Average rating:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of importance:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of validity:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of completeness:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Level of comprehensibility:	    Rated 4 of 5.
Competing interests:	None

Reviewed article

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Mozambique Public investment in water and sanitation sector and the targets of the SDG6

Manuel Rebelo (2023)

Many developing countries may not reach targets of providing access to safe water sources and sanitation services for all by 2030. Access to these services is a fundamental requirement for the well-being of individuals and the development of nations. A little over half of Mozambique´s population has access to safe water sources. In contrast, access to sanitation services has not kept pace with the progress made in water access. In this article, based on data from the General State Account of Mozambique, which includes the description of annual investment made by the Government and using the results of the Household Budget Surveys, it is shown that if the average percentage values of public investment of 2009 to 2021 be the same in the following years in the water and sanitation sector it will not reach the goals of sustainable objective number 6 in 2030.

1 comments Cited 0 times – based on 0 reviews

Preprint version 1

     Review now

Bookmark

Review information

DOI:: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-ECON.AY2ATN.v1.RZNAZM

License:

This work has been published open access under Creative Commons Attribution License CC BY 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Conditions, terms of use and publishing policy can be found at www.scienceopen.com.

ScienceOpen disciplines: Social & Behavioral Sciences,Economics

Keywords: Mozambique, SGD6, Access to water and Sanitation, Public Investment,Water

Review text

1. Use the standard term (SDG6)

2. should we use objectives for goals?

3. Access to safe water and sanitation services is also determined by the water resources development potential other than investment in infrastructure

4. Again let us be consistent whether we want use goals or objectives

5. The objective of the study should be brought out clearly just before the methods and materials are discussed.

6. Under sec, 2 "Methodology and Materials"; line 1; use the word "study" instead of "article"

7. In table 1: include the year this was prepared

8. How were the comparisons for the datasets done?

9. PQG should be written in full the first time it is used. This applies to all other abbreviations

10. Sec. 3; paragraph 3; Explain briefly why SDG6 has largely been a rhetoric in many African countries

11. Sec. 3; paragraph 4; line 6: Which year does "Currently" refer to

12. Sec. 3; paragraph 4; line 7: When you use these % e.g. 55.7% of population; it is important to give the actual population as well for comparative analysis. Population is dynamic and just a mere % may be misleading.

13. Sec. 3; paragraph 5; line 5: What explains the slow coverage growth rate in (IOF2014/15 and IOF2019/20)?

14. Page 7; paragraph 3; line 2: correct the word "inconstant" to "inconsistent"

15. Page 7; paragraph 3. Is there a direct correlation between the public sector investment, coverage rate and the capacity for the sector to absorb the allocation? This need to be clarified

Comments

Manuel Salvador Conceição Rebelo wrote:

Dear Editor

Thank you for the comments. After the review I´ll send again a new version of the paper.

Regards

Manuel Rebelo

2023-05-17 12:55 UTC

Alfred Opere wrote:

This paper has clearly demostrated the central role of public sector investment on the growth rate of water & sanitation coverage in Mozambique. It has revealed that there is a pattern that shows a positive relationship between the increase in
access to water and sanitation with the transfers made by the OGE for investment in water sector.

I recommend it's publication subject to the review comments being addresed by the author(s).

2023-05-04 09:13 UTC

One person recommends this

Comment on this review

Version and Review History

Published Version

Preprint version 2

Preprint version 1

Reviewed by UCL Open: Environment Editorial Office Reviewed by Alfred Opere