Stakeholder Engagement and Perceptions on Water Governance and Water Management in Azerbaijan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your responses 

Review of the paper, "Stakeholder Perception and Engagement in Water Governance: A Critical Review." Abstract: The abstract provides a brief overview of the paper, but it could benefit from more specific information. Include a concise statement of the research objective, methodology, key findings, and their implications. This will give readers a better understanding of the paper's focus and contribution.

Introduction: The introduction lacks a clear research question or objective. Clearly state the research question or objective to guide the reader and provide a clear purpose for the study. Additionally, provide a more comprehensive review of the existing literature to establish the context and justify the need for the study.
Literature Review: The literature review could be expanded and strengthened. Provide a more critical analysis and synthesis of the existing literature on stakeholder perception and engagement in water governance. Identify key theories, models, and frameworks in the field and analyze their strengths, weaknesses, and applicability to the study. Consider organizing the literature review thematically to highlight the main themes and debates in the field.
Methodology: The methodology section lacks sufficient detail. Provide a clear description of the research design, including the sampling strategy, data collection methods, and data analysis techniques used. Explain how the study addressed potential biases or limitations. Additionally, consider justifying the chosen methodology and explaining why it is appropriate for studying stakeholder perception and engagement.
Results and Discussion: The results and discussion section could benefit from a more systematic and structured presentation of the findings. Consider using tables, figures, or charts to present the data more clearly and facilitate comparisons. Provide a more in-depth analysis of the findings, discussing patterns, trends, and relationships. Relate the findings back to the existing literature and theoretical frameworks to strengthen the analysis.
Conclusion: The conclusion should provide a comprehensive summary of the main findings and their implications for water governance. Discuss the practical implications and potential applications of the findings. Additionally, address the limitations of the study and suggest avenues for future research or policy development based on the findings.
Writing Style and Structure: Pay attention to the clarity and coherence of the writing. Eliminate repetitive or unnecessary information. Ensure that each sentence contributes to the overall argument and is logically connected to the preceding and succeeding sentences. Use clear headings and subheadings to improve the organization and structure of the paper.
References: Expand the reference list to include a broader range of relevant and recent scholarly sources. Ensure that all sources are properly cited within the text and follow the appropriate citation style.
By addressing these comments, you can strengthen the paper by providing more specific information, improving the analysis, and enhancing the overall clarity and coherence of the content.

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing such an impressive review of our text. After reviewing your commentary, the authors revisited the text and made changes to the text inspired by your recommendations. Line by line paragraphs and sentences were revised, interpretations were clarified, and vocabulary, grammar, and syntax was changed to improve the writing style and structure. In addition to these more minor changes, more major changes include i) heavy modifications to the abstract. The abstract was restructured to concisely state the research objective, the key findings, and the significance of the research (i.e., why it matters). The abstract now conveys that our survey interpretation is not a standalone report to the Government, but rather aligns and informs the FAO study’s recommendations. ii) The introduction was injected with a few additional pieces of literature to weave a narrative signifying the challenges Azerbaijan faces and why there is a need for collaborative international efforts to spur revision of current water governance structure. The thesis in the introduction was also modified for clarification purposes and to tie together aspects of the research initiative. iii) The methodology section was also revised to reflect a general structure of the conditions surrounding the implementation and dissemination of the stakeholder survey. A table was specifically also added to reflect more detail pertaining to the stakeholders surveyed. However, the authors were not directly involved in the electronic survey design or survey dissemination process due to language, cultural, political, and physical barriers. Furthermore, how the survey was implemented encompassed a research approach taken by the FAO field office in Baku, Azerbaijan, so it was not a part of the design of this independent analysis. This analysis builds off the research conducted by the FAO field office to enrich their data findings, interpretations, and provide additional recommendations for the Government of Azerbaijan as to how to proceed with their desire to improve in-country water governance. iv) Clarity was added to the results section to articulate major points better and tie in findings to the historic legacy of the Soviet Union, which explains why governance infrastructure operates in such a siloed manner. 

The results section of the article was not updated with any additional graphs or charts due to concerns about drastically increasing the article length. The article aims to focus rather on the more general insights derived from the project, which are then informing recommendations as to where the government can start pinpointing their actions moving forward. The authors felt the discussion section of the article is strong because it talks about the significance of the findings at a high-level. The high state response rate introduced a major data skew, which the entire article mentions repeatedly throughout the duration of the article. Getting into patterns and trends would have been included, if the pool of survey participants was more representative. However, since the data set was not diverse looking at detail specific trends and patterns would make interpretations of the data potentially even more inaccurate. Nothing the article touches on is groundbreaking because all governmental processes can improve their systems in the recommendations suggested. Yet, the survey data provided slightly more specific information as to how the Azerbaijani government can improve based on stakeholder responses, catering a more generic set of recommendations until further study can commence or be replicated in this subject area. A conclusion was not added to the article because of added clarity provided in the article earlier about the significance of the findings and the need for the study. References were added, but if APA is still not the correct format needed for the article, then additional changes will need to be made. The authors hope the results provide more clarity and shed better light on the significance of the article. Please let us know if further changes are recommended. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

I appreciate your efforts to arrive at better insights in stakeholder engagement in water governance in Azerbaijan. This topic is indeed very important in times of climate change in this poorly studied context. Although your manuscript is well written, I'm not convinced that it fullfills the expectations of the readers interested in new insights in stakeholder engagement and perceptions in water governance in general, neither of the readers interested in the characteristics of the stakeholders in water governance in Azerbaijan specifically. For the first readers, a conceptual framework and clear definitions are lacking concerning water governance and stakeholders, to which your study aims to contribute. I miss also a link to the important Integrated Water Resources Management approach, in which stakeholder engagement is a core element. For the readers interested in water management in the specific context of Azerbaijan, a clear description is lacking of how the water sector is organized there, and what are the roles and competencies of the different stakeholders in that context. Without this information the answers of the respondents can not be understood meaningfully. The respondents are treated as if they were individual stakeholders. However, they have answered as members of their organizations, who are institutional stakeholders. Each of these institutional stakeholders has its own position, interests, experience and expectations towards the others. The distinction that you make between 'state' and 'non state' actors, and between 'decision makers' and 'executives' is too general to grasp this information. The methodology section  lacks information about how respondents were mobilized and motivated to participate in the survey. As the selection of respondents is possibly far from a representative sample, the percentages of respondents giving a certain answer can not be considered as an indication of the importance that should be given to this answer.  The recommendations at the end of your study sound reasonable and can be valuable, but they can not be justified by its results. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing such an impressive review of our text. After reviewing your commentary, the authors revisited the text and made changes to the text inspired by your recommendations. Line by line paragraphs and sentences were revised, interpretations were clarified, and vocabulary, grammar, and syntax was changed to improve the writing style and structure. In addition to these more minor changes, more major changes include i) heavy modifications to the abstract. The abstract was restructured to concisely state the research objective, the key findings, and the significance of the research (i.e., why it matters). The abstract now conveys that our survey interpretation is not a standalone report to the Government, but rather aligns and informs the FAO study’s recommendations. ii) The introduction was injected with a few additional pieces of literature to weave a narrative signifying the challenges Azerbaijan faces and why there is a need for collaborative international efforts to spur revision of current water governance structure. The thesis in the introduction was also modified for clarification purposes and to tie together aspects of the research initiative. Per your recommendations, a few lines were added to the text about IWRM and its significance. iii) The methodology section was also revised to reflect a general structure of the conditions surrounding the implementation and dissemination of the stakeholder survey. A table was specifically also added to reflect more detail pertaining to the stakeholders surveyed. However, the authors were not directly involved in the electronic survey design or survey dissemination process due to language, cultural, political, and physical barriers. Furthermore, how the survey was implemented encompassed a research approach taken by the FAO field office in Baku, Azerbaijan, so it was not a part of the design of this independent analysis. This analysis builds off the research conducted by the FAO field office to enrich their data findings, interpretations, and provide additional recommendations for the Government of Azerbaijan as to how to proceed with their desire to improve in-country water governance. Each of the institutional positions, interests, experience, and expectations was not touched on in an in-depth level in the article because of the politics affecting how in-country entities work with each other, so the results, findings, and recommendations remain the primary focus. iv) Clarity was added to the results section to articulate major points better and tie in findings to the historic legacy of the Soviet Union, which explains why governance infrastructure operates in such a siloed manner.

The results section of the article was not updated with any additional graphs or charts due to concerns about drastically increasing the article length. The article aims to focus rather on the more general insights derived from the project, which are then informing recommendations as to where the Government can start pinpointing their actions moving forward. The authors felt the discussion section of the article is strong because it talks about the significance of the findings at a high-level. The high state response rate introduced a major data skew, which the entire article mentions repeatedly throughout the duration of the article. Getting into patterns and trends would have been included, if the pool of survey participants was more representative. However, since the data set was not diverse looking at detail specific trends and patterns would make interpretations of the data potentially even more inaccurate. Nothing the article touches on is groundbreaking because all governmental processes can improve their systems in the recommendations suggested. Yet, the survey data provided slightly more specific information as to how the Azerbaijani government can improve based on stakeholder responses, catering a more generic set of recommendations until further study can commence or be replicated in this subject area. The authors hope the results provide more clarity and shed better light on the significance of the article. Please let us know if further changes are recommended. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Interesting approach, significant for water governance and the concept of inclusion in water
policy implementation!!
The research aim should be made clearer, as well as its connection to the results. Try to keep the flow following a more structured narative.
Additionally, the interpretation of the results could be more precise. Perhaps the authors should introduce methodological steps that comply with the new aim and present more solid results.
Overall, the terms “water management” and “water governance” must be clarified throughout the text since these two are overlaping and confused. The
English formulation must be improved in some parts of the text.
Connecting the proposals with a source or a relevant best practice example could strengthen
the suggestions. (e.g., lines 569-585)

 

examples of some language corrections:
LINE 12: The meaning of word “skewed” is unclear. Maybe “biased” fits better.
LINE 19: Please, correct the sentence structure in English, “pointed out the need”.
LINE 37-38: Please, correct the sentence structure in English.
LINE 41: The meaning of word “dated” is unclear.
LINE 42-44: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 79-81: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 85: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 92-93: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 100-107: Please, clarify the use of the terms “water management” and “water
governance”.
LINE 200-213: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 220-222: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 238-239: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 291: “state” actors

examples of some language corrections:
LINE 12: The meaning of word “skewed” is unclear. Maybe “biased” fits better.
LINE 19: Please, correct the sentence structure in English, “pointed out the need”.
LINE 37-38: Please, correct the sentence structure in English.
LINE 41: The meaning of word “dated” is unclear.
LINE 42-44: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 79-81: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 85: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 92-93: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 100-107: Please, clarify the use of the terms “water management” and “water
governance”.
LINE 200-213: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 220-222: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 238-239: The sentence structure is not clear.
LINE 291: “state” actors

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing such a helpful review of our text. After reviewing your commentary, the authors revisited the text and made changes to the text inspired by your recommendations. Line by line paragraphs and sentences were revised, interpretations were clarified, and vocabulary, grammar, and syntax was changed to improve the writing style and structure. In addition to these more minor changes, more major changes include i) heavy modifications to the abstract. The abstract was restructured to concisely state the research objective, the key findings, and the significance of the research (i.e., why it matters). The abstract now conveys that our survey interpretation is not a standalone report to the Government, but rather aligns and informs the FAO study’s recommendations. ii) The introduction was injected with a few additional pieces of literature to weave a narrative signifying the challenges Azerbaijan faces and why there is a need for collaborative international efforts to spur revision of current water governance structure. The thesis in the introduction was also modified for clarification purposes and to tie together aspects of the research initiative. The text also moved away from using the terminology “water management” as much as possible to not confuse that principle with “water governance,” per your recommendation. iii) The methodology section was also revised to reflect a general structure of the conditions surrounding the implementation and dissemination of the stakeholder survey. A table was specifically also added to reflect more detail pertaining to the stakeholders surveyed. However, the authors were not directly involved in the electronic survey design or survey dissemination process due to language, cultural, political, and physical barriers. Furthermore, how the survey was implemented encompassed a research approach taken by the FAO field office in Baku, Azerbaijan, so it was not a part of the design of this independent analysis. This analysis builds off the research conducted by the FAO field office to enrich their data findings, interpretations, and provide additional recommendations for the Government of Azerbaijan as to how to proceed with their desire to improve in-country water governance. Each of the institutional positions, interests, experience, and expectations was not touched on in an in-depth level in the article because of the politics affecting how in-country entities work with each other, so the results, findings, and recommendations remain the primary focus. iv) Clarity was added to the results section to articulate major points better and tie in findings to the historic legacy of the Soviet Union, which explains why governance infrastructure operates in such a siloed manner.

The results section of the article was not updated with any additional graphs, charts, or additional best management practices due to concerns about drastically increasing the article length. The article aims to focus rather on the more general insights derived from the project, which are then informing recommendations as to where the Government can start pinpointing their actions moving forward. However, the authors can make further changes if quintessential for moving the article forward.

              The specific line changes are below. The line change numbers will reflect differently in the second article draft because of new text injected into the article.

Line 12: data skew changed to data bias

LINE 19: section deleted entirely and paragraph revised

LINE 37-38: paragraph revised

LINE 41: changed dated to old

LINE 42-44: sentence revised per commentary

LINE 79-81: sentence revised per commentary

LINE 85: sentence revised per commentary

LINE 92-93: sentence revised per commentary

LINE 100-107: deleted “water management”

LINE 200-213: paragraph revised

LINE 220-222: paragraph revised

LINE 238-239: paragraph revised and deleted statement for clarity

LINE 291: changed stake to state actors

The authors hope the results provide more clarity and shed better light on the significance of the article. Please let us know if further changes are recommended. Thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

It is very difficult to assess your revised manuscript. It is suggested to provide point by point responses to my comments including the changes in the manuscript with line numbers where the revisions have been performed.

It is suggested to highlight the changes in the revised manuscript and do not submit the revised manuscript in track change mode. Just highlight the revisions and modifications made. I have your older version of the manuscript and will do the comparison myself.

 

Best of luck

English language requires minor revisions

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your patience. I have gone through and highlighted the sections where I made significant revisions to the text. I also added commentary to further point out changes or why changes were not made. I have also resolved the document format to not reflect all the tracked change mark-ups. Apologies for the inconvenience.