Resettlement and Compensation Practice in the Context of the Tha Htay Hydropower Project in Rakhine, Myanmar
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Summary:
The current manuscript entitled “Resettlement and compensation practice in the Context of the Tha Htay hydropower project in Rakhine, Myanmar” by Lin and Yao deals with a convergent mixed research method for interpretations and analyses about the whole resettlement and compensation practice in Tha Htay hydropower project in Rakhine, Myanmar. The authors described the developmental progress of the Tha Htay project and established a resettlement relationship with multiple scenarios. After a careful reading, I found this manuscript interesting and suitable for publication in the Adaptive Water Resources Management in an Era of Changing Climatic, Environmental, and Social Conditions special issue of Water journal. However, I have identified several issues in the current manuscript version which needs to be corrected as major revision. My specific comments are:
Please add continuous line numbering to the manuscript.
Please use THH for Tha Htay hydropower in the manuscript to avoid the full name’s repeated use.
Abstract:
Line 1-5: the sentence is too lengthy and meaningless. Please rephrase such sentences in the whole manuscript. Also, the abstract lacks the proper flow of reading and major numerical findings of this study. Both the first and last sentences of the abstract seem to be more likely objectives.
Introduction:
Line 1-3: this data need to be supported with relevant citation/source.
This section is too lengthy and contains several paragraphs which can be removed. I suggest reducing this section to not more than 1000 words. Please highlight your hypothesis and research objective at the end of the introduction. Objectives should appear as a separate and single paragraph.
What are IFC and EMS? Abbreviation not defined.
Methods:
The map of the power project is not clear. For better presentation, please provide additional map elements (distance scale bar, north arrow, and geo coordinates).
Same comment for Figure 2. The geocoordinates of the three selected villages are not clear.
Section 2.7: information about data analysis software is missing.
Results and discussion:
Section 3: should be renamed to Results.
Although the discussion is well-written, it has several limitations. For example, no statement is supported by previous literature. The authors made many strong claims which need relevant references. Moreover, the comparison with other studies is weak.
Conclusion:
Too lengthy and contains repeated information from results and discussion parts. Please reduce it to 250 words while focusing on the major outcome of this study, limitations, and future recommendations.
References:
Appropriate.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Point 1: Please use THH for Tha Htay hydropower in the manuscript to avoid the full name’s repeated use.
Response 1: Already used THH for Tha Htay hydropower .
Point 2: Abstract: Line 1-5: the sentence is too lengthy and meaningless. Please rephrase such sentences in the whole manuscript. Also, the abstract lacks the proper flow of reading and major numerical findings of this study. Both the first and last sentences of the abstract seem to be more likely objectives.
Response 2: The sentences in Line 1-5 and the last sentences have been removed. Major numerical findings have been added in the abstract.
Point 3: Introduction: Line 1-3: this data needs to be supported with relevant citation/source.
This section is too lengthy and contains several paragraphs which can be removed. I suggest reducing this section to not more than 1000 words. Please highlight your hypothesis and research objective at the end of the introduction. Objectives should appear as a separate and single paragraph.
What are IFC and EMS? Abbreviation not defined.
Response 3: Line 1-3 of Introduction have been supported with relevant citation. Some paragraphs which may be related to the introduction of this paper, have been remove to reduce this section highlighting our hypothesis and research objective at the end of this section. The separate and single paragraph appears at the end of it. This section has been reduced 2387 words to 1288 words.
The abbreviation of the IFC (International Finance Corporation) and EMS (Environmental and Social Management System) have been defined.
Point 4: Methods: The map of the power project is not clear. For better presentation, please provide additional map elements (distance scale bar, north arrow, and geo coordinates).
Same comment for Figure 2. The geocoordinates of the three selected villages are not clear.
Section 2.7: information about data analysis software is missing.
Response 4: I have made the maps on photoshop software. I guess the original map is actually not clear. I will try and provide the additional map elements. As the second point, the additional information about data analysis software is also added.
Point 5: Results and discussion: Section 3: should be renamed to Results.
Although the discussion is well-written, it has several limitations. For example, no statement is supported by previous literature. The authors made many strong claims which need relevant references. Moreover, the comparison with other studies is weak.
Response 5: “Findings” have been renamed to “Results”. Now, our discussion supports the objectives of the study with additional some references.
Point 6: Conclusion: Too lengthy and contains repeated information from results and discussion parts. Please reduce it to 250 words while focusing on the major outcome of this study, limitations, and future recommendations.
Response 6: As a concrete conclusion, it has already reduced 725 word to 206 words.
Point 8: References: Appropriate.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General remarks
The paper is too narrative. The information presented as a story could be synthesized in tables.
Very long paragraphs (even one-page long paragraphs) and very difficult to follow.
Minor remarks
Page 1. Reformulate “dam typed” and “national gird”.
Page 6. “The following Table 1” can be simplified as “Table 1”. This is only one example of how the paper can be simplified.
Table 1. Column “Project Progressing Condition”: at the end of all phrases use “.” or not. Same for the hole column. Either with or without dot.
Page 7.I suggest changing acres with km2 or ha.
Table 2. Column “unit”: use SI, explain “acc” and “hh”?
Table 3. Arrange the heading line. I suggest to delete “Respondents’” which is mentioned in Table caption.
Good paper, congratulations!
Review the spelling.
Author Response
Point 1: Page 1. Reformulate “dam typed” and “national gird”.
Response 1: Reformulated “Storage dam typed” (cited 4) and “national power grid” (cited 5)
Point 2: “The following Table 1” can be simplified as “Table 1”. This is only one example of how the paper can be simplified.
Response 2: “ The following Table 1” has already simplified as “ Table 1”by deleting “The following”.
Point 3: Table 1. Column “Project Progressing Condition”: at the end of all phrases use “.” or not. Same for the hole column. Either with or without dot.
Response 3: Now we have used a dot”.” at the end of each phrase.
Point 4: Page 7. I suggest changing acres with km2 or ha.
Table 2. Column “unit”. Use SI, explain “acc’’ and ‘hh’
Response 4: In Myanmar, we have got data in acres ( not km 2 or ha) from original source where they used this unit, not SI unit. Compensation is calculated in acre based unit in Myanmar. So, we think that all acres are fine in this research. Otherwise, we have to convert it into “km2 or ha” in all respective pages.
“acc” stands for “acres” and “hh” stands for “household”. Now abbreviation is not used in the table 2.
Point 5: Table 3. Arrange the heading line. I suggest to delete “Respondents’” which is mentioned in Table caption.
Response 5: We have deleted all “ respondents, respondents’ ’’.
Point 6: Comments on the Quality of English Language: Review the spelling.
Response 6: We have made spelling mistakes corrected ( it can be seen with track change)
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors, I have thoroughly checked revised version of your manuscript. Though most of the comments are addressed in the version, still some comments such as unclear language and poor quality map are not resolved. I think this problem can be addressed during proofreading stage. I suggest accept in current form. Thank you.
