Governance Arrangements for Water Reuse: Assessing Emerging Trends for Inter-Municipal Cooperation through a Literature Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
By a review of peer reviewed articles, the submitted manuscript aims to establish how much Inter-Municipal Cooperation is suitable for transition toward Water Circular Economy. More in detail, the study tries to provide answers to the following questions: How have IMC concerns been addressed in water and CE studies? Is IMC appropriate for WCE adoption, and what are the considerations and requirements for IMC for WCE adoption? (cf. lines 66-68).
The authors stated "the scarcity of research on the intersection of IMC and WCE" (line 60) thus "study uses three databases, including scientific articles on IMC, IMC and water, and IMC and Circular Economy (CE) separately, to identify and synthesise emerging knowledge for WCE adoption in IMC contexts" (lines 61-63). Due to the importance assigned to such a topic, how the authors explain this lack in literature?
The used method is scientifically-based, however the procedure of selection is apparently subjective. The authors repeatedly reported the existence of a "large number of publication on IMC" (line 87) as well as "the impossibility of reviewing all IMC related research" (line 120). All this leaves the reader very perplexed and undermines the aim of a systematic review.
There is a potential confusion about the number of reviewed articles. The authors before state “due to the large number of publications on IMC, this study selected 30 articles, 15 highly cited articles (since 2011) to ensure coverage of the topic's essential components, and 15 of the most recent studies to comprehend the topic's evolution of knowledge” (lines 86-88). After they write “As a result, this study reviewed all the articles in all databases (87 articles), regarding three dimensions” (lines 114-115). However, in Table 1 the retrieved articles are 78. The writing must be improved.
The sentence in lines 86-88 should be related to the first query in Table 1. Is it correct? However, the column “Objective” seems to not correspond with the rows. As a whole, the reviewed articles are 78 (30+29+19, column “Retrieved Articles”) Is it correct? Thus, also the Table 1 must be improved in format.
The statement in the lines 121-122 is problematic. The authors should clarify the matter better. A systematic review must review all scientific literature as returned by queries in databases. Otherwise it cannot be qualified as such.
As the core of the manuscript is in the lines 256-258, “the success of IMC for the adoption of WCE requires the consideration of a set of governance practices, the analysis and testing of cost efficiency and guaranteeing financial balance, and the assessment of social and environmental consequences”, it is quite predictable even without a systematic review of the literature.
Discussion and Conclusion need to be improved. There is not enough correspondence with the initial questions. Moreover, in Discussion there are repetitions of the previous section while the conclusion is probably not necessary as a separate section. Finally in the last sentence COVID-19 appears. Why?
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for the time dedicated to read and revise the manuscript and for the recommendations for improvement.
The following major improvements were introduced in the manuscript:
- the introduction (section 1) was revised clarifying concepts and the research problem, following the comments of reviewers 1, 2 and 3.
- section of Materials and Data (section 2) was revised by improving the text and the table 1, to accommodate comments from reviewers 1 and 3
- sections of discussion and conclusions were merged, following the recommendation of reviewer 1, repetitions were removed, and the findings were better highlighted, following comments from reviewers 1, 2 and 3
- the manuscript was also fully checked.
Please see the file uploaded describing the changes with more details.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article is of relative interest. In fact, the circular use of water is an emerging trend, but its promotion essentially requires case studies and a holistic analysis of practical solutions. The interest of the inter-municipal scale may not be the most interesting, as the local scale seems to be the most interesting in this context, given several recent projects, supported by scientific studies (Limburg, in the Netherlands, the surroundings of Copenhagen, etc.)
Apparently, the article refers to the urban sector, considering the traditional competences of municipal authorities, but the reuse of urban wastewater can be considered for other sectors such as agriculture. The authors' perspective should be clarified.
There is, in general, some confusion between water reuse and water recycling. Circular use corresponds, strictly speaking, to reintroduction into the circuit (after treatment, as a rule), that is, to a recycling. Reuse presupposes successive uses. The authors' perspective on this matter should also be clarified.
In addition to technical, environmental and economic aspects, water reuse can involve important sanitary or public health aspects, but the article is silent on this point. It should be remembered that the European Commission's “Blueprint Water” values this issue and even recommends conditioning reuse solutions in the urban sector to specific technical-sanitary certification schemes.
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for the time dedicated to read and revise the manuscript and for the recommendations for improvement.
The following major improvements were introduced in the manuscript:
- the introduction (section 1) was revised clarifying concepts and the research problem, following the comments of reviewers 1, 2 and 3.
- section of Materials and Data (section 2) was revised by improving the text and the table 1, to accommodate comments from reviewers 1 and 3
- sections of discussion and conclusions were merged, following the recommendation of reviewer 1, repetitions were removed, and the findings were better highlighted, following comments from reviewers 1, 2 and 3
- the manuscript was also fully checked.
Please see the file uploaded addressing the comments with more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Through the review of IMC, IMC and WATER, IMC and CE, and other related literature and databases, the authors studied how IMC is more suitable for WCE, and made relevant summaries and suggestions. This article has some innovation points, the methods of literature review are more comprehensive. The author is requested to answer and modify the following questions, some of which have been highlighted in yellow in the manuscript:
1. The previous part of this paper focused too much on the methods of literature review and analysis results, and the author should shift the focus to the research significance of this paper, namely, how IMC is applied to WCE, as well as the problems and suggestions to be considered.
2. This article thinks that IMC may be the most appropriate governance model for WCE, because IMC has some advantages. However, whether to adopt IMC mode still needs to pay attention to three dimensions, so whether it is suitable also needs to be analyzed on a case-specific basis. Therefore, the author would like to give a brief answer to these questions: (1) at present, in the world, what other means to realize WCE besides IMC? (2) What scenarios/cities do you think IMC is suitable for? (3) What do you think is the biggest advantage of IMC compared with other methods? Can it be used instead of existing methods?
In addition, the answers in this part can be appropriately added to Section 1. Introduction to enrich the research background of the article.
3. Among the three dimensions, environmental impacts assessment seem not to have been focused on. Please provide a brief answer to these questions: (1) what are the reasons? (2) Do you think the assessment of environmental consequences is important? (3) How to evaluate?
In addition, the answers in this part can be appropriately added to Section 4. Discussion to increase the comprehensiveness of the analysis.
4. At the end of the article mentioned "the institutional risks and uncertainties brought by COVID - 19", this part I'm a little confused, please provide a brief answer to the influence and solution of COVID – 19.
5. Line 85: Please check and modify the format of Table 1, because some contents cannot be matched one to one.
6. Line 119: “Classes” in the title of Table 2 are replaced with dimensions.
7. Line 121-123: "Due to the impossibility of reviewing all IMC related research, 15 of the most cited 121 and 15 newest articles from Scopus are chosen. This number (30) guarantees access to 122 Critical knowledge in the literature. "A statement with the same meaning as this has been written in the Section 2. Materials and Methods (see Line 87-89), and it is recommended to delete it here.
8. Line 129: The positions of A and B in Figure 2 are reversed, please modify.
9. Section 3.1: By analyzing the significance of three databases (IMC, IMC and water, IMC and WCE), three dimensions (Governance, Service efficiency, and Impacts assessment) in the literature, as well as common research methods (quantitative and qualitative). Thus, gaining attention to the three dimensions.
However, this part is complicated with many repetitive sentences, so it is suggested to simplify it. In addition, the data on dimensions and research methods of the three databases (IMC, IMC and water, IMC and WCE) can be intuitively compared in the form of tables.
10. Line 361: Please check and make sure the spelling of "June" is correct.
11. Line 400: Please check and confirm "November 2020" is correct.
12. Line 404: Please check and confirm whether the volume number and page number are missing.
13. Line 436: Please check and confirm if "February" was correct.
14. Line 474: Please check and confirm "November 2019" is correct.
15. Line 481: Please check and confirm the spelling of "December 2016".
16. Line 503-504: The title should not be in all caps. Please correct it.
Comments for author File: Comments.docx
Author Response
The authors are grateful to the reviewers for the time dedicated to read and revise the manuscript and for the recommendations for improvement.
The following major improvements were introduced in the manuscript:
- the introduction (section 1) was revised clarifying concepts and the research problem, following the comments of reviewers 1, 2 and 3.
- section of Materials and Data (section 2) was revised by improving the text and the table 1, to accommodate comments from reviewers 1 and 3
- sections of discussion and conclusions were merged, following the recommendation of reviewer 1, repetitions were removed, and the findings were better highlighted, following comments from reviewers 1, 2 and 3
- the manuscript was also fully checked.
Please see the file uploaded addressing the comments with more details.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript has been edited in accordance with my comments and is ready for publication. I also really liked how the word "systematic" was taken out of the title. Improvements have also been made to the discussion and conclusions.
Reviewer 2 Report
It is considered that the authors gave minimally satisfactory answers to the questions posed in the first review.
