Impacts of science on society and policy in global river basins

Wu, Shuanglei; Wei, Yongping

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72

Preprints

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72

Preprints

21 Mar 2024

| 21 Mar 2024

Status: a revised version of this preprint was accepted for the journal HESS and is expected to appear here in due course.

Impacts of science on society and policy in global river basins

Shuanglei Wu and Yongping Wei

Abstract. Radical transformations of knowledge development are required to the sustainability issues in the Anthropocene. This study developed a framework to understand the internal structures of knowledge development with two dimensions: Degree of Multidisciplinarity and Degree of Issue-connectivity. Examining the knowledge development in 72 river basins globally from 1962 to 2017, it was found that the knowledge systems were characterized by intensified issues studied and low and ungrown disciplinary engagement. Evaluating these structural characteristics against 6 impact indicators on society and policy, over 90 % of rivers were found to had knowledge structures that strongly linked to societal impacts whereas only 57 % were to the policy. Analysis were further conducted to find that about 35 % of rivers mostly in Asia, Africa, and South America were prone to knowledge structures that had limited capacities to effectively address negative environmental impacts and resource depletions issues. Improving multidisciplinary research is the key to transforming the current knowledge structure to support more sustainable river basin development.

Received: 06 Mar 2024 – Discussion started: 21 Mar 2024

Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this preprint. The responsibility to include appropriate place names lies with the authors.

Download & links

Shuanglei Wu and Yongping Wei

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2024

The manuscript systematically elaborates on the knowledge system of key river. Among them, the key processes and algorithms has its further selection principles or unique applicability, and there is a detailed introduction. This is very important in the evaluation of knowledge system services and is more conducive to comparison between different studies. However, after overall review, there are still many doubts regarding the following:

Overall Comment:
(1) Formula Standardization
There are descriptive words in formulas 1, 2, and 3 in the manuscript. Please explain the variables and their meanings in a more explicit way (e.g. "where, x is … " in Eq.3), and use a more explicit variable calculation form to present the "median" (Eq.3).
(2) Structural Issues
Can the representation of the framework in Section 2 be considered as a preface to the Methods section? Among them, the density of the discipline-issue network and the calculation method for the degree centrality of the issue network are all in the Section 3. It becomes clearer whether they can be merged.
(3) Comprehensive Knowledge Structure
The selection of 72 river basins is mostly typical of river systems in various continents, and is also significantly influenced by human activities. And the information must also be relatively detailed, which is a necessary foundation for this research method. However, can the representativeness of social and policy analysis be highlighted based on existing analysis results? ("Abstract: …Evaluating these structural characteristics against 6 impact indicators on society and policy, over 90% of rivers were found to had knowledge structures that strongly linked to societal impacts whereas only 57% were to the policy…") After all, the title mentions global river basins, but currently the intuitive feeling is to search for conclusions in large rivers influenced by humans, which always feels somewhat inappropriate. Please take above concern into consideration.
Additionally, why are there missing rivers in the North Asian region, such as the Ob River and Yenisei River basins? Will the North Asian rivers, which are relatively low in human activity, affect the relevant conclusions on policy and social impact in the abstract?
(4) Support for key conclusions in the manuscript
The following sentence is an explanation of the key conclusions in the abstract ("Abstract: …over 90% of rivers were found to had knowledge structures that strongly linked to societal impacts whereas only 57% were to the policy"). However, is the R2 the smallest among the 41 basins greater than 0.3, or is the mean of the 41 basins greater than 0.3? The R2 value is indeed a bit low, and the correlation explanation is weak; But it is possible that in such studies, more than 0.3 has already met the interpretive requirements. The manuscript can supplement the general situation of R2 in similar studies and compare the level of 0.3. To enhance the reliability of the conclusions of this article.
" The structural characteristics of the knowledge systems had been strongly linked to the society indicators with over 90% river basins had acceptable regression model fits, but much weaker with the policy indicators as only 41 river basins had two or more linear models that validated the relationships between their knowledge systems and the policy (adjusted R2 > 0.3, statistical significance p < 0.05). "
(5) Section of "Data and code availability"
(Only representing personal opinions) Compared to conclusive summaries, collecting and organizing information and making accurate judgments in the process will be more important. Can the manuscript be supplemented with information about the data or list of statistically analyzed in the article, in order to facilitate further research development or review during the evaluation process.

General Comment:
(1) Image clarity
The text resolution in Figure 2-c is not sufficient to see clearly, and there is overlap with the 0-axis. Is the threshold for "low DM" or "high DI" in the manuscript Line 230~235) divided by the 25th and 75th percentiles in box boundaries?
The resolution in the all figures is not clear, especially in the form of coordinate axis subfigures.
(2) Optimization processing of Appendix
The table in the Appendix only requires quantity, and the proportion of 0.00% is the result of omitted accuracy. The number of columns can be changed to reduce pages (Table A1, Table A2).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shuanglei Wu, 09 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript. We have prepared a point-by-point response to all your comments. Please kindly refer to the supplement document attached, which contans the detailed response and a list of supporting references.
  Thank you very much!
  Best regards,
  Shuanglei Wu
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-AC1
CC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-72', Shuai Wang, 13 May 2024

This study on the impacts of scientific knowledge development on society and policy within global river basins is both timely and insightful. The framework for measuring knowledge systems through network dimensions of multidisciplinarity and issue-connectivity is commendable. Here are some review comments:

Framework and Methodology:Elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of your proposed framework and discuss its potential for long-term applicability.
Data and Analysis:Consider the inclusion of additional data sources beyond Web of Science, such as conference papers or government reports, to enhance the study's comprehensiveness.
Address the potential variability in keyword extraction and clustering across different languages and regions.
Results Interpretation:You note a strong correlation between knowledge structures and societal impacts, but a weaker link with policy. What might account for this discrepancy? Further analysis or discussion on this point would be beneficial.
Discussion and Conclusions:
You highlight the importance of interdisciplinary research, particularly in Asian, African, and South American river basins. Could you suggest specific strategies to foster such research in these areas?
The concept of "boundary spanning organizations" is introduced as a solution. Further details on the form and mechanisms of these organizations would be valuable.
Overall, this manuscript is well-written, but certain sections could benefit from further linguistic refinement to enhance clarity and flow. This research provides valuable insights into the structure of scientific knowledge within global river basins and offers constructive strategies for sustainable development. I look forward to your feedback on these comments and the revised manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Shuanglei Wu, 09 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Prof. Wang,
  Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript. We have prepared a point-by-point response to all your comments. Please kindly refer to the supplement document attached, which contans the detailed response and a list of supporting references.
  Thank you very much!
  Best regards,
  Shuanglei Wu
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on hess-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 May 2024

This study on the impacts of scientific knowledge development on society and policy within global river basins is both timely and insightful. The framework for measuring knowledge systems through network dimensions of multidisciplinarity and issue-connectivity is commendable. Here are some review comments:

Framework and Methodology:Elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of your proposed framework and discuss its potential for long-term applicability.
Data and Analysis:Consider the inclusion of additional data sources beyond Web of Science, such as conference papers or government reports, to enhance the study's comprehensiveness.
Address the potential variability in keyword extraction and clustering across different languages and regions.
Results Interpretation:You note a strong correlation between knowledge structures and societal impacts, but a weaker link with policy. What might account for this discrepancy? Further analysis or discussion on this point would be beneficial.
Discussion and Conclusions:
You highlight the importance of interdisciplinary research, particularly in Asian, African, and South American river basins. Could you suggest specific strategies to foster such research in these areas?
The concept of "boundary spanning organizations" is introduced as a solution. Further details on the form and mechanisms of these organizations would be valuable.
Overall, this manuscript is well-written, but certain sections could benefit from further linguistic refinement to enhance clarity and flow. This research provides valuable insights into the structure of scientific knowledge within global river basins and offers constructive strategies for sustainable development. I look forward to your feedback on these comments and the revised manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shuanglei Wu, 09 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript. We have prepared a point-by-point response to all your comments. Please kindly refer to the supplement document attached, which contans the detailed response and a list of supporting references.
  Thank you very much!
  Best regards,
  Shuanglei Wu
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-AC2

Status: closed

RC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #1, 07 May 2024

The manuscript systematically elaborates on the knowledge system of key river. Among them, the key processes and algorithms has its further selection principles or unique applicability, and there is a detailed introduction. This is very important in the evaluation of knowledge system services and is more conducive to comparison between different studies. However, after overall review, there are still many doubts regarding the following:

Overall Comment:
(1) Formula Standardization
There are descriptive words in formulas 1, 2, and 3 in the manuscript. Please explain the variables and their meanings in a more explicit way (e.g. "where, x is … " in Eq.3), and use a more explicit variable calculation form to present the "median" (Eq.3).
(2) Structural Issues
Can the representation of the framework in Section 2 be considered as a preface to the Methods section? Among them, the density of the discipline-issue network and the calculation method for the degree centrality of the issue network are all in the Section 3. It becomes clearer whether they can be merged.
(3) Comprehensive Knowledge Structure
The selection of 72 river basins is mostly typical of river systems in various continents, and is also significantly influenced by human activities. And the information must also be relatively detailed, which is a necessary foundation for this research method. However, can the representativeness of social and policy analysis be highlighted based on existing analysis results? ("Abstract: …Evaluating these structural characteristics against 6 impact indicators on society and policy, over 90% of rivers were found to had knowledge structures that strongly linked to societal impacts whereas only 57% were to the policy…") After all, the title mentions global river basins, but currently the intuitive feeling is to search for conclusions in large rivers influenced by humans, which always feels somewhat inappropriate. Please take above concern into consideration.
Additionally, why are there missing rivers in the North Asian region, such as the Ob River and Yenisei River basins? Will the North Asian rivers, which are relatively low in human activity, affect the relevant conclusions on policy and social impact in the abstract?
(4) Support for key conclusions in the manuscript
The following sentence is an explanation of the key conclusions in the abstract ("Abstract: …over 90% of rivers were found to had knowledge structures that strongly linked to societal impacts whereas only 57% were to the policy"). However, is the R2 the smallest among the 41 basins greater than 0.3, or is the mean of the 41 basins greater than 0.3? The R2 value is indeed a bit low, and the correlation explanation is weak; But it is possible that in such studies, more than 0.3 has already met the interpretive requirements. The manuscript can supplement the general situation of R2 in similar studies and compare the level of 0.3. To enhance the reliability of the conclusions of this article.
" The structural characteristics of the knowledge systems had been strongly linked to the society indicators with over 90% river basins had acceptable regression model fits, but much weaker with the policy indicators as only 41 river basins had two or more linear models that validated the relationships between their knowledge systems and the policy (adjusted R2 > 0.3, statistical significance p < 0.05). "
(5) Section of "Data and code availability"
(Only representing personal opinions) Compared to conclusive summaries, collecting and organizing information and making accurate judgments in the process will be more important. Can the manuscript be supplemented with information about the data or list of statistically analyzed in the article, in order to facilitate further research development or review during the evaluation process.

General Comment:
(1) Image clarity
The text resolution in Figure 2-c is not sufficient to see clearly, and there is overlap with the 0-axis. Is the threshold for "low DM" or "high DI" in the manuscript Line 230~235) divided by the 25th and 75th percentiles in box boundaries?
The resolution in the all figures is not clear, especially in the form of coordinate axis subfigures.
(2) Optimization processing of Appendix
The table in the Appendix only requires quantity, and the proportion of 0.00% is the result of omitted accuracy. The number of columns can be changed to reduce pages (Table A1, Table A2).

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-RC1
- AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Shuanglei Wu, 09 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript. We have prepared a point-by-point response to all your comments. Please kindly refer to the supplement document attached, which contans the detailed response and a list of supporting references.
  Thank you very much!
  Best regards,
  Shuanglei Wu
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-AC1
CC1:
'Comment on hess-2024-72', Shuai Wang, 13 May 2024

This study on the impacts of scientific knowledge development on society and policy within global river basins is both timely and insightful. The framework for measuring knowledge systems through network dimensions of multidisciplinarity and issue-connectivity is commendable. Here are some review comments:

Framework and Methodology:Elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of your proposed framework and discuss its potential for long-term applicability.
Data and Analysis:Consider the inclusion of additional data sources beyond Web of Science, such as conference papers or government reports, to enhance the study's comprehensiveness.
Address the potential variability in keyword extraction and clustering across different languages and regions.
Results Interpretation:You note a strong correlation between knowledge structures and societal impacts, but a weaker link with policy. What might account for this discrepancy? Further analysis or discussion on this point would be beneficial.
Discussion and Conclusions:
You highlight the importance of interdisciplinary research, particularly in Asian, African, and South American river basins. Could you suggest specific strategies to foster such research in these areas?
The concept of "boundary spanning organizations" is introduced as a solution. Further details on the form and mechanisms of these organizations would be valuable.
Overall, this manuscript is well-written, but certain sections could benefit from further linguistic refinement to enhance clarity and flow. This research provides valuable insights into the structure of scientific knowledge within global river basins and offers constructive strategies for sustainable development. I look forward to your feedback on these comments and the revised manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-CC1
- AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Shuanglei Wu, 09 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Prof. Wang,
  Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript. We have prepared a point-by-point response to all your comments. Please kindly refer to the supplement document attached, which contans the detailed response and a list of supporting references.
  Thank you very much!
  Best regards,
  Shuanglei Wu
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-AC3
RC2:
'Comment on hess-2024-72', Anonymous Referee #2, 14 May 2024

This study on the impacts of scientific knowledge development on society and policy within global river basins is both timely and insightful. The framework for measuring knowledge systems through network dimensions of multidisciplinarity and issue-connectivity is commendable. Here are some review comments:

Framework and Methodology:Elaborate on the theoretical underpinnings of your proposed framework and discuss its potential for long-term applicability.
Data and Analysis:Consider the inclusion of additional data sources beyond Web of Science, such as conference papers or government reports, to enhance the study's comprehensiveness.
Address the potential variability in keyword extraction and clustering across different languages and regions.
Results Interpretation:You note a strong correlation between knowledge structures and societal impacts, but a weaker link with policy. What might account for this discrepancy? Further analysis or discussion on this point would be beneficial.
Discussion and Conclusions:
You highlight the importance of interdisciplinary research, particularly in Asian, African, and South American river basins. Could you suggest specific strategies to foster such research in these areas?
The concept of "boundary spanning organizations" is introduced as a solution. Further details on the form and mechanisms of these organizations would be valuable.
Overall, this manuscript is well-written, but certain sections could benefit from further linguistic refinement to enhance clarity and flow. This research provides valuable insights into the structure of scientific knowledge within global river basins and offers constructive strategies for sustainable development. I look forward to your feedback on these comments and the revised manuscript.

Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-RC2
- AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Shuanglei Wu, 09 Jun 2024
  
  Dear Reviewer,
  Thank you very much for your detailed and insightful comments on the manuscript. We have prepared a point-by-point response to all your comments. Please kindly refer to the supplement document attached, which contans the detailed response and a list of supporting references.
  Thank you very much!
  Best regards,
  Shuanglei Wu
  
  Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-72-AC2

Shuanglei Wu and Yongping Wei

Viewed

Total article views: 385 (including HTML, PDF, and XML)

HTML	PDF	XML	Total	BibTeX	EndNote
273	81	31	385	23	19

HTML: 273
PDF: 81
XML: 31
Total: 385
BibTeX: 23
EndNote: 19

Views and downloads (calculated since 21 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	124	37	3	164
Apr 2024	61	14	10	85
May 2024	53	14	11	78
Jun 2024	35	16	7	58

Cumulative views and downloads (calculated since 21 Mar 2024)

Month	HTML	PDF	XML	Total
Mar 2024	124	37	3	164
Apr 2024	61	14	10	85
May 2024	53	14	11	78
Jun 2024	35	16	7	58

Viewed (geographical distribution)

Total article views: 362 (including HTML, PDF, and XML) Thereof 362 with geography defined and 0 with unknown origin.

Country	#	Views	%

Latest update: 29 Jun 2024

Short summary

This study developed a framework to understand the internal structures of knowledge development and applied in 72 river basins globally from 1962 to 2017. It was found that the knowledge systems were characterized by intensified management issues and low and ungrown disciplinary engagement. It provides empirical understanding on the current state of river basin knowledge, and casts light on convergence research and post normal science for global science-policy integration.


Total:	0
HTML:	0
PDF:	0
XML:	0