Foresight for Sustainable Water Futures in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Systematic Review
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see attached document.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
None
Author Response
General Comments and Suggestions to Authors:
It is unclear how foresight strategies and methodologies enhance future decision making and future planning, granted that this is a review paper but surely, there must be some sort of way to make this aspect as well as linkages to sustainability concerns explicit – none of these are apparent. The conceptual framework must be clear as to where the paper is going, clear lines of thought, incorporate a golden thread if you will. This necessitates some specificity as to what the key ideas or findings are, this will enhance clarity in the minds of readers. This (lines 17-19), ‘The findings indicate that foresight research in most countries in SSA is in its early stages, is narrowly focused, uses foresight tools or approaches in isolation and employs siloed approaches for overall decision-making,’ must be made explicit. Having read the paper, I do not come away with the feeling that this has been clearly demonstrated. It might help the authors to ask the question “what did they seek to achieve in the first places, what are the key ideas they want to highlight”, then structure the paper in way that robustly brings this out.
It is not enough for a systematic review to simply report results, the paper is simply reporting the results of the review, which have not been dissected and/or synthesized in such a way as to offer instructive insights? What is the stated research question? Thinking about this will help crystallize the analysis and reporting.
The authors should perhaps ask the question “if I were a researcher or policymaker, how useful would this paper be in informing further research or policies?” If the answer to this question does not jump out quickly and clearly, then more work needs to be done as the story has not been properly told.
Secondly, the authors need to think more carefully about establishing context – a thorough description of the study’s context which clearly explains foundational concepts and processes that underlie or provide background to what is being discussed is important as it helps readers understand what the authors are trying to discuss. As it stands, the introduction feels like being given a map with part of the map missing, which makes it hard to navigate. Remember that this is not a quantitative paper and so the writing must be explicit.
Lastly, if this paper is based on PhD dissertation research, what is new? What insights were obtained from the PhD; it is not apparent from the paper that new knowledge was identified. Surely, there must be a way to integrate or juxtapose material from the PhD research with the findings from the review? Otherwise, remove the reference to the PhD research. Have I misread what the authors seek to convey in lines 507-508?
Response to General Comments and Suggestions to Authors:
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing valuable feedback, which will significantly contribute to improving the quality and clarity of our paper.
Below, we have provided detailed responses to each of the reviewers’ comments and outlined the revisions made to address their concerns.
Specific Comments:
Comment 1: Line 17 and 19: Typo in the text ‘isola-tion.’
Response 1: This was a typo and has been corrected. The font is coloured red for easy identification in the revised manuscript as shown in line 19.
Comment 2: Line 19: Unless I missed it, the paper does not elucidate on what a transdisciplinary approach is (is this from a research perspective or do the authors mean integrated approach?) Also see line 503.
Response 2: A transdisciplinary approach has been defined to make it clearer to the reader and the text is coloured red in the manuscript. Please see lines 505 – 507.
Comment 3: Line 22: Consider revising the key words: water and scenarios? These are common words that do not carry any weight in the greater scheme of the paper.
Response 3: The keyword “water” has been removed and the keyword “scenarios” has been replaced with “scenarios planning”
Comment 4: Lines 25-30: Individual assertions or paraphrased material should be cited. More importantly, it is not exactly clear what the authors are trying to say here when attempting to establish context – not really coherent.
Response 4: These opening statements have been rephrased for coherence and to make it clearer to the reader as shown in lines 25 -33.
Comment 5: Line 35: It is not necessary to state ‘thinking outside the box’ as it does not really cohere with the preceding statement?
Response 5: This has been removed.
Comment 6: Line 57: Is this really saying anything?: ‘Instead, they should be considered plausible alternative paths of complex systems’. Sounds counterintuitive when considering relevance and applicability?
Response 6: This has been removed.
Comment 7: Lines 58-62: It might be useful to define exploratory scenarios first since this precedes normative in the writing?
Response 7: The definitions have been interchanged as shown in lines 58 - 61
Comment 8: Lines 64-73: Relating to the preceding material (the authors are weaving in and out of somewhat unconnected ideas), so this section sounds disjointed. The authors should consider sequentially discussing ideas, fully parsing out the ideas before introducing other related material – as a reader, I am asking the question “what are they saying and what have they established so far?” For instance (lines 63-64) says, ‘The literature suggests that to adequately address sustainability and resilience in strategic foresight, three dimensions need to be considered: the issues or indicators, the scale or space considered, and the timeframe,’ the next statement then discusses expert-public interface issues?
Response 8: We agree that the first and second parts of this paragraph might be non-sequential. Therefore, the first part has been removed for a better flow.
Comment 9: Line 84: It is not clear why this is included here, as it should be assumed and applies to all scenarios: ‘but not fully overcoming water security.’
Response 9: This was just to provide a more detailed explanation but has been removed for better clarity to the reader.
Comment 10: Line 94: Consider rephrasing, does not sound good: ‘Nonetheless, at a detailed level.’
Response 10: This has been rephrased for clarity as shown in lines 91 - 92
Comment 11: Line 113: What numerous challenges, would it not be useful to specify these, some readers may not know what they are, and it helps establish context.
Response 11: Some of the major challenges experienced have been specified as shown in lines 111 – 114.
Comment 12: Lines 112-121: The authors have provided information on foresight initiatives/studies from other regions of the world but none from Africa, then proceeded to state that SSA is the subject of the review? Have I misread this?
Response 12: The intention was to highlight what has been done in developed regions and introduce the rational for the review which is to investigate how much research has been done in SSA and how has SSA contributed to the discourse of foresight in water resource and infrastructure management.
Comment 13: Line 136: The authors conducted the search once on a specific day? ‘On the 24th of October 2023?’ Only once?
Response 13: In line with the PRISMA extended checklist (attached as a supplementary material), specifying the date when each source was last consulted in recommended. This review was conducted over a period, but papers were downloaded (into EndNote) from the said databases on the 24th of October 2023. In addition, all searches in the databases were saved and alerts set for any new publications which would have been added to the review if it meets the inclusion criteria.
Comment 14: Line 208: There are a lot of figures in this paper depicting information that can be simply stated in the text, too many figures may give the paper have the appearance of trying too hard.
Response 14: We have decided to retain the figures, as we think they do complement the points being made in the text.
Comment 15: Line 211: This needs parsing out: ‘All 36 studies focused on some form of scenario development and planning with the primary areas of focus covered in 4 main themes’ – this is why it is critical to lay down a strong and explicitly clear theoretical context in the introduction, so that such material/results can be better understood by readers. At this point, I am still thinking where is this going? Some of the text here should have been used to establish contest earlier on (introduction) – provide a thorough consideration of ‘normative’ and ‘exploratory’ approaches, deeper engagement with each including the their pros and cons as outlined in the evidentiary literature. There are bits and pieces introduced in different sections of the paper, this takes away from coherence.
Response 15: The introduction outlines the two main tools used in the management of environmental issues (horizon scanning and scenario planning) and the instances where they are used (Lines 49 - 55). It also goes on to describe qualitative and quantitative foresight approaches and reason why a combined approach is mostly used for robust decision-making (Lines 44 - 48). The different categories of scenarios (exploratory and normative) are also described in the introduction (Lines 58 – 61)
Comment 16: Line 248: ‘Acting is’ or acting in isolation?
Response 16: This is a typo and has been corrected.
Comment 17: Lines 246-260: Are these reported findings from the review, these are common knowledge drivers, so what is instructive here?
Response 17: To better understand and plan for the future, the critical drivers of change need to be identified. The drivers listed here, even though are common knowledge, are the drivers identified from the review as critical to the planning and management of water resources and infrastructure in SSA.
Comment 18: Lines 271-276: The authors state, ‘In this current review, most of the studies being applied in SSA failed to follow all these proposed steps. It is believed that this is because studies tried to simplify the process and delve deeply into one or two of the outlined steps rather than covering the whole process. The two steps mostly employed were ‘Forecasting’ and ‘Visioning’, which involved identifying signals and trends (with the use of statistical or modelling tools) and making sense of these inputs via scenario planning and analysis.’ This is fine, but it is descriptive and offers little in the way of something that is tangible, what are we to go away with here? What methodological insights are there that can reconcile some of the issues raised since this paper discusses methodologies, the authors state limitations of quantitative modelling, again these are widely known (see lines 14-15; 489-490.
Response 18: This has been addressed as shown in lines 276 - 278
Comment 19: Line 362-363: reconsider this: ‘it appears that insufficient time was spent developing scenario narratives.’ So, there is no concrete evidence?
Response 19: This has been rephrased as shown in lines 364 - 366
Comment 20: Line 393: Consider rephrasing, I am not sure what this is saying: ‘whilst others went on to study the long-term risk for drought in the presence of evapotranspiration and water availability.’ In the presence of evapotranspiration and water availability? Perhaps rephrase or qualify this?
Response 20: This has been rephrased as shown in lines 395 - 398
Comment 21: Line 395-397: Perhaps offer some explanation/rationalize for this unique future outcome for Ethiopia?
Response 21: This has been explained as shown in lines 400 - 402
Comment 22: Line 481: Consider deleting, adds nothing as it sort of given.
Response 22: This has been deleted as recommended
Comment 23: Lines 496 and 497: Both sentences start with ‘in addition,’ consider revising, it doesn’t read well.
Response 23: This has been revised as recommended
Comment 24: Line 503: Does not seem to logically fit with the preceding statement. Did the authors mean to say, “integrated approach?”
Response 24: This has been clarified as shown in lines 505 - 507
Comment 25: Line 505: Is this supposed to be the study’s limitations, if so, follow standard writing conventions.
Response 25: Yes, these describe the limitations of the study and have been rephrased as shown in lines 511 - 519
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis work presents a significant contribution to the field of sustainable water management, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. It systematically reviews existing literature on foresight strategies and methodologies aimed at improving decision-making for equitable and sustainable access to potable water. By addressing the unique challenges faced in this region, such as socio-economic changes and environmental uncertainties, the paper highlights the need for adaptive and flexible approaches to planning and decision-making.
Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in understanding potential future scenarios, which can inform better policy and practice. This contribution is particularly relevant given the increasing pressures on water resources and the urgent need for sustainable solutions in developing countries. The research does not only adds to the academic discourse but also provides practical insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in water management in Sub-Saharan Africa.
In terms of the organisation, the work is well organized and comprehensive. The paper follows a systematic review format, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, which ensures a structured approach to literature selection and analysis. It clearly outlines the methodology used for the review, including eligibility criteria and search strategies, which enhances the transparency and reproducibility of the research.
The paper is divided into distinct sections that address various aspects of the topic, including the drivers of change affecting water security, approaches to foresight analysis, and the results of the literature review. Each section is logically sequenced, allowing readers to follow the progression of ideas and findings easily.
Additionally, the review covers a broad range of themes related to water management, such as water resource management, sanitation, and the food-water-energy nexus, providing a holistic view of the challenges and strategies in the field. The inclusion of figures and tables to summarize findings further aids in comprehension and highlights key points effectively.
Similarly, the work is scientifically sound and not misleading. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature, following established guidelines (PRISMA) to ensure a rigorous and transparent methodology. This approach helps to minimize bias and enhances the reliability of the findings.
The review critically examines various studies related to foresight strategies for water management in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the existing research. The authors acknowledge the early stages of foresight research in the region and the need for a more interdisciplinary approach, which reflects a balanced understanding of the current state of knowledge.
Moreover, the paper discusses the complexities and multifaceted challenges in the water sector, including climate change, governance, and infrastructure issues, without oversimplifying these problems. By addressing these critical challenges and recommending a transdisciplinary systems approach, the authors provide a nuanced perspective that is grounded in the realities of the region.
In terms of the references, the work includes appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work. The authors systematically review the literature on foresight strategies and methodologies relevant to sustainable water management in Sub-Saharan Africa, citing a range of studies that contribute to the understanding of the topic.
The paper references foundational works in the field of foresight, as well as more recent studies that highlight the evolving landscape of water resource management. By doing so, it situates the current research within the broader context of existing knowledge, demonstrating an awareness of the historical development of foresight as a discipline and its application to water management.
Additionally, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the themes covered in the literature, including the methodologies employed and the geographical focus of the studies reviewed [T3]. This thorough referencing not only supports the claims made in the paper but also allows readers to explore the cited works for further information, thereby enhancing the academic rigour of the research.
In terms of the English Language use, the English used in the work is correct and readable. The authors employ clear and concise language throughout the paper, making complex concepts accessible to a broad audience. The structure of the sentences is generally straightforward, which aids in comprehension.
Comments for authors’ consideration and additions:
1. Discussion of Findings: In the results and discussion sections, it would be helpful to explicitly connect findings to the broader implications for policy and practice in Sub-Saharan Africa. Discuss how the insights gained can inform decision-making and future research.
2. Visual Aids: Consider using more visual aids (e.g., charts, graphs, and tables) to present data clearly and effectively.
3. Stakeholder Engagement: please discuss how stakeholder engagement should be considered in the research.
4. Expand on Foresight Methodologies: Provide a more in-depth discussion of the foresight methodologies used in the studies reviewed. This could include a comparison of different approaches and their effectiveness in addressing water management challenges.
5. Address Limitations: Acknowledge any limitations of the study, such as potential biases in the literature reviewed or gaps in the data. Discussing limitations demonstrates a critical understanding of the research process.
6. Future Research Directions: Suggest areas for future research based on the findings of your study. This could include exploring specific case studies, testing foresight methodologies in different contexts, or examining the long-term impacts of water management policies.
Author Response
General Comments and Suggestions to Authors:
This work presents a significant contribution to the field of sustainable water management, particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa. It systematically reviews existing literature on foresight strategies and methodologies aimed at improving decision-making for equitable and sustainable access to potable water. By addressing the unique challenges faced in this region, such as socio-economic changes and environmental uncertainties, the paper highlights the need for adaptive and flexible approaches to planning and decision-making.
Furthermore, the study emphasizes the importance of both quantitative and qualitative methodologies in understanding potential future scenarios, which can inform better policy and practice. This contribution is particularly relevant given the increasing pressures on water resources and the urgent need for sustainable solutions in developing countries. The research does not only adds to the academic discourse but also provides practical insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in water management in Sub-Saharan Africa.
In terms of the organisation, the work is well organized and comprehensive. The paper follows a systematic review format, adhering to the PRISMA guidelines, which ensures a structured approach to literature selection and analysis. It clearly outlines the methodology used for the review, including eligibility criteria and search strategies, which enhances the transparency and reproducibility of the research.
The paper is divided into distinct sections that address various aspects of the topic, including the drivers of change affecting water security, approaches to foresight analysis, and the results of the literature review. Each section is logically sequenced, allowing readers to follow the progression of ideas and findings easily.
Additionally, the review covers a broad range of themes related to water management, such as water resource management, sanitation, and the food-water-energy nexus, providing a holistic view of the challenges and strategies in the field. The inclusion of figures and tables to summarize findings further aids in comprehension and highlights key points effectively.
Similarly, the work is scientifically sound and not misleading. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature, following established guidelines (PRISMA) to ensure a rigorous and transparent methodology. This approach helps to minimize bias and enhances the reliability of the findings.
The review critically examines various studies related to foresight strategies for water management in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting both the strengths and limitations of the existing research. The authors acknowledge the early stages of foresight research in the region and the need for a more interdisciplinary approach, which reflects a balanced understanding of the current state of knowledge.
Moreover, the paper discusses the complexities and multifaceted challenges in the water sector, including climate change, governance, and infrastructure issues, without oversimplifying these problems. By addressing these critical challenges and recommending a transdisciplinary systems approach, the authors provide a nuanced perspective that is grounded in the realities of the region.
In terms of the references, the work includes appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work. The authors systematically review the literature on foresight strategies and methodologies relevant to sustainable water management in Sub-Saharan Africa, citing a range of studies that contribute to the understanding of the topic.
The paper references foundational works in the field of foresight, as well as more recent studies that highlight the evolving landscape of water resource management. By doing so, it situates the current research within the broader context of existing knowledge, demonstrating an awareness of the historical development of foresight as a discipline and its application to water management.
Additionally, the authors provide a comprehensive overview of the themes covered in the literature, including the methodologies employed and the geographical focus of the studies reviewed [T3]. This thorough referencing not only supports the claims made in the paper but also allows readers to explore the cited works for further information, thereby enhancing the academic rigour of the research.
In terms of the English Language use, the English used in the work is correct and readable. The authors employ clear and concise language throughout the paper, making complex concepts accessible to a broad audience. The structure of the sentences is generally straightforward, which aids in comprehension.
Response to General Comments and Suggestions to Authors:
We would like to express our sincere gratitude for your thorough review and insightful comments on our manuscript. We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in providing valuable feedback, which will significantly contribute to improving the quality and clarity of our paper.
Below, we have provided detailed responses to each of the reviewers’ comments and outlined the revisions made to address their concerns.
Specific Comments:
Comment 1: Discussion of Findings: In the results and discussion sections, it would be helpful to explicitly connect findings to the broader implications for policy and practice in Sub-Saharan Africa. Discuss how the insights gained can inform decision-making and future research
Response 1: This has been addressed as shown in lines 505 – 510
Comment 2: Visual Aids: Consider using more visual aids (e.g., charts, graphs, and tables) to present data clearly and effectively.
Response 2: While we agree that visual aids generally help with effective data presentation, in this case, however, following a keen consideration of the reviewer’s comments, we couldn’t think of a single additional visual aid to add significant value to the manuscript.
Comment 3: Stakeholder Engagement: please discuss how stakeholder engagement should be considered in the research.
Response 3: Stakeholder engagement is introduced in the introduction as shown in lines 62 – 70. Section 4.2.2 also discusses the importance of stakeholder engagement and compares this to expert-driven approaches for foresight as encountered in the review.
Comment 4: Expand on Foresight Methodologies: Provide a more in-depth discussion of the foresight methodologies used in the studies reviewed. This could include a comparison of different approaches and their effectiveness in addressing water management challenges.
Response 4: Section 3.5 and 4.2 describe the foresight methodologies employed in the studies reviewed, with discussions on merits and demerits of the various methodologies and their effectiveness in water resource and infrastructure management.
Comment 5: Address Limitations: Acknowledge any limitations of the study, such as potential biases in the literature reviewed or gaps in the data. Discussing limitations demonstrates a critical understanding of the research process.
Response 5: This has been addressed as shown in lines 511 – 519 in the revised manuscript
Comment 6: Future Research Directions: Suggest areas for future research based on the findings of your study. This could include exploring specific case studies, testing foresight methodologies in different contexts, or examining the long-term impacts of water management policies.
Response 6: This has been addressed as shown in lines 507-510 in the revised manuscript
