Climate Change Impact on Groundwater-Based Livelihood in Soan River Basin of Pakistan (South Asia) Based on the Perception of Local Farmers

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

I read this manuscript with interest. It is well written with good number of references. 

However, I need a detailed explanation on the following text in your abstract which was based on your results from surveys.

"Ninety-two percent reported summer getting hot, 72% highlighted winters are getting less cold, and 96% reported that average annual rainfall has decreased compared to 10 years before. About 72% of respondents indicated that available water in their dug wells decreased, and 80% of respondents explained that their crop yield had decreased compared to 10 years before. Sixty percent preferred drip and 35% sprinkler irrigation as efficient water management practices to cope with water shortages. 95% of farmers were ready to use solar pumps for irrigation to tame high pumping costs. "

 

The above statements are based on your human perception. The surveys might have been answered by people who are sound in technical knowledge and vice versa. 

Now if you are making them as conclusions of your study, then, you should have a very strong back up. 

How did you justify these statements from the scientific point of view. Do you have any evidence from models? Or any information from Data crunching? Like non-parameteric methods? If so, I want you to present them. Yes, everyone is talking on climate change; however, we still have to prove it.

 

If you don't have any solid support from data or models, you may revise your manuscript and then state these as observations which may/might be the case.

 

Author Response

Overall Comment

I read this manuscript with interest. It is well written with good number of references.

Response: We are pleased that our manuscript was reviewed by such a qualified reviewer. We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. Considering the review comments, we have modified the entire manuscript. Together with the revised version of the manuscript, a questionnaire sheet is also included to clarify the study's additional objectives. We hope that these revisions have improved the quality of work such that you now may deem it worthy for publication in “Water”. Next, we offer detailed responses to your comments. All changes made in the revised version of the manuscript have been tracked (by track change option).

Detail Comments

However, I need a detailed explanation on the following text in your abstract which was based on your results from surveys.

"Ninety-two percent reported summer getting hot, 72% highlighted winters are getting less cold, and 96% reported that average annual rainfall has decreased compared to 10 years before. About 72% of respondents indicated that available water in their dug wells decreased, and 80% of respondents explained that their crop yield had decreased compared to 10 years before. Sixty percent preferred drip and 35% sprinkler irrigation as efficient water management practices to cope with water shortages. 95% of farmers were ready to use solar pumps for irrigation to tame high pumping costs. "

The above statements are based on your human perception. The surveys might have been answered by people who are sound in technical knowledge and vice versa.  

Now if you are making them as conclusions of your study, then, you should have a very strong back up.

How did you justify these statements from the scientific point of view. Do you have any evidence from models? Or any information from Data crunching? Like non-parameteric methods? If so, I want you to present them. Yes, everyone is talking on climate change; however, we still have to prove it.

If you don't have any solid support from data or models, you may revise your manuscript and then state these as observations which may/might be the case.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We agreed with the reviewer that it is impossible to make clear conclusions based just on the farmer's perception. Moreover, we also acknowledge that we need to revise our manuscript as our study is only determining the local farmer perceptions in response to climate change. Consequently, the primary goal of our study is to identify the variables influencing the farmers' dug-well yield and associated livelihood in the Soan basin (Potohar region) of Pakistan in order to develop a range of workable solutions. Therefore, we only focused to determine the dependence of the farming communities on the traditional dug-well/Persian wheel system for their livelihood. The most crucial objective of the study was to assess climate change impacts on the livelihoods of communities relying on dug wells, resource use, constraints, and opportunities to identify suits for adaptive interventions (Together with the revised version of the manuscript, a questionnaire sheet is also included to clarify the study's additional objectives). Considering the reviewer important comments, we modified several parts of research including (Title, abstract, methodology and conclusions). We hope that these revisions have improved the quality of work such that you now may deem it worthy for publication in “Water”

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Add few related literature paper in introduction to increase the significant of present study 

2. Abstract is not more informative, kindly add key findings 

3. Why the study is important and novelty of the present need to highlight in introduction section 

4. Change Fig.1, use different shape for outlet 

5. Add more detail in Fig.3

6. Revise conclusion section to highlight the key findings

7. check all the section number 

Author Response

1. Add few related literature paper in introduction to increase the significant of present study 

Response: The reviewer's feedback is much appreciated. As per suggestion, the more related literature has been added in the revised version of the manuscript.

1. Abstract is not more informative, kindly add key findings

Response: Thank you for this important comment. As per reviewer’s comment, we modified the whole abstract by adding more key findings in revision process.    

2. Why the study is important and novelty of the present need to highlight in introduction section.

Response: Thank you for this comment. As per reviewer’s comment, the novelty of study has been added in the revised version of the manuscript. Understanding farmers' opinions of climate change adaptation and mitigation is the key to adaptation strategies in the community. Moreover, there is a shortage of information on the socio-economic importance of these dug wells and the accompanying livelihoods, despite the fact that much literature has been written about the potential, scope, and status of dug wells in many regions. A study that documents the effects of climate change on dug wells connected to farmers' livelihoods in Pakistan's rain fed region does not exist. Therefore this study is designed to fill this major gap.

3. Change Fig.1, use different shape for outlet

Response: Thank you for this comment. As per reviewer’s comment, the figure 1 has been modified in the revised version of the manuscript.

4. - Add more detail in Fig.3

Response: Thank you for this comment. As per reviewer’s comment, the Figure 3 has been improved and mirrored in figure 2 of the revise version of the manuscript.

5. Revise conclusion section to highlight the key findings

Response: Thank you for this comment. As per reviewer’s comment, the conclusion section has been revised to highlight the key findings of the study.

6. Check all the section number 

Response: Thank you for this comment. As per reviewer’s comment, the all section number has been checked in the revise version of the manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Recommendations to authors

General comment: please focus only on the results of the questionnaires.

Since no water data is analyzed I cannot see the connection, so I am afraid that you must re-write several parts of the manuscript leaving aside the parts referring to water quantity or quality unless you provide and analyze corresponding data.

Detailed comments:

- Line 2: Consider changing the title to: “Climate Change Impact on Groundwater Livelihood in Soan River Basin of Pakistan, South Asia based on the perception of local farmers”.

- Line 164 – 170: These questions are not answered in the text. Please consider limiting the questions to only those that can be answered based on the results of the questionnaires. 

- Line 212: The figure is distorted. Also, the image has low resolution and must be replaced. There is no color scale, nor an explanation about the colors.

- Line 214: Please remove the dark background and provide an index for the colors used.

- Line 215: Explain the coding used in the figure (S-*).

- Line 216: Why 300 dug wells are surveyed is not enough explained.

- Line 218: Add information about the area of Soan River Basin according to Koppen climate classification.

- Line 226: “approximately 70 households were 226 surveyed”. This means also the number of the questionnaires were 70? How has this sample size been determined? It doesn’t seem to be correct based on the given Cochran’s sample size formula.

- Line 230: There is an error in the formula: its not “d”, it is “e”. Also, for z-value=1.96 (95% confidence interval), the value for e = 0.05 (margin of error) and not 0.06 as you use in the calculation. So, using the correct values you must get a n = 385. Moreover, since the sample size is small then you might consider the small size correction that for the given parameters gives a reduced sample size (i.e., for N = 2000, you get a reduced sample size of 323, and for N = 1000, you get 279).  

- Line 247: In the text it is mentioned that “Six randomly selected dug-wells per UC were surveyed through a close-ended paper questionnaire”.  Were the dug-wells 6 or 300? Why you selected only 6 to be surveyed? How this information contributes to goals of current study?

- Line 254: No data is given for the water levels and for the water quality. 

- Line 255: Provide a map with the locations of all the dug wells since you have the coordinates of each well.

- Line 269: No information (descriptive statistics) is given for the data measured for each well. How water data measured contributes to the aim of the study?

- Line 379: It seems that the title needs some correction.

- Line 487: Without data evidence, measurements about water levels and their change in time, we can not draw safe conclusions about the impact of climate change based only on the people’s perception (it is indicative but cannot be used as evidence). In addition, there are many other factors affecting the water levels or water deposits, so it seems superficial to discuss the topic without providing tangible evidence.

- Line 511: “Understanding farmers’ perceptions of climate change adaptation and mitigation are the key to adaptation strategies in the community”. I agree that people’s perceptions are useful but data about current water levels is missing, no prediction or simulation models for the future water levels are given, so adaptation to what?

- Line 518: How can the perceptions of peoples about the climate can be used for motivation? It is not clear.

- Line 519: What is the value of coefficient of variation (CV) for the climate?

- Line 534: “Water assessment” without water quality and quantity data? Maybe part of the text can be moved to introduction.

- Line 584: Where is this recommendation is based on? It seems to be biased and unsubstantiated based only on the authors’ opinion.

- Line 586: “If the operational cost of the dug wells can be minimized through solar-driven pumps, then this would be the most economical irrigation system”. This is an unsubstantiated conclusion (though rational). Same comment for all the recommendations.

- Line 558: “This study is critical because it highlights the current status of water resources under changing climate and water scarcity conditions”. How this study highlights the status of water resources without even providing water data and corresponding analysis? Please remove and limit the conclusions to the results of the questionnaires. 

- Line 592: You may remove this section.

 

Author Response

Overall Comments

Please focus only on the results of the questionnaires.

Since no water data is analyzed I cannot see the connection, so I am afraid that you must re-write several parts of the manuscript leaving aside the parts referring to water quantity or quality unless you provide and analyze corresponding data.

Response: We are pleased that our manuscript was reviewed by such a qualified reviewer. We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. Considering the review comments, we have modified the entire manuscript. We do agree with the review, the water quality and quantity data cannot be added without any analyzing corresponding data. Therefore, we removed the parts referring to water quality or quantity in revise version of the manuscript. Moreover, Together with the revised version of the manuscript, a questionnaire sheet is also included to clarify the study's additional objectives. We hope that these revisions have improved the quality of work such that you now may deem it worthy for publication in “Water”. Next, we offer detailed responses to your comments. All changes made in the revised version of the manuscript have been tracked (by track change option).   

1. Line 2: Consider changing the title to: “Climate Change Impact on Groundwater Livelihood in Soan River Basin of Pakistan, South Asia based on the perception of local farmers”.

Response: We thank the reviewer for this important comment. We have changed the title as “Impact of Climate Change on Persian Wheels (Ground Water) Livelihood based on Local Farmer Perception: A Case Study of Soan River Basin, Pakistan” per direction of the reviewer.

2. Line 164 – 170: These questions are not answered in the text. Please consider limiting the questions to only those that can be answered based on the results of the questionnaires.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. As per reviewer comment, we considered only those questions that can be answered based on the results of the questionnaires. Moreover, as per reviewer suggestion. The extra questions has been removed in the revised version of the manuscript.

• What are these wells' socio-economic significance in the selected study areas?

“Section 3.1 and table 1” illustrating the socio-economic significance.

• What is the behavior of the water table in the region?

“Table 4 answering this specific question in the revise version of manuscript”.

• What is the Climate Change Impact on dug wells and associated livelihoods?

“The subsection 3.1-3.4 describing the impact of climate change on dug wells and associated livelihoods”

• What adaptation and rehabilitation measures can be taken to improve these wells?

“Table 11 describing respondents practice adaptive measures to overcome climate change challenges”

3. Line 212: The figure is distorted. Also, the image has low resolution and must be replaced. There is no color scale, nor an explanation about the colors.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's careful consideration and insightful revisions. As per reviewer suggestion the Figure 1 has been modified in the revise version of the manuscript.

4. Line 214: Please remove the dark background and provide an index for the colors used.

Response: Thank you for your opinion. Just the areas where the data was gathered are described in Figure 2b. The amended version of the manuscript's Figure 2 replicates the details of Figure 2b.

5. Line 215: Explain the coding used in the figure (S-*)..

Response: Thank you for your feedback. The aforementioned figure contains no coding. To illustrate the locations where the data was gathered, an image was created using Google Earth. The specifics of Figure 2b are, however, depicted in Figure 2 of the revised paper.

6. Line 216: Why 300 dug wells are surveyed is not enough explained

Response: We thank for this important comment. There are 101 Union Councils (UC) across the entire research region, making up the collection of perceptions. After establishing a 5 km buffer zone on both sides of the Soan River and its tributaries, Union councils having more than 50% of their area lying in the buffer zone were surveyed and data was collected. Fifty UCs fell within this criterion, and six dug wells from each Union Council were surveyed. 300 dug-wells were going to be examined. Nevertheless, due to a number of factors (lack of farmers, the bulk of the wells weren't in working order, and farmer awareness), only 70 dug wells could be thoroughly evaluated. Over 70 households from various Union Councils participated in a paper-based survey to operationalize the quantitative assessment. For accurate data on climate change from local farmers, we made an effort to survey every district in the research area. The structure of the research design is illustrated in Figure 3. Moreover, the more detail is added in the revise version of the manuscript as per reviewer suggestion.

Line 218: Add information about the area of Soan River Basin according to Koppen climate classification.

Response: Thank you for this comment. According to reviewer suggestion, the information about study area according to climate classification system has been added in the revised version of the manuscript.

7. Line 226: “approximately 70 households were 226 surveyed”. This means also the number of the questionnaires were 70? How has this sample size been determined? It doesn’t seem to be correct based on the given Cochran’s sample size formula.

Response: Thank you for this most important comment. We do agree with reviewer that the sample valued is not appropriate. After confirmation from the survey team (they first tried to apply Cochran’s sample size formula, but due to lack of farmers, the bulk of the wells weren't in working order, and farmer awareness), random sampling was used to collect the farmer’s perception. For accurate data on climate change from local farmers, we made an effort to survey every district in the research area. The structure of the research design is illustrated in Figure 3. Moreover, the Cochran’s sample size formula has been removed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 230: There is an error in the formula: its not “d”, it is “e”. Also, for z-value=1.96 (95% confidence interval), the value for e = 0.05 (margin of error) and not 0.06 as you use in the calculation. So, using the correct values you must get a n = 385. Moreover, since the sample size is small then you might consider the small size correction that for the given parameters gives a reduced sample size (i.e., for N = 2000, you get a reduced sample size of 323, and for N = 1000, you get 279). 

Response: Thank you for this important comment. We do agree with reviewer that the sample valued is not appropriate. After confirmation from the survey team, the random sampling was used to collect the farmer’s perception. For accurate data on climate change from local farmers, we made an effort to survey every district in the research area. The structure of the research design is illustrated in Figure 3. Moreover, the Cochran’s sample size formula has been removed in the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 247: In the text it is mentioned that “Six randomly selected dug-wells per UC were surveyed through a close-ended paper questionnaire”. Were the dug-wells 6 or 300? Why you selected only 6 to be surveyed? How this information contributes to goals of current study?

Response: Thanks for this comment, the criteria “Random sampling opted for a 5 km buffer zone across the Soan River and its tributaries. Union councils having more than 50% of their area lying in the buffer zone were surveyed and data was collected” was set to select dug well. Section 2.3 and Figure 4 and the Table A1 of the revised version of manuscript illustrating the information about selection criteria.

Line 254: No data is given for the water levels and for the water quality.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We do agree with the reviewer suggestion the water levels and for the water quality data is not provided. Moreover, the information about water level and water quality has been removed in the revise version of the manuscript.

8. Line 255: Provide a map with the locations of all the dug wells since you have the coordinates of each well.

Response: Thank you for this comment. According to reviewer suggestion, In Figure 2, map with locations of all the dug wells has been added in the revise version of the manuscript.

9. Line 269: No information (descriptive statistics) is given for the data measured for each well. How water data measured contributes to the aim of the study?

Response: Thank you for this comment. We do agree with the reviewer suggestion the descriptive statistics is not provided in the manuscript. This study's primary mission is to inform national policymakers and public institutions about the variations in livelihoods across communities that depend on dug wells in order to develop adoption strategies and programs (solar water pumping, high efficiency irrigation system, and advance agriculture methods). Therefore this study restricted us to focous only on how climate change is impacting on in-situ farmers.

Line 379: It seems that the title needs some correction.

Response: Thank you for this comment. According to reviewer suggestion, the title has been modified in revised version of the manuscript.

10. Line 487: Without data evidence, measurements about water levels and their change in time, we can not draw safe conclusions about the impact of climate change based only on the people’s perception (it is indicative but cannot be used as evidence). In addition, there are many other factors affecting the water levels or water deposits, so it seems superficial to discuss the topic without providing tangible evidence.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We agreed with the reviewer that it is impossible to make clear conclusions based just on the farmer's perception. Moreover, we also acknowledge that there are many other factors affecting the water levels or water deposits. Consequently, the primary goal of our study is to identify the variables influencing the farmers' dug-well yield and associated livelihood in the Soan basin (Potohar region) of Pakistan in order to develop a range of workable solutions. Therefore, we only focused to determine the dependence of the farming communities on the traditional dug-well/Persian wheel system for their livelihood. The most crucial objective of the study was to assess climate change impacts on the livelihoods of communities relying on dug wells, resource use, constraints, and opportunities to identify suits for adaptive interventions.

Line 511: “Understanding farmers’ perceptions of climate change adaptation and mitigation are the key to adaptation strategies in the community”. I agree that people’s perceptions are useful but data about current water levels is missing, no prediction or simulation models for the future water levels are given, so adaptation to what?

Response: Thank you for this comment. We do agree with the reviewer without simulation models for the future water levels understanding of climate change adaption and mitigation strategies. However in developing nations (where dug-wells are thought to be the most typical approach to extract ground water and use in agricultural operations), understanding farmers' opinions of climate change adaptation and mitigation is the key to adaptation strategies in the community. Moreover, there is a shortage of information on the socio-economic importance of these dug wells and the accompanying livelihoods, despite the fact that much literature has been written about the potential, scope, and status of dug wells in many regions. A study that documents the effects of climate change on dug wells connected to farmers' livelihoods in Pakistan's rain fed region does not exist. Therefore this study is designed to fill this major gap.

Line 518: How can the perceptions of peoples about the climate can be used for motivation? It is not clear.

Response: Thank you for this comment. According to Luo et al (2019). “Motivated attention framework where socio-political motivations shape visual attention to climate evidence, altering perceptions of the evidence and subsequent actions to mitigate climate change”. Moreover as per reviewer suggestion more information has been added in the revise version of the manuscript.

Line 519: What is the value of coefficient of variation (CV) for the climate?

Response: Thank you for this comment. We thanks the reviewer for such an important comment. CV refers to climate variability not coefficient of variation. However, we modified the line 519 in the revised version of the manuscript.

Line 534: “Water assessment” without water quality and quantity data? Maybe part of the text can be moved to introduction.

Response: Thank you for this comment. According to reviewer suggestion, the part of water assessment has been moved to introduction section in the revised version of the manuscript.

11. Line 584: Where is this recommendation is based on? It seems to be biased and unsubstantiated based only on the authors’ opinion.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. The recommendation is based on our detailed survey and after observing the in-situ farmer perceptions. Moreover, the findings of our survey is in-line with many previously published articles. For instance, [18, 36-41] (line-495 to Line-531) validating our’ study findings.

12. Line 586: “If the operational cost of the dug wells can be minimized through solar-driven pumps, then this would be the most economical irrigation system”. This is an unsubstantiated conclusion (though rational). Same comment for all the recommendations.

Response: Thank you for this comment. “If the operational cost of the dug wells can be minimized through solar-driven pumps”, then this would be the most economical irrigation system” This is one of the major finding of our study, after evaluating the detailed farmers perception, this conclusion was made. Moreover, Table 5 exactly lightning the validation of this conclusion.

13. Line 558: “This study is critical because it highlights the current status of water resources under changing climate and water scarcity conditions”. How this study highlights the status of water resources without even providing water data and corresponding analysis? Please remove and limit the conclusions to the results of the questionnaires.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. According to reviewer suggestion, the extra conclusion have been removed in the revised version of the manuscript.

14. Line 592: You may remove this section

Response: Thank you for this comment. According to reviewer suggestion, line 592 has been removed from the revised version of the manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I think, I can accept their answers.

Author Response

Overall Comment

I think, I can accept their answers.

Response: We are pleased that our manuscript was reviewed by such a qualified reviewer. We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer and accepting our revisions. Moreover, we further tried to improve our research by adding more details in the introduction section and other portions of the paper as well. We hope that these revisions have improved the quality of work such that you now may deem it worthy for publication in “Water”.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Recommendations to authors

- Authors put effort to improve the quality of the manuscript and they tried to focus on the results of the questionnaires as recommended. However, there is no clear justification about the usefulness of this survey and how findings can offer insights for a future improved management. 

- The justification for the low sample size is not sufficient and can be the reason for the results to be considered as non-representative.

- The recommendation given at the end of manuscript about farmers to shift from diesel/electric operated pumps to solar ones for water lifting from the dug wells is not based on the findings of survey. If this is the main goal of the manuscript, then consider adding this to the title and provide more info at the introduction section. Otherwise, the recommendation seems to be unsubstantiated.

- Line 640: in the text, conclusions start with: “In the current study, the factors affecting the dug well-based livelihood have been identified”. You must add “based on the farmers’ perception”, otherwise it is misleading. Same applies to other parts throughout the manuscript.

 

Author Response

Overall Comment

1. Authors put effort to improve the quality of the manuscript and they tried to focus on the results of the questionnaires as recommended. However, there is no clear justification about the usefulness of this survey and how findings can offer insights for a future improved management.

. Response: We are pleased that our manuscript was reviewed by such a qualified reviewer. We appreciate the positive feedback from the reviewer. Considering the review comments, we have added the justification about the importance of survey and how the conclusions can insights for a future improved management (Line-189—Line-220) We hope that these revisions have improved the quality of work such that you now may deem it worthy for publication in “Water”.

Detail Comments

2. The justification for the low sample size is not sufficient and can be the reason for the results to be considered as non-representative.

Response: Thank you for this comment. We do agree with reviewer that low sample size may cause results to be considered as non-representative. However, there are a lot of several factors which limited us to collect farmer perception from 70 farmers properly. The some important reasons are:

1. Limitation of Project funding
2. Human Power
3. lack of Farmers
4. The bulk of the dug-wells weren't in working order
5. Farmer awareness to questionnaires
6. Limited access to technology
7. Hesitancy to speak up
8. Social desirability bias

Moreover, previous study [35] concluded that if the population is relatively homogeneous, meaning that there is little variation between individuals, a smaller sample size may be sufficient to accurately represent the population. However, the more detail about the justification of low sample size has been added in the revise version of the manuscript.

Konstantina Vasileiou; Julie Barnett; Susan Thorpe; Terry Young Characterising and Justifying Sample Size Sufficiency in Interview-Based Studies: Systematic Analysis of Qualitative Health Research over a 15-Year Period. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018, 18, 1–18.

 

3. The recommendation given at the end of manuscript about farmers to shift from diesel/electric operated pumps to solar ones for water lifting from the dug wells is not based on the findings of survey. If this is the main goal of the manuscript, then consider adding this to the title and provide more info at the introduction section. Otherwise, the recommendation seems to be unsubstantiated.

Response: The reviewer's feedback is much appreciated. We do agree with reviewers that recommendation about farmers to shift from diesel/electric operated pumps to solar ones for water lifting from the dug wells is not based on the findings of survey. As a result, in the updated version of the manuscript, we addressed the general statement confined to the survey's findings while excluding this recommendation, per the reviewer's suggestion.

4. Line 640: in the text, conclusions start with: “In the current study, the factors affecting the dug well-based livelihood have been identified”. You must add “based on the farmers’ perception”, otherwise it is misleading. Same applies to other parts throughout the manuscript.

Response: Thank you for this important comment. As per reviewer’s comment, we added “Based on the perceptions of local farmers, the elements influencing the dug well-based livelihood have been identified in the current research….” In the revised version of the manuscript.