Rapid Characterisation of Stakeholder Networks in Three Catchments Reveals Contrasting Land-Water Management Issues

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper deals with catchment scale water management by applying social network analysis. The topic, the approach, and the method are properly introduced. The results offer some interesting insights. 

The main weakness is the presentation. First of all, the paper has two aims: a methodological one and the substantive one. It should be better structured, regarding mostly the discussion part. I would suggest presenting the substantive results in accordance with the objectives (lines 109-16) followed by the methodological ones. The methodological parts are scattered now in the first two paragraphs of the discussion and in lines 409-15, 449-55, 483-88, and 525-45. They should be integrated. 

Secondly, the paper suffers from the ease of creating a visual presentation of the results, which is typical for social network analysis. Figures 5, 6, and 7 should inform us about the differences between the networks, i.e., the catchments and the stakeholders. Currently, the plots present a lot of detailed information, difficult to interpret by a reader.

Figure 3 should present more information from table 1, e.g., averages. Perhaps, table 1 could go to an annex.

Table 2 should be replaced by a figure presenting the most important results. 

Smaller issues:

The same information is presented in lines 196 and following lines and 219 and following lines.

The Dutch government officials appear in 423 by surprise. 

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their general comments of support and for the overall positive appraisal of our manuscript ‘Rapid characterisation of stakeholder networks in three catchments reveals contrasting land-water management issues’.

We are grateful for the peer review criticisms and suggestions and have rewritten the manuscript to incorporate their feedback as much as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The assessment of the research as well as its justification, its methodology, its analysis, its interpretation, its discussion and its results are considered positive and well structured. The relevance of the article resides in what it can contribute from the perspective of knowledge of social networks, of the agents involved and of the perception they have in the knowledge of reality and its problems. In this sense, its application can help to improve the management of natural resources in a territorial area such as hydrographic basins. Perhaps it would be convenient to know something about the type of questions that were asked to the participants and if there was any previously prepared script model with closed questions.

It would be opportune to specify with a little more detail the context / background in which the research is carried out: government demand, collaboration with an NGO, university or inter-university program, etc. In case it’s the result of a specific call, it would be desirable to give the reference of the project. This aspect is only briefly specified in the final reference to acknowledgments and funding.

A question that the article raises is the way in which is determined when the influence of an agent is perceived as more positive or more negative for the environment. Does this depend exclusively on the subjectivity in the assessment carried out by each interviewee? It would be convenient to make explicit if any guidelines have been provided in this regard or if it only depends on the free response of each participant. In this sense, was some type of manual, report or informative material previously delivered regarding the situation or state of the catchments studied?

It would be convenient to complement the initial territorial and socioeconomic characterization of each one of the three basins a little more to improve the knowledge of the agents of each one, to understand their problems and, therefore, the interaction that they exert among themselves as a social network, of their perceptions and their evaluations.

If I'm not mistaken in the participation exercise all contributions and opinions have been collected individually. Wouldn't it have been convenient, at the final phase of the research, to bring together the representatives of the stakeholders and openly debate and exchange points of view on the management of the basin, its problems and challenges posed? Maybe a focus group participation technique would have been convenient to complement the individual participation procedure followed in this research.

At the end of the conclusions, maybe it would be convenient to broaden the reflection on how a participatory technique of this type can be introduced into the design processes of water resources planning programs and in decision-making in this regard. Is there an example in which similar techniques have already been incorporated?

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their general comments of support and for the overall positive appraisal of our manuscript ‘Rapid characterisation of stakeholder networks in three catchments reveals contrasting land-water management issues’.

We are grateful for the peer review criticisms and suggestions and have rewritten the manuscript to incorporate their feedback as much as possible.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx