You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Risimati Patrick Mathye1,*,
  • Miklas Scholz1,2,3 and
  • Stephen Nyende-Byakika4

Reviewer 1: Ilhan Ozturk Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has several shortcoming and it should be revised according to the following suggestions:
-Too many Keywords
-Contribution and motivation of the study is missing
-"Section 2. Materials and Methods" should be revised. I did not see the "materials" subsection.
Subsections hould be revised accordingly.
-Table 1 should be moved to under subsection 2.4.
-Results are not well discussed
-Literature review is weak anot uptodate. I tshould be enriched with recent related papers from 201-2020-2021 and 2022
-There is no policy implications

Author Response

Dear Editor

 

Please find attached hereunder word documents for for Reviewer 1' responses from Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

  1. The flow chat is a little bit wordy and should only indicate the major process and use text to specify what is included.
  2. Many socio-economic evaluations are provided, but my concern is why authors did not incorporate time value of money in all calculations. The investment on the water sector is generally for the multi-period and thus the proper measure should be provided in an annualized form.
  3. Water supply and distribution are likely to be affected by the climate change, and thus a discussion on how this affects the investment strategy may be provided.   

Author Response

Dear Editor

 

Please find attached hereunder, Reviewer- 2' responses from authors

 

Kind Regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript presents a CBA of various water loss control investment strategies in Alexandra Township, South Africa. The paper is well written and is of interest to the readership of the journal as it pertains to an important water loss strategy. I recommend acceptance as is.

Author Response

Dear Editor

Please find herewith a word document in response to Reviewer- 3' Authors responses

 

Kind Regards

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revised version can be accepted.

Reviewer 2 Report

I am fine with the revision and have no more questions.