Value Engineering Approach to Evaluate the Agricultural Drainage Water Management Strategies
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Editor, Dear Authors
The article submitted for review falls within the domain of the journal and, as much as possible, should be published in it, but only after appropriate corrections have been made
The topic taken up by the Authors is very interesting and original from the point of view of water management in areas with significant shortages. The authors have approached the topic in a very broad way, describing the various drainage water management strategies (ADWMS) with all the conditions that exist in them. Great care and knowledge of the research issue at hand is evident. Purpose and scope of the work correct, methodological assumptions also. The scientific problem was correctly posed, which is crucial for this type of work.
To solve the problem posed, the authors used value engineering (VE) as a problem-solving technique to generate several value alternatives for ADWM strategies and evaluate the value of different alternatives for the strategy using a life cycle cost approach. Using LCC, the cost and return of each ADWM strategy are combined into a single quantitative value.
In my opinion, the purpose of the work has been fully realized, which is evident from the analyses and descriptions and not from the conclusions (this should be improved). Very good graphic design - clear drawings illustrating the processes discussed. The methodological approach of the authors deserves to be emphasized here, who discuss the various aspects in accordance with the adopted methodology.
However, I have several comments that should be clarified in the work or improved:
1. on what basis were the experts selected to evaluate the strategy or who were the experts
2. para. 3.5.2 from where the authors took the 10 criteria for evaluation
3. pt. 4 is not a discussion just a re-writing of previous analyses - no comparison with the results of other authors
4. pt. 5 is not a conclusion just a summary that should address the purpose of the paper in more detail.
After improvement, the work should be resubmitted for review.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the effort and time spent on reviewing this paper. We deeply appreciate your constructive comments and notes. It contributed a lot to enhancing the quality of the paper. All the comments are thoroughly considered, and the paper is updated accordingly. Attached is a list of your comments and their responses. Please accept our acknowledgement and appreciation.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
There is no in-depth statistical analysis. Statistical analysis was not sufficiently discussed. The entire manuscript looks like an excerpt from a report from some major work. Without statistics and research, the article does not contribute to any knowledge development. An expansion of literature, conclusions, and discussions is required.
The authors made a lot of effort but did not discuss many aspects. I believe they should refer to similar publications such as https://doi.org/10.3390/rs14051281 The article is about a digital elevation model (DEM) is an essential element of input data in the model research of watersheds. The study, gradually and with various methods, carried out a great simplification of a detailed LiDAR-derived DEM. Then, the impact of that treatment on the precision of the selected elements for modeling a watershed was assessed. The simplification comprised a reduction in resolution, with the use of statistical resampling methods, namely giving an average, modal, median, minimum, maximum, or the closest value to the pixels.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the effort and time spent on reviewing this paper. We deeply appreciate your constructive comments and notes. It contributed a lot to enhancing the quality of the paper. All the comments are thoroughly considered, and the paper is updated accordingly. Attached is a list of your comments and their responses. Please accept our acknowledgement and appreciation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Generic comments
Introduction – “Agricultural intensification may result in groundwater pollution due to the increased use of pesticides and fertilizers.” Add few references that can confirm what has been stated. For example, nitrogen from fertilizers in one example of diffuse water pollution from agriculture: - Diffuse Water Pollution from Agriculture: A Review of Nature-Based Solutions for Nitrogen Removal and Recovery. Mancuso, G., Bencresciuto, G. F., Lavrnić, S., & Toscano, A. | Water, 13(14), 1893 (2021).
Introduction – “Extra water and salts percolate far down if the soil drains freely and the groundwater table is not saturated.” Also here a couple of references are necessary.
In the introduction section it is not clear which is the purpose of the study. Add this kind of information at the end of the introduction section. The main aim of this study was therefore to… It is not necessary to report this information into the methodology section.
The methodology section is very poor. This in contrast with the results section, which instead prove that a lot of work has been carried out by the authors.
Author Response
We would like to thank the reviewer for the effort and time spent on reviewing this paper. We deeply appreciate your constructive comments and notes. It contributed a lot to enhancing the quality of the paper. All the comments are thoroughly considered, and the paper is updated accordingly. Attached is a list of your comments and their responses. Please accept our acknowledgement and appreciation.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I accept the authors' explanations and recommend the article for publication
Author Response
Please follow the reviewers comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately, the article has not been corrected following the reviewer's comments. There are many unfinished points throughout the manuscript.
No research on it has helped to enrich science. The article is very little research and is not suitable for publication in this state, it would be necessary to thoroughly rebuild all parts of the manuscript.
The discussion was not conducted by the guidelines of the journal. An expansion of literature, conclusions, and discussions is required.
In this form, I advise against publishing the article in this journal.
English needs a lot of improvement.
Author Response
Thank you for valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
