Integrated Water Management in Mountain Communities: The Case of Feutap in the Municipality of Bangangté, Cameroon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

The text should be re-organized. Introduction contains part that are more related with methodology. Conclusions says what needs to be done. A lot of confusion.

Graphs can be improved

Author Response

Dear colleague,

you recommend improvements for 5 from 6 aspects. Unfortunately, we are left alone with points to be improved. We have re-read the manuscript and the comments of other reviewers and added a section on public health aspects.

Sincerely,

Dr. Noubactep

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

This article constitutes an interesting contribution to improve the water supply in local communities, especially, in rural areas and poorly communicated in developing countries. The case study focuses on examples where the water supply is still not guaranteed in sufficient quantity or quality.

The fact that it’s based on experience, focused on applied cases such as Feutap (Cameroon) is valued positively. From this point of view, both the potential and the limitations are analyzed, and the various components (social, economic, cultural, etc.) of this type of initiative are discussed. This makes it possible to identify the problems of this kind of intervention and possible solutions in this regard. The proposed system is summarized in what the article calls the “Kilimanjaro Concept”.

As the authors of the article express, the case of Feutap can help to other similar areas or municipalities and identify the aspects that should be considered to implement this type of projects.

Therefore, the strong point of the article is the analysis of this type of experience, not starting from theory, but from applied practical cases. This study case is explained in detail and a thorough knowledge of the chosen example is demonstrated.

However, this reviewer has doubts regarding if the proposed system is original or unique. Although this system is called under the application of the "Kilimanjaro Concept", it really does not seem very original, from the point of view of the similarities that can be established with other examples at a geographical level.

Surely the interest of the article isn't so much from an academic or scientific point of view, but from the perspective of a useful applied case for cooperation and endogenous local development policies.

On the contrary, the theoretical framework that focuses this type of supplies is almost non-existent. From the first lines of the article, it enters fully into the case study. In this sense, it would be desirable to expand the bibliographical references that situate to the reader on the background, evolution, changes, improvements and dissemination of this type of supplies. What is new in what the authors propose from a scientific and technical point of view? The case is interesting from a social, local development and NGO cooperation perspective, but there are doubts about its relevance in the academic and research levels.

I don’t dare to disqualify the article just for this aspect. Its acceptance will also depend on the requirements and criteria established by the editors of the journal for this type of contributions, which are not so much academic/scientific but rather the analysis of an applied case linked to the direct experience of their authors.

On the other hand, the aspects of water purification are almost absents. In other words, the emphasis is placed on the storage and distribution of water throughout the community for various uses in sufficient quantity. Conversely, remain doubts about the purification systems that would be used to obtain sufficient sanitary guarantees. We increase the resource water in quantity, but what about the sanitary guarantees?

Author Response

Many thanks for for evaluation!

Sincerely,

Dr. Noubactep

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

The topic of the paper is interesting and suitable for the journal. The authors propose a water management strategy based on rainwater harvesting, to provide many benefits to the population of Feutap, a mountain community (in the municipality of Bangangté - Cameroon) with very limited socioeconomic development mainly due to the lack of accessibility to safe water at short distance. The authors propose a solution that allow access to safe water (a main goal of the Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations) and could significantly improve Feutap’ population lives and increase their income from agriculture and livestock.  

After reading the paper, revision is required to address the following issues prior to possible publication:

Figure 2 shows the average monthly rainfall in Feutap from 1951 to 2021. Being 70 years of data, it would be interesting to add more information and not just the average. Please include in the Figure the variability in each month (as plus minus the standard deviation, or as percentile bands per example p25 and p75, or as confidence interval….).

Since the paper does not contain much experimental data, and the authors are worried about the possible incidence of climate change on the rainfall pattern, it is recommended to include a Figure with the time series of the annual precipitation (i.e., 1 value per year, from 1951 to 2021), to see if there is any trend in the annual available water. Also it is recommended to analyse the time series evolution on a monthly basis in order to find some change in the rainfall pattern along the 70 years of data available (that could be attributed to climate change). 

Another Figure with the average monthly temperature, would be interesting to see the possible evaporation incidence. Again, add some information on the variability (no just the average), and also plot the time series evolution to see if temperature reflects some sign of climate change.

Minor details:

Page 12, line 305, indicate that it is “daily” demand…. Minimal per capita daily demand of 30 L (the word “daily” is missing).

Equation 1… better change the letter “Q” per “V”…since it is Volume, letter V would be more intuitive.

Figures 9 and 10, where possible, the superscript in the units m3 and m2

 Figure 11. Two issues with this Figure:

** The infiltration wells are missing in this Figure. Infiltration wells (filled with gravel and/or sand) important for grounwater recharge are part of the proposal (see page 24), but they are not included in Figure 11. Please modify it

**Explain the meaning of Fe SW water filter…. Is it a sand water filter?

 Figure 12… check the title… harmonize (a) and (b), or (i) and (ii), but not (a) and (ii)…. And include in the figure the (a) and the (b) (not only in the text title.

 Figure 13…. The pond is not covered, and evaporation risk exist. At least, include some comment in this way.

 Line 704…. Wood and iron), The system….. change the comma by a dot.

 Line 712… probably “depending on” fits better than “depending from”

 Line 765… Bazilian…. An “r” is missing… it should be written “Brazilian”.

 Page 26… check the format of the paragraphs…. The line spacing is not the same and the type of letter also seems to be different depending on the paragraph.

.

Author Response

Many thanks, for the evaluation and your time!

Dr. Noubactep

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This submission introduces a water management system, based on the collection and utilization of stormwater. From the reviewer's point of view, the presented results are not satisfactory enough to convince decision-makers of the scalability and replicability of such a system to be applied in mountainous areas. Like many other studies on stormwater utilization, results can be promising on small showcases. But, generalizing such a system with an unreliable scientific basis requires more practice on bigger scales.

Although the authors and their valuable time and efforts are fully respected, this reviewer did not find the work applicable, reliable, and scientifically meaningful.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

This submission introduces a water management system, based on the collection and utilization of stormwater. From the reviewer's point of view, the presented results are not satisfactory enough to convince decision-makers of the scalability and replicability of such a system to be applied in mountainous areas. Like many other studies on stormwater utilization, results can be promising on small showcases. But, generalizing such a system with an unreliable scientific basis requires more practice on bigger scales.

Reviewer 1 has not specified which aspects of the presentation are not unreliable. After such a statement, providing specific comments should be mandatory to help (Editors and Authors). Unfortunately, as authors we are left alone with aspects that we could have omitted.

Although the authors and their valuable time and efforts are fully respected, this reviewer did not find the work applicable, reliable, and scientifically meaningful.

We would like to know what we can add, or how we should improve the presentation.

Actually, we have extented an existing concept to solve the problem of water scarcity on hills. Is the original concept wrong (Kilimanjaro Concept), or the extension inacceptable? We have added references from the hillig Nepal and East Africa to sustain that RWH is already intensively used but not in the framework of a concept or not in a structured manner. So what is wrong in introducing a structure?

Examples of existing non-structured systems

1. Bernard B., Joyfred A. (2020): Contribution of rainfall on rooftop rainwater harvesting and saving on the slopes of Mt. Elgon, East Africa. Sci. World J. 2020, 7196342. (regional scale)
2. Ako Ako A., Nzali C.T., Lifongo L.L., Nkeng G.E. (2022): Rainwater harvesting (RWH): A supplement to domestic water supply in Mvog-Betsi, Yaoundé- Cameroon. Water Supply 22, 1141–1154. (village scale)
3. Kattel R.R., Nepal M. (2022): Rainwater harvesting and rural livelihoods in Nepal. In A. K. E. Haque, P. Mukhopadhyay, M. Nepal, & M. R. Shammin (Eds.), Climate change and community resilience: Insights from South Asia. Springer Nature. (regional scale)

Our concept makes from these invidual water harvesters a community of water managers, and this in the sense of the International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC). Desired Supporting agencies are no longer the providers of "technical goods or solutions but the facilitator of processes to enhance the capacity of the community to manage its own water system."

We thank Reviewer 1 for his time!

Reviewer 2 Report

Access to safe drinking water is a basic human right as the Authors wrote in the paper. The concept of a designee and preparing the drinking water supply for the Mountain Community is valuable, and important and can have high health consequences for people living in these villages. 

The paper presents a study case but the concept in the presentation is wrong. The paper should be shorter, please remove repeated information in a few chapters of the article. In the current version, reading the text is difficult because the Authors refer at the end of the text to tables and figures at the beginning of the text. The presentation of each aspect should be presented in a more technical, engineering manner. Some sociological and political aspects should be omitted, 

In my opinion, there is a lack of engineering aspects in implementation possibility, the authors omit treatment and pumping costs. The reservoir of rainwater is not enough to supply water for the people. There is no information about the quality of water and the necessary level of treatment.  

Author Response

Access to safe drinking water is a basic human right as the Authors wrote in the paper. The concept of a designee and preparing the drinking water supply for the Mountain Community is valuable, and important and can have high health consequences for people living in these villages. 

Many thanks for this evaluation:

The paper presents a study case but the concept in the presentation is wrong.

We would be thankful to learn which aspect(s) is (are) wrong, please! From environmental data and water needs we have suggested a viable solution. The needs are those recommended by the UN and we have more than 10 years expertise on RWH. TBM (second author) is not only a scientist but a professional advisor on RWH. The Kilimanjaro Concept (KC) was first published in 2018 and is currently very positively referenced. It is in our own interest to know what is wrong with the KC.

The paper should be shorter, please remove repeated information in a few chapters of the article.

The Geography is presented in some details to underline the specificity of the case. The information is presented in such a way that selection sections can be independently read and still be understood. We are thankful to Reviewer 3 who has appreciated the approach.

In the current version, reading the text is difficult because the Authors refer at the end of the text to tables and figures at the beginning of the text. The presentation of each aspect should be presented in a more technical, engineering manner. Some sociological and political aspects should be omitted.

Reviewer 2 wishes a presentation focus on engineering which is not actually the main focus. The authorship is highly multi-disciplinary (Engineering, Environment, Geography) and sociological and political aspects are key for the implementation of the concept. In particular, the social acceptability is already addressed and the issue with the implementation cost as well.

In my opinion, there is a lack of engineering aspects in implementation possibility, the authors omit treatment and pumping costs. (The system is gravity driven, it is said times and times through the text and the original Kilimanjaro Concept is a pure gravity driven one) The reservoir of rainwater is not enough to supply water for the people. (It is because Ancient Sri Lanka has demonstrated it) There is no information about the quality of water and the necessary level of treatment.  (There are because we have stated that rainwater is relative clean and affordable technologies are available to clean wherever necessary. We have insisted with the example of Akkerman that properly harvested rainwater is clean and potable. And we have added through the end that the municipality should control the quality)

We thank Reviewer 2 for his time!

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper deals with a very important topic and thematically is well-targeted.

Author Response

Many thanks for this evaluation. We do appreciate.

Reviewer 4 Report

please see the attached pdf file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1:

Summary The article with the title: “The Kilimanjaro Concept for Integrated Water Management in a Mountain Community: The case of Feutap in the Municipality of Bangaté, Cameroon.” Gives a very detailed overview over the water situation in this mountain region, especially in the rural town of Feutap.

Many thanks for this evaluation. Our detailed presentation is based on the evidence that the KC is encouraging community management for a water resource yet to be established. Because this ist he first article of this type, details were mandatory and we have tried to keep everything as short as possible. Even the few redundancy aimed at ease lecture for readers who may be interested only in selected sections. Thanks again for this evaluation.

Comments 2:

The introduction describes the need of providing safe drinking water and the aspects of an implementation of the Kilimanjaro concept for gaining accessible water. Section 2 gives an overview over the current situation in the town of Feutap. The rainfall amounts and water distribution, as well as a historical background is given in this part of the article. Water contamination alongside washing clothes and dishes was found to be a problem. The authors compare the current situation in Feutap with other places around the world with similar problems and approaches. A future perspective is given for technical realization and socio-economic factors. A detailed cost analysis is given in section 6.3 with following cultural aspects.

Thanks again!

In the context of International Water and Sanitation Centre (IRC), community water management is an approach whereby the ‘supporting agency is no longer the provider of technical goods or solutions but the facilitator of processes to enhance the capacity of the community to manage its own water system. Participants are not just passive receivers of technical goods, but active participants, knowledgeable and accountable for their actions. In the present work, the water system is yet tob e created by community members themself. That is why we have detailed the presentation. The community create the system ans owns the process, facilitators, administrations and local researchers participate in the community’s projects, not the other way around. It is clear that each community develops its own specific management system.

Comments 3:

General comments:

1. Mistake in the title: mMountain, Corrected, thanks!
2. I did not find the full word for RWH in the text. Corrected, thanks! Already in the title of Section 3.
3. In section 4.3 the authors describe, that in Ekpoma there is no RWH system but in the conclusion line 456 it is mentioned that Ekpoma has a well-established RWH. Corrected, thanks! ‚well-established‘ now reads ‚well-known‘
4. Line 772 regionak should be regional. Corrected, thanks!
5. The Kilimanjaro Concept (KC) abbreviation was introduced in line 58 but the full written word occurs multiple times afterwards. e.g. line 85, 121, 496, 638, 657. Corrected, thanks!

We thank Reviewer 1 for his fair evaluation and his time!

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

This is the second round that I am reviewing this work. Although it is obvious, I declare that I have no conflict of interest either with any of the authors or with the content of this submission. All my comments are based on absolute academic and practical points of view.

Unfortunately, the authors could not successfully address my comments on the previous round. Instead of defending their work (and their valuable time and effort), they tried to challenge the received reviews to be unclear. If that is the case, I will put time and provide more details and sharp comments. I wish they are understandable now.

There is nothing wrong to introduce a framework or a concept. However, the problem with this specific submission is that very few (and conceptually weak) practical data are presented. These data are not also analyzed appropriately with scientifically acceptable methods to prove any specific hypothesis. With all my respect to the authors without any intention to be rude or offensive, please let me be frank and sharp by stating that in my opinion, the presented work seems to be a presentation of pseudoscience, in the lack of sufficient scientific shreds of evidence. If the authors do not like this comment and want to change this opinion, they should put more effort into the provision of scientifically approved practical pieces of evidence. Otherwise, this approach, along with running away from answering hard comments raised by reviewers, may not be appropriate for authoring a paper for a scientific journal like Water. Authors can first present these ideas in local public journals or even some conferences and get appropriate comments on how they can prove their idea in an acceptable scientific approach.

Let me be more specific. Did the authors do anything further than review the geological aspects, historical water supply of Feutap, and conceptual comparison with other studies? Okay, it is very valuable but did the authors demonstrate a system with a satisfactorily wide scale to show how their prestigious framework can do and change the game in Feutap? If yes, please go ahead and show the data and prove the reliability, scalability, and sustainability of your introduced concept with appropriate analysis.

Yes, some systems in limited scales seemed to be promising in Nepal or East Africa but how can it be guaranteed that similar approaches are also successful in Feutap? Furthermore, if several other studies are already published on the concept of utilizing stormwater and developing stormwater water supply systems, then what is the innovative part of the presented work?

Again, although I sincerely respect the valuable time of the authors and their efforts toward achieving SDG6.1, I have to state that from the point of view of a decision-maker, I could not find the presented work in the presented format to be scientifically approvable and practically reliable.

Reviewer 2 Report

In my opinion authors did not changed the text enought. Still text is too long.

Still, there is a lack of engineering aspects in implementation possibility, the authors omit treatment and pumping costs.