Urban Water Resilience Infrastructure Falling into Oblivion: The Case of Warsaw’s Oligocene Groundwater Intakes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors of the manuscript "A Network of Artesian Water Wells as an Element of Urban Resilience: The Case of Oligocene Groundwater Intakes in Warsaw's Praga Districts" address the interesting issue of the use of  groundwater from Oligocene aquifer in two selected districts of Warsaw and their strategic importance.

 

Unfortunately, the article contains numerous inaccuracies that should be corrected:

• The title contains an error – in Warsaw, groundwater table in Oligocene aquifer is not artesian. The same erroneous information is also found in the "Introduction" – "At depths exceeding 200 m, the water is under sufficient artesian pressure to rise to the surface once drilled..." However, in the "Results" chapter, the Authors correctly write about the lowering of the water table due to intensive exploitation. Reducing water intake leads to a slow rise of the water table, but this is a very slow process, and the water table is still not an artesian.
• How can the Authors justify the statement: "For digitally excluded seniors, walking to the well substitutes for structured exercise and fosters casual surveillance of the surrounding street?" Has research (street survey) been conducted?
• According to the Water Law, in the case of groundwater intakes, a direct protection area is designated around the intake, aimed at protecting waters against contamination. This area directly encompasses water collection facilities and equipment, as well as the adjacent area. In this area, land use for purposes unrelated to the operation of the intake is prohibited, and therefore it is not advisable to encourage people to stay there, whereas enhancing them with shaded seating, small gardens, etc. (as the Authors wrote in lines 317-318).
• It would also be interesting to compare the water resources at the Oligocene aquifer with the number of people currently using this water and the number of Warsaw residents during the potential crisis period.
• Figure 1 does not contain any descriptions or names. Data should be added to facilitate the location of the districts described in the text (e.g., Bemowo, Bielany, and others). Explanations of the elements shown on the text should also be added to the map. It is also worth adding well numbering consistent with Figure 3 and Table 1.
• Similarly, Figure 2 – in its current form – without captions and explanations, the figure is unclear and seems redundant.
• It is worth maintaining the same order in Figure 3 and Table 1 – this facilitates reading.
• Table 1 – since the last column, "Sitting area," always states "no," it is worth including this in the text, omitting the column in the table.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments provided. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper, so we hope that they fulfill the reviewer’s suggestions.

Comments 1: The title contains an error – in Warsaw, groundwater table in Oligocene aquifer is not artesian. The same erroneous information is also found in the "Introduction" – "At depths exceeding 200 m, the water is under sufficient artesian pressure to rise to the surface once drilled..." However, in the "Results" chapter, the Authors correctly write about the lowering of the water table due to intensive exploitation. Reducing water intake leads to a slow rise of the water table, but this is a very slow process, and the water table is still not an artesian.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have corrected the use of the term “artesian water” throughout the article, leaving it only in the Results subsection “Past and present use of Oligocene groundwater intakes”, which describes the original state of the Oligocene aquifer.

Comments 2: How can the Authors justify the statement: "For digitally excluded seniors, walking to the well substitutes for structured exercise and fosters casual surveillance of the surrounding street?" Has research (street survey) been conducted?
Response 2: Thank you for your insightful comment. The statement used was based on observations made during fieldwork. Because street surveys were not conducted, we have removed this statement in the revised version of the article.

Comments 3: According to the Water Law, in the case of groundwater intakes, a direct protection area is designated around the intake, aimed at protecting waters against contamination. This area directly encompasses water collection facilities and equipment, as well as the adjacent area. In this area, land use for purposes unrelated to the operation of the intake is prohibited, and therefore it is not advisable to encourage people to stay there, whereas enhancing them with shaded seating, small gardens, etc. (as the Authors wrote in lines 317-318).
Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comment. Polish Water Law requires the establishment of protection zones for water intakes. Therefore, most water intakes are located within enclosed areas or in enclosed buildings. However, among the analyzed cases were intakes (Motorowa and Szaserów) equipped with external taps directly accessible from the street, with walls used for informal seating. According to the regulations, protection zones are individually established for each intake. Unfortunately, we did not have access to the technical documentation of the analyzed water intakes, so we do not know how the protection zones were established. Analysis of the interpretations and nuances of Polish regulations is beyond the scope of this study, and to avoid ambiguity, we have moved the discussion regarding the possibility of supplementing the base OGI functional program to the section regarding further research.

Comments 4: It would also be interesting to compare the water resources at the Oligocene aquifer with the number of people currently using this water and the number of Warsaw residents during the potential crisis period.
Response 4: We appreciate your interesting ideas for further research. We've added them to the "Discussion" section, where we discuss study limitations and directions for further research.

Comments 5: Figure 1 does not contain any descriptions or names. Data should be added to facilitate the location of the districts described in the text (e.g., Bemowo, Bielany, and others). Explanations of the elements shown on the text should also be added to the map. It is also worth adding well numbering consistent with Figure 3 and Table 1.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, modified Figure 1 and 3 and Table 1.

Comments 6: Similarly, Figure 2 – in its current form – without captions and explanations, the figure is unclear and seems redundant.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, modified Figure 2.

Comments 7: It is worth maintaining the same order in Figure 3 and Table 1 – this facilitates reading.
Response 7: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, modified all Figures and Table 1 to maintain the same order.

Comments 8: Table 1 – since the last column, "Sitting area," always states "no," it is worth including this in the text, omitting the column in the table.
Response 8: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have, accordingly, removed the “Sitting area” column from Table 1.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title：A Network of Artesian Water Wells as an Element of Urban Resilience: The Case of Oligocene Groundwater Intakes in Warsaw’s Praga Districts

Manuscript ID：sustainability-3814739

 

Major issues that should be addressed for revising the manuscript

1. It is recommended to rewrite the abstract to briefly state the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of this study. Generally, the key points of the entire paper should be comprehensible just by reading the abstract. The abstract should be a self-contained piece of writing.The author is advised to substantially enhance the quality of the abstract.  
2. The keywords should precise and concisemore. The present draft conveys a lack of focus on critical issues.
3. The introduction should be enhanced with tighter logic, explicitly stating: (1) the keyscientific questions in the field, (2) existing knowledge gaps, and (3) the key research questions this work tackles.
4. The part 2, The methods requires enhancement through: Inclusion of study area characteristics; Explicit description of methods and research design; Incorporating relevant literature citations.
5. The cartographic presentation requires improvement as it currently:

• Omits essential map elements (e.g., legend)
• Uses inadequate image resolution (low DPI)

Please redesign Figures 1 and 2 to meet standard cartographic conventions.

6. Figure 3 is not clear enough.
7. Lines 243-269. this part should belong to study design. What is the purpose of Table 1?
8. The discussion should be restructured to: Concentrate on 2-3 core topics; Systematically compare results with existing literature; and Provide in-depth analysis of the mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena. Cite literature to support your points.
9. The conclusionsection is overly redundant. It is recommended to refine 3-4 key findings based on the research outcomes and discussion. Rewrite this section to improve clarity and eliminate unnecessary details.

 

 

 

Minor issues that should be addressed

1. The title of this manuscript should be rewritten again, it’s too ordinary and unattractive. The title fails to highlight the research objectives and key information.
2. Lines 8-13, the sentences should concise more, or delete. Redundancy, it has no practical significance.
3. Merge the first and second paragraphs, concisely presenting the research context and omitting irrelevant information.
4. Please number the second-level headings.
5. Please check all the references according to the journal require carefully.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments provided. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper, so we hope that they fulfill the reviewer’s suggestions.

Comments 1: It is recommended to rewrite the abstract to briefly state the purpose, methods, results, and conclusions of this study. Generally, the key points of the entire paper should be comprehensible just by reading the abstract. The abstract should be a self-contained piece of writing.The author is advised to substantially enhance the quality of the abstract.
Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have substantially rewritten the abstract to make it self-contained and to briefly state the context, objective of the research, methods, results, and conclusion.

Comments 2: The keywords should precise and concisemore. The present draft conveys a lack of focus on critical issues.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have significantly rewritten the article, focusing on the most important issues. We have also, accordingly, improved the keywords.

Comments 3: The introduction should be enhanced with tighter logic, explicitly stating: (1) the keyscientific questions in the field, (2) existing knowledge gaps, and (3) the key research questions this work tackles.
Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have, accordingly, rewritten the Introduction section, explicitly stating motivation for the research, existing knowledge gaps, and key research questions.

Comments 4: The part 2, The methods requires enhancement through: Inclusion of study area characteristics; Explicit description of methods and research design; Incorporating relevant literature citations.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have, accordingly, rewritten the Methods section, clarifying and explicitly describing chosen research methods.

Comments 5: The cartographic presentation requires improvement as it currently:

Omits essential map elements (e.g., legend)

Uses inadequate image resolution (low DPI)

Please redesign Figures 1 and 2 to meet standard cartographic conventions.
Response 5: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, improved Figures 1 and 2 to meet standard cartographic conventions and increased their resolution.

Comments 6: Figure 3 is not clear enough.
Response 6: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, improved the contrast and cropping of the photos of OGI in Figures 3 to make them clearer for the viewer.

Comments 7: Lines 243-269. this part should belong to study design. What is the purpose of Table 1?
Response 7: Thank you for your question and suggestions to modify the content of the research. Table 1 presents the key characteristics of the inspected cases of Oligocene Groundwater Intakes collected during the field study. It allowed us to conduct a comparative case study of OGIs in Praga Północ and Praga Południe. To clarify that we have significantly rewritten the Methods and Results section, focusing on the key comparison criteria. In addition, we have refined Table 1 to make it consistent with the subject of the study.

Comments 8: The discussion should be restructured to: Concentrate on 2-3 core topics; Systematically compare results with existing literature; and Provide in-depth analysis of the mechanisms underlying the observed phenomena. Cite literature to support your points.
Response 8: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have substantially rewritten the Discussion section, concentrating, in the light of existing literature on the advantages of the OGI network, its fundamental limitations, and discussing possible future scenarios.

Comments 9: The conclusion section is overly redundant. It is recommended to refine 3-4 key findings based on the research outcomes and discussion. Rewrite this section to improve clarity and eliminate unnecessary details.
Response 9: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have significantly rewritten the Conclusions section following the given guidelines. We eliminated unnecessary details and refined it to three key findings.

Comments 10: The title of this manuscript should be rewritten again, it’s too ordinary and unattractive. The title fails to highlight the research objectives and key information.
Response 10: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have rewritten the title of the article in order to highlight the key research information and to make it more attractive.

Comments 11: Lines 8-13, the sentences should concise more, or delete. Redundancy, it has no practical significance.
Response 11: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have, accordingly, rewritten the whole abstract.

Comments 12: Merge the first and second paragraphs, concisely presenting the research context and omitting irrelevant information.
Response 12: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have, accordingly, merged the first and second paragraphs of the Introduction section, omitting irrelevant information.

Comments 13: Please number the second-level headings.
Response 13: Thank you for your comment. We have, accordingly, numbered all levels of the headings.

Comments 14: Please check all the references according to the journal require carefully.
Response 14: Thank you for your comment. We have checked the references according to the journal requirements and added missing data.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I want to thank you for inviting me to review your article. Overall, I found the topic to be exciting and the narrative engaging. Reading the introduction, I was interested in how water resilience would be addressed in your case study. I felt, however, that several points need to be improved for the article to reach its full potential. You may also consider increasing the quantitative assessment of the OGI, including more numerical data on existing and potential future scenarios.

Method: I missed several exact descriptions of what was done. Perhaps a flowchart would help the reader better understand the steps and structure. For example, when you say that the technical condition is bad in Table 1, is this a subjective assessment made by a single person, or does it have any quantifiable basis? Some topics lack a scientific approach, which bothered me while reading the article. However, I think the proposal is good and has the potential to be a case study.

Figures 1 and 2 lack any scale. I also don't know if there is a copyright that would hinder publication in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Could you please check and confirm this?

In general, I felt that the writing lacked a higher level of professionalism, although it was fluid and enjoyable to read. It needs to be approached with the rigour of a scientific article. I recommend revising the whole manuscript in this context.

Finally, I felt the discussion of practical applications lacked better organisation. What can be taken from the article for each stakeholder in this debate? How governance can be divided into activities, duties and synergies in the context of optimising and guaranteeing the sustainability and resilience of the OGI.

Again, thank you for inviting me. I hope that my comments will help facilitate a discussion of the article and improve it for publication.

Sincerely

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English may be improved. In general, some terms lacked the professionalism required for a manuscript. Maybe provide a round of English proofreading.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

The authors would like to thank the reviewer for the useful comments provided. We believe the changes made in the revised version have contributed to the improvement of the paper, so we hope that they fulfill the reviewer’s suggestions.

Comments 1: Overall, I found the topic to be exciting and the narrative engaging. Reading the introduction, I was interested in how water resilience would be addressed in your case study. I felt, however, that several points need to be improved for the article to reach its full potential. You may also consider increasing the quantitative assessment of the OGI, including more numerical data on existing and potential future scenarios.
Response 1: Thank you for your supportive and valuable comments. We have, accordingly, substantially rewritten the Discussion section where we describe possible future scenarios.

Comments 2: Method: I missed several exact descriptions of what was done. Perhaps a flowchart would help the reader better understand the steps and structure. For example, when you say that the technical condition is bad in Table 1, is this a subjective assessment made by a single person, or does it have any quantifiable basis? Some topics lack a scientific approach, which bothered me while reading the article. However, I think the proposal is good and has the potential to be a case study.
Response 2: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have, accordingly, rewritten the Methods section, clarifying and explicitly describing chosen research methods. Additionally, we added the description of the assessment criteria.

Comments 3: Figures 1 and 2 lack any scale. I also don't know if there is a copyright that would hinder publication in Figures 1, 2 and 3. Could you please check and confirm this?
Response 3: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have, accordingly, improved Figures 1 and 2 to meet standard cartographic conventions. All graphics were created by the authors for the purpose of this publication. We have also provided the source of the data used in the Methods section.

Comments 4: In general, I felt that the writing lacked a higher level of professionalism, although it was fluid and enjoyable to read. It needs to be approached with the rigour of a scientific article. I recommend revising the whole manuscript in this context.
Response 4: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have, accordingly, substantially rewritten the whole manuscript.

Comments 5: Finally, I felt the discussion of practical applications lacked better organisation. What can be taken from the article for each stakeholder in this debate? How governance can be divided into activities, duties and synergies in the context of optimising and guaranteeing the sustainability and resilience of the OGI.
Response 5: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have substantially rewritten the Discussion section, concentrating on the advantages of the OGI network and its fundamental limitations in light of existing literature. Additionally, we have expanded the discussion regarding possible future scenarios, indicating the main stakeholders and discussing their roles.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I recommend the publication in its present form, I do not propose any additional comments.