Public, Private, or Inter-Municipal Organizations: Actors’ Preferences in the Swiss Water Sector

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article on "public, private, or inter-municipal organizations: Actors’ preferences in the Swiss water sector" presents useful results. However, in my opinion, there are some points that need to be improved;

1. A concrete conclusion at the end of abstract is required
2. The whole text relevant to the heading "Administrative reforms and changes in types of organizations" may be merged in the introduction section. As it is more relevant to that section.
3. Rephrase the Table 1 caption
4. Figs. 2, 3 and 4 are not self explanatory.

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 1 for their helpful input.  We list the reviewer’s points and then specify how we address these in the manuscript.

1. A concrete conclusion at the end of abstract is required

Thanks for the suggestion. We have now added a concrete conclusion to the abstract:

“We thus conclude that at the local level there is potentially a trade-off between democratic values and performance.”

2. The whole text relevant to the heading "Administrative reforms and changes in types of organizations" may be merged in the introduction section. As it is more relevant to that section.

We have now moved this sub-section 2.1 on "Administrative reforms and changes…” to its own main section (2) after the intro and before the methods, following the suggestion of reviewer 2, which we agree with.

3. Rephrase the Table 1 caption

We have rephrased this as follows: “Organizational types differentiated by degrees of coordination and autonomy”

4. Figs. 2, 3 and 4 are not self explanatory.

We have now added additional explanations for Figs 2-4 in the text.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, but there are some details to increase the clarity:

- my suggestions is to include sub-section 2.1 as a separate section after the introduction and to have a chapter 3 devoted to the methodology. In this section, maybe a more detailed presentation of the water supply system design in comparison with other supply system would be nice to include. Is it a different organisation of the water system as compared to the energy and why so. Or maybe in the discussion to emphasize a little the differences.

- in the methodology you can include also a description of the site (if possible a map showing the studdied canton. In the current form the paper is quite blank and impersonal, and doesn't give enough background to the reader in terms of the challenges of the region to better understand it: maybe also some details on the water sources or how the water system works, supply and operation challenges or sustainability challenges or some other details to better understand the preferences.

- The methodology can be improved by offering more details on the questionnaire design and how the survey has been performed (maybe online, how did you identify the actors, profile of the respondents etc.). Since the survey was performed 7 years ago, that would be a major limitation of the paper. Maybe a limitation section outlining the research biases would be welcomed. Or, maybe a more details discussion on what actually changed in the last years, e.g. new companies arosen or any change in the management and coordination etc.

- the paper would benefit if more details on the statistical analysis would be offered and even a re-thinking of the graphical design showing also the scale used to assess the preferences

- the acronym PPP should be explained (is it for the public-private partnerships?)

- the abstract should be re-written to give a stronger focus to the own results and their implication. there are no some general sentences that do no not reflect the content (e.g.  In an age of austerity and a warming climate, public services face challenges to sustainably operate and perform. )

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 2 for their helpful input.  We list the reviewer’s points and then specify how we address these in the manuscript.

- my suggestions is to include sub-section 2.1 as a separate section after the introduction and to have a chapter 3 devoted to the methodology. In this section, maybe a more detailed presentation of the water supply system design in comparison with other supply system would be nice to include. Is it a different organisation of the water system as compared to the energy and why so. Or maybe in the discussion to emphasize a little the differences.

We have moved sub-section 2.1 before the Material and Methods section and have made it is own main section 2. We have also added a paragraph about what is different about the water supply sector at the end of this section 2:

“The above reforms and organizational types are broadly applicable to utility sectors such as electricity and gas (also referred to as network industries), which entail fixed and extensive infrastructure systems to deliver services. However, there are some specificities of the water sector that make it different from other utility sectors. Water is a bulky resource that cannot be cheaply transported to different places. Hence, water is typically locally sourced. This has led to local organization and management of water supply, typically de-facto local monopolies. In addition, municipal water supply is not a marketable product – its price is not determined by a market price, like electricity or gas. It is set and heavily regulated by the government in Switzerland. This leads to a lack of market competition and strong public control and management.

- in the methodology you can include also a description of the site (if possible a map showing the studdied canton. In the current form the paper is quite blank and impersonal, and doesn't give enough background to the reader in terms of the challenges of the region to better understand it: maybe also some details on the water sources or how the water system works, supply and operation challenges or sustainability challenges or some other details to better understand the preferences.”

We have added a map showing the studied canton.

Also, and in line with what reviewer 3 recommends, we have now added this in the methods:

“While water supply in Switzerland in general is abundant, in this region there have been droughts with water scarcity particularly in the hilly regions [28].”

“Surveys show that water users in Switzerland have a strong preference for public forms and that they are satisfied with the current system [32].”

- The methodology can be improved by offering more details on the questionnaire design and how the survey has been performed (maybe online, how did you identify the actors, profile of the respondents etc.).

We have added more detail about the survey design:

“We identified the actors by first assessing who has formal decision-making competences and then through further analysis, interviews and discussion with the Canton, pinpointing which additional stakeholders are relevant. We asked the respondents to answer on behalf of their organization and we selected the heads of organizations.”

“We conducted a mail survey, sending the questionnaire by postal service. Actors were reminded by e-mail and with phone calls.”

- Since the survey was performed 7 years ago, that would be a major limitation of the paper. Maybe a limitation section outlining the research biases would be welcomed. Or, maybe a more details discussion on what actually changed in the last years, e.g. new companies arosen or any change in the management and coordination etc.

We have added a paragraph in the discussion reflecting on what has happened since the survey was conducted:

“Given that the survey was conducted seven years prior to this publication, it is important to reflect on what has happened since then. According to the Canton, not much has changed. There have been incremental changes in some areas, where even the inter-municipal route was difficult to pursue. Instead, the Canton has facilitated a dialogue among the stakeholders in order to find pragmatic solutions. Given the challenge of finding an appropriate organizational type, the actors have instead focused on technical solutions, e.g. connecting physically but not organizationally. The Canton hopes that this technical coordination will eventually also lead to organizational coordination.»

 

- the paper would benefit if more details on the statistical analysis would be offered and even a re-thinking of the graphical design showing also the scale used to assess the preferences

We describe the analysis as follows: “Based on the scores for each question, indices (weight = 1) for each organization were calculated. Aggregating all items per organization then allows assessing the preference for each type of organization for all decision-makers and stakeholders. We display aggregated results (preferred organizational type) for different actors.»

- the acronym PPP should be explained (is it for the public-private partnerships?)

Yes, we have not defined PPP as public-private partnerships.

- the abstract should be re-written to give a stronger focus to the own results and their implication. there are no some general sentences that do no not reflect the content (e.g.  In an age of austerity and a warming climate, public services face challenges to sustainably operate and perform. )

We have re-written the abstract, deleting the very general sentences and adding a concrete conclusion based on our analysis.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors

I find the article very interesting since it describes very well that in Switzerland the potential conflicts in the face of a reform of the water sector do not generate a deep polarization among the stakeholders. This reality is highly contrasting with what happens in other countries with the same problem.

 

I suggest briefly including a context of the availability of water in Switzerland and the satisfaction of households with the services received (consumption, quality and price). This information is important for those who are not familiar with this reality, since it helps to understand the particular preferences of the stakeholders.

Author Response

We would like to thank reviewer 3 for their helpful input.  We list the reviewer’s points and then specify how we address these in the manuscript.

I find the article very interesting since it describes very well that in Switzerland the potential conflicts in the face of a reform of the water sector do not generate a deep polarization among the stakeholders. This reality is highly contrasting with what happens in other countries with the same problem.

 Thanks.

I suggest briefly including a context of the availability of water in Switzerland and the satisfaction of households with the services received (consumption, quality and price). This information is important for those who are not familiar with this reality, since it helps to understand the particular preferences of the stakeholders.

We have now added this in the methods, which is also in line with what reviewer 2 recommends:

“While water supply in Switzerland in general is abundant, in this region there have been droughts with water scarcity particularly in the hilly regions [28].”

“Surveys show that water users in Switzerland have a strong preference for public organizations and that they are satisfied with the current system [32].”

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors considered the suggestions in the first round and adequately revised the manuscript.