Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors What is the main question addressed by the research?
The article presents documentary research on water resource governance in Sierra Leone. Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
I don't consider it so relevant to the scientific field, since more documentary information is needed and information is obtained, in most cases, in a subjective way.

What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The contribution is more qualitative; the information needs to be strengthened with more quantitative data.

What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
Include qualitative analysis information, such as the type of contamination, and what has been done to reduce or remove it.

Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
Yes, according to what has been stated, the factors of the analysis formulated in the development of the work are considered.

Are the references appropriate?
I believe that more documentary information is needed, due to the type of qualitative analysis presented.

Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Table 1 is overloaded with information; it could be reorganized to make it easier to understand.

Author Response

REVIEWER 1

Comment 1: What is the main question addressed by the research?
The article presents documentary research on water resource governance in Sierra Leone.

Response 1: Thank you for your time and for providing your feedback.

Comment 2: Do you consider the topic original or relevant to the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field? Please also explain why this is/ is not the case.
I don't consider it so relevant to the scientific field, since more documentary information is needed and information is obtained, in most cases, in a subjective way.

Response 2: Thank you for raising this point regarding the relevance and originality of our study. We respectfully argue for its significance based on the following points:

Addressing a clear gap – As noted, Sierra Leone’s water sector is critically understudied, particularly from a governance and stakeholder perspective. This research directly addresses that empirical gap by providing the first comprehensive mapping of stakeholder dynamics and perceived systemic challenges in this specific national context.

Methodological Relevance – The study employs a rigorous qualitative, mixed -method design to investigate subjective stakeholder perspectives, institutional relationships, and governance challenges; these are the core objects of our analysis. We believe capturing these lived experiences and perceptions is not a methodological shortcoming, but an essential pathway to understanding the socio-political dimensions of water management.

Subjectivity, Transparency and Ethics – Our study employs a qualitative design as its aim is to explore the underlying processes and meanings within water governance in a developing country where depth and context are paramount. We have also maintained precise methodological transparency with notations like “indicated by a participant” or “said an interviewee” etc., as evidence of a widely held perception, while upholding our mandatory ethical commitments to participant confidentiality.

While we cannot adopt a quantitative approach without altering the study’s fundamental purpose, we have revised the manuscript to more explicitly demonstrate the systematic rigour of our qualitative methodology, and these revisions are highlighted red for ease of reference.

Comment 3: What does it add to the subject area compared with other published material?
The contribution is more qualitative; the information needs to be strengthened with more quantitative data.

Response 3: Thank you for your comment regarding the contribution of our study. We appreciate the perspective that quantitative data can provide valuable metrics. However, this research is intentionally designed as a qualitative analysis, and its primary contribution lies in this methodological focus. It addresses a significant empirical gap by providing the first in-depth contextual exploration of stakeholder dynamics and governance challenges with Sierra Leone’s water sector – a region where such nuanced, narrative data is currently absent. Our study adds to the subject area by uncovering the underlying 'how' and 'why' behind institutional relationships and perceived barriers, offering explanatory depth and systemic insight. These qualitative findings generate essential theoretical propositions and a foundational understanding of the socio-political landscape, which is a critical prerequisite for designing effective policies and for informing future quantitative hypothesis-testing.

Comment 4: What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology?
Include qualitative analysis information, such as the type of contamination, and what has been done to reduce or remove it.

Response 4: Thank you for the opportunity to clarify the scope of our study. Our research focuses exclusively on the governance, stakeholder dynamics, and institutional relationships within Sierra Leone's water sector. As such, the methodology was designed to capture qualitative data on perceptions, coordination challenges, and policy frameworks, not on physical water quality parameters.

Therefore, the analysis of specific contamination types or remediation techniques falls outside the methodological and conceptual boundaries of this particular paper.

Comment 5: Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
Yes, according to what has been stated, the factors of the analysis formulated in the development of the work are considered.

Response 5: Thank you for your feedback.

Comment 6: Are the references appropriate?
I believe that more documentary information is needed, due to the type of qualitative analysis presented.

Response 6: More references have been added.

Comment 7: Any additional comments on the tables and figures.
Table 1 is overloaded with information; it could be reorganized to make it easier to understand.

Response 7: More details have been provided to further explain the metrics in the Results and Discussion section and these have been highlighted red for easy of reference.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the manuscript addresses an important topic with solid empirical work and has clear publication potential, but I would recommend acceptance after substantial revision. My main comments are:

1. In the introduction, clearly specify which governance framework(s) (e.g., OECD principles, stakeholder participation, STEEP) actually structure the analysis, and state more explicitly how the study adds to existing water governance literature.

2. Reformulate the five broad objectives into 2–3 concrete research questions that can be clearly answered in the Results/Discussion, so that the narrative is more focused and easier to follow.

3. Add methodological detail on sampling: describe the composition of the 27 survey respondents and 37 interviewees (by institution type, level, gender, etc.), explain how the snowball process unfolded, when you considered data saturation reached, and discuss potential bias from the over-representation of government/utility actors.

4. Describe the construction of the influence/dependence networks more transparently: how the 1–5 scores were translated into ties and weights, whether any thresholds were applied, and how centrality measures were calculated; a small example matrix or schematic would be very helpful.

5. More tightly connect the SNA results with the STEEP analysis by adding a concise table or figure that links key high-centrality actors to their roles, gaps and leverage points across the five STEEP dimensions, rather than treating the two parts as largely parallel.

6. Streamline the Results/Discussion by cutting repeated contextual information (e.g., basic service gaps, non-revenue water, women’s water burden), shortening descriptive passages, and ending each STEEP subsection with a short set of “key messages” and corresponding policy levers.

7. In the conclusion, more clearly distinguish between short-term actionable measures (e.g., coordination mechanisms, specific regulatory steps) and longer-term structural reforms, and briefly discuss which findings are specific to Sierra Leone and which could generalise to other low-income, aid-dependent countries.

Author Response

REVIEWER 2

Comment 1: In the introduction, clearly specify which governance framework(s) (e.g., OECD principles, stakeholder participation, STEEP) actually structure the analysis, and state more explicitly how the study adds to existing water governance literature.

Response 1: Thank you for your time and for providing your feedback. This recommendation has been actioned in the paper. Please refer to the last paragraph of the Introduction, Section 1.

Comment 2: Reformulate the five broad objectives into 2–3 concrete research questions that can be clearly answered in the Results/Discussion, so that the narrative is more focused and easier to follow.

Response 2: This recommendation has been actioned in Section 1.1 and is highlighted red for ease of reference.

Comment 3: Add methodological detail on sampling: describe the composition of the 27 survey respondents and 37 interviewees (by institution type, level, gender, etc.), explain how the snowball process unfolded, when you considered data saturation reached, and discuss potential bias from the over-representation of government/utility actors.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable suggestion to enhance the methodological transparency of our sampling approach.

We have revised the manuscript to include the requested details on the operational steps of the snowball sampling process and the criteria used to determine data saturation. Please refer to Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2, with corrections highlighted red.  Furthermore, the Limitations section (see paragraph 2), discusses the potential biases introduced by the significant representation of government and utility actors and how this was addressed.

Regarding the specific composition of the 27 survey respondents and 37 interviewees (e.g., by exact institution, level, and gender), we face a necessary ethical constraint. Sierra Leone's water sector professional community is exceptionally small and tightly networked. Providing detailed descriptive breakdowns would pose a high risk of breaching our guaranteed confidentiality and anonymisation commitments to participants, as individuals could become easily identifiable. This is a standard and critical ethical consideration in qualitative research within small, specialised populations.

Comment 4: Describe the construction of the influence/dependence networks more transparently: how the 1–5 scores were translated into ties and weights, whether any thresholds were applied, and how centrality measures were calculated; a small example matrix or schematic would be very helpful.

Response 4: This recommendation has been incorporated into Section 2.3.3 with the relevant text highlighted for easy reference.

Comment 5: More tightly connect the SNA results with the STEEP analysis by adding a concise table or figure that links key high-centrality actors to their roles, gaps and leverage points across the five STEEP dimensions, rather than treating the two parts as largely parallel.

Response 5: This recommendation has been incorporated into Section 3.5 with the relevant text highlighted for easy reference.

Comment 6: Streamline the Results/Discussion by cutting repeated contextual information (e.g., basic service gaps, non-revenue water, women’s water burden), shortening descriptive passages, and ending each STEEP subsection with a short set of “key messages” and corresponding policy levers.

Response 6: We agree that conciseness is important. We would like to clarify that certain core challenges – such as non-revenue water, basic service gaps, and women’s water burden – are deliberately examined across multiple STEEP subsections because they are inherently multidimensional. For instance, non-revenue water manifests as a social issue (theft, vandalism), a technical problem (leakages, maintenance), an economic burden (revenue loss), and a governance challenge (enforcement capacity). Analysing each dimension separately allows us to unpack the distinct root causes and policy implications that a single, consolidated discussion might obscure. However, we acknowledge that this cross-cutting approach can create an impression of repetition. To improve readability while preserving this analytical depth, we have added a brief note in the first paragraph of Section 3.4 explaining that key systemic challenges are analysed through multiple STEEP lenses due to their complex, interconnected nature.

Comment 7: In the conclusion, more clearly distinguish between short-term actionable measures (e.g., coordination mechanisms, specific regulatory steps) and longer-term structural reforms and briefly discuss which findings are specific to Sierra Leone and which could generalise to other low-income, aid-dependent countries.

Response 7: This recommendation has been incorporated into the Conclusions, Section  4, with the relevant text highlighted for easy reference.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is obvious that the water supply system referred to is underperforming from all points of view due to a combination of factors. This system requires a complete evaluation (primarily technical) of each subsystem in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the entire system.

The analysis carried out by the authors is based on interviewing too small a number of people (end consumers are missing), but it manages to provide a map on which, if supplemented with concrete data, a viable theory of change can be built (as the authors state), but I consider that this type of article does not fall within the scope of the Sustainability magazine and therefore I recommend that the authors address themselves to magazines that publish survey-type articles. Recomand autorilor să specifice clar care este sursa datelor (tehnice, economice, etc) ori de cate ori le prezintă (”indicated by a participant” nu este suficient!).

Moreover, for some technical data, no water balance analysis is presented, but data indicated by a participant. Who is this participant? Does he have the authority to assess NRW at 40-50%? However, there are many questions regarding the data presented in terms of accuracy due to the fact that they are not provided from clear sources. I recommend that authors clearly specify the source of the data (technical, economic, etc.) whenever they is presented ("indicated by a participant" is not enough!).

Author Response

REVIEWER 3

Comment 1: It is obvious that the water supply system referred to is underperforming from all points of view due to a combination of factors. This system requires a complete evaluation (primarily technical) of each subsystem in order to ensure the long-term sustainability of the entire system.

Response 1: Thank you for your time and for providing your feedback.

Comment 2: The analysis carried out by the authors is based on interviewing too small a number of people (end consumers are missing), but it manages to provide a map on which, if supplemented with concrete data, a viable theory of change can be built (as the authors state), but I consider that this type of article does not fall within the scope of the Sustainability magazine and therefore I recommend that the authors address themselves to magazines that publish survey-type articles. Recomand autorilor să specifice clar care este sursa datelor (tehnice, economice, etc) ori de cate ori le prezintă (”indicated by a participant” nu este suficient!).

Response 2: Thank you for your comment regarding our methodology and stakeholder inclusion. We appreciate the opportunity to clarify our approach.

Our research employed a sequential mixed-method design to ensure comprehensive and representative stakeholder engagement in Sierra Leone's water sector.

1. Stakeholder Identification & Survey: An initial stakeholder list was developed through a desktop study. These stakeholders were invited to participate in our online survey (n=27 respondents). As part of this survey, we utilised a snowball sampling technique, asking participants to nominate any additional relevant stakeholders omitted from the initial list. This process continued until saturation was reached and no new names were suggested.
2. Follow-up Interviews: All newly identified stakeholders from the survey phase were subsequently contacted. This resulted in a total of 37 in-depth interviews with key sector institutions and representatives.
3. Representation of End-Users: To ensure the perspectives of end-users and consumers were captured, we conducted an interview with a senior official from the Consumer Protection Commission (Water Division). This body is the statutory advocate for all water consumers in Sierra Leone, and the official provided a comprehensive and representative account of consumer views, integrating their extensive frontline insights.

We believe this rigorous, iterative process ensured broad and representative sector engagement. Our findings, we contend, are well-positioned to contribute valuable insights to the Special Issue, “Sustainable Water Resource Management in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities.”

Comment 3: Moreover, for some technical data, no water balance analysis is presented, but data indicated by a participant. Who is this participant? Does he have the authority to assess NRW at 40-50%? However, there are many questions regarding the data presented in terms of accuracy due to the fact that they are not provided from clear sources. I recommend that authors clearly specify the source of the data (technical, economic, etc.) whenever they is presented ("indicated by a participant" is not enough!).

Response 3: This study is fundamentally a qualitative governance and policy analysis. Its primary objective is to map stakeholder perspectives, institutional synergies, and perceived systemic challenges within the sector, rather than to conduct a technical audit or establish definitive technical baselines.

When participants, in the context of describing governance or operational challenges, volunteer quantitative estimates (such as the 40-50% NRW figure cited), we include them as illustrations of those perceived challenges. The key analytical point is not the precise numerical value, but the recurrent stakeholder perception of high NRW as a critical, unresolved issue. The notation "indicated by a participant" is used to maintain methodological transparency about the origin of such figures while upholding our strict ethical and confidentiality commitments, which prevent naming individual participants.

We agree that for purely technical studies, such sourcing would be insufficient. To prevent any methodological misunderstanding, we have revised the manuscript (with a footnote on page 21, Section 3.4.1) to explicitly state that participant-cited quantitative data is presented as evidence of perceived challenges and priority issues within the stakeholder landscape, not as verified technical data.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

REVIEWER 4

General Comments: The manuscript develops an integrated framework for multi-objective optimization of irrigation system design using the Non-Dominated Sorting Genetic Algorithm II (NSGA-II), where cost, water efficiency, and energy consumption are simultaneously optimized. The study includes a mathematical formulation, field-based modeling, geospatial data processing, and numerical experiments that generate Pareto fronts for different irrigation layouts. The topic is highly relevant for Sustainability, especially in the context of water scarcity, agricultural resource management, and multi-criteria decision support. While the manuscript is structured coherently and demonstrates solid methodological effort, several components require improvement. The manuscript has been reviewed and the following comments should be considered:

1. The introduction successfully frames the global relevance of efficient irrigation and the need for multi-objective approaches but does not sufficiently differentiate the present work from existing irrigation optimization studies, many of which have already used NSGA-II or similar evolutionary algorithms. What is novel about the proposed methodology? How it advances beyond previous multi-objective irrigation optimization studies?
2. The manuscript references a broad range of irrigation, water resources, and optimization papers, but the section tends to summarize rather than analyse. Some references are older (older than 10 years despite the rapidly advancing field) or not fully aligned with the optimization focus and does not fully comply with the Sustainability journal template. The authors should add more recent work (last 3–5 years).
3. Materials and Methods section is the strongest and most detailed section of the manuscript but there are lack of justification for parameter values (population, generations, crossover/mutation indices). These seem arbitrarily selected. The assumptions behind the hydraulic and agronomic models need clearer justification, especially regarding uniformity, pressure constraints, and friction coefficients.
4. The site description (topography, soil, crop type, water sources) is presented adequately. However, there should be a more transparent traceability of input data and uncertainties.
5. The results include optimization outputs, Pareto fronts, and solution distributions, and they are conceptually correct.
6. The Discussion section feels more like an extended results section rather than a critical analysis.
7. Conclusions are coherent and summarize the study well. However, they are somewhat optimistic and should acknowledge limitations and avoid implying that the method is fully validated or ready for deployment.
8. The Abbreviations section should be placed at the end of the manuscript, before the References, as required by the Sustainability template. In the current version, its position does not follow the official layout guidelines and should be corrected. The authors should carefully recheck the official MDPI template for Sustainability
9. In conclusion, this manuscript addresses a timely and important challenge, and the multiobjective framework is well constructed. The methods are solid, but the scientific contribution is limited by insufficient novelty, incomplete justification of methodological choices, and the need for stronger interpretation of results. With significant revisions, especially in the results, discussion, and methodological justification, the paper could reach a publishable level

Response: Thank you for your time and for sending this detailed feedback. However, it appears there may have been a mix-up. The paper you have referenced and the one for which this feedback was aimed is not the paper we have submitted or are associated with.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I agree with the authors' clarifications to the previous comments, however I recommend t that in the text of the article it should be stated that the views of end users and consumers  are represented by official from the Water Division.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have made the requested modifications as indicated.