A New Dialectical Model of Water Security under Climate Change
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Your article is original by the emphasis on the two types of conflicts: human vs human, classical and essentially technological or socio-economic, and human vs nature, where the scientific laws of nature may be ignored or not well used.
My essential criticism is your vocabulary: you describe rather simple subjects like the influence of time on phenomena with words of Greek philosophy origin, which are absolutely correct and would be normal in a philosophical essay but are difficult to understand by the average water stakeholder. A very simple correction would make your article easy to read.
Otherwise, I have greatly appreciated the new approach to water issues that you present and I think it will be worthwhile to make it known from the average water and groundwater stakeholders and not the experts only.
Some minor mistakes: orthograph, grammar, lack of attention in some (one or two) sentences.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Manuscript Number: water-2450663
The manuscript has some shortcomings which need to be improved prior to its publication. My recommendation is that the article needs Major Revisions before it can be considered for publication.
1. Abstract: The abstract is a bit generic. Please add some more information regarding your results. It should be improved.
2. Introduction is generalized. I would recommend following recent research articles to reconstruct with extensive literature review on this topic and mention why you have chosen this topic for study.
“Application of novel data-mining technique-based nitrate concentration susceptibility prediction approach for coastal aquifers in India”
“Hydrogeochemical Evaluation of Groundwater Aquifers and Associated Health Hazard Risk Mapping Using Ensemble Data Driven Model in a Water Scares Plateau Region of Eastern India”
“Characterization of groundwater potential zones in water-scarce hardrock regions using data driven model”
“Hydrogeochemical characterization based water resources vulnerability assessment in India's first Ramsar site of Chilka lake”
3. Methodology section is weakly written. So, my suggestion is to reconstruct it by following the RS-GIS techniques and its environment.
“Development of geo-environmental factors controlled flash flood hazard map for emergency relief operation in complex hydro-geomorphic environment of tropical river, India”
“A novel hybrid of meta-optimization approach for flash flood-susceptibility assessment in a monsoon-dominated watershed, Eastern India”
“Development of geo-environmental factors controlled flash flood hazard map for emergency relief operation in complex hydro-geomorphic environment of tropical river, India”
4. In conclusion section, you have to mention the implications of your research and how it makes a footprint in scientific research. Try to incorporate your work to global interest how this research has worldwide importance. It will be interesting for the readers.
5. Reference: Re-check the whole reference just to make sure you have added all the references that you cited in your manuscript.
6. Improve the resolution of figure 3 and 4 that will help the readers for better understanding.
7. Apart from this the quality of the overall paper is very good. I prefer this article with acceptable with major modifications.
Author Response
See the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Despite the rather original theoretical formulation of the research problem, the article has a rather significant flaw: it is not clear what kind of 'new dialectical model of water security' the authors propose, how it differs from previous studies and why it is needed.
The authors, with virtually no analysis of academic sources (most of the 36 references cited lead to various policy documents and reference sources, but not to fundamental scientific works, as one would expect in such a problem statement), discuss a kind of heuristic model of how water security of a country (region) should be organised in the context of climate change. Its description is verbose, but vague and indistinct.
In the reviewer's opinion, the article cannot be published in its present form. The authors should convincingly prove that the theoretical development they propose makes fundamental sense, which distinguishes it from previous works.
Author Response
see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
This study proposes a new model to advance the Water Resource Management by taking a dialectical perspective. I agree the research motivation, perspectives, and arguments. The proposed model can give us a more comprehensive understanding of water management. Let me discuss two things which might be helpful for readers to further understand the topic.
First, the author may want to clarify the contradiction between nature and human beings. I can see the relationships between human beings and nature in terms cooperation and conflicts, for example. But it is not clear how these relationships unfold and has been identified respectively. The contradiction appears simultaneously or sequentially? Are there any contingencies, circumstances, or situations which can bring a certain relationship? And whether and how does the GPS nexus play a role for the human-nature relationship of contradiction? The answers for theses questions might help readers better understand the newly proposed model.
Second, related to the first point, the case illustration could be further elaborated. The assumptions, concepts, and models dealt with in this paper could be examined and elaborated with this case. For example, the stakeholders could be specified, and their relationships could understood in terms of their coherent interactions, like the GPS nexus.
Hope these comments help. I appreciate all the efforts and insights of the author for the ware resource management.
Author Response
see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The corrections are superficial and in general do not answer the core part of critique from the previous peer review round. I still think that the manuscript must be completely rewritten.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
