Urban Governance and Sanitation in the Peri-Urban Commune of Agoè-Nyvé 6 in Togo: Diagnosis of the Sanitation System in Adétikopé
, Koko Zébéto Houedakor 1,2,3, Kossi Komi 1, Sossawè Poli 4,5, Djiwonou Koffi Adjalo 1,2,3, Ablam Nyakpo 4,6,7, Ayayivi Mensah Ayivigan 4,8,9, Abdourahamane Aissa Ghanny Vanessa Ali 10, Kossiwa Zinsou-Klassou 1,3 and Pèssiezoum Adjoussi 1,2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
1. The paper looks less like a study and more like a survey. It is difficult to determine whether this manuscript should be submitted to Water, and it is recommended that the editors and authors consider it further.
2. The abstract is a summary of the entire manuscript and does not need to have Context, Objective, Materials and methods, Results and Conclusion. Otherwise it will make it strange to read. Please reorganize the abstract based on the content.
3. It is suggested that more researches on urban governance and sanitation in the peri-urban commune be summarized in the introduction part. The novelty of this paper compared to the previous literature needs to be further emphasized.
Author Response
Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The abstract needs to be more precise. It should demonstrate the logic of your research.
2. Please revise the introduction carefully. It needs to include: (1) Background of the study. (2) A review of existing research. (3) The Issues to be studied. (3) Innovation of the study.
3. The methodology section needs to be improved. The paper should give more details about the methodology.
4. The paper needs to explain the results of the study in more detail and should not just report the data.
5. The discussion section needs to be improved by comparing with existing research.
6. Recommendations need to be added to address the findings of the study.
7. The paper needs to add the limitations of the study and future research directions.
Minor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Lines 95-97 need to be rewritten. "we ask ourselves" just isn't appropriate language for an academic journal.
Lines 220-223: Software used, particularly Microsoft Office is not necessary information.
Take out the pictures, they provide no useful purpose to the paper
It would be very useful in the Discussion section to have a table that provides the summary of what is written as to each of the subsections for easy reference.
For the conclusion, are there any public policy implications and if so what are they
minor editing
Author Response
Veuillez consulter la pièce jointe.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
OK
