarity and detail, making it difficult to assess the robustness of the research design. A more comprehensive explanation of the research methods employed and the rationale behind their selection is necessary for readers to evaluate the validity of the findings.
The presentation of data and analysis needs improvement. Clarity is essential for readers to follow the research process and understand how the results align with the study's objectives. Additionally, more detailed statistical analyses would enhance the credibility of the findings. The manuscript should engage more deeply with the existing literature on water demand management policies, particularly in Ethiopia. A more thorough literature review would help place the study in the context of previous research and highlight the gaps the current study aims to address.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have been revised all comments in the revised manuscript carefully.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1) Please do a more careful review for grammar and style, and consider using a grammar software, or an editor. Focus on the passive voice.
2) The methods section does not clarify the literature review versus the other methods, and the results section does not differentiate them. Could you create subsections on methods and reporting results from the Literature Review and the integrated case studies. The reader cannot link what its coming from the academic literature review, what is the background institutional information on Ethiopian water governance, and what comes from your interviews.
Moreover, there is a part where you conduct regression analysis. This has to be included in the methods, and justified.
Need: A diagram of how case study, quantitative analysis, and literature review interact in relation to clearly defined questions.
Some logic such as this needs to be more structurally imposed on the manuscript. The reader still cannot differentiate between literature, case study content, and the authors' interpretations. Lit Review Methods -> Lit Review Results -> How lit review relates to case studies -> Case Study Methods -> Case Study Results -> Integration of Case Study and Literature Review in Discussion
3) The paper's questions need to be more clearly spelled out in the introduction.
If the authors do a serious editing job, and address the structure of the methods and results, I will review again happily, but I cannot justify spending hours on this manuscript in its current state.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The authors should carefully review for style and grammar. The use of the passive voice and style distracts from the content.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have carefully revised all comments in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This paper is much improved. The additional text and other changes highlight the research and make the policy recommendations flow directly from it. They also provide the missing context to the overall issue and the situation in Ethiopia.
About all it needs is a good editing -- especially in the added sections. The list below is illustrative - so there may be other issues that also need attention.
* The reference [10] still needs to list the author (Stavenhagen et al.) or be written differently so as to not need a direct mention of the author (line 46). It does not read well as constructed -- especially since the authors for other research are listed elsewhere.
* There is what appears to be a subject-verb agreement issue (line 159) in the statement "The town have 100,000 ..."
* There is the lack of a units (thousands) separator in several non-year four-digit numbers, such as 2800 (line 160) and 1219.2 (line 163). This may be an appropriate style for the journal or in British English, so it may not need to be changed. But I wanted to note it, in case it was incorrect.
* There is the need to use the possessive form in the term "first author" (line 173)
* The Heading 4.2 and following subheading are misaligned (line 366, 367)
* Subheadings need consistency on whether or not they are followed by a colon throughout the paper.
* Unsure why "6. Patents" is present -- it probably should be deleted since what follows is the author information (line 820).
Once these and any similar grammar and technical points are corrected, I feel the paper is ready for publication.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
As noted in the comments to the authors, the English language "problems" are essentially some minor grammar issues that can be caught with a good editing.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have carefully revised all comments in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The new version of the manuscript is improved extensively compared to the previous version. However, this manuscript still needs some technical editing due to the redundancy and typos. I think figure 2 added a clear summary of the achieved goals.
The responses to the comments were on point although two of the main concerns were not referred clearly in the revision. Here are these two concerns paraphrased to be more direct:
1) Study uses both quantitative and qualitative methods. However, it is not clear how these methods help author(s) to assess policy effectiveness. For example, which specific information from the interviews or quantitative analysis show that there is a lack of engagement or lack of awareness? All these assessment results should be categorized and connected to the findings from the survey and quantitative analysis to make the manuscript methodologically sound. Description data analysis, table or figure can be helpful.
2) Conclusion needs a detailed concrete analysis of the Ethiopian situation and comparable geography. The differences and the similarities can be listed and what makes this study unique can be addressed.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
I still find technical editing issues in the main text. Figure 2 has some typos. I suggest a technical editor to go through the manuscript to improve the readability.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have carefully revised all comments in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper fails to showcase a unique contribution to the body of knowledge on managing residential water demand. The provided insights do not offer fresh viewpoints or methods. The description of the methods is vague, hindering the evaluation of the study's solidity. To judge the study's conclusions, readers need a clearer explanation of the methods used.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The paper fails to showcase a unique contribution to the body of knowledge on managing residential water demand. The provided insights do not offer fresh viewpoints or methods. The description of the methods is vague, hindering the evaluation of the study's solidity. To judge the study's conclusions, readers need a clearer explanation of the methods used.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your valuable comments to enhance the quality of the manuscript. As per your comments, we have carefully revised all comments in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The goals of the paper are set out by the authors as follows: “This research primarily focuses on evaluating current policy regulations concerning 141 residential water demand management in Ethiopian urban areas. It aims to enhance 142 these regulations, particularly from the user’s perspective, by drawing on experiences 143 and best practices from other countries. This study examines the historical development 144 of water demand management policies in Ethiopia and highlights the challenges and 145 barriers that have hindered their successful implementation. Through an assessment of 146 prospects and effectiveness, this study identifies implications for sustainable water re-147 source management. Furthermore, utilizing data gathered from three urban areas within 148 the country, this study prioritizes specific short-term and long-term solutions that need 149 to be addressed.”
- The article does not set out a clear perspective or questions relating to the “historical development of water demand management policies
- The article does not establish clear criteria for “prospects and effectiveness.”
- The article does not explain the selection criteria for the urban areas, or the specific solutions.
- This is all too broad, and seems like several papers, not just one able to address a problem in a clear, replicable way. In sum, the authors lack questions, or hypotheses, and a thus any foundation for a clear justification for their study approach.
The authors talk about what I would classify as a mix methods approach, with quantitative and qualitative data.
- Re Quantitative Data: The data sources and their connection to the questions and outcomes (which I already noted were not clearly stated) are not presented.
- There are no descriptive statistics or discussion of how quantitative data will be analyzed.
- As a result, the results cannot be interpreted or evaluated for validity
- There is a regression with no explanation or justification, and the chart is provided but does not relate to any clear question or the qualitative data
- The literature review does not describe how and why materials were collected and mixed academic papers with documents.
- The diagram is an improvement, but the paper lacks credible description of how this process was carried out
- Re Qualitative and Quantitative Data – there is no discussion of how the to are used to answer questions. This goes back to the lack of clear questions.
As a result of all of these problems, the reader cannot assess the authors’ conclusions, or parse findings from interviews, from interpretations, or information gleaned from other sources.
- “This study examines the historical development 144 of water demand management policies in Ethiopia and highlights the challenges and 145 barriers that have hindered their successful implementation.”
- – Needs questions and explanation of methods to answer questions within these process.
- “This study examines the historical development 144 of water demand management policies in Ethiopia and highlights the challenges and 145 barriers that have hindered their successful implementation.” –
- Needs questions and explanation of methods to answer questions within these process. – What are que challenges and barriers? How are the unique by metro area and in Ethiopia versus other areas
- “Furthermore, utilizing data gathered from three urban areas within 148 the country, this study prioritizes specific short-term and long-term solutions that need 149 to be addressed.”
- How are there specific questions or data analysis by urban area? How are they compared. How are these data used or framed in a way to prioritize different solutions?
- The authors do not have a clear path from questions, to methods, to interpretation, to justification of proposed solutions from the questions, data, and analysis.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
--
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The manuscript has been improved sufficiently following the review comments, and all the comments were answered appropriately.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The paper fails to showcase a unique contribution to the body of knowledge on managing residential water demand. The provided insights do not offer fresh viewpoints or methods. The description of the methods is vague, hindering the evaluation of the study's solidity. To judge the study's conclusions, readers need a clearer explanation of the methods used.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The paper fails to showcase a unique contribution to the body of knowledge on managing residential water demand. The provided insights do not offer fresh viewpoints or methods. The description of the methods is vague, hindering the evaluation of the study's solidity. To judge the study's conclusions, readers need a clearer explanation of the methods used.
