Towards a Chilean Water Governance: A Study on the Los Batros and Paicaví Wetland Reservoirs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Author(s)

Thank you for the opportunity to read and to comment on your paper. You have provided an interesting and well-written discussion. I particularly liked your explanation of the various conceptions of 'governance' that can be identified within the literature.

However, I found the analysis to be rather unclear and not very explicit. The paper provides interesting observations and arguments, although it is not clear to me which of those have originated from your interview data, or from the literature, or are actually your own views or observations regarding water governance in the case studies.  

My main suggestion is that the material is re-worked and re-structured so that there is a clear distinction between your own original research findings and additional evidence that is already available in the literature. In other words, the paper should provide more robust and explicit analysis of your governance case studies, making the evidence clearer to illustrate how governance is organized and how governance operates relative to the concepts introduced earlier in the paper.    

I hope these comments and suggestions are helpful and I encourage you to re-submit a revised version.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your review. The paper was reorganized to provide greater clarity and differentiation between the results and the bibliography. 

Cordially regards, 

Francisca Quevedo Castro

Reviewer 2 Report

This is valuable contribution to the literature on water governance, bringing together a detailed case study, with extensive literature reviews that situate the case study and Chile more generally in debates about water governance.

I found the article compelling and worthy of publication but suggest it can be improved by revision which focuses on improving the flow and structure by bringing more clearly the relevance of the literature reviewed to the findings of the case study. I noted page 9 seemed to have an out of place paragraph (para 3 ) starting with "authors should and ending with...highlighted.  the flowing three paragraphs also shift abruptly from the literature to the interview results.

It is up the authors, but i would suggest restructuring section 3 and 4 providing a tighter focus on the providing the literature review and background as seperate from the results of this study, followed by a discussion about the study adds to the literature.

Overall i am impressed and believe this is an excellent piece of research, which  can be improved by simplifying the flow of the presentation.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, 

Thank you for your review. The paper was reorganized to improve the flow of the structure. In addition, the requested parts were restructured in order to improve the understanding.

Cordially regards, 

Francisca Quevedo Castro