Decreasing Access to Water and Coping Strategies for Shortage in the Informal Settlements of Calabar, Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

While the paper addresses an important issue—decreasing access to water in informal settlements—it fails to contribute significantly to the existing literature. The findings are largely descriptive and do not offer new insights or advance our understanding of coping strategies in similar contexts. The paper should strive for a more innovative conceptual framework to stand out in the field of sustainable water management. The mixed-method approach used in the study is commendable, but there are methodological limitations that need to be addressed. Additionally, the paper lacks a robust discussion on the limitations of the methodology and potential biases in the data collection process. The analysis of the coping strategies and satisfaction with improved water services lacks depth. The paper should provide a more nuanced interpretation of the data, including statistical analyses and comparisons where relevant. A more comprehensive analysis would strengthen the paper's empirical foundation. The findings from the household survey, in-depth interviews, and focus groups should be better integrated to form a cohesive narrative. The current structure of the paper hinders a seamless synthesis of the results, making it challenging for readers to grasp the overall implications of the study. The study focuses on the specific context of Calabar, Nigeria, and the findings may not be easily generalizable to other informal settlements in different regions. The paper should discuss the transferability of its findings and acknowledge potential limitations in external validity.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing this detailed feedback on the paper.

We appreciate your intuition into the need for a more substantial contribution to the existing literature. To address this, we have re-evaluated our conceptual framework to identify innovative angles that enriched the discourse on sustainable water management in informal settlements.

Your points about methodological limitations and potential biases in the data collection process are well taken. We recognize the importance of addressing these issues transparently in the paper. We have revised the methodology section to provide a more thorough discussion of limitations and biases, along with strategies employed to mitigate them.

We understand the need for a deeper analysis of coping strategies and satisfaction with improved water services. We conducted further statistical analyses and comparisons where relevant to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the data. This will enhance the empirical foundation of the paper and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

Your feedback regarding the integration of findings from different data sources is valuable. We acknowledge that the current structure may impede a seamless synthesis of results. We have reorganized the paper to better integrate findings from the household survey, in-depth interviews, and focus groups, thus creating a more cohesive narrative for readers.

We agree that the focus on Calabar, Nigeria, may limit the generalizability of our findings to other informal settlements in different regions. We have addressed this concern by discussing the transferability of our findings and acknowledging potential limitations in external validity. Additionally, we have explored opportunities to draw parallels with similar contexts to enhance the relevance of our research beyond the study area.

Thank you once again for your thoughtful feedback. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please feel free to reach out.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since there is no serious analysis in the article, it is not suitable for publication. Rejection

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for providing this feedback on the paper.

We have re-evaluated our conceptual framework to identify innovative angles that enriched the discourse on sustainable water management in informal settlements.

We have revised the methodology section to provide a more thorough discussion of limitations and biases, along with strategies employed to mitigate them.

We conducted further statistical analyses and comparisons where relevant to provide a more nuanced interpretation of the data. This will enhance the empirical foundation of the paper and contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of the topic.

We have reorganized the paper to better integrate findings from the household survey, in-depth interviews, and focus groups, thus creating a more cohesive narrative for readers.

Thank you once again for your feedback. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please feel free to reach out.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 17: 2 focus group ---  2 focus group discussions

Line 103: Cross River: what administrative level is this? Regional, district ??

Line 151: Study area: introduce the map that illustrates the mentioned study areas

Line 238: in Mbukpa (53% versus 38%).  38% is not clear? Rewrite in a clear way

Line 337: About 40 such cans ---About 40 cans

Line 338: consumes-- for what purposes? describe the main water uses considered in this study

Line 347: private connections ---what does this really mean? do they have own independent infrastructure OR they have bigger water share from community infrastructure and resell the water to the households who don't have direct access to water?

Line 391: ----and-- what is the difference between the sentences before and after this 'and'?

Line 434: ---- move…..is 'moving' one of coping strategies? How this could be described for informal settlements point of view?  May be some appropriate assumption-based descriptions needed here   

Line 441: 77%------ In line 437, it is 76%. why 77% here?

Line 452: ----- of 60% of --- This sentence should be rewritten and be easy to understand.

Line 489-505: This belongs to result section than discussion section. In discussion section, more elaboration is expected.

Line 544: Gbedemah, et al. [53] studies --- in the same study area?

Line 588: Concussion: The conclusion seems the extension of the discussion part. It should be independent (without references) and should be reworked.

Line 603-605: This can be part of discussion

Line 618-621: ‘Upgrading water point installation and maintenance of extending trunk infrastructure in informal settlements can significantly reduce exposure and vulnerability to water related stress especially those who are most at risk or vulnerable’. How feasible is this from legal and sustainable development aspects (as the informal settlement by itself may be unsustainable development plan)?

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Values presented in % should be provided in understandable way.

Author Response

 

Dear Reviewer

Thanks for providing these specific points for feedback. Here's a response addressing each one:

Line 17: We have revised to "2 focus group discussions" for clarity.

Line 103: Cross River is a state in Nigeria, so we have clarified it as such.

Line 151: We have considered including a map to illustrate the study areas mentioned.

Line 238: We have rewriting to clarify the comparison, ensuring it's clear.

Line 337: We have specified the purposes for which the water is consumed, detailing the main water uses considered in the study.

Line 347: We have provided a clearer explanation of what "private connections" entail, distinguishing between independent infrastructure and reselling water from community infrastructure.

Line 391: We have ensured coherence between the sentences before and after "and."

Line 434: We have re-evaluated the use of "moving" as a coping strategy in the context of informal settlements and provide appropriate descriptions.

Line 441: We have ensured consistency with the percentage mentioned earlier in the text.

Line 452: We have rewriting the sentence for clarity and ease of understanding.

Lines 489-505: We have moved this content to the results section and providing more elaboration in the discussion section.

Line 544: We have clarified whether the study referenced is conducted in the same study area.

Line 588: We have reworked the conclusion to ensure its independent and distinct from the discussion section.

Lines 603-605: We have incorporating this content into the discussion section.

Lines 618-621: We have addressed the feasibility of the proposed interventions from legal and sustainable development perspectives, considering the context of informal settlements.

Thank you for your detailed feedback. We have made the necessary revisions to improve the clarity, coherence, and relevance of this paper. If you have any further questions or suggestions, please feel free to let us know.

 

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Congratulations for an excellent article, well structured upon a clear methodology, and empirical evidence.

I did not find any specific aspects to change, or refine. My recommendation is to publish as it is.

Best wishes,

The Reviewer

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you vey much for your time in reviewing our paper and providing valuable feedback.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article addresses the issue of decreasing access to water and strategies to deal with shortages in the informal settlements of Calabar, Nigeria. The study was conducted using a mixed method, combining quantitative and qualitative data, to obtain a more complete picture of residents' situations.

Importance of the problem: The authors address a key issue for residents of informal settlements who struggle with everyday difficulties related to access to water. The work draws attention to the global problem of water scarcity, highlighting its impact on the poorest communities.

Research methodology: Using mixed methods, including surveys, interviews and focus groups, allows for obtaining comprehensive data. This makes it possible to understand the problem both quantitatively and qualitatively.

Data analysis: Detailed data analysis, including chi-square and statistical analysis, contributes to understanding how various socioeconomic factors influence water access and strategies to cope with scarcity.

The article contributes to the literature on water access and strategies for dealing with water shortages in informal settlements. Its strength is its comprehensive approach to the problem and its use of various research methods. Nevertheless, the study's limitations due to its narrow geographical scope are areas for further exploration.

The authors draw attention to the need for sustainable management of water resources and political interventions to improve the situation of residents of informal settlements. Future research should consider the broader political and institutional context and propose sustainable solutions to the water access problem.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Can be publsihed as a case report not article.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the article have satisfactorily incorporated all my comments and I have no further comments.