AC-TC Back in Black: Restoring Environmental Water in the Douro Basin, Spain

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents a comprehensive and innovative framework for integrating abatement costs (AC) and transaction costs (TC) into benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for environmental water management policies, using the Douro River Basin in Spain as a case study. The study addresses a significant gap in the literature by providing a practical approach to measure and analyze these costs and benefits, which is crucial for informed policy-making. The literature review is too poor. The authors have to discuss the relevant and recent studies and analyze their cons and pros. In addition, a literature review table is missing. Finally, the research novelties and contributions to filling the research gaps must be fully described. The methodology is robust, and the results are well-presented and discussed.

Decision: Reject

The following Areas for Improvement are suggested:

• The introduction could better highlight the specific gaps in the literature that this study addresses. While the importance of AC and TC is mentioned, a clearer statement of the unique contributions of this study would strengthen the opening section.
• The justifications for using this methodology and its benefits and advantages should be clearly explained.
• The literature review is too poor. The authors have to discuss the relevant and recent studies and analyze their cons and pros. In addition, a literature review table is missing. Finally, the research novelties and contributions to filling the research gaps must be fully described.
• The formula should be numbered.

• The benefit transfer approach, while well-explained, could benefit from a brief discussion of its limitations, particularly regarding the generalizability of values from other regions to the Douro Basin.

• Explain IRR results more clearly to avoid confusion.

• The interpretation of IRR results (e.g., "#NUM!") could be clarified. Are these values indeterminate due to immediate benefits, or is there another reason? A brief explanation would be helpful for readers.

• The theoretical implications should be provided before the conclusion section. The authors should discuss whether their findings are aligned with the similar studies or not.
• The practical implications should be given before the conclusion.
• The managerial discussions should be added before the conclusion section.
• The discussion of adaptive efficiency could be expanded to include more specific recommendations for policymakers. For example, how might the findings inform budget allocations or policy redesigns in practice?
• The conclusion section is missing. The authors must provide this section.

• Discuss limitations of the benefit transfer method to provide a balanced view of the methodology.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are some grammatical errors that should be corrected. 

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of the manuscript entitled “AC-TC back in black: Restoring environmental water in the Douro Basin, Spain” submitted to MDPI water.  

 

This is a well-written and methodologically rigorous manuscript that advances a critical gap in environmental economics,. integrating both abatement costs (AC) and transaction costs (TC) into ex-post benefit-cost analysis (BCA) for water resource policy. The authors use Spain's Douro River Basin as a detailed case study and develop a framework to evaluate the costs and benefits of environmental water allocation polices under both current and future climate change scenarios.

It is a topic both critically relevant to urban water management and sustainable urban development. The manuscript is well-written and well-structured, making it a joy to read. It is highly suitable for the journal's readership, and overall, the paper is extremely interesting and worthy of publication. However, there are still many minor corrections, small typos etc that should be addressed.

• The abstract currently reads heavily on theoretical framing. Consider simplifying the language and sharpening the focus to better highlight key findings and implications for practice.
• Please make figure captions more descriptive and able to standalone. Also, check for inconsistencies in capitalization—some figures use title case, while others use sentence case or all caps. Standardize this across the manuscript.
• There is inconsistent capitalization in section headings and subheadings. For example, “climate change scenarios” vs. “Climate Change Scenarios.” Please check the entire manuscript and standardize formatting.
• Terms like AC and TC should be consistently capitalized when referring to defined variables or components of the framework.
• Consider expanding the discussion of lock-in costs to distinguish between both technological lock-ins and institutional lock-ins
• I suggest reordering the introduction slightly so that the policy challenge and Spain’s water stress are provided before the discussion of theoretical gaps in BCA. In my opinion this would improve flow.
• Please consider including a short discussion on the framework’s practical implementation. How might it be operationalized in practice by planners or policymakers?
• outline future research directions please.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a very interesting and original work to analyze some of the economic foundations of cost-benefit analysis. The research is well structured and clear, with an appropriate theoretical framework. This research is very welcome and useful for policymaking, considering the growing relevance of economic appraisal of projects. Nevertheless, I suggest some recommendations in the following sections (pages, lines):

 

Header (all pages)

“Acoustics 2022” is not the journal and the year of future publication.

 

Title (page 1)

Authors should not use an abbreviation in the title (as “AC-TC”). The complete concepts should be written in the title.

 

Introduction (page 2, line 50)

“Freeman iii” should be “Freeman III”, but I think references must be changed according to the Water journal system, with numbers [in brackets].

 

Introduction (page 2, line 62)

“both AC and TC”: Authors should not use an abbreviation without specifying the complete concept. When an abbreviation appears the first time in the text, authors should specify the meaning; thereinafter, they are able to use only the abbreviation.

 

Case Study Background: the Douro River Basin, Spain (page 4, lines 171-173)

Scarcity and drought are different concepts. This statement is wrong when authors affirm that “decreasing water supply combined with increasing demand are leading to droughts”. Please, clarify the idea you would like to communicate under rigorous concepts.

 

Case Study Background: the Douro River Basin, Spain (pages 4-6)

The ecological status of water bodies is classified in two types: qualitative and quantitative. According to qualitative status, dry farming also could pollute groundwater due to the use of nitrates, for instance. Authors deal with irrigated agriculture (a minimum percentage of the agriculture of the region), but how do authors consider dry farming together with qualitative and quantitative environmental objectives?

If that is not considered, because the study is focused on water allocations of irrigated agriculture, I feel that authors should describe the study case more, by specifying the scope and limitations in comparison to the holistic features of the geographic region studied, in the context of Water Framework Directive objectives.

Moreover, information on the origins of water resources for agricultural (percentages of surface, groundwater, others…) and the ecological state of water bodies (surface, groundwaters) in the region also should be added to the work.

 

Case Study Background: the Douro River Basin, Spain (page 4, line 166 or 173)

Authors should specify what is the meaning of “DRB”.

 

Results (page 11, Table 2.a and Table 2.b)

In the last row of these tables appears “#NUM!”. Please, correct and replace it with formal writing.

 

Results (page 11)

The choice of discount rates (5 % and 0 %) should be justified, please.

 

Discussion and Conclusions (pages 13-15, Figure 5)

We can see one figure caption (Figure 5), but there are 6 figures, some of them without captions. Please, specify all necessary figure captions.

 

References (pages 17-18)

Reference formatting should be adapted to Water journal requirements.

Author Response

Please see the attached file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been improved.