Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Water Resource Management: A Critical Overview

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors Global climate change is affecting the safe development and utilization of water resources, posing challenges to sustainable economic and social development. This manuscript considers integrating climate change into the water resource management system, which has important practical significance. The author has conducted a comprehensive exploration and outlook, which can provide some reference and support for related research. However, there are still some issues with the manuscript that require the author's careful consideration. 1. It is recommended to add appropriate references in the introduction and further discuss the necessity of the research. Can the tables in the introduction be moved to other sections or presented in a different way. 2. It is important for the author to consider adaptive management while minimizing risks through measures such as carbon reduction, in order to address the risks that have already occurred. Therefore, the issue of enhancing the resilience of integrated water resource management systems can be further considered and elaborated. 3. Enrich the second part's exposition on climate change and water resources. 4. Normative issues. The author needs to further standardize their writing. 5. The author needs to propose more targeted policy recommendations based on the research results, as the current policy recommendations seem to be achievable without much in-depth research.

Author Response

Thank you for your valuable input.

[Comment 1: It is recommended to add appropriate references in the introduction and further discuss the necessity of the research. Can the tables in the introduction be moved to other sections or presented in a different way.]

While we agree with such suggestion when introducing a data- and/or experimental-based article, we deliberately decided on opinion/personal and perspective approach (as the article type suggests), while attributing recent and relevant references throughout the complete text after.

Furthermore, in our opinion, the table should remain an essential part of the introduction, as it does not specifically refer to Climate Change and Water Resources (the suggested section), but rather to the overlying key contexts among mitigation and adaptation.

[Comment 2: It is important for the author to consider adaptive management while minimizing risks through measures such as carbon reduction, in order to address the risks that have already occurred. Therefore, the issue of enhancing the resilience of integrated water resource management systems can be further considered and elaborated.] 

The manuscript already incorporates adaptive management as a core theme. Further elaboration will nevertheless address the suggestion without altering the existing framework (e.g. section 3.4). 

[Comments 3 and 5]: Enrich the second part's exposition on climate change and water resources. - The author needs to propose more targeted policy recommendations based on the research results, as the current policy recommendations seem to be achievable without much in-depth research.]

The theoretical framework is now also visually represented (Figure 1) and provides a guideline through the logic of the text, including clear referrals to the case studies and practical applications. The recommendations given incorporate those and are actionable. 

[Comment 4: Normative issues. The author needs to further standardize their writing]

The text was proofread by a native speaker without any identification of comprehensibility issues or other problems. Minor structural changes were applied (e.g. section 6.3 as demarcation as summarizing part of this chapter).

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper “Integrating Climate Change Adaptation and Water Resource Management: A Critical Overview” is well written but suffers from two significant drawbacks:

1) It is a review article rather than a perspective, and

2) Some mismatches may confuse the readers.

Concerning point 1, the paper doesn’t provide a critical view of Water Resources Management (WRM) under climate change conditions. The general recommendations on climate mitigation and adaptation repeat well-known UN literature and articles previously published by the authors and other co-authors (see references 22, 21, 20, and 19). The policy recommendations are general and well-known in WRM, such as integrating climate change, increasing international cooperation, and investing in education, technology, and innovation.

About point 2: although in the summary the authors claim distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation, apart from table 1 mitigation policy is not mentioned. In the first column of Table 1, mitigation is repeatedly mentioned as needed without any further analysis. The paper adopts the UN jargon on the need for climate adaptation without providing recommendations on how to deal with adaptation.

The two case studies from India and Vietnam should be more critically evaluated to show tangible results.

In conclusion, I cannot recommend publishing the paper in its present form. The paper should be revised to provide an interesting perspective and avoid repetitions of well-known issues on WRM under climate change.  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

[article type "Perspective"]: The manuscript is indeed a perspective, focusing on synthesizing established knowledge with a specific lens. Reframing the manuscript into a review of Water Resource Management (WRM) frameworks would fundamentally alter its intent and is unnecessary.

[case studies]: They serve as illustrative tools, connecting theoretical insights with real-world applications - this is now significantly enhanced by providing a visual representation of the theoretical framework (Figure 1) and the clear reference made to the selected case studies.  A brief analysis of their measurable outcomes is evaluated sufficient sufficient, rather than a comprehensive evaluation that would exceed the manuscript’s scope.

[mitigation]: as the title clearly indicates, the intended focus is on adaptation aspects and the manuscript reflects that intent - the overall context of the indispensable connection/interaction is given in Table 1 deliberately in the introduction (and never neglected throughout the manuscript); but another additional focus on mitigation policies would again exceed the manuscript’s focused scope in our opinion. 

[repetition]: References to UN frameworks and prior research establish credibility and context. Condensing these into a succinct summary ensures relevance while retaining their importance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript gives a critical overview of recent advancements by addressing both theoretical frameworks and practical applications in the combination of climate change adaptation strategies with water resource management. Additionally, it demonstrates the importance of distinguishing between mitigation and adaptation strategies, emphasizing their unique characteristics and interdependencies. Although this study seems to take some work, it has some significant limitations, shown below.

1)     It lacks any mathematical models to address the problems raised by the authors. And it lacks any quantitative analytic results. I address this issue because this journal is a scientific one. That is to say, the scientific soundness  is low.

2)     As an overview, the authors still need to address their opinions on the more advanced theoretical frameworks, not just list the previous ones. Thus, it is strange to add a case study for an overview paper.

3)     The results and conclusions can not be supported by the methodology.

4)     The presentation is almost text, with few pictures. Reading paragraphs of texts exhausts energy.

 

Author Response

[Comment 1: It lacks any mathematical models to address the problems raised by the authors. And it lacks any quantitative analytic results. I address this issue because this journal is a scientific one. That is to say, the scientific soundness is low.]

The manuscript’s qualitative nature is intentional, as it focuses on conceptual synthesis and practical applications. Adding mathematical models would deviate from this intent and is outside its scope. Science is not defined solely by its reliance on numbers, equations, or statistical models; rather, it is characterized by its pursuit of knowledge, rigorous methodologies, and systematic exploration of phenomena. Both quantitative and qualitative research approaches contribute uniquely to scientific inquiry, addressing different but equally vital dimensions of understanding. 

[Comment 2: As an overview, the authors still need to address their opinions on the more advanced theoretical frameworks, not just list the previous ones. Thus, it is strange to add a case study for an overview paper.]

The article provides a comprehensive review of frameworks and offers critical commentary on their practical applications - now reflected in a visual representation in Figure 1 as a guideline through the manuscript. Now also the clear connection to the selected case studies is provided to significantly enhance clarity, readability, and after all applicability. The inclusion of such case studies is justified as they provide practical validation of the adaptive strategies discussed.  

[Comment 3: The results and conclusions can not be supported by the methodology.]

Current recommendations are actionable and research-based, supported by specific examples to add clarity without requiring extensive revision. The content and structure of a "Perspective Paper" does not include (and does not require) a distinct methods section, hence the issue raised should be nugatory 

[Comment 4: The presentation is almost text, with few pictures. Reading paragraphs of texts exhausts energy.]

A visual representation of the theoretical framework is now included (Figure 1), including clear referrals, especially to the selected case studies. Furthermore, some structural changes and minor additions were made throughout the manuscript to enhance readability. The manuscript in our opinion is presented in a clear, distinct and also brief, and concise way.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors claim that their “Climate Change Integration into Water Resources Management” paper is a perspective rather than a review article because they report theoretical frameworks and practical applications through their particular views.

For the theory, they discuss climate change mitigation and adaptation strategies by distinguishing general short-term and long-term solutions. These are well-known practical tools, but there are no theoretical advances.

Also, no particular perspective is given for identifying well-known gaps in climate change adaptation and when they ask for more integration, international cooperation, innovation, and technology.

Although the two case studies illustrate some well-known solutions, I am afraid no particular perspective is drawn for their successful replication in other places.

I don’t recommend the paper publication in the present form, but I encourage the editors to continue the review process.

Author Response

We appreciate the engagement with our manuscript and the suggestions for improvement. Our paper is intended to provide a structured perspective on the integration of climate adaptation strategies into water management. While the adaptation strategies discussed are indeed known, our aim is to offer a synthesized and practical viewpoint that highlights their real-world applicability and provides actionable insights for stakeholders. The selected case studies are intended to serve as illustrative examples, offering valuable lessons for replication in similar contexts.

We revised and extended certain parts of the manuscript again to further clarify these intentions - in the introduction, the summary of the case studies, and the conclusions (also adding one additional recent reference). With that, we emphasize our contribution to bridging theoretical frameworks with practical applications, in which we see our very motivation to include this topic in this special issue of Standards.

Beyond that, we do not see any further justified constructive criticism, but a personal opinion towards the value of the content of the manuscript, to which we respectfully disagree. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concerns are addressed although they are not well solved. But it can still be accepted.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and feedback - your efforts are appreciated.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have sufficiently improved the original manuscript.