The Role of River Vigilance Committees to Address New Socio-Climatic Conditions in Chile: Insights from Ostrom’s Design Principles for Common-Pool Resource Institutions

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review Report for Manuscript Sustainability: 2622692

The manuscript, entitled "Managing the Commons: Response of River Vigilance 2 Committees to new socio-climatic conditions in Chile" is based on a novel idea and I recommend its reconsideration after handling these major concerns.

• Title: It is better to revise the title for more clarity and better understanding.
• Key words: arrange key words alphabetically for more clarity.
• Introduction:  Revise the aims and objectives according to your title.
• Introduction:  what is the novelty of this research article?
• Conclusion: This portion needs revision. It should be shorter and clearer, describing the outcomes of the current study and future recommendations.
• Results and Discussion portion should be more focused and relevant to you title.
• Carefully check the grammar mistakes throughout the manuscript and add shorter sentences for clear understanding.
• Crosscheck all the references in the text and ensure the presence of all these references in the reference list.

• Carefully check the grammar mistakes throughout the manuscript and add shorter sentences for clear understanding.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The work is a policy related one and of very local interest 

The statistics of  hydro-climatic variables are to be presented in the form of graphs /Tables.. Also analyze the variability over the past period ..how the water stress is becoming a grave issue is to be conveyed.. how changing climate worsen the condition is to be conveyed .. in section 2   

Avoid non English references or convey its English translated titles in Reference list

Redraft the conclusions … From the analysis carried out, we conclude that the current .. starting like this is not professional ; revise

NIL

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is dealing with a very important issue and could be of interest to prospective readers. However, in order to be published, the authors should address some very important weaknesses.

1. The first part of the article is focusing on Chile and describing its specific situations in great and informative detail. However, as the authors themselves mention, water scarcity is a global phenomenon. There is hardly any relevant link with research from other countries and the possible implications of this research on research in Chilean context although abundance of literature exist on the topic. The first part should be amended so that the article will be contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

2. Research design and methods need to be very clearly described. Current description i chapter 3 leaves many unanswered questions about the way that the data was collected and analysis was actually conducted.

- Dogmatic metod needs to be better described. It is not clear at all how the authors have actually conducted it. It needs to be done in the language that also scholars, who have not done it, will understand the process. Also, we do not know which particular pieces of legislation (was it only Water Code and the Constitution) and what aspects of the political system wre taken into account.

- What was the documentary analysis? Which documents were include(which government reports, which scientific literature, something else)?

- How many semi-structured interviews were actually conducted? In what period? How long were these interviews? Where can the reader see the interview guide?

4. Part 4 is very informative. However, reader will struggle with discerning what results come from which part of the analysis. This sections needs to be thoroughly rewritten, so that the reader can form an opinion on reliability and robustness of proposed conclusions.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Author improved all the suggested changes. I recommend the acceptance of this manuscript in current form.

Minor editing of English required.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have revised the article in a major way and have responded to comments that were detailed in my first review.