Disparities in Drinking Water and Sanitation in the Urban Slums of Kerala, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comments

This study focuses on the disparities in drinking water and sanitation in the urban slums of Kerala, India. The topic is very interesting, and it has practical importance. Though this topic is quite interesting and of practical significance, the manuscript still requires a huge work for making it a scientific article. The manuscript seems a draft format.

 

Abstract

The abstract is full of background information. It requires extensive revision by following the IMRAD style to reflect the insights of the study.

 

Introduction

-The introduction is very very poor. It cannot be considered as an introduction.

-The author should write a new introduction section by introducing the issues like disparity, inequality, and access to water and sanitation at the global scale, and then local scale.

-Need to add a formal definition of disparity and explain in the context of slums at the global and local levels.

-Need to add the researcher’s findings and opinion about disparity from previous studies regarding slums.

-Is the disparity follow any theory? Need to explain in the context of previous theories.

-Need to add research gap, research question and specific objective.

 

Materials and Methods

-This section is poor and not structured.

-The author is advised to divide into several sub-sections to describe the context, data sources, variable selection procedure, and measurement of variables to address the research question.

-How did you measure future disparity in drinking water and sanitation? Need to clarify.

-Why do you think it is disparity? Do you compare the findings with other control group?

- The author should add a study area map to point the slum areas.

-How did you measure to demographic variables and slum dwellers access to drinking water and sanitation? Need to clarify.

-Table 1 is okay, but need to add references for every dimension and variables. How did you select the variables? Need to explain in details.

-Need to add statistical test to show the disparity.

 

 

Results and Discussion

 

-This section requires extensive revision.

-It is very difficult to verify the result without proper introduction and methodology. The author is advised to describe the methodology step by step in the methodology section and then present the results concisely by reducing your Table number.

 

-Sorry, I cannot consider it as a part of discussion because this section just enlisted the results.

 

Discussion

The author is advised to add a new discussion section.

 

Conclusion

This section is too short to represent the insights of the study. It should add key findings, recommendations, and practical implications. The limitation of the methodology and future research direction can make the conclusion more reader-friendly.

 

References

-Need to check the whole section, address typos, and follow the journal style.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for the  deep comments

Regards

Anitha V

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your invitation,

The topic is relevant in the context of UN’s Sustainable Development Goals(especially goal 6) and the
corresponding national-level drinking water and sanitation programmes. The most important and
challenging argument is that the study tries to point out the inequitable distribution of water and
sanitation in urban slums of a highly water-available state, Kerala.
But I must highlight the following points to strengthen the article.
##The content of the study is focused on specific urban slums in a state, Kerala, what is the
relevance of that issue for an international reader?
##Even though the topic is a general theme, the study covers only two slums.
##The water and sanitation aspects are always linked to hygiene, but the study does not
consider the dimension neither as a major component or as a sub-component.
##May remove tables, 5, 7 and 17 by keeping the content in one or two sentences.
##What is the justification for comparative analysis throughout the study, and why the slums
like Vishinjam and Barten Hill selected for the study?
However, the data analysed and the conclusion reached are useful for a policymaker who makes
context-specific policies. Hence I recommend the paper for publication with minor corrections

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you for the review comments

Regards

Anitha V

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Author,

Your intention was to compare the disproportions between the two districts of Kerala. At the beginning, the question arises why you these parts of the city chose and not others. No justification was given as to why they were analysed. Was this the goal of your research project? In addition, you clearly points to two different extreme comparative objects. As a result, you can judge in advance what the effects will be. Which was confirmed in the conducted statistical tests. What's more, in paragraphs 146-148 it is indicated that such tests will be only complementary of your work. Unfortunately, they became the main element. A serious shortcoming of this work is the complete lack of discussion. There is no reference to other similar studies too. There are also many punctuation and spelling errors in the work. Some of them I indicated in my work, but it was not my goal. The work could be published, but errors need to be removed and the discussion completed.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Please find the attachment.

Thank you for the review comments

Regards

Anitha V

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an excellent study as it tries to overcome the lack of data disaggregation that limits the analysis of equality in access to services at the slum level. It would be helpful and also be good for consistency if the definitions applied by the WHO/UNICEF Joint Monitoring Programme for the indicators of the SDG6.1 and 6.2 targets are explicitly stated and applied. With the richness of data collected, I find the discussion rather meagre, and would expect more recommendations to be generated. There are some clear differences between the communities that point to possible solutions. For example water metering woould help to better monitor the water use situation. Also, if the population in the Vishinjam slum is willing to pay for water brought in by tanker trucks, they will also be willing to pay for other water delivery systems that are more efficient, provided the acceptibility factor is taken into account. There are also options for policy change that will help overcome the discrepancies observed between the two communities. I would suggest an effort is made for some further data analysis. See also comments in the text.

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Please see the attachment.

With thanks and regards

Anitha V

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revision is not up-to-mark. The manuscript still requires an extensive revision following the review comments.

 

Author Response

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the suggestions. Please see the attachments.

Regards

Anitha V

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf