Perceptions of Urban Pollution of River Dependent Rural Communities and Their Impact: A Case Study in Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study intended to analyze perceptions on urban pollution of the Old Brahmaputra river. This manuscript constructed the social consequences of river pollution. I, however, have very limited understandings of attitudes or actions of interviewees towards river pollution after reading this manuscript.

Is the society aware of the hindrance of spiritual and religious activities? Was there any protest against river pollution? Or any disagreement on river pollution in the society?

One major issue is that parts of the discussion section are more like content of the introduction than discussion. Some information should be placed in the introduction. About the conclusion section, the four suggested measures may be inappropriate because the government and the society may not be ready for improvement of water quality, which is not described in the manuscript.

 

Specific comments:

1. Point and non-point sources are described both in the 1^st and 2^nd paragraphs of the introduction.
2. The authors used “&” instead of “and” in the paragraphs.
3. Some sentences are difficult to read. For example: P16 Line 559-561.
4. The authors need to check references.

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

1: The title reflects the river-dependent rural communities' perceptions towards urban pollution. Whereas the article explains the impact of urban pollution on the livelihood of rural people, which is somehow confusing.

Ans: We thank the reviewer for this crucial point. We have changed the title as per reviewer's advice. The title is - Perceptions on Urban pollution of river dependent rural communities and its impact -A case study of Bangladesh

 

2: The abstract is somehow redundant and requires significant improvement to a better understanding

Ans: The abstract is revised as per reviewer advice and the abstract can be read as follows- This study considers the Old Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh, as a case study regarding the community perceptions on urban pollution and its impact on rural communities. In doing so, in-depth individual interviews (n = 195), key informant interviews (n = 7) and focus group discussions (n = 7) were conducted by giving emphasis on different perspectives on urban pollution and its effects on people related to losses of fisheries resources, agricultural production, human health, and livelihood transformation. The findings illustrated that poor urban solid waste management and direct sewage discharge degrade rivers daily. The most vulnerable are the rural communities that directly dependent upon the river, including fishers, farmers, and boatmen. Specific measures such as an effluent treatment plant should be established near the river, households and commercial drains should be cut off from the direct connection with the river, and alternative income-generating activities for the stakeholders were suggested to safeguard the river from urban pollution and the well-being of the stakeholders.

 

3: In L42, the authors mentioned that pollutants from point sources can be easily protected, while in the next sentence they stated ‘As a result, pollutants from point sources can enter the water directly [2].’ These statements are contradictory. As point sources of pollution are comparatively easy to reduce than the non-point sources, the authors can therefore consider removing the following statement- 'As a result, pollutants from point sources can enter the water directly [2].

Ans:  We thank the reviewer, and the specific statement is removed from the revised manuscript.

4: L56: ‘exacerbated by them’- Exacerbated by what? Need to explain.

Ans: The sentence is corrected as per the reviewer address and the sentence is as follows. These types of pollution are exist and exacerbated in cities [8-10].

5: L60-68: Redundant statements.

Ans: Revised as advised

6: Table 3: Update this information with recent one(s).

Ans: According to reviewer advise we added some recent records based on a local and global scale.

7: Figure 2: Not mentioned in the text. Also, consider including reference(s).

Ans: As advised, texts are mentioned in the text with reference.

8: Table 6: The monthly income amounts are unrealistic. It is hard to believe that people in the study area are having a monthly income of less than BDT 100 (a bit over 1 USD) considering their occupations.

Ans: We thank the Reviewer to point out such critical issues. We revised Table 6 as per Reviewer's advise.

9: The sections provide information on the river water quality need to be improved. The author should consider adding a table on the permissible discharge limits.

Ans: According to Reviewer advise, we added Table 7 and Table 8 for this, and the title of the tables are-Table 7-Surface water standards for inland bodies of water and Table 8: Permissible sewage discharge limit

 

10: Also, here are more references from Bangladesh that could be useful in discussing the findings:

40. Reza, A., & Yousuf, T. B. (2016). Impacts of waste dumping on water quality in the Buriganga River, Bangladesh and possible mitigation measures. Journal of the Environment, 11(1), 35-40.
41. Uddin, M. J., & Jeong, Y. K. (2021). Urban river pollution in Bangladesh during last 40 years: potential public health and ecological risk, present policy, and future prospects toward smart water management. Heliyon, 7(2), e06107.
42. Rony, J. H., Karim, N., Rouf, M. D., Islam, M., Uddin, J., & Begum, M. (2021). A Cost-Effective IoT Model for a Smart Sewerage Management System Using Sensors. J, 4(3), 356-366

Ans: The above-mentioned references were cited in the discussion as per Reviewer's advice.

11: L794-812: Check the font.

Ans: Fonts are corrected as per advice

12: The references are very poorly arranged. The authors should provide more attention to formatting the references.

Ans: We appreciate the reviewer's advice and we revised all the references according to the MDPI Sustainability Reference Guide by using Mendeley Software.

13: [53] and [54]: The same reference cited twice.

Ans: We revised the references and corrected accordingly.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The submitted study tried to elucidate the impact of urban pollution in the Old Brahmaputra River, Bangladesh on the livelihood of rural people. The manuscript is still very immature, with many fundamental issues.

1. The title reflects the river-dependent rural communities' perceptions towards urban pollution. Whereas the article explains the impact of urban pollution on the livelihood of rural people, which is somehow confusing.
2. The abstract is somehow redundant and requires significant improvement to a better understanding.
3. In L42, the authors mentioned that pollutants from point sources can be easily protected, while in the next sentence they stated ‘As a result, pollutants from point sources can enter the water directly [2].’ These statements are contradictory. As point sources of pollution are comparatively easy to reduce than the non-point sources, the authors can therefore consider removing the following statement- 'As a result, pollutants from point sources can enter the water directly [2].'
4. L56: ‘exacerbated by them’- Exacerbated by what? Need to explain.
5. L60-68: Redundant statements.
6. Table 3: Update this information with recent one(s).
7. Figure 2: Not mentioned in the text. Also, consider including reference(s).
8. Table 6: The monthly income amounts are unrealistic. It is hard to believe that people in the study area are having a monthly income of less than BDT 100 (a bit over 1 USD) considering their occupations.
9. The sections provide information on the river water quality need to be improved. The author should consider adding a table on the permissible discharge limits.
10. Also, here are more references from Bangladesh that could be useful in discussing the findings:
    40. Reza, A., & Yousuf, T. B. (2016). Impacts of waste dumping on water quality in the Buriganga River, Bangladesh and possible mitigation measures. Journal of the Environment, 11(1), 35-40.
    41. Uddin, M. J., & Jeong, Y. K. (2021). Urban river pollution in Bangladesh during last 40 years: potential public health and ecological risk, present policy, and future prospects toward smart water management. Heliyon, 7(2), e06107.
    42. Rony, J. H., Karim, N., Rouf, M. D., Islam, M., Uddin, J., & Begum, M. (2021). A Cost-Effective IoT Model for a Smart Sewerage Management System Using Sensors. J, 4(3), 356-366.
11. L794-812: Check the font.
12. The references are very poorly arranged. The authors should provide more attention to formatting the references.
13. [53] and [54]: The same reference cited twice.

Author Response

1: This study intended to analyze perceptions on urban pollution of the Old Brahmaputra River. This manuscript constructed the social consequences of river pollution. I, however, have very limited understandings of attitudes or actions of interviewees towards river pollution after reading this manuscript. Is the society aware of the hindrance of spiritual and religious activities? Was there any protest against river pollution? Or any disagreement on river pollution in the society? One major issue is that parts of the discussion section are more like content of the introduction than discussion. Some information should be placed in the introduction. About the conclusion section, the four suggested measures may be inappropriate because the government and the society may not be ready for improvement of water quality, which is not described in the manuscript.

Ans: We thank the Reviewer to point out such a valid point. We revised our interviews again and found new information that is relevant to the reviewer's comments. In the result section, we added hindrance in spiritual value practice and demand to the government and concerned higher authorities (direct quote of the interviewees). Furthermore, according to the Reviewers advice, we revised the introduction and discussion part respectively.

2: Point and non-point sources are described both in the 1 and 2 paragraphs of the introduction.

Ans: We revised the manuscripts as per reviewer advice and deleted the second paragraphs

3: The authors used “&” instead of “and” in the paragraphs

Ans: We revised the manuscripts according to reviewers’ suggestion.

4: Some sentences are difficult to read. For example: P16 Line 559-561.

Ans: We thank the reviewers and revised the sentences accordingly

5: The authors need to check references.

Ans: We revised the references according to the MDPI Sustainability Reference Guide by using Mendeley Software.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

1. The title: Perceptions on Urban pollution of river dependent rural communities and its impact - A case study of Bangladesh. What does “its” mean? Their impacts?
2. P4, … the average per capita production of household waste …
3. P22, Martínez-Bravo, M.; Martínez-del-Río, J. Urban Pollution and Emission Reduction. In; 2019; pp. 1–11. Is it a book chapter or journal article?
4. The authors need to check references. For example, Carpenter, S.R.; Caraco, N.F.; Correll, D.L.; Howarth, R.W.; Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, V.H. NONPOINT POLLUTION OF SURFACE WATERS WITH PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN; 1998; Vol. 8. Why use all capitals for the paper?

Author Response

Revised version review (Reviewer 1)

We thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments. We tried our best to answer the queries that were asked by the reviewer as below-

 

1.The title: Perceptions on Urban pollution of river-dependent rural communities and its impact - A case study of Bangladesh. What does “its” mean? Their impacts?

Ans-We thank the Reviewer for the valid point. We revised the title as follows- Perceptions on Urban pollution of river dependent rural com-munities and their impact -A case study of Bangladesh.

2. P4, … the average per capita production of household waste …

Ans- We revised the sentences as follows in the revised manuscript- In several municipalities, household waste's average production is between 0.2 and 0.56 kg/person/day.

3. P22, Martínez-Bravo, M.; Martínez-del-Río, J. Urban Pollution and Emission Reduction. In; 2019; pp. 1–11. Is it a book chapter or journal article?

  Ans- We revised the reference in the manuscript as uch- Martínez-Bravo M., Martínez-del-Río J. (2019) Urban Pollution and Emission Reduction. In: Leal Filho W., Azul A., Brandli L., Özuyar P., Wall T. (eds) Sustainable Cities and Communities. Encyclopedia of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-71061-7_30-1

4. The authors need to check references. For example, Carpenter, S.R.; Caraco, N.F.; Correll, D.L.; Howarth, R.W.; Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, V.H. NONPOINT POLLUTION OF SURFACE WATERS WITH PHOSPHORUS AND NITROGEN; 1998; Vol. 8. Why use all capitals for the paper

Ans- We revised the reference as follows in the revised manuscript- Carpenter, S.R.; Caraco, N.F.; Correll, D.L.; Howarth, R.W.; Sharpley, A.N.; Smith, V.H. Nonpoint pollution of surface waters with phosphorus and nitrogen; 1998; Vol. 8.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The reviewer appreciates the authors efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. After the revision, the manuscript as a whole is now more scientifically sound and logically described.

Author Response

 

COMMENTS -The reviewer appreciates the author's efforts to improve the quality of the manuscript. After the revision, the manuscript as a whole is now more scientifically sound and logically described.

Ans-We thank the Reviewer for the valuable comments earlier. The reviewer's advice helped us to take steps to modify the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf