The paper presents an interesting application of VBN theory to analyze the relations between environmental values and climate change beliefs to personal norms and decision-making on improving irrigation efficiency. It is well structured and easy-reading. I do not find major corrections but a few minor ones and some general comments: 1) The title is slightly misleading in that groundwater management usually refers to the collective institutional arrangements that a community develops to deal with the exploitation of aquifers and, eventually, with the reduction of unsustainable exploitation patters. The paper does not analyze anything related to groundwater management but to water management at farm level. Indeed, the fact that it is groundwater is circumstantial since you could develop the same type of analysis regardless the type of water source. I would clarify that you are exclusively referring to the farm level in the title: Relationships between culture, climate change and groundwater Management at farm level: irrigator decision-making in an Australian case study

2) Line 41-44: Improving on-farm efficiency does not necessarily lead to a reduction in water withdrawals unless a few conditions are met, like an enforced reduction in water rights. Indeed there is a burgeoning debate around rebound effects resulting from irrigation efficiency improvements (see for instance: Berbel, J., Gutiérrez-Martín, C., Rodríguez-Díaz, J.A., Camacho, E., and Montesinos, P. 2015. Literature Review on Rebound Effect of Water Saving Measures and Analysis of a Spanish Case Study. Water Resources Management 29(3):663–78). The MDB offers a unique case study because the reduction of entitlements in favor of environmental water needs is already a precondition to the search for adaptive strategies. I would clarify this peculiarity in this paragraph. To what extent the reductions in groundwater allocations are justified by climate change predictions in official documents (norms, laws, management plans etc.)?

3) Line 82: Is the figure of 25.15 GL right? it does not look too high for a 42,000 km2 basin. Include the total irrigated land for a better reference.

4) Line 105: The first research question is a bit too open since you have pre-decided the factors to include in the model. What you are testing is if specific factors (environmental values, perception about climate change, etc.) relate to decisions about conservation strategies. I would rephrase it more accurately to what you are answering with your results.

5) Line 134-137: Please clarify the sentence, what VBN poses is that personal norms are an outcome of the composite effect of altruistic values, self-interest and general beliefs or of any of the three factors?

6) Line 276: I thought this was a risky hypothesis because climate change and water supply belong to very different scales of perception. Farmers commonly perceive problems with water supply as closer, shorter-term, more certain and risky for their activity than climate change, which is much more uncertain, with unknown temporal patterns and final outcomes, and global. In line 402-404 you describe the finding that the perception of risk regarding the water supply is not associated to the personal norms to mitigate emissions, but then these norms are the strongest associated with adaptive practices, more than water norms (line 411-412). Why do you think this apparent contradiction is due to? I would discuss the relevance of this finding in the final section.

7) Line 390 - 392: Why? This is an important statement (even a conclusion) and needs a better justification.

8) Line 422: delete ‘unique’

9) Line 429: rephrase: that the tested cultural factors are important…. (there are many other cultural factors that you did not consider in your model, especially those related to local management systems or socioeconomic structure that are very important too).

10) Line 486-488: This is a very important descriptive point, it explains why the proposed framework is particularly suitable for this basin. I would include a more thorough description of these cultural values in the introduction to the case-study.

11) Line 500-501: What would you suggest on the basis of your findings? Which are the main points for practitioners to work with in the MDB?

12) Discuss: Which are the limitations of the models? Which are the main uncertainties? What did you learn for future implementations?