A New Model for Quantifying the Impact of the Social Economy on the Sustainability of Water Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have investigated the use of the social economic indicators from various databases to develop models for predicting the water resources sustainability. The topic is of interest and the manuscript is well-written in the journal’s format. Some major revisions of this manuscript are needed to improve the quality of this paper.

Comments:

1. The layout of Table 1, i.e., Indicators of analysis, needs to be modified. The indicators, symbols, Explanations, Mus, and Databases should be aligned. A landscape table layout may be more suitable.
2. The model names need to be defined and explained in terms of their specific meanings.
3. It is suggested that models be expressed using a general equation with coefficients and indicators. The coefficients should be summarized in a Table for various models.   
4. What are the major influences of the social economic factors which affect the water resource quality? Please summarize the common findings of models from the year 2010 to the year 2022.
5. The significance level for 2013 is p= 0.08, i.e., insignificant. Please discuss this significance level in more detail.
6. Line 675 presents some non-English expressions, please modify them.
7. From the dynamic analysis of social economic indicators on water resource quality, the authors should identify the effects of social economic indicators with significant impacts.

 

Author Response

Revizor 1

The authors have investigated the use of the social economic indicators from various databases to develop models for predicting the water resources sustainability. The topic is of interest and the manuscript is well-written in the journal’s format. Some major revisions of this manuscript are needed to improve the quality of this paper.

Authors: We sincerely appreciate your thorough review and valuable suggestions, which have greatly contributed to improving the clarity, structure, and analytical depth of our manuscript. In response to your comments, we have carefully revised the manuscript to address each of your observations:

1. The layout of Table 1, i.e., Indicators of analysis, needs to be modified. The indicators, symbols, Explanations, Mus, and Databases should be aligned. A landscape table layout may be more suitable.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Table 1 – Indicators of Analysis. We have modified the layout to ensure proper alignment of indicators, symbols, explanations, units, and databases. Additionally, we have adjusted the table to a landscape format for better readability.

1. The model names need to be defined and explained in terms of their specific meanings.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding Table 1 – Indicators of Analysis. We have modified the layout to ensure proper alignment of indicators, symbols, explanations, units, and databases. Additionally, we have adjusted the table to a landscape format for better readability.

1. It is suggested that models be expressed using a general equation with coefficients and indicators. The coefficients should be summarized in a Table for various models.   

Authors: Thank you for your insightful suggestion regarding the general equation representation and summarization of model coefficients. We have incorporated these recommendations into our study. The developed econometric model, Social Economy-Environmental Impact Econometric Model (SEEIM), has been expressed in a general multiple linear regression form, outlining the relationship between the dependent variable Sewage Sludge Production and Disposal from Urban Wastewater (TEN00030SS) and the independent variables representing key social economy indicators. Furthermore, the coefficients for different models across years have been systematically summarized in the new Table 2, providing a comprehensive overview of the variations in regression coefficients, their significance levels, and their impact over time.

1. What are the major influences of the social economic factors which affect the water resource quality? Please summarize the common findings of models from the year 2010 to the year 2022.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have addressed your request by conducting a comprehensive analysis of the major socio-economic factors influencing water resource quality based on our econometric models from 2010 to 2022. To enhance clarity, we have summarized these findings, along with a new table 6 that presents the impact direction and evolution of each socio-economic influence over time.

1. The significance level for 2013 is p= 0.08, i.e., insignificant. Please discuss this significance level in more detail.

Authors: Thank you for your insightful observation regarding the significance level for 2013. We have addressed this aspect in detail within the revised manuscript. Our discussion attributes this weaker statistical significance to the broader macroeconomic and policy context of 2013, particularly the lingering effects of the Eurozone financial crisis. Additionally, policy transitions in European environmental directives may have introduced delays in the implementation of sustainability measures, further influencing the statistical association in that year.

1. Line 675 presents some non-English expressions, please modify them.

Authors: Thank you for your careful review and for pointing out the non-English expressions on line 675. We have revised the text to ensure that all expressions are in proper academic English, aligning with the overall consistency and readability of the manuscript.

1. From the dynamic analysis of social economic indicators on water resource quality, the authors should identify the effects of social economic indicators with significant impacts.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have expanded the Results and Discussion section to explicitly identify the effects of socio-economic indicators with significant impacts on water resource quality. The revised section provides a detailed analysis of the correlation between the development of the social economy and water pollution levels. Furthermore, we have introduced two new public policy proposals, emphasizing the need for stricter water protection regulations in high-risk sectors and the expansion of digital platforms to monitor water consumption and pollutant emissions in real-time.

 

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

The paper (New Model For Quantifying The Impact Of The Social Economy On Water Resources’ Sustainability) presents a novel and methodologically robust approach to quantifying the impact of the social economy on water resources’ sustainability. The integration of meta-analysis, correlational, and econometric methods, alongside the formulation of a comprehensive statistical model, highlights the study’s depth and complexity. The research addresses a timely and significant topic, offering valuable insights and actionable public policy recommendations to foster a green social economy. This paper can be accepted after appropriate revision.

1.      Section 2.1. Social economy and the environment, the authors mentioned key concepts like "degree of coupling coordination" and "social cost of carbon" but fails to delve deeper into their implications or offer any insightful interpretations. Please clarify?

2.      Section 2, The transitions between different research areas and concepts are abrupt and sometimes illogical. It's difficult to understand the underlying thread connecting the discussion of resource-based cities, the social cost of carbon, and the role of the social economy in achieving SDGs. Please enhance?

3.      Section 2.2. The authors stated that the social economy can support sustainable development and provide solutions to multiple crises but later suggest that it may not be able to limit youth unemployment and can lead to precarious work practices. This apparent contradiction requires further clarification and explanation.

4.      Section 2.2. The authors present the findings of the cited studies without any critical analysis or discussion of their limitations. For example, the paragraph mentions that Núñez et al. found that social economy entities support greater female participation, but it fails to discuss the potential reasons for this finding or to explore any potential drawbacks.

5.      2.6. Circular social economy, the paragraph focuses primarily on the theoretical aspects of the circular and social economy, with limited discussion of real-world applications and challenges.

6.      Some statements are vague and lack specificity. For example, Line 237-239 "The authors believe that the social economy can be strengthened by implementing principles such as solidarity, the primacy of people over capital and democratic and participatory governance" is too general and lacks concrete examples.

7.      The authors must make the paragraphs more concise and easier to understand by improving sentence structure and avoiding jargon.

 

8.      The conclusion must be improved with the most highlighted results in this research. 

Author Response

The paper (New Model For Quantifying The Impact Of The Social Economy On Water Resources’ Sustainability) presents a novel and methodologically robust approach to quantifying the impact of the social economy on water resources’ sustainability. The integration of meta-analysis, correlational, and econometric methods, alongside the formulation of a comprehensive statistical model, highlights the study’s depth and complexity. The research addresses a timely and significant topic, offering valuable insights and actionable public policy recommendations to foster a green social economy. This paper can be accepted after appropriate revision.

1. Section 2.1. Social economy and the environment, the authors mentioned key concepts like "degree of coupling coordination" and "social cost of carbon" but fails to delve deeper into their implications or offer any insightful interpretations. Please clarify?

Authors: Thank you for your valuable suggestion. In response to your comment, we have revised Section 2.1 – Social Economy and the Environment to provide a deeper discussion on the degree of coupling coordination and the social cost of carbon, clarifying their implications and significance.

2. Section 2, The transitions between different research areas and concepts are abrupt and sometimes illogical. It's difficult to understand the underlying thread connecting the discussion of resource-based cities, the social cost of carbon, and the role of the social economy in achieving SDGs. Please enhance?

Authors: Thank you for your constructive feedback. In response to your suggestion, we have enhanced Section 2 by improving the transitions between research areas and concepts to ensure a more coherent and logical flow. A new preamble has been added at the beginning of the section, providing a clear thematic connection between resource-based cities, the social cost of carbon, and the role of the social economy in achieving SDGs. We appreciate your suggestion, which have helped us strengthen the clarity and coherence of this section.

3. Section 2.2. The authors stated that the social economy can support sustainable development and provide solutions to multiple crises but later suggest that it may not be able to limit youth unemployment and can lead to precarious work practices. This apparent contradiction requires further clarification and explanation.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised Section 2.2 to clarify the relationship between the social economy, sustainable development, and labour market challenges, particularly regarding youth unemployment and precarious work conditions. The updated section now provides a more nuanced discussion, that contribute to a better presentation of a  balanced and coherent perspective, reinforcing the idea that the social economy is a complementary mechanism that requires adequate policy support to achieve long-term labour market improvements.

4. Section 2.2. The authors present the findings of the cited studies without any critical analysis or discussion of their limitations. For example, the paragraph mentions that Núñez et al. found that social economy entities support greater female participation, but it fails to discuss the potential reasons for this finding or to explore any potential drawbacks.

Authors: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised Section 2.2 to incorporate a more critical analysis of the cited studies, ensuring that their limitations, underlying causes, and broader implications are fully addressed.

5. 2.6. Circular social economy, the paragraph focuses primarily on the theoretical aspects of the circular and social economy, with limited discussion of real-world applications and challenges.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised Section 2.6 to move beyond theoretical discussions and incorporate real-world applications and challenges of the circular social economy.

6. Some statements are vague and lack specificity. For example, Line 237-239 "The authors believe that the social economy can be strengthened by implementing principles such as solidarity, the primacy of people over capital and democratic and participatory governance" is too general and lacks concrete examples.

Authors: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your comment, we have deeply revised the section to eliminate vague statements and provide greater specificity.

7. The authors must make the paragraphs more concise and easier to understand by improving sentence structure and avoiding jargon.

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. In response to your comment, we have carefully revised the manuscript to eliminate vague statements and enhance specificity throughout the text. For instance, in Section 2.6 on the Circular Social Economy, we have moved beyond theoretical discussions by incorporating practical examples of circular business models, public-private partnerships, and industry-specific applications. Similarly, in Section 2.2, we have refined the discussion on the social economy’s role in gender participation and youth employment, ensuring that claims are supported by empirical findings and critical analysis. Additionally, we have strengthened policy discussions by detailing specific regulatory measures and financial mechanisms that impact the social economy.

8. The conclusion must be improved with the most highlighted results in this research. 

Authors: Thank you for your insightful feedback. In response to your comment, we have revised the conclusion to incorporate the most highlighted results of the research.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript is acceptable in its present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor,

The author addressed my comment and significantly enhanced the manuscript. I recommend acceptance for this paper.