A Comprehensive Review of the Potential of Stepwells as Sustainable Water Management Structures

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors reviewed the gigantic underground hydraulic storage system known as step wells to achieve positive impacts and mitigate negative consequences. This manuscript was intended to explore the technical, architectural, aesthetic, and functional aspects of these abandoned historical structures that have not been studied in our day. The workload of this review was considerable, and the content was original and interesting. Here are some of my suggestions for authors to consider:

1. The title relates to the application of ancient step wells in water resource management, and it is suggested to appropriately reflect how "the application of water resources management" is reflected in the ABSTRACT.

2. The ABSTRACT only focused on the description of the content of this review, but authors did not give a brief necessity of the study. For example, the authors should introduce the gaps and defects in the existing research on step wells, and thus introducing the research significance of this review.

3. Please explain how to understand the “sustainability” in the title. Please explain it in the INTRODUCTION.

4. Is it better to divide the ABSTRACT in logical order of “scientific, architectural, aesthetic, functional dimensions”？

5. The resolution of Figure 1 is poor; please upload the high definition picture again.

6. Please state whether the picture in the article is original (including Fig 2, Fig 3, Fig 6, Fig 7, Fig 8, Fig 9, Fig 10, Fig 11). If authors are quoting other people or online photos, please cite the source.

7. What is the statement order in INTRODUCTION? Chronological order, or Geographical order? It is recommended to follow a specific logical sequence. Please clarify in the manuscript.

8. There is only one sub-heading under INTRODUCTION, “1.1 Historical Evidence”. Is this format appropriate? Can “1.1 Historical Evidence” be separated from the INTRODUCTION as a separate chapter?

9. Many regions and countries are mentioned in “1.1 Historical Evidence”. Why only India is discussed in section “2. Ancient knowledge and wisdom in water conservation and management practices in India”?

10. There are too many specific results in the CONCLUSION. Can authors categorize the statement according to scientific, architectural, aesthetic, functional dimensions or other standards? Please simplify the conclusion as much as possible.

Author Response

We wish to convey our appreciation for considering our manuscript titled; “Potentials of ancient stepwells for sustainable water resource management: A comprehensive review” for publication with major revisions in Water. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions listed by reviewers. As suggested, we have incorporated all the changes in the manuscript. In addition, the manuscript has been edited for language and all the references have been formatted based on the journal’s requirement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review: „Potentials of ancient stepwells for sustainable water resource 2 management: A comprehensive review” by Selvaraj et al.

First of all, I would like to point out that I really appreciated to review this article as my current field of work is mostly “water-related” but I also have some background in architecture in the early years of my studies. Thus, it fits well into my general field of interest. The article certainly helped to improve my knowledge of these ancient water resource systems.

In general, the article is very fluent and reads well. I have only a few, but major comments.

1/ The title of the article doesn’t really fit to what you can actually find when reading it. The article is a nice and comprehensive review, but it doesn’t say almost anything about the potential for sustainable management. I would recommend to adjust the title.

2/ In the introduction, you stated, that the aim of the article is to discuss the relevance of step wells to modern times. You also write about sustainability and opportunities to adjust present day techniques. I am afraid, this part of the article is (almost) missing.

3/ I think that some statements throughout the text would deserve a reference, there are large parts of the text that are clearly based on some literature, but no references are given.

4/ I would also pay attention on more logical structure of certain paragraphs, for example paragraph starting on line 115. First you say where the qanats are found, but only at the end of the paragraph you define what is the qanat… It would help the reader to orient more smoothly in the text, when you follow more logical order.

5/ Personally, I have a problem with the discussion. In my understanding, the discussion should really discuss your findings with findings of others and to built on it for interpreting your results/outcomes. Here, I only found one single reference (Kaptijn, 2018) and many rather vague and general  statements. The question is whether a review article needs a discussion?

6/ Conclusions – are you sure about the point 2? I mean, many centuries ago the society was completely different – certainly much smaller than now and with completely different needs…

My biggest concern is whether “Water” is the right journal where to publish this study. In my opinion, I would suggest to transform the article into a purely review article without trying to find any potentials for sustainable water management and so on. I think it is a very nice paper on the history and architecture of the step wells and I don’t think it is necessary to look for anything else. I think it might have a larger impact and audience in a journal that is oriented more on history and architecture (even though these usually have lower IF) or purely on water resources.

In case you want to keep the original idea (from the title and study aims) with suggesting the step wells for sustainable water management practices, I would recommend to work more on the discussion and include relevant literature with examples of application of ancient techniques into modern water management practices and how this was successful. In such a case, I would probably try to redirect the manuscript to “Sustainability” if you want to stay with the same publisher. This journal would probably fit better…

I hope my comments will be somehow useful for your further work on the manuscript. Good luck with it!

Author Response

We wish to convey our appreciation for considering our manuscript titled; “Potentials of ancient stepwells for sustainable water resource management: A comprehensive review” for publication with major revisions in Water. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions listed by reviewers. As suggested, we have incorporated all the changes in the manuscript. In addition, the manuscript has been edited for language and all the references have been formatted based on the journal’s requirement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors addressed a good topic for research. This review paper just presents an old data set. It has the potential to publish in water after major revision. It is requested to provide proper citation of all figures on the paper, you take figures from others but do not cite them inside the paper. It is very an unethical and academic crime. It is suggested to also provide the latest techniques adopted in India for sustainable water resource management. It is suggested to improve your discussion and rewrite your results with the comparison of new techniques. The current form of paper is very rude not justify to publish in Water. It is suggested to build a methodology section that provides a short summary of all techniques utilized in India for sustainable water resource management.

Author Response

We wish to convey our appreciation for considering our manuscript titled; “Potentials of ancient stepwells for sustainable water resource management: A comprehensive review” for publication with major revisions in Water. We appreciate the careful review and constructive suggestions listed by reviewers. As suggested, we have incorporated all the changes in the manuscript. In addition, the manuscript has been edited for language and all the references have been formatted based on the journal’s requirement.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Still, Figures 1 and 11 are not properly cited. It is suggested to provide proper reference of these figures. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewers of pointing out the same. It was by. mistake that we have forgotten to mention the credits, Apologies for the same. As suggested, we have currently mentioned the credits for Figure 11. We also wish the mention that Figure. 1 was drawn by our team, so we don't have not mentioned the credits. 

The responses were incorporated i the updated manuscript and the same is highlighted i grey color in the main manuscript.