A Review on Sustainability of Watershed Management in Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript attempts to provide a comprehensive review of the current state of Watershed Management in Indonesia. The review attempts to cover a diverse cross-section of issues with some critical review and discussion on future research requirements. 

The pursuit of understanding the current challenges and limitations in achieving sustainable watershed management is commendable. However, in its current form, the manuscript does not have the quality or depth of analysis required to be accepted for publication. There is a lot of information presented but unfortunately, the authors provide only limited critical analysis and discussion of current limitations and what is required to overcome them. For each of the selected topics, the focus needs to be on providing a synopsis of the key information, providing a critical analysis comparing domestically and internationally as well as providing discussion on what is required to improve suitability.

The following concerns must be rectified in the manuscript

Abstract

The abstract is poorly written and organised. The authors need to ensure that all sentences make sense and the content clearly summarises the issues and provides a succinct summary of a critical review undertaken in the text.

Introduction

In general, the purpose of the review is not clear at the start of the introduction. It is not until reading the final paragraph that the aims of the review are proved. The purpose provided does not make clear what the drivers for such a review or how the outcomes of the review will assist in better understanding the current challenges in sustainable management of watersheds

There are several statements made in the introduction without providing detail or context. For example, the paragraph starting line 70, need to clarify why some people argue against watersheds as a proper choice for a management unit. Again at line 96, it is not clear what regulations are being referred to. These issues reappear throughout the manuscript.  

section 2

There is a lot of information provided on rules and regulations in Indonesia which is perhaps too long and is very difficult to follow. The authors should provide a summary of the legal framework highlighting the complexity of laws that govern watershed management. In section 2.2 there needs to be more consideration of the role of community lead NRM groups. 

Section 3

this section needs to consider not only the planning structure but how management capability and capacity can be built into such a framework. The text in lines 270 - 299 should include evidence to support the claims made. 

Section 4

The text is unclear on what the overall management goals are of the current practice. There needs to be a clear discussion of management goals and how these goals can be achieved. 

Much of the information in this section is common to the field of watershed management. There needs to be a detailed discussion of how the information applied to the Indonesian management challenges. Where there is specific information on Indonesia it is presented as a series of facts with limited critical review provided.

For lines 840 to 851 why is such an evaluation framework used and how does it compare to other developing countries. 

For lines 860 to 878, a clear description of the criteria is required to understand the information presented. 

For paragraph starting 879, while long term evaluation is important the discussion omits the need for short term evaluation goals to assess improvements are on tack

Conclusion

Overall the conclusion is weak and lacks an overall summary of the issues raised. The authors should also consider including remarks on the future research needs and government policy improvements. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

 

I very much appreciated this detailed overview of water management in Indonesia. I was impressed by how comprehensive the review was and thrilled to gain your insights from experience in water management/research in Indonesia. You did a great job integrating the biophysical, political, social, economic, and historical facets. I also like the emphasis on gaining trust from communities and using a bottoms-up approach. Readers will gain rich and meaningful insights about your national water management, as I did.

 

Please find my comments on the attached PDF. Note that the "sticky notes" correspond to highlighted text that they are next to. There is also text that I highlighted but did not leave a sticky note. This is text that I found to need English grammar correction.

 

A few suggestions I made that I would like to emphasize are:

1. It would help to had an introductory section to Indonesia's climate, hydrology, society, etc. which includes a map. If a reader is not familiar with Indonesia and its water management, what are the key things to do? Key rivers and their discharge, climate type, mean annual precipitation range.

 

2. The conclusion is nice as is, but I think it could be more effective if you summarized key/overarching challenges and recommendations and briefly proposed an action plan. Consider what you'd want the key takeaways and actions for a decision-maker. Also, give the reader hope and direction for the future of Indonesia water management.

 

3. Including organizational charts would be helpful. There are many different players involved and it's confusing for outsiders to understand how they are interconnected. I realize it's complex, but simplified charts could help to clarify.

 

4. Overall, I think the English grammar could be improved. Also, the writing style noticeably varies throughout the text, so unifying the voice would make it more polished. I suggest seeking editing assistance from an advanced fluent or native English speaker.

 

Thanks for writing this paper and I trust it will be a meaningful contribution to the sustainable future of Indonesia's water management.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The further edits made by the authors have greatly improved the manuscript. While the grammar has improved, further refining of the text is still required to meet the quality expected of a published review. For example, there are many vague sentences such as the opening sentence in the abstract “This paper explores the aspects of watershed management based on research results and 23 field practices”. Sentences need to be clear on the topic and locations. It is strongly suggested to use clear sentences which are not overly long and complex. This issue appears throughout the manuscript.

Furthermore, there is no specific mention of the 23 field practices later in the text. The abstract needs to reflect the text of the review.

Line 370 – The observation is very interesting as many countries use a more targeted approach to protecting areas based on criteria rather than blind quotas. Such an approach is seen as a way of balancing the protection of sensitive areas and while still allowing development and primary production, it would be interesting to understand in the paper what evidence has been collected to show that economic interests have limited effectiveness.  

Line 467 – clarify the column title of “Mandatory of”

Line 1087 – Clarify the time of Dutch occupation

Also consider focusing on good quality references which are most relevant to the review and facts being supported rather than just number of references. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf