Water Resources Management under Climate Change: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

The authors have significantly improved the manuscript by incorporating my and other reviewer's comments. I have only a minor comment that there should be more referenced articles in citation for a review manuscript, to address a very broad topic of impacts of climate change on water resources. 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive attitude. The articles cited in the text are the main ones used and reported in the paper references, many more were in the supplementary material Table 1S so as not to make the reading of the paper difficult. In the new version almost all of them have been added to the text citing the aforementioned table.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The manuscript “Water Resources Management under Climate Change: A Review” presents a review of 134 articles from 5 continents (from 1990 to 2022), providing an overview of problems and solutions to water resource management under climate change. However, the manuscript would be improved if the following points were addressed:

1. The problem wasn't addressed properly, consistent with the manuscript being a review article (Please see https://doi.org/10.1061/JHYEFF.HEENG-6014). Consequently, the manuscript structure affected the achievement of the study's objectives, which were not clarified through the manuscript as stated in the last paragraph of the introduction section (Objectives 1, 2, and 3).

2. Relying on one search engine and a limited number of keywords, of course, resulted in the absence of many published articles on the issue (For examples; https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.983228).

3. The authors limited themselves to a country-based bibliometric analysis of the selected papers. This resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the main points and objectives. Considering that the selected articles were chosen in an influenced way, the actual number or percentages may differ. This bibliometric analysis might have been given in considerably less space using graphs under a subheading.

4. I suggest splitting the discussion section into a few subsections linked to the research objectives and highlighting terms included in the abstract and objectives, such as: ecosystems, human health, security, and socio-economic aspects.

5. Although the manuscript discussed the importance of new technologies in water resources management, it does not specify these new technologies.

Author Response

see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

There are several major issue with the review paper:

1. The number of references, only 51, is not enough for a review paper, and many references regarding climate change are too old, such as [1-6], which were published in 1990s'. And, there is a lack of recent publications, with only 4 papers published in 2021, and no one after 2021.

2. The author retrieved only 320 papers on the topic of "Water Resources Management under Climate Change", which is far not enough. The reason of such a small amount of paper is because their search criteria are not appropriate (Line 128-137). There is no need to use "Effects of climate change" in the first step. The "Water research management" is not a right word, which should be "Water resource management" in the second step. And, "Water storage" is just a narrow part in the field of water resources manangement research.

 3. "Water Resources Management under Climate Change" is a very broad topic, which covers a lot in the field water sciences. Unfortunately, the paper failed to provide systematically well defined research trends, gaps and questions on the topic in the review.

Author Response

see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

You outline approaches and solutions for achieving sustainable management of water resources in relation to climate change that dominate the relevant literature. The text can be supplemented with one more figure illustrating in a suitable way the most common proposals/approaches such as integrated water resources management, policy solutions, new technologies, etc. Thus, the reader will receive more complete information from the proposed paper.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment, we added Figure 2 in the results.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Unfortunately, the authors didn’t analyze the reviewer's comments to improve their manuscript and make it acceptable for publication, Instead, they focus on defending their point of view in their response.

1. The problem wasn't addressed properly, consistent with the manuscript being a review article (Please see https://doi.org/10.1061/JHYEFF.HEENG-6014). Consequently, the manuscript structure affected the achievement of the study's objectives, which were not clarified through the manuscript as stated in the last paragraph of the introduction section (Objectives 1, 2, and 3).

· Response: I have read the MS very kindly proposed to us. Unfortunately, it only refers to climate change therefore it is focused to one topic only. Table 1S preparade by us (supplementary material) is exactly like the one presented in the proposed article. We have included this table in the text so as to better understand the structure and objectives of the manuscript.

· The proposed article is an example of how to address a problem in a review article, particularly manuscript structure and subheadings.

· Can the authors explain how the reader may just figure out whether the study objectives have been achieved in the absence of a clear subheading related to the problem under investigation? (Instead of the current subheadings: Introduction, Materials and Methods, Results, and Discussion, which are appropriate for a research article rather than a review article).

2. Relying on one search engine and a limited number of keywords, of course, resulted in the absence of many published articles on the issue (For examples; https://doi.org/10.3389/frwa.2022.983228).

· Response: the search engine used is the one that offers academic articles from any publisher that may be found on the Web, this means it takes into consideration not only ISI articles but also gray literature. The keywords are suitable for the type of research we wanted to carry out and therefore provided us with the answers necessary to write the article of interest. The paper you indicated was not included because we stopped our search in June 2022, to have time to process and analyse the searched papers in time for the present call of the Special Issue “The impact of climate change on future water storage”.

· Many factors, other than keywords, affect the appearance and ordering of search results on Google and Google scholar. In academic research, it is recommended to use Scopus and/or Web of Science, which mainly depend on keywords. I did not request that the authors start from scratch in their manuscript, but the use of multiple sources confirms that no important published articles has been missed, which may be added to the manuscript (this does not require a response specifically to the provided example, a lot of important published articles that not included in the manuscript can be listed). Regarding the used keywords, of course they are limited.

3. The authors limited themselves to a country-based bibliometric analysis of the selected papers. This resulted in a lack of clarity regarding the main points and objectives. Keeping in mind that the selected articles were chosen in an influenced way, the actual number or percentages may differ. This bibliometric analysis might have been given in considerably less space using graphs under a subheading.

· Response: We did not limit our analysis to the national literature (see Table 1S supplementary material), but we used 134 papers dealing with climate change and the management of water resources over time and across the world. Table 2 and Figure 1 clearly stated this. See also Materials and method section.

· By this comment, I didn't mean that the authors presented local articles. However, they go on to present their bibliometric analysis depend on continent and countries (a country-based), which may have been given in a simpler and space-effective way, focusing on the findings of these studies and the presented solutions related to the manuscript's objectives.

4. I suggest splitting the discussion section into a few subsections linked to the research objectives and highlighting terms included in the abstract and objectives, such as: ecosystems, human health, security, and socio-economic aspects.

· Response: The objectives of the research were to find suggestions, ideas, proposals, and solutions to climate change and to the management of water resources proposed by scientists from around the world to be applied also to the Italian territory. That's how the discussion was organized.

· It is very difficult for the reader to follow these suggestions, ideas, proposals, and solutions under one heading (keep in mind this is not a research article). The review manuscript would greatly benefit from adding subheading related to these suggestions, ideas, proposals, and solutions as well as the manuscript's objectives.

5. Table S1; If this table is to be considered a supplementary material, it should be removed from the manuscript. Only references that can be added to the reference list should be used in the main text.

Author Response

The answers are in the attached file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The reviewer appreciates the authors' efforts to improve their manuscript and their responses to all of the reviewer's comments. There are no more comments.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors present a comprehensive review of water resources management. In summary, this paper is well-written and easily understood. 

There are several shortcomings to be improved before publication:

Firstly, as a review, the authors should list all the keywords they use, in a table. And show the relationships between these references and even give the hot topics.

Secondly, the authors can give their views on water resources management. The emphasis is on the current research status at home and abroad, focusing on which problems have been solved, which problems have not been solved, and put forward possible solutions; This paper should compare the differences and similarities of various viewpoints and gives theoretical explanations to clarify the author's point of view. Introduce creative and promising theories and hypotheses in detail, and draw arguments to indicate possible trends.

Thirdly, the authors can briefly describe the background, development and research level of the subject at each stage in chronological order.

Lastly, through vertical and horizontal comparison, the research level of this topic should be affirmed, the existing problems suggested to be pointed out, the possible development trend should be put forward, and the research direction can be pointed out.

Minor editing of the English language is required due to the lengthy sentences. 

Author Response

The authors present a comprehensive review of water resources management. In summary, this paper is well-written and easily understood.

There are several shortcomings to be improved before publication:

• Firstly, as a review, the authors should list all the keywords they use, in a table. And show the relationships between these references and even give the hot topics.

We have added a table (Table 1) with the kye words dived into the two searches related to the topics highlighted.

• Secondly, the authors can give their views on water resources management. The emphasis is on the current research status at home and abroad, focusing on which problems have been solved, which problems have not been solved, and put forward possible solutions; This paper should compare the differences and similarities of various viewpoints and gives theoretical explanations to clarify the author's point of view. Introduce creative and promising theories and hypotheses in detail and draw arguments to indicate possible trends.

Thankyou for this comment. The paper wants to be an overview, a thorough photography, to have an idea about studies and problems. It is a first approach to water management problems under climate change effects. It is an assessment of the state of the art.

• Thirdly, the authors can briefly describe the background, development and research level of the subject at each stage in chronological order.

The introduction was made with the idea of ​​offering the description of the background in a chronological way.

• Lastly, through vertical and horizontal comparison, the research level of this topic should be affirmed, the existing problems suggested to be pointed out, the possible development trend should be put forward, and the research direction can be pointed out.

Thank you for this comment. The scope of this first paper is to make known the state of the art.

Minor editing of the English language is required due to the lengthy sentences.

We had the article reviewed by a specialistic.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is a review and summary of the results of the bibliographic revision. It lacks analysis and discussion.

A thorough English language is required. As it stands it is difficult to follow.

Author Response

The manuscript is a review and summary of the results of the bibliographic revision. It lacks analysis and discussion.

The paper is an overview of that state of the art of the impact of climate change on water resource management. The discussion and the analysis are respect to the 134 papers analysed, reporting in detail what scientist around the world have studied, found and proposed. Some additions and changes have been made in some parts of the text with red colour.

A thorough English language is required. As it stands it is difficult to follow.

We had the article reviewed by a specialistic.

Reviewer 3 Report

Nice work. The authors used internet search motors (Google and Google Academic) but not specialized data bases as Scopus or Web of Science. Why? Some typographical errors are noted in the manuscript, they should be corrected.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

No comments

Author Response

Nice work. The authors used internet search motors (Google and Google Academic) but not specialized data bases as Scopus or Web of Science. Why? Some typographical errors are noted in the manuscript, they should be corrected.

Thank you for this comment. We have used Google and Google Academic because they include all works, with indexing and without, they offer a large overview of a lots of paper’s typologies. The data bases as Scopus or Web of Science offer only a partial vision of the state of the art.

We have corrected the errors in the text with red colour.

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors reviewed the impact of climate change on water resources management. Overall paper is well written and will be helpful for water policy makers.

My main concern to clearly highlight in abstract section whether this review manuscript is generally for global level or also specifically deals with Italy as written in lines 20-21.

In my opinion, there should be considered more referenced articles in citation for a review manuscript, to address a very broad of impacts of climate change on water resources. There are multiple factors to describe water resources management and it should be address in review.

The discussion section can be further expanded. 

Minor Comments:

Lines 10-11: Please rewrite “five continents impacts and solutions”for clarity.

Author Response

The authors reviewed the impact of climate change on water resources management. Overall paper is well written and will be helpful for water policy makers.

• My main concern to clearly highlight in abstract section whether this review manuscript is generally for global level or also specifically deals with Italy as written in lines 20-21.

The paper concerns a global level, the reference of the Italy is only to understand where Italy stands in relation to the rest of the world. For greater clarity the sentence has been rewritten.

• In my opinion, there should be considered more referenced articles in citation for a review manuscript, to address a very broad of impacts of climate change on water resources. There are multiple factors to describe water resources management and it should be address in review.

We have used 134 papers, reported in the supplementary material, as specified in lines 116, 260, 411 and 417. We decided not to report all the bibliography used in the text in order not to make too much work and its reading.

The discussion section can be further expanded.

Done. We have added some sentences to further the discussion in different position into the text with red colour.

Minor Comments:

Lines 10-11: Please rewrite “five continents impacts and solutions”for clarity.

Done, we rewrote the sentence.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept as it is.