A Step toward Water Use Sustainability: Implementing a Business Model Canvas for Irrigation Advisory Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article demonstrates novelty of research on irrigation advisory services. The application of business model canvas potentially shed lights on scaling up IAS through innovation and business perspectives. However, the article has notable limitations in conceptuals and analysis. The parts of discussions are weak and should be further strengthened.

Specific comments are followings. 

The motivation of the article is insufficient. There are many limitations behind the adoption of IAS. Why BMC is an approach to overcoming these limitations? What is the theory of change?

 Survey and data. It is not entirely clear how the BMC elements are drawn and developed from the two rounds of data collection. Were the two surveys related and nested, in terms of region or projects? For the purpose of completeness and transparency of introducing the research design, the authors may consider to provide a table that clearly describes the originating questions in the survey (e.g. multi-stakeholder survey, SWOT analysis and choice experiment of farmers) and the corresponding BMC elements.

 Users segments. It would be helpful and important for the authors to provide a framework of user segments, i.e. farmers, WUA and Region. The value of BMC is underpinned by multiple stakeholder perspectives at different levels. However, the user segments developed by the authors do not provide conceptual settings for such an ecosystem of IASs.

 L168. The sentence is grammatically wrong.

 

L199. The citing study of Altobelli is important. Which elements of business model are taken from the citing study? By the way, the citation information is not completing; journal information is missing (L391)

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

In the method, it is suggested to provide information about the geographical distribution of the respondents and interviewees. Also, if there are differences in terms of infrastructure and irrigation system in these areas, it should be mentioned. Can the mentioned variables affect the results?

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made efforts to address the comments raised by the reviewers. To strengthen the article, the authors are suggested to improving the abstract. In addition to the value proposition of the article and research gaps that the article aims to fill, the findings and conclusions should be specified in better ways. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx