Assessment of Rainwater Harvesting Systems in Poor Rural Communities: A Case Study from Yatta Area, Palestine
, Subha Ghannam 2, Fathi Anayah 3, Shehdeh Jodeh 4,*, Ghadir Hanbali 4, Bayan Khalaf 4 and Michael van der Valk 5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Strengths of paper: The paper studied a Palestine´s House as good example of the most vulnerable countries to a water scarcity. The article fills the knowledge gap how to verify the efficiency such alternative water supply systems and their socio-economic effects.
Weakness of paper and suggestion for improvement:
There are necessary further studies and possibility to generalize results for different similar areas. I put my comments in the proposed paper (in the attachment)
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
The authors would like to thank the associate editor and the reviewers for the time and effort made available to review and comment on the manuscript. The comments are constructive and helpful to better demonstrate the concepts and interpretation of results. Second, all comments were addressed as needed and changes are made using “Track Change” function for easy revisions.
Reviewer #1 | |
Query/ comment | Answer |
There are necessary further studies and possibility to generalize results for different similar areas. I put my comments in the proposed paper (in the attachment) | Indeed. Every comment will be addressed individually as shown below. |
arête ? (Line 78) | Fixed (Line 107). |
not adequate color (Figure 1) (Line 92) | Fixed (Figure 1, Line 151). Please check |
be more specific, how it was taken, where rainwater and where mixed water? (Line 103) | Fixed (Lines 128-137). |
missing gap (Line 131) | Fixed (Line 204). |
formatting of table (Line 132) | Fixed (Line 205). |
need to be defined (Line 165) | Similar to the above question (Lines 300-301). |
why not 69? (Line 323) | Fixed (Line 594). |
missing gap (Line 334) | Fixed (Line 605). |
I did not find it (Line 351). | Deleted (Line 641). |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented paper is interesting but the novelty is not presented. It is more a case study description than a research paper with high scientific soundness. The title is not the most appropriate and it is a bit ambitious for the research presented. The paper needs a deep language review.
Author Response
Reviewer # 2 | |
Query/ comment | Answer |
The presented paper is interesting but the novelty is not presented. | The aim of this paper is to assess the quality of harvested rainwater used for drinking and domestic purposes of a poor rural community in Yatta area. In addition, the authors addressed the impact of rainwater harvesting systems on different socio-economic attributes for this marginalized group of people. The semiarid climates prevail and therefore water resources are limited and inaccessible due to political conflicts in the area. The political atmosphere is hot and the socio-economic environment is challenging and motivating to further researchin the study area. Cultural restrictions for local residents also make the results of the study more valuable and interesting for researchers. |
It is more a case study description than a research paper with high scientific soundness. | The management of rainwater harvesting systems needs further research and attention in developing countries such as Palestine. These systems are built at the community level and managed individually with no direct supervision from local corresponding authorities. There is a lack of best management practices to such systems in the local community. Recommendations are proposed at the end of the article for this purpose. In addition, the title has been changed to reflect the suggestion of Reviewer 2 (Lines 2-3). |
The title is not the most appropriate and it is a bit ambitious for the research presented. | The title has been changed according to Reviewer 2 recommendations (Lines 2-3). |
The paper needs a deep language review. | A deep language review had been made to the manuscript as recommended by Reviewer 2. |
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper was significantly improved and the aims clarified.
