Integrated Management, Circular Economy and Reclaimed Water: Keys to Restoring the Long-Term Water Balance in La Marina Alta (Alicante, Spain)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript undertakes a significant task in analyzing the multifaceted challenges of water governance in La Marina Alta, Spain, highlighting issues ranging from ineffective institutional structures to the tangible impacts of climate change and infrastructural deficits. The study rightly identifies the paradoxical situation of seemingly abundant yet ultimately insufficient water resources and proposes integrated pathways forward. However, to truly contribute robustly to the academic discourse and offer practical solutions, several critical revisions are essential concerning its methodological rigor, conceptual clarity, and real-world applicability.
A primary area for improvement lies in the methodological transparency. While the study employs a mixed-methods approach encompassing literature review, interviews, and infrastructure analysis, the current description lacks crucial details. The criteria for selecting interview participants, the precise number and scope of these interactions, and the systematic process used to synthesize the qualitative data remain opaque. Furthermore, the bibliographic review needs to articulate its source prioritization strategy (e.g., the balance between peer-reviewed scholarship and gray literature) and explicitly state whether contemporary research (post-2020) addressing current debates on climate adaptation strategies and the principles of a circular water economy was adequately considered. A significant limitation is the apparent exclusion of stakeholder perspectives beyond technical managers. The insights of farmers, tourism operators, and local communities are vital for a holistic understanding of the complexities of water governance. Integrating a more comprehensive stakeholder analysis would undoubtedly enrich the discussion surrounding conflicting water priorities and the inherent institutional barriers.
The analysis of water resource distribution and existing infrastructure, while presenting quantitative data, falls short of providing critical interpretation. For instance, the dominance of groundwater resources and the marginal utilization of non-conventional alternatives, as depicted in Figure 1 and Table 1, are not adequately linked to underlying governance failures. A more incisive discussion on how CASAMA’s prolonged inactivity contributes to the continued overexploitation of vulnerable aquifers, despite the availability of options such as desalination and reclaimed water, is necessary to strengthen the central argument. Similarly, the proposed solutions, including reverse osmosis and aquifer recharge, are presented without sufficient consideration of their practical feasibility. Detailed cost-benefit analyses, evaluations of energy demands, and an assessment of their alignment with relevant EU and regional funding mechanisms are crucial to move these recommendations beyond theoretical concepts.
The conceptualization of the governance framework also requires significant refinement. While the manuscript acknowledges the imperative for enhanced institutional collaboration, it lacks concrete proposals for its operationalization. For example, what specific structural changes could be implemented within CASAMA to ensure meaningful integration of stakeholders from the agriculture, tourism, and environmental sectors? What specific policy instruments, such as differentiated tariffs, targeted subsidies, or revised regulatory frameworks, could effectively incentivize the adoption of circular water practices? Drawing upon the experiences of successful water management models in comparable Mediterranean regions, such as Catalonia’s advancements in water reuse, could offer valuable and actionable insights. Moreover, the regulatory analysis disproportionately focuses on technical standards (e.g., Directive 91/271/EEC) while neglecting a critical examination of the challenges associated with their enforcement, including limitations in monitoring capacity and potential political resistance to stricter compliance measures.
The discussion of climate change impacts, while positioned as a central theme, lacks the necessary level of granular analysis. While broad drought trends are mentioned, the absence of specific projections for future climate scenarios (e.g., drawing upon IPCC regional climate models) and their potential ramifications for both water demand and supply represents a significant gap. Quantifying the anticipated discrepancies between available water resources and projected demand under various climate scenarios would underscore the urgency and necessity of the proposed interventions. Furthermore, while the manuscript briefly acknowledges the risks associated with flooding, it fails to explore potential synergies between strategies for managing both drought and flood events (e.g., the dual use of recharge dams for aquifer replenishment during dry periods and flood mitigation during intense rainfall events), which could offer more integrated and resilient solutions.
Finally, the overall coherence of the writing could be improved. Key sections, such as the exposition of the paradox of water availability, would benefit from the inclusion of succinct summaries to aid reader comprehension of complex information. Inconsistencies in terminology, such as the interchangeable use of “reclaimed” and “recycled” water, should be addressed for clarity. Additionally, the methodological basis of Figure 3 requires clarification to enhance its accessibility and interpretability. The conclusion should also incorporate a discussion of the study’s inherent limitations, such as existing data gaps (e.g., incomplete historical records for aquifer levels) or potential conflicts of interest that might arise between different user groups (e.g., agricultural versus urban users) during the implementation of new water management models.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
- A primary area for improvement lies in the methodological transparency. The criteria for selecting interview participants, the precise number and scope of these interactions, and the systematic process used to synthesize the qualitative data remain opaque.
Response: The characterization of the interviews has been carried out more precisely in section 2 of the work.
- Furthermore, the bibliographic review needs to articulate its source prioritization strategy and explicitly state whether contemporary research addressing current debates on climate adaptation strategies and the principles of a circular water economy was adequately considered.
Response: The last part of the second section of the work has been completed with a current bibliographic review on circular economy and climate adaptation debates.
- A significant limitation is the apparent exclusion of stakeholder perspectives beyond technical managers. The insights of farmers, tourism operators, and local communities are vital for a holistic understanding of the complexities of water governance. Integrating a more comprehensive stakeholder analysis would undoubtedly enrich the discussion surrounding conflicting water priorities and the inherent institutional barriers.
Response: The insights of farmers, tourism operators, and local communities has been considered as integrated in the CASAMA’s conception. For a holistic understanding of the social strengths and barriers, Social Impact Assessment would be necessary, which would be a different issue to be reached in another research.
- The analysis of water resource distribution and existing infrastructure, while presenting quantitative data, falls short of providing critical interpretation. A more incisive discussion on how CASAMA’s prolonged inactivity contributes to the continued overexploitation of vulnerable aquifers, despite the availability of options such as desalination and reclaimed water, is necessary to strengthen the central argument. The conceptualization of the governance framework also requires significant refinement. While the manuscript acknowledges the imperative for enhanced institutional collaboration, it lacks concrete proposals for its operationalization. For example, what specific structural changes could be implemented within CASAMA to ensure meaningful integration of stakeholders from the agriculture, tourism, and environmental sectors?
Response: Table 2 explains how to articulate structural changes that CASAMA needs to effectively operate. A critical interpretation has been provided in section 5.
- Similarly, the proposed solutions, including reverse osmosis and aquifer recharge, are presented without sufficient consideration of their practical feasibility. Detailed cost-benefit analyses, evaluations of energy demands, and an assessment of their alignment with relevant EU and regional funding mechanisms are crucial to move these recommendations beyond theoretical concepts.
Response: Table 2 presents the possibilities of funding for each measure. Nevertheless, for major projects is included an obligation to undertake a cost–benefit analysis in line with the methodology described in legislation in force, which should be the subject of future research work, detailed at the scale of each project. This statement has been included in section 5.
- What specific policy instruments, such as differentiated tariffs, targeted subsidies, or revised regulatory frameworks, could effectively incentivize the adoption of circular water practices? Drawing upon the experiences of successful water management models in comparable Mediterranean regions, such as Catalonia’s advancements in water reuse, could offer valuable and actionable insights. Moreover, the regulatory analysis disproportionately focuses on technical standards (e.g., Directive 91/271/EEC) while neglecting a critical examination of the challenges associated with their enforcement, including limitations in monitoring capacity and potential political resistance to stricter compliance measures.
Response: Table 2 shows specific policy instruments to effectively adopt circular water practices. The current situation of lack of coordination and governance in the district makes some measures impossible, such as differentiated tariffs. This would open up a debate that would slow down agreements between users within the consortium itself, aggravating the problem posed by the individual actions of each municipality. The consortium has not reached the appropriate level of maturity to adopt such sensitive measures. Before such a scenario occurs, it would be necessary to provide security and certainty for future investments, improving confidence in CASAMA's coordination work, and demonstrating the benefits of collective action.
- The discussion of climate change impacts, while positioned as a central theme, lacks the necessary level of granular analysis. While broad drought trends are mentioned, the absence of specific projections for future climate scenarios (e.g., drawing upon IPCC regional climate models) and their potential ramifications for both water demand and supply represents a significant gap. Furthermore, while the manuscript briefly acknowledges the risks associated with flooding, it fails to explore potential synergies between strategies for managing both drought and flood events (e.g., the dual use of recharge dams for aquifer replenishment during dry periods and flood mitigation during intense rainfall events), which could offer more integrated and resilient solutions.
Response: estimations under the pessimistic climate change scenario RCP 8.5 has been included (towards the end of section 3), considering specific projections for future climate scenarios in La Marina Alta. Moreover, synergies between strategies for managing both drought and flood events has been emphasized.
- Finally, the overall coherence of the writing could be improved. Key sections, such as the exposition of the paradox of water availability, would benefit from the inclusion of succinct summaries to aid reader comprehension of complex information. Inconsistencies in terminology, such as the interchangeable use of “reclaimed” and “recycled” water, should be addressed for clarity.
Response: the writing of the paper has been improved in order to gain clarity. The word “recycled” does not appear in the text (nor “regenerated”), only “reclaimed” water is used.
- The methodological basis of Figure 3 requires clarification to enhance its accessibility and interpretability.
Response: The methodological basis of Figure 3 has been clarified in section 3.
- The conclusion should also incorporate a discussion of the study’s inherent limitations, such as existing data gaps (e.g., incomplete historical records for aquifer levels) or potential conflicts of interest that might arise between different user groups (e.g., agricultural versus urban users) during the implementation of new water management models.
Response: The conclusion has been complemented by limitations or potential conflicts of interest.
- The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Response: We have amended the English to clearly express the research and optimize writing.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is a narrative concerning the state of water resources in a district in southeast Spain. The methodology used is a review of official reports and scientific publications. It reads more like a series of elaborated ideas than a structured research article. There is no significant quantitative analysis and the qualitative conclusions are weak. The paper may have highly localized significance in that it describes the district’s water situation and hazards, but it does not offer new, transferrable methods or findings. However, it is evident that effort went into compiling the information and it may have utility to users in the district or country.
Author Response
- It reads more like a series of elaborated ideas than a structured research article. There is no significant quantitative analysis, and the qualitative conclusions are weak.
Response: We have amended the manuscript according to this advice. Analysis of results and conclusions have been reinforced to offer transferrable findings, setting La Marina Alta as an example for other territories with problems of effective governance.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe title of this article suggests that this is a very interesting and meaningful article,
but the overall writing is relatively poor and there are the following issues that need to
be addressed:
- The abstract is not properly written and fails to summarize the main results and conclusions of the paper, resulting in poor readability.
- The formatting of the references in this article is incorrect. Please review and correct them.
- The introduction is overly lengthy and lacks focus. In addition to highlighting the importance of the research topic, the introduction should also include a literature review to emphasize the innovation of this study. Most of the current introduction discusses the research background, with insufficient discussion on research progress.
- The introduction is divided into too many paragraphs, which reduces readability. It is recommended to reorganize the content.
- It is suggested that the title of the second section should simply be "Methods," where the theoretical framework can be introduced.
- The explanation of the theoretical framework is missing in the second section. Could it be presented using a schematic or framework diagram? This might improve clarity.
- The results section mostly consists of qualitative descriptions and analyses, with insufficient data support, particularly in sections 4 and 5, which weakens the persuasiveness of the paper.
- The writing style still has shortcomings. Excessive paragraph breaks disrupt the coherence of the article, and the fragmented analysis of results further reduces readability
Author Response
- The abstract is not properly written and fails to summarize the main results and conclusions of the paper, resulting in poor readability.
Response: We have improved Abstract readability by highlighting the necessity of the research in the Abstract.
- The formatting of the references in this article is incorrect. Please review and correct them.
Response: References has been reviewed.
- The introduction is overly lengthy and lacks focus. In addition to highlighting the importance of the research topic, the introduction should also include a literature review to emphasize the innovation of this study. Most of the current introduction discusses the research background, with insufficient discussion on research progress. The introduction is divided into too many paragraphs, which reduces readability. It is recommended to reorganize the content.
Response: We have improved the research background, by streamlining the Introduction.
- It is suggested that the title of the second section should simply be "Methods," where the theoretical framework can be introduced. The explanation of the theoretical framework is missing in the second section.
Response: The last part of the second section of the work has been completed with a current bibliographic review on circular economy and climate adaptation debates to complete the theoretical framework.
- The results section mostly consists of qualitative descriptions and analyses, with insufficient data support, particularly in sections 4 and 5, which weakens the persuasiveness of the paper.
Response: We have built a chart (Table 2) to illustrate the connections between theoretical framework and proposed solutions, including strategies for water management in the case study. Table 2 explains as well how to articulate structural changes that CASAMA needs to effectively operate. A critical interpretation has been provided in section 5.
- The writing style still has shortcomings. Excessive paragraph breaks disrupt the coherence of the article, and the fragmented analysis of results further reduces readability
Response: the writing of the paper has been improved in order to gain clarity.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper reported Integrated management, circular economy and reclaimed water: keys to restoring the long-term water balance in La Marina Alta (Alicante, Spain), many issues still need to be addressed before publication.
Special comments:
- Abstract and Introduction should be improved.
- Strategies for water management should be added.
- Conclusion should be refined.
Author Response
- Abstract and Introduction should be improved.
Response: We have improved Abstract and Introduction, by highlighting the necessity of the research in the Abstract, as well as by streamlining the Introduction.
- Strategies for water management should be added.
Response: We have included strategies for water management in Table 2.
- Conclusion should be refined.
Response: We have refined the Conclusions.
Reviewer 5 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study focuses on the water resource management issues in the La Marina Alta region of Spain. By integrating comprehensive management, circular economy, and reclaimed water utilization, it proposes a set of sustainable water resource balance solutions, which holds significant practical implications and provides valuable policy references. However, some parts still need further in - depth exploration and optimization.
- It is recommended to streamline the background description in the abstract and highlight the necessity of the research.
- The introduction clearly presents the challenges in water resource management (such as climate change and over exploitation of groundwater) and emphasizes the contradictions in the research area. Nevertheless, the narrative process is overly verbose. It is advisable to streamline the background introduction.
- The hypotheses proposed in this study seem more like research objectives, while "the main objectives" appear to be more of a research process.
- It is suggested to add charts to illustrate the methods and theoretical framework: How can the integrated water resource management be combined with the circular economy and the roles of various institutions in governance?
- It is recommended to supplement the data source year for Figure 1.
- It is advisable to discuss the research limitations in the conclusion section and propose corresponding countermeasures.
Author Response
- It is recommended to streamline the background description in the abstract and highlight the necessity of the research.
Response: We have highlighted the necessity of the research in the Abstract.
- The narrative process is overly verbose. It is advisable to streamline the background introduction.
Response: We have streamlined the background introduction.
- It is suggested to add charts to illustrate the methods and theoretical framework: How can the integrated water resource management be combined with the circular economy and the roles of various institutions in governance?
Response: We have built a chart (Table 2) to illustrate the connections between theoretical framework and proposed solutions.
- It is recommended to supplement the data source year for Figure 1.
Response: The data source year of Figure 1 has been complemented. We have bear in mind that Figure 1 is made with the entity's own records (CASAMA), which can be contrasted with Table 1, from hydrological planning.
- It is advisable to discuss the research limitations in the conclusion section and propose corresponding countermeasures.
Response: A clause about further research has been included in the conclusions section.
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe author has made a lot of changes to the previous comments. I hope the author can describe it more carefully when replying to the review comments next time, and mark it in which chapter, page and line, so that the reviewers can clearly find out the changes. At the same time, there are still some small problems in this paper.
- the reference format of the literature in the article is wrong. It should be presented in the form of the above corner mark. I don't know why it hasn't been modified.
- the quality of the drawings in the article is poor. The horizontal and vertical coordinates in figures 2 and 3 do not have names and units, and Figures 4 and 5 are maps without compass, scale, longitude and latitude.
- in the fourth and fifth parts of the article, there are still a large number of paragraphs, which are too cumbersome, very fragmented and poor readability. I hope they can be further refined.
- it is suggested that the author read the full text, and still found some sentences that are not smooth or repeated in the article.
- there are too many contents in Table 2, accounting for 5 pages. Can we refine the contents or use it as a appendix. This can improve the continuity of the paper.