Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is an interesting paper, minor grammatical and syntax errors are encountered through the text.

I suggest that the authors add the following references in their literature review

1. Ioannou K., Lefakis P., Arabatzis G. Development of a decision support system for the study of an area after the occurrence of forest fire (2011) International Journal of Sustainable Society, 3 (1), pp. 5 – 32 DOI: 10.1504/IJSSOC.2011.038475
2. Handfield R., Walton S.V., Sroufe R., Melnyk S.A. Applying environmental criteria to supplier assessment: A study in the application of the Analytical Hierarchy Process (2002) European Journal of Operational Research, 141 (1), pp. 70 – 87 DOI: 10.1016/S0377-2217(01)00261-2
3. Makropoulos C.K., Natsis K., Liu S., Mittas K., Butler D. Decision support for sustainable option selection in integrated urban water management (2008) Environmental Modelling and Software, 23 (12), pp. 1448 – 1460 DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.04.010

I do not fully understand the text in libe 167-168, what is the “(5)” in the text ? is it equation 5 on page 7 ?

The authors provide multiple information regarding their calculations, estimations or allocation methods without the proper references

Figure 5 must be redrawn, it is difficult for the readers to understand the included information

Tables must follow the form provided by the journal

The results section must be re-written in order to include more comprehensively the estimated results

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The novelty is not clear and the results are not enough. My suggestion is rejection. The paper is written like a report. 

The cited references are old and the results are not clear. I don't think the results can be used for future studies.  

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This manuscript presents the development of a Decision Support System (DSS) for managing nonpoint-sources (NPS) salinity pollution in the San Joaquin River, California. In general, the analytical model is, to some extent, sound, while the execution of the model in the San Joaquin River case is compelling. The following comments intend to enable the authors to disseminate their work at the highest possible quality.

INTRODUCTION.

• Lines 28-47. Please add relevant literature to support the authors' arguments along these lines. Instead of merely putting references at the end of existing sentences, the authors should elaborate on what each literature talked about the idea/issue being discussed.

MODEL BUILDING.

• Please merge Section 2 (Analytical Model), Section 3 (Individual responses to water quality regulations), and Section 4 (Allocation of Joint Costs and Benefits in the Case of Individual Responses) into a single "Model Building" section. The existing sections would then become subsections of the new "Model Building" section. It would make a clear distinction between model building (lines 142-367) and model testing (lines 368-623).
• Lines 143-190 serve the pure theoretical perspective of the analytical model, while lines 190-277 serve the fitting of the model into real situations in the observed case. Therefore, please separate lines 143-190 and lines 190-277 into two separated subsections under the "Model Building" sections. 

MODEL TESTING.

• Please merge Section 5 (Water quality issues in the San Joaquin River), Section 6 (Exceedance frequency of San Joaquin River salinity objectives), and Section 7 (Economic Analysis of Selected Salt Management Strategies) into a single "Model Testing" section. It would clarify what these sections serve within the research design. Hence, the existing sections would be the subsections of the new "Model Testing" section.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

• Please merge Section 8 (Results) and Section 9 (Discussion and Policy Implications) into a single "Results and Discussion" section. Particularly for Table 5, the authors should further elaborate on what dynamic behavior readers can get from the results presented.
• Besides presenting and discussing the results in this new section, the authors should compare (how/why similar) and contrast (how/why dissimilar) the key findings from the results with the findings of relevant studies. Please cite relevant references as extensive as necessary. This section should contain the de facto proof of the contributions of this research to relevant bodies of knowledge.

CONCLUSION.

• At the end of this manuscript, the authors should add a "Conclusion" section to wrap up two things. Consider making one rich paragraph for each part.
  1. Part 1: Summary of this study (from background to research objectives).
  2. Part 2: Present a brief overview of key findings in this study. This is proof that this study successfully accomplishes its objectives.

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 the authors made the suggested revisions and modifications. Some formating improvements must be made prior to publication, especially at the included tables

Author Response

See attached file. Response to all three reviewers are shared with all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors improved the manuscript hence following issues still remain:

The language for the expression of results must be in the past tense. It covers the abstract, method, results, and conclusion. 

The majority of cited references in 2011-2022 are older than 2018 which makes the quality of the manuscript low. How there are no recent and related studies in this field? Even if your research has novelty, you should compare it with recent and relevant publications to have strong proof of your contribution to the field. I suggest studying again and increasing the recent papers by at least 50% of your references (published later than 2012 and more focused on the last 5 years 2017-2022. please consider papers published in indexed and known journals. 

Author Response

See attached file. Response to all three reviewers are shared with all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After a thorough check on the revised manuscript, I see that the authors have put effort into revising their first submission. I want to suggest the following revisions for this review round.

 

I. INTRODUCTION.

Referencing. The addition of a couple of references in paragraph 1 is appreciated. However, they are merely added as reference numbers with no value to the textual discussion. As suggested in the first preview round: "Instead of merely putting references at the end of existing sentences, the authors should elaborate on what each literature talked about the idea/issue being discussed." Thus, please elaborate more on each added reference.

Line 28. Please add examples of "irrigated agriculture in semi-arid regions" with the referred characteristics (high salinity content). Please add each example as a follow-up sentence (not merely as reference numbers).

Line 31. Please add examples of regulators (other than the regulator of the San Joaquin River) that give "fines or other means of encouraging compliance" for the issue in question ("negative externalities exceed certain thresholds"). Add each example as a follow-up sentence.

Line 42. Please provide examples of the "existing modeling tools currently used by practitioners" (not necessarily related to the San Joaquin River). Add each example as a follow-up sentence.

Lines 46-47. Please elaborate more on the claims "difficult to identify primary polluters" and "quantify pollution loads on a continuous basis" (not necessarily for the San Joaquin River). Add each elaboration as follow-up sentences.

Lines 50-52. Please elaborate more on each "alternative regulatory approach" (not necessarily for the San Joaquin River). Add each elaboration as a follow-up sentence.

Line 53. Please add examples of the "published literature." Add each example as a follow-up sentence.

 

II. THEORETICAL MODEL BUILDING.

Despite the authors' claim that "starting on page 4 line 209 and ending on page 9, line 450" for the new "subsection," I have not seen any changes on the matter. Please be precise when making any claim.

 

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.

This remains the weakest part of the manuscript, making an anti-climactic follow-up to an otherwise rigorous research process. Since this article presents a scientific research, the "Results and Discussion" must provide an extensive reading of the results (not only presenting each raw result) and another extensive discussion of the findings (beyond the entire results). The "Results" part should explain what this study has done for itself, while the "Discussion" part should explain what this study has contributed to the literature.

After an extensive "Results" part, the "Discussion" subsection is where the authors argue how the findings of this study are comparable (similar/confirmatory findings) or in contrast (dissimilar/counterintuitive findings) to the findings of other relevant studies. This would convince readers that this study indeed contributes to the scientific literature. It is not necessary to find relevant studies on the same case. Proving that this case-based research contributes to the body of knowledge means that the compare-and-contrast process should be conducted against literature with relevant issues/topics, not the case.

In the entire Section 4, please avoid the mere addition of one/more reference numbers at the end of sentences. Instead, the authors should explain what each literature talked about over the discussed finding (for example, "This finding confirms the work of Firstname Lastname [XX], which suggested ..."). The authors may learn about some "more active" discussions in these sample articles ⇒ DOIs 10.3390/su14084562; 10.3390/admsci12020048; 10.3390/su14031865

Every cited literature should be relevant, should support/counter the point/issue being discussed, and was published recently (for example, in the last decade(s)). It would clarify that every citation contains the critical content underlying the discussed issue/point, adequately elaborates every point of focus, and keeps up with the latest updates on the observed issue/topic.

 

IV. COSMETICS.

The currency name "dollar" ($/D) is used by multiple countries all around the world (AUD, HKD, SGD, USD, etc.). Since the authors intend to publish this research in an international journal, they should use a distinct reference for the currency they used in this research. If the authors refer to US Dollar, please use its three-digit code (USD) throughout the text.

Author Response

See attached file. Response to all three reviewers are shared with all reviewers.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Your answers are logical but the future contribution of these findings is unknown to me due to the lack of recent findings in this field and maybe rare applicability. But from the author's point of view, the lack of finding forced stop the research in this field since the 1990s. Therefore, I hope this research can be useful for the stakeholders and researchers to use these data in their future projects and research. 

Author Response

See attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

After thoroughly checking the revised manuscript, the following comments arise for this review round.

Theoretical Model Building. To be precise, please divide the "theoretical perspective of the analytical model" and "real-world model fitting" in Section 2.1 (Analytical Model) into two separate subsections (as requested in the Review Round 1).

Results and Discussion.

In the current draft, the contributions presented are focused on the practices in the given case. Since the "Water" journal is an academic publication and not a trade journal, the presentation of the findings should be extensively elaborated to argue the theoretical contributions of this particular study to the body of knowledge. Publishing this article in an academic journal must ensure that this particular article can stand out as a distinguished academic publication, which is much more important for scientific progress than practical experience gained in decades. Without an extensive "Results and Discussion," this article is merely a professional report with no proven academic contributions to relevant bodies of knowledge.

In revising this section, the contributions to relevant bodies of knowledge should be theoretically argued. The theoretical comparisons can cover issues that relate to the core issues in this study directly (TMDL, salinity, river) or more general matters (other nonpoint sources/NPS pollution, different types of water bodies, etc.). I did a quick search on Google Scholar with the keywords "total maximum daily loads river salinity nonpoint sources." I found thousands of raw results with probably hundreds of directly relevant results to this research. There would be much more studies on larger/more general issues. The authors can choose samples from the results to establish an extensive discussion. I strongly suggest seeing from that perspective in revising the "Results and Discussion" section.

Currency Code. Please do not forget to put a space (" ") between the currency code (USD) and the numerical values.

WARMF. Please indicate what WARMF stands for on the first occasion (one in the Abstract, and one in the text).

Author Response

See attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx