the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 19 Sep 2023
GC Insights: Lessons from participatory water quality research in the upper Santa River basin, Peru
Abstract. Research around water security in the Peruvian Andes rarely includes a local perspective or engages in a participatory approach with local communities within the research process. Here we share four key lessons from an interdisciplinary project that gathered community perspectives on water quality issues in the upper Rio Santa basin. Mixed-methods data was collected via a photo elicitation app with a survey (Nuestro Rio), and a field work campaign. Our main learnings were i) the importance of in-person engagement; ii) the accessibility of technology for data collection; iii) the need for co-produced knowledge and solutions; and iv) the complexity of water quality as an environmental concept. Our research highlights the importance of effective participant engagement methods to support socio-environmental integration to support sustainable decision-making and water resource management.
-
Notice on discussion status
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
-
Preprint
(640 KB)
-
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(640 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
- Final revised paper
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2115', Fabian Drenkhan, 20 Oct 2023
General comments
This research aims to explore participatory water resource research approaches in the Peruvian Andes at the interface of science, community and decision-making. As stated by the authors, these approaches have barely been implemented in common – often natural-science-dominated – water resource research. Such an endeavour is highly complex and requires careful research design and local participation since early project implementation. While overall, I find this study well-written, a topic highly relevant and timely, and important for future research agendas in the Peruvian Andes and beyond, I have several concerns regarding the depth and meaningfulness of the presented findings and “key lessons” mentioned by the authors. Therefore, I suggest a thorough revision of the described methods, their scope and related outcomes in order to more strongly work out most relevant and novel key findings according to the experiences and data collected in the field.
Specific comments
Abstract:
From a first read, some of the presented “main learnings” (or “key lessons” as stated afterwards) do not seem striking to me to justify the meaningfulness of this research. The “importance of in-person engagement” (to include local stakeholders) is broadly known – but difficult to achieve – and the “need for co-produced knowledge and solutions” is in most cases the key pillar of participatory research and decision-making processes. Highlighting these aspects as two out of four key findings this research has produced, probably misses the opportunity to provide local insights – whether specific to the catchment or valid beyond – and discuss major bottlenecks and perspectives to advance participatory research in a meaningful way as desired by many but probably only achieved by a few researchers in this field.
Methods:
The multi-method approach with the Nuestro Rio app seems quite novel and interesting to me. However, I have several doubts and concerns, probably some of them owed to the short description of them.
1) It is not clear if the research design has been part of a co-production process with local stakeholders since the beginning of the project, or if the entire research framework including the app and interviews were developed by the researchers only. If I understand right, you have only used quantitative-qualitative data and descriptive statistics (lines 57-58) for this development. If this is true, then the lack of key stakeholder participation in the research design stage should be discussed as a possible shortcome or bias. Or in other words: relevant questions not being asked cannot (necessarily) be identified afterwards. This also represents a point for future improvement (section 4).
2) It is not clear why the semi-structured interviews – in most qualitative research a key pillar to produce local insights – have been conducted but not considered in this paper. What are the reasons behind? Would the findings from the interviews not have substantially contributed to construct more in-depth key findings as discussed above?
3) Considering the experiences of (several Peruvian!) authors of this research with indigenous communities, why have you not opted for creating an app version in Quechua language? As stated by the authors (lines 111-116), language is a barrier and might considerably influence the quality of responses, willingness to participate and thus lead to biased results, particularly in regions and communities where Quechua is the mother language and Spanish still perceived as the colonial or upper-urban class language. You cannot change this at this point anymore but should clearly attribute this fact as a potential shortcome and bias to your results, and recommend such approaches to future research.
4) Please include a brief statement about the selection and representativeness of the participants. What were the criteria to approach them? Were you able to include a broad intersection of community members in terms of age, gender, socio-economic status, local water resource challenges, among others?
5) Was the “return of knowledge” to the communities (lines 107, 148-149), actually an important aspect for long-term work, research ethics and communications, part of your project design? Which activities were implemented to guarantee a maximal return flow of knowledge, implications and lessons learnt, and thus benefit to local communities?
6) The Figure and concrete links to the represented data in the text should be improved. Which patterns of water quality can be identified according the Nuestro Rio survey? There is not even one single reference to Figure 1 in your text. Does the variable size of the photos mean anything (i.e. better/worse water quality)? The photos are hard to read and a legend with symbols for each photo could help to understand which water quality issue has been identified in each case (if a sort of major “water quality issue categories” is feasible). Also add at least main cartographic elements, such as a scale and coordinates, at least for the small overview maps. It seems Figure 1 belongs to “Results” (or here: “Key lessons”) rather than “Methods”.
Key lessons:
As mentioned above (Abstract), I would strongly suggest to lift the key findings to a higher level. I would delete or rewrite sections 3.1 (“The importance of in-person engagement”) and 3.4 (“Need for co-produced knowledge and solutions”) which naturally represent the essence of participation, mutual exchange and knowledge production. Instead, you can further explain e.g. a) what the best strategies were to engage people (e.g. incentives you generally mention; to guarantee an environment where they are willing and feel comfortable to transparently respond), b) which limitations you were dealing with during the research (e.g. distrust and previous negative experiences of communities with researchers; comprehension of the technical details and scientific language), and c) what the implications and tangible results of your research are (e.g. if the results can now directly be used for other research; what the return value of this research for local implications and benefit is).
Are most of the outcomes specific to the respective subcatchment conditions (e.g. local conflict over water resources; acid rock drainage) or can (some of them) be understood as key lessons for the Santa river basin and beyond?
Recommendations for future participatory environmental research:
I like several points raised here. One important point: how can the challenges from completely different timeframes (lines 133-135) of short research frameworks and publication pressure compared to long-term work with communities to understand each other and to build trust be overcome or at least improved?
Try to be as specific as possible within this short GC piece. Sentences such as “Effective design of participatory research can play a crucial role here” are quite general. They need to be put into clear context (e.g. what “effective” means; “can play” sounds quite vague).
As mentioned above, include the importance of co-produced research design and local language focus (Quechua) for future participatory science-community approaches.
Technical correctionsThe text is well and technically correctly written.
One single comment: avoid colloquial or exaggerated language, such as “incredibly important” (line 44) or “immensely valuable” (line 68).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
We thank the reviewer for their extensive and constructive comments. Please find below our responses to the reviewers specific comments, using the same headings and numbering as used by the reviewer in RC1:
General comments
We thank the reviewer for their comments. We would like to emphasize that we have submitted this article as a short Insights piece, rather than a full research article. We have already published a full research article exploring the data and findings in detail (Rangecroft et al., 2023) and here we opted for a much shorter piece to look to communicate insights from the app development and implementation itself. We want to make sure this is clear as we believe it shows that a number of these RC1 suggestions are not possible/relevant given the focus, limited word count and limited reference list possible for a Geoscience Communications Insights article. For example, due to the nature of this short article (1,500 words), we were not able to provide a full description of the wider and deeper process of research tool development (including piloting the tool with local students) that went into the creation of the Nuestro Rio app. From reflecting on all three reviewers comments, we plan to reframe our piece, which we hope will help to address suggestions from reviewer 1 in their recommendation to bring the “most relevant and novel key findings according to the experiences and data collection in the field”. In this context, we will be focusing on the development and implementation of a novel technological tool (e.g. the Nuestro Rio app) for facilitating a move towards participatory science.
We would also like to emphasize that the audience for Geoscience Communications is extremely broad, and whilst certain key lessons might be well known for some disciplines (e.g. the importance of in-person engagement, the need for co-produced knowledge and solutions) this is not necessarily the case across the board. We believe that the lessons included in our Insights piece can help those who are considering developing and utilizing novel technology for research, particularly those who may not have engaged with participatory environmental research previously.
Specific comments
Abstract:
Due to the limited focus of this Geoscience Communication Insights article, we refrained from providing more local insights as we wanted to make the key learnings from development and implementation of the Nuestro Rio app as transferable and applicable to other settings as possible.. We explore our specific research findings, and what these mean in a local context, in much more detail in our Rangecroft et al., 2023 paper, which we will look to signpost to more clearly in our revised article.
Methods:
We thank you for your comments here, but we would like to emphasize that this was submitted as a Geoscience Communications Insights article, with a short word limit of 1,500 words, so detailed discussion of our methods was not the intended focus of the article. However, we would like to highlight that the methods applied in our research are described in detail within our Rangecroft et al., 2023 paper.
1) We outline the project and methods in much more detail in our Rangecroft et al., 2023 paper. However, for context - the research here was designed with a range of in-country partners who are already deeply engaged with the case study communities, and the research approach and data collection tools were developed with those partners and were based on their extensive knowledge of the issues already identified by the case study communities in their prior work. We will try to ensure that this background is more clearly communicated in this paper in a revised version within the constraints of the limited word count. An excellent point made about potential shortcomings (and challenges) with lack of stakeholder participation in the research design stage. We will ensure that this is mentioned in our revised version, thank you.
2) Thank you for the interest in this qualitative data, but due to the very limited word count and focus of this Insights paper, we can only signpost to our JoH paper (Rangecroft et al., 2023) which explores the data and results from the interviews in much more detail, allowing us to keep this paper focussed on the use of technology for facilitating participatory research.
3) We opted to develop the app in Spanish rather than Quechua to try and reach a wider population in the basin, since many residents of Huaraz do speak Spanish. This decision was made by the research team, with informed opinion from those with experience working in the region. We would also like to verify that our in-field researchers were able to support the translation of the text in the Nuestro Rio app into Quechua by conducting walking interviews with participants using the app. More can be read on this in Rangecroft et al. 2023. We will look to ensure this is stated clearly in our revised manuscript. Within our revised article, we will also reflect more critically on our research design and implementation, however we note that we do already discuss potential limitations related to language.
4) As for our responses regarding methodology discussed above, we would like to reiterate that within this 1,500 word article we did not have the space to explore participant recruitment, and details about our participants can be found in Rangecroft et al., 2023.
5) This was a very short pilot project, and whilst the return of knowledge to the communities was conducted via return visits and a travelling photo exhibition, the project itself did not have capacity to build upon the initial round of participatory data and research. Due to the short nature of this 1,500 word article, we have not explored this further here as our focus is the lessons learnt from the development and implementation of the Nuestro Rio app.
6) Again, we would like to emphasize that the purpose of this short article was not to explore the findings themselves, and this information can be read in detail within Rangecroft et al., 2023. However, from this reviewers comment we can see that we need to state more clearly in our article that Figure 1 is purely for science communication and illustrative purposes, it is not a representation of our in-depth findings.
Key lessons:
We thank you for your suggestion to rewrite sections 3.1 and 3.4 in order to focus more on key findings, and we will look to do this in our revised version. Whilst we value all of these comments, it is outside the scope (and length) of this paper to reflect further on specific research results here However, we will try to more clearly articulate how the lessons from this local study might be more widely applicable beyond this river basin.
Recommendations for future participatory environmental research:
Thank you for these reflections. We will try to be more specific in our language in the next iteration of this manuscript. We will also look to more clearly state the importance of local language and co-production, as described in responses above.
Technical corrections:
Thank you for this correction, we agree and will revise our language in our revised version.
References: Rangecroft, S., Dextre, R.M., Richter, I., Grados Bueno, C.V., Kelly, C., Turin, C., Fuentealba, B., Camacho Hernandez, M., Morera, S., Martin, J., Guy, A. & Clason, C., (2023), Unravelling and understanding local perceptions of water quality in the Santa basin, Peru, Journal of Hydrology, 625(A), 129949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129949
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2115', Timothy Norris, 27 Nov 2023
General Comments:
This is a good start on an article intended to share lessons from a "participatory" project that elicited perceptions of water quality from several communities in the upper portion of the Rio Santa watershed in the Andes of Peru. With that said, it may be better to publish this manuscript as a research note than a scientific article and to change the framing of participatory to one of citizen science (quite different). While the subject matter of the manuscript is within the scope of Geoscience Communication, the manuscript does not place the research project and results within existing work on the several topics with which the authors engage. For example, the project is labeled as participatory, but it is unclear how residents of the Rio Santa valley - the Callejon de Huaylas - participated other than using an app given to them (on cellphones? not clearly stated in the methods section). Also, there is a limited engagement with the vast water governance literature for the Peruvian Andes. Furthermore, while this seems to be a citizen science project, there is no outlined citizen science framework for the reader to place this project in. It almost seems like a research project that did a limited literature review before engaging in "participatory" research ... On the other hand the conclusion, that points towards more integrated water quality monitoring which includes both data collection with instruments and citizen engagement to elicit perceptions of quality, is timely and important. This conclusion may be valid but needs to be better substantiated by placing the research in existing literature frameworks and providing more details on the "participatory" method used. For this reason I recommend a major revision.
Note: for all the suggested citations below, see who cites them in recent literature ...
Specific Comments:
Figure 1:
The map is clear an has good design, but it is not clear why some photographs are bigger than others. It is also not clear what criteria was used to choose which points have photos. I found myself wanting a section in the methods to briefly describe how the survey instrument was used/analyzed to categorized water quality as good, neutral, or bad. Also how the sites were chosen, or how participants were chosen?
Lessons Learned:
In person engagement: I would like to know how long the project lasted and what plans there are to make the engagement sustainable. For example, will there be an ongoing campaign to encourage people to continue to use the app? Was there "participation" in the design of the survey questions and the app itself? Was there "participation" in designing the project activities? Whatever the answer may be, it would be great to know a little more about this.
Challenges of digital (in)accessibility: I am fairly certain there is a decade long history of using smart-phones for various research project in this region (as an example, Bury et al. 2013. New geographies of water and climate change in Peru: Coupled natural and social transformations in the Santa River Watershed, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 363-374.) It would be great to link some of the previous work in this area to this water monitoring project. In the same way, there is plenty of literature on app design and problems with engaging citizens in digital data collection on devices (especially for map based apps, a good starting point might be Haklay, M., & Tobón, C. (2003). Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centered design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 577-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1365881031000114107).
Need for co-produced knowledge and solutions: I once again find myself wanting to see more engagement with existing literature on this topic. Maybe Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VC6-3VW1PS3-9/2/ef9e7e3fd45a5cfda5b6b045ca20105e and/or Budds, J., & Hinojosa, L. (2012). Restructuring and Rescaling Water Governance in Mining Contexts: The Co-Production of Waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 119-137. is a good place to start. I also really want to know how the perception data was combined with any existing measured water quality data (pH, turbidity, salinity, heavy metals, etc. etc. etc.). As noted in the conclusion, this combination may be a more powerful way to assess water quality ... co-production ...
Complexity of "water quality" as an environmental concept: Yes, this is difficult. I have also worked with Andean communities and water quality. I struggle to see this project as participatory other than engaging informants (like old school ethnology). For many readers participatory might mean an interpreting reality together, the line between "participants" and "researchers" becomes blurred, but in this manuscript a division between the participants and researchers is maintained ... good starting points here might be Pain, R., & Francis, P. (2003). Reflections on participatory research. Area, 35(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4762.00109 and/or Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum. I find myself wanting to know what observations might have been made in the semi-structured interviews ... perhaps in these results are the insights for co-produced knowledge about water quality.
Technical corrections:
None, the paper is readable.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Timothy Norris, 27 Nov 2023
This might also be useful:
Goodchild, Michael F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211-221. doi: 10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sally Rangecroft, 04 Apr 2024
Thank you for this suggestion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sally Rangecroft, 04 Apr 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
We thank the reviewer for their insights and comments. Please find below our responses to the reviewers specific comments, using the same headings, sub-headings and order as used by the reviewer in RC2:
General Comments:
We thank you for your time, insights and comments. We would like to emphasize that we have submitted this article as a short Insights piece, rather than a full research article. We have already published a full research article exploring the data and findings in detail (Rangecroft et al., 2023) and here we opted for a much shorter piece to look to communicate insights from the app development and implementation itself. We want to make sure this is clear as we believe it shows that a number of these suggestions are not possible/relevant given the focus, limited word count and limited reference list possible for a Geoscience Communications Insights article. For example, due to the nature of this short article (1,500 words), we were not able to provide a full description of the wider and deeper process of research tool development (including piloting the tool with local students) that went into the creation of the Nuestro Rio app.
We would like to emphasize that participatory research can be and mean a range of things, but importantly here we don't claim any 'deep' participation. Instead, we highlight the need for more participatory methods to enable local voices to be heard, and we offer an example of how we have tried to do that in a small way using a novel app. In this article we specifically consider the important lessons - the advantages and the shortcomings - of developing and using technology for this purpose. We will reframe our article to ensure this is front and center, and to ensure that readers are aware of our full research article (Rangecroft et al., 2023) where they can learn about the project methods and findings in much more detail.
Specific Comments:
Figure 1: Again, we would like to emphasize that the purpose of this short article was not to explore the findings themselves, and this information can be read in Rangecroft et al., 2023. However, from the reviewer's comment we can see that we need to state more clearly in our article that Figure 1 is purely for science communication and illustrative purposes, it is not a representation of our in-depth findings. We will endeavor to do this in a revised version. Please also note that it was participants who rated the water quality, through their perception, not scientific instruments. We will can make this clearer in the article/figure caption.
Lessons Learned:
In personal engagement: This was a pilot project which lasted just over 1 year (2021-2022). The short time-frame is related to funding constraints, which means there is not an ongoing campaign (something we will look to state and reflect on as a limitation within our article in our revised version). Instead, here we wish to communicate our insights through this journal article to help others who might be designing similar science communication and participatory research. For more details on the project, methods and findings, please see our published article Rangecroft et al., 2023.
Challenges of digital (in)accessibility: We had very limited scope with the number of references we could draw upon for this short article (25 references maximum), which explains why we weren’t able to fully represent the range of previous research that exists in this field. We would like to point out that the Nuestro Rio pilot project was not specifically about monitoring water quality, but instead about exploring local perspectives of water quality, and about exploring how a novel digital tool could be used for this purpose.
Need for co-produced knowledge and solutions: Please see our full research article, Rangecroft et al. 2023, for more information on our project findings. We would also like to re-emphasize that this was a pilot project that did not have the scope to combine social and physical data, although we agree that these could be a powerful way to assess water quality in future work.
Complexity of "water quality as an environmental concept: Again, we would direct you to our published work which introduces the project, the methods and the findings in detail (Rangecroft et al., 2023), but it is also clear that we need to better signpost to this in our article. In this GC Insights article our intention is to explore the lessons from our process of developing and implementing the Nuestro Rio tool for others who may be considering developing technological tools for encouraging participation and engagement with research. Participatory research is both a range of methods and an ideological perspective. It is fundamental that the subjects of the research become involved as partners in the process of the enquiry, and that their knowledge and capabilities are respected and valued. In this piece we are not claiming deep or substantial research co-design. We have offered an opportunity for local stakeholders to tell us, through imagery and words, about their understandings of their local water environments (participants were involved in choosing what, where and when to show us), and how they feel about these environments (we valued and respected their perspectives). We are aware that much of the previous research in this river basin has a focus on physical observations, and has often excluded local perspectives and experiences. It was our intention to explore the value of these perspectives as indicators of water quality in their own right, providing a voice for social perspectives and knowledge within water quality research.
References: Rangecroft, S., Dextre, R.M., Richter, I., Grados Bueno, C.V., Kelly, C., Turin, C., Fuentealba, B., Camacho Hernandez, M., Morera, S., Martin, J., Guy, A. & Clason, C., (2023), Unravelling and understanding local perceptions of water quality in the Santa basin, Peru, Journal of Hydrology, 625(A), 129949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129949
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC2
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Timothy Norris, 27 Nov 2023
-
RC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2115', Jacob Hileman, 28 Nov 2023
General Comments:
The aim of this Geoscience Communication manuscript is to share insights from participatory research on water quality in the Rio Santa basin of Peru. More specifically, the focus is on (or should be on) the use of a novel methodology or tool – the Nuestro Rio photo elicitation app – to improve the participatory research process in several key ways. These topics are certainly within the scope of the journal, and I expect with minor to moderate revisions the manuscript will be suitable for publication as a GC Insights article.
Specific Comments:
My chief, and really only, concern with the manuscript at present is that the novel contribution – the Nuestro Rio app – is not always front and center. On their own, the four key lessons learned are not especially surprising. The value added, and the reason the manuscript merits publication as a GC Insight article, is due to the ability of the Nuestro Rio app to help address these four issues and improve research outcomes to the benefit of the research team and local communities in the basin. Hence, I would suggest the “lessons learned” be explicitly framed around how the app helps to address these issues/challenges to participatory water quality research, or can be improved upon in the future to do so. While this suggestion is one that cuts across the entire manuscript (i.e., it requires revising everything from the abstract through to the recommendations and conclusions), it is largely a matter of reframing the existing text, rather than wholesale rewriting.
Technical Corrections:
These are all quite minor suggestions, so take them or leave them as you see fit!
In the first sentence of the abstract, you use the term “water security”, while the research is centered on “water quality”. You note the important water security implications in the introduction, but given the overarching focus of the paper is on water quality you might want to use this word in that first sentence.
The acronym TEK is defined for “traditional ecological knowledge”, but since you only use the acronym one more time thereafter, there’s really no need to use the acronym in the first place.
Make sure to define any concepts that you introduce (e.g., food-water-energy nexus), or alternatively avoid using them entirely if they are not germane to the focus of the manuscript.
While the research project is certainly interdisciplinary, which you note several times, it is also fully transdisciplinary. You might want to include this term in conjunction with interdisciplinary, just to reinforce the strong connections between the research project and non-academic stakeholders.
I am familiar with the use of the term cosmovisión in Spanish, but I am not sure how widely used it is in English. Unless your aim is to communicate something deeper – drawing on deeper cultural meaning embedded in the term – then I would replace it with “worldview” (or alternatively elaborate on the meaning of cosmovisión).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC4 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
We thank the reviewer for their time, insights and positive comments. Please find below our responses to the reviewers specific comments, using the same headings and order as used by the reviewer in RC4:
Specific Comments:
We thank you for reviewing this article, and for providing such positive and constructive comments. We like the idea of changing the framing to bring the app into these lessons more to show how research like this can both be valuable while identifying challenges for future researchers to consider, so we thank you for bringing this suggestion to the forefront. We will seek to do this in our revised version, reflecting that all three reviewers have suggested the importance of framing this work around the app rather than the findings themselves (which can be explored in Rangecroft et al., 2023). We believe we can successfully make these changes within a revised version of this paper.
Technical Corrections:
Use of the term water security rather than water quality in the first sentence: Thank you for this suggestion, which we will consider when revising this paper.
Use of acronym TEK: This is a good point and we will remove the acronym.
Defining concepts or avoiding them, such as food-water-energy nexus: This is also a valuable point, thank you - we will look to either define this or completely remove.
Transdisciplinary research: We agree that our research is both inter- and transdisciplinary in nature and will seek to clarify this in our revised paper.
Use of the term cosmovisión: Thank you for this suggestion - we will replace cosmovision with worldview in order to best communicate to an international readership.
References: Rangecroft, S., Dextre, R.M., Richter, I., Grados Bueno, C.V., Kelly, C., Turin, C., Fuentealba, B., Camacho Hernandez, M., Morera, S., Martin, J., Guy, A. & Clason, C., (2023), Unravelling and understanding local perceptions of water quality in the Santa basin, Peru, Journal of Hydrology, 625(A), 129949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129949
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
Interactive discussion
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2115', Fabian Drenkhan, 20 Oct 2023
General comments
This research aims to explore participatory water resource research approaches in the Peruvian Andes at the interface of science, community and decision-making. As stated by the authors, these approaches have barely been implemented in common – often natural-science-dominated – water resource research. Such an endeavour is highly complex and requires careful research design and local participation since early project implementation. While overall, I find this study well-written, a topic highly relevant and timely, and important for future research agendas in the Peruvian Andes and beyond, I have several concerns regarding the depth and meaningfulness of the presented findings and “key lessons” mentioned by the authors. Therefore, I suggest a thorough revision of the described methods, their scope and related outcomes in order to more strongly work out most relevant and novel key findings according to the experiences and data collected in the field.
Specific comments
Abstract:
From a first read, some of the presented “main learnings” (or “key lessons” as stated afterwards) do not seem striking to me to justify the meaningfulness of this research. The “importance of in-person engagement” (to include local stakeholders) is broadly known – but difficult to achieve – and the “need for co-produced knowledge and solutions” is in most cases the key pillar of participatory research and decision-making processes. Highlighting these aspects as two out of four key findings this research has produced, probably misses the opportunity to provide local insights – whether specific to the catchment or valid beyond – and discuss major bottlenecks and perspectives to advance participatory research in a meaningful way as desired by many but probably only achieved by a few researchers in this field.
Methods:
The multi-method approach with the Nuestro Rio app seems quite novel and interesting to me. However, I have several doubts and concerns, probably some of them owed to the short description of them.
1) It is not clear if the research design has been part of a co-production process with local stakeholders since the beginning of the project, or if the entire research framework including the app and interviews were developed by the researchers only. If I understand right, you have only used quantitative-qualitative data and descriptive statistics (lines 57-58) for this development. If this is true, then the lack of key stakeholder participation in the research design stage should be discussed as a possible shortcome or bias. Or in other words: relevant questions not being asked cannot (necessarily) be identified afterwards. This also represents a point for future improvement (section 4).
2) It is not clear why the semi-structured interviews – in most qualitative research a key pillar to produce local insights – have been conducted but not considered in this paper. What are the reasons behind? Would the findings from the interviews not have substantially contributed to construct more in-depth key findings as discussed above?
3) Considering the experiences of (several Peruvian!) authors of this research with indigenous communities, why have you not opted for creating an app version in Quechua language? As stated by the authors (lines 111-116), language is a barrier and might considerably influence the quality of responses, willingness to participate and thus lead to biased results, particularly in regions and communities where Quechua is the mother language and Spanish still perceived as the colonial or upper-urban class language. You cannot change this at this point anymore but should clearly attribute this fact as a potential shortcome and bias to your results, and recommend such approaches to future research.
4) Please include a brief statement about the selection and representativeness of the participants. What were the criteria to approach them? Were you able to include a broad intersection of community members in terms of age, gender, socio-economic status, local water resource challenges, among others?
5) Was the “return of knowledge” to the communities (lines 107, 148-149), actually an important aspect for long-term work, research ethics and communications, part of your project design? Which activities were implemented to guarantee a maximal return flow of knowledge, implications and lessons learnt, and thus benefit to local communities?
6) The Figure and concrete links to the represented data in the text should be improved. Which patterns of water quality can be identified according the Nuestro Rio survey? There is not even one single reference to Figure 1 in your text. Does the variable size of the photos mean anything (i.e. better/worse water quality)? The photos are hard to read and a legend with symbols for each photo could help to understand which water quality issue has been identified in each case (if a sort of major “water quality issue categories” is feasible). Also add at least main cartographic elements, such as a scale and coordinates, at least for the small overview maps. It seems Figure 1 belongs to “Results” (or here: “Key lessons”) rather than “Methods”.
Key lessons:
As mentioned above (Abstract), I would strongly suggest to lift the key findings to a higher level. I would delete or rewrite sections 3.1 (“The importance of in-person engagement”) and 3.4 (“Need for co-produced knowledge and solutions”) which naturally represent the essence of participation, mutual exchange and knowledge production. Instead, you can further explain e.g. a) what the best strategies were to engage people (e.g. incentives you generally mention; to guarantee an environment where they are willing and feel comfortable to transparently respond), b) which limitations you were dealing with during the research (e.g. distrust and previous negative experiences of communities with researchers; comprehension of the technical details and scientific language), and c) what the implications and tangible results of your research are (e.g. if the results can now directly be used for other research; what the return value of this research for local implications and benefit is).
Are most of the outcomes specific to the respective subcatchment conditions (e.g. local conflict over water resources; acid rock drainage) or can (some of them) be understood as key lessons for the Santa river basin and beyond?
Recommendations for future participatory environmental research:
I like several points raised here. One important point: how can the challenges from completely different timeframes (lines 133-135) of short research frameworks and publication pressure compared to long-term work with communities to understand each other and to build trust be overcome or at least improved?
Try to be as specific as possible within this short GC piece. Sentences such as “Effective design of participatory research can play a crucial role here” are quite general. They need to be put into clear context (e.g. what “effective” means; “can play” sounds quite vague).
As mentioned above, include the importance of co-produced research design and local language focus (Quechua) for future participatory science-community approaches.
Technical correctionsThe text is well and technically correctly written.
One single comment: avoid colloquial or exaggerated language, such as “incredibly important” (line 44) or “immensely valuable” (line 68).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC1 -
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
We thank the reviewer for their extensive and constructive comments. Please find below our responses to the reviewers specific comments, using the same headings and numbering as used by the reviewer in RC1:
General comments
We thank the reviewer for their comments. We would like to emphasize that we have submitted this article as a short Insights piece, rather than a full research article. We have already published a full research article exploring the data and findings in detail (Rangecroft et al., 2023) and here we opted for a much shorter piece to look to communicate insights from the app development and implementation itself. We want to make sure this is clear as we believe it shows that a number of these RC1 suggestions are not possible/relevant given the focus, limited word count and limited reference list possible for a Geoscience Communications Insights article. For example, due to the nature of this short article (1,500 words), we were not able to provide a full description of the wider and deeper process of research tool development (including piloting the tool with local students) that went into the creation of the Nuestro Rio app. From reflecting on all three reviewers comments, we plan to reframe our piece, which we hope will help to address suggestions from reviewer 1 in their recommendation to bring the “most relevant and novel key findings according to the experiences and data collection in the field”. In this context, we will be focusing on the development and implementation of a novel technological tool (e.g. the Nuestro Rio app) for facilitating a move towards participatory science.
We would also like to emphasize that the audience for Geoscience Communications is extremely broad, and whilst certain key lessons might be well known for some disciplines (e.g. the importance of in-person engagement, the need for co-produced knowledge and solutions) this is not necessarily the case across the board. We believe that the lessons included in our Insights piece can help those who are considering developing and utilizing novel technology for research, particularly those who may not have engaged with participatory environmental research previously.
Specific comments
Abstract:
Due to the limited focus of this Geoscience Communication Insights article, we refrained from providing more local insights as we wanted to make the key learnings from development and implementation of the Nuestro Rio app as transferable and applicable to other settings as possible.. We explore our specific research findings, and what these mean in a local context, in much more detail in our Rangecroft et al., 2023 paper, which we will look to signpost to more clearly in our revised article.
Methods:
We thank you for your comments here, but we would like to emphasize that this was submitted as a Geoscience Communications Insights article, with a short word limit of 1,500 words, so detailed discussion of our methods was not the intended focus of the article. However, we would like to highlight that the methods applied in our research are described in detail within our Rangecroft et al., 2023 paper.
1) We outline the project and methods in much more detail in our Rangecroft et al., 2023 paper. However, for context - the research here was designed with a range of in-country partners who are already deeply engaged with the case study communities, and the research approach and data collection tools were developed with those partners and were based on their extensive knowledge of the issues already identified by the case study communities in their prior work. We will try to ensure that this background is more clearly communicated in this paper in a revised version within the constraints of the limited word count. An excellent point made about potential shortcomings (and challenges) with lack of stakeholder participation in the research design stage. We will ensure that this is mentioned in our revised version, thank you.
2) Thank you for the interest in this qualitative data, but due to the very limited word count and focus of this Insights paper, we can only signpost to our JoH paper (Rangecroft et al., 2023) which explores the data and results from the interviews in much more detail, allowing us to keep this paper focussed on the use of technology for facilitating participatory research.
3) We opted to develop the app in Spanish rather than Quechua to try and reach a wider population in the basin, since many residents of Huaraz do speak Spanish. This decision was made by the research team, with informed opinion from those with experience working in the region. We would also like to verify that our in-field researchers were able to support the translation of the text in the Nuestro Rio app into Quechua by conducting walking interviews with participants using the app. More can be read on this in Rangecroft et al. 2023. We will look to ensure this is stated clearly in our revised manuscript. Within our revised article, we will also reflect more critically on our research design and implementation, however we note that we do already discuss potential limitations related to language.
4) As for our responses regarding methodology discussed above, we would like to reiterate that within this 1,500 word article we did not have the space to explore participant recruitment, and details about our participants can be found in Rangecroft et al., 2023.
5) This was a very short pilot project, and whilst the return of knowledge to the communities was conducted via return visits and a travelling photo exhibition, the project itself did not have capacity to build upon the initial round of participatory data and research. Due to the short nature of this 1,500 word article, we have not explored this further here as our focus is the lessons learnt from the development and implementation of the Nuestro Rio app.
6) Again, we would like to emphasize that the purpose of this short article was not to explore the findings themselves, and this information can be read in detail within Rangecroft et al., 2023. However, from this reviewers comment we can see that we need to state more clearly in our article that Figure 1 is purely for science communication and illustrative purposes, it is not a representation of our in-depth findings.
Key lessons:
We thank you for your suggestion to rewrite sections 3.1 and 3.4 in order to focus more on key findings, and we will look to do this in our revised version. Whilst we value all of these comments, it is outside the scope (and length) of this paper to reflect further on specific research results here However, we will try to more clearly articulate how the lessons from this local study might be more widely applicable beyond this river basin.
Recommendations for future participatory environmental research:
Thank you for these reflections. We will try to be more specific in our language in the next iteration of this manuscript. We will also look to more clearly state the importance of local language and co-production, as described in responses above.
Technical corrections:
Thank you for this correction, we agree and will revise our language in our revised version.
References: Rangecroft, S., Dextre, R.M., Richter, I., Grados Bueno, C.V., Kelly, C., Turin, C., Fuentealba, B., Camacho Hernandez, M., Morera, S., Martin, J., Guy, A. & Clason, C., (2023), Unravelling and understanding local perceptions of water quality in the Santa basin, Peru, Journal of Hydrology, 625(A), 129949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129949
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2115', Timothy Norris, 27 Nov 2023
General Comments:
This is a good start on an article intended to share lessons from a "participatory" project that elicited perceptions of water quality from several communities in the upper portion of the Rio Santa watershed in the Andes of Peru. With that said, it may be better to publish this manuscript as a research note than a scientific article and to change the framing of participatory to one of citizen science (quite different). While the subject matter of the manuscript is within the scope of Geoscience Communication, the manuscript does not place the research project and results within existing work on the several topics with which the authors engage. For example, the project is labeled as participatory, but it is unclear how residents of the Rio Santa valley - the Callejon de Huaylas - participated other than using an app given to them (on cellphones? not clearly stated in the methods section). Also, there is a limited engagement with the vast water governance literature for the Peruvian Andes. Furthermore, while this seems to be a citizen science project, there is no outlined citizen science framework for the reader to place this project in. It almost seems like a research project that did a limited literature review before engaging in "participatory" research ... On the other hand the conclusion, that points towards more integrated water quality monitoring which includes both data collection with instruments and citizen engagement to elicit perceptions of quality, is timely and important. This conclusion may be valid but needs to be better substantiated by placing the research in existing literature frameworks and providing more details on the "participatory" method used. For this reason I recommend a major revision.
Note: for all the suggested citations below, see who cites them in recent literature ...
Specific Comments:
Figure 1:
The map is clear an has good design, but it is not clear why some photographs are bigger than others. It is also not clear what criteria was used to choose which points have photos. I found myself wanting a section in the methods to briefly describe how the survey instrument was used/analyzed to categorized water quality as good, neutral, or bad. Also how the sites were chosen, or how participants were chosen?
Lessons Learned:
In person engagement: I would like to know how long the project lasted and what plans there are to make the engagement sustainable. For example, will there be an ongoing campaign to encourage people to continue to use the app? Was there "participation" in the design of the survey questions and the app itself? Was there "participation" in designing the project activities? Whatever the answer may be, it would be great to know a little more about this.
Challenges of digital (in)accessibility: I am fairly certain there is a decade long history of using smart-phones for various research project in this region (as an example, Bury et al. 2013. New geographies of water and climate change in Peru: Coupled natural and social transformations in the Santa River Watershed, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(2), 363-374.) It would be great to link some of the previous work in this area to this water monitoring project. In the same way, there is plenty of literature on app design and problems with engaging citizens in digital data collection on devices (especially for map based apps, a good starting point might be Haklay, M., & Tobón, C. (2003). Usability evaluation and PPGIS: towards a user-centered design approach. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 17(6), 577-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/1365881031000114107).
Need for co-produced knowledge and solutions: I once again find myself wanting to see more engagement with existing literature on this topic. Maybe Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073-1087. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B6VC6-3VW1PS3-9/2/ef9e7e3fd45a5cfda5b6b045ca20105e and/or Budds, J., & Hinojosa, L. (2012). Restructuring and Rescaling Water Governance in Mining Contexts: The Co-Production of Waterscapes in Peru. Water Alternatives, 5(1), 119-137. is a good place to start. I also really want to know how the perception data was combined with any existing measured water quality data (pH, turbidity, salinity, heavy metals, etc. etc. etc.). As noted in the conclusion, this combination may be a more powerful way to assess water quality ... co-production ...
Complexity of "water quality" as an environmental concept: Yes, this is difficult. I have also worked with Andean communities and water quality. I struggle to see this project as participatory other than engaging informants (like old school ethnology). For many readers participatory might mean an interpreting reality together, the line between "participants" and "researchers" becomes blurred, but in this manuscript a division between the participants and researchers is maintained ... good starting points here might be Pain, R., & Francis, P. (2003). Reflections on participatory research. Area, 35(1), 46-54. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-4762.00109 and/or Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Continuum. I find myself wanting to know what observations might have been made in the semi-structured interviews ... perhaps in these results are the insights for co-produced knowledge about water quality.
Technical corrections:
None, the paper is readable.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC2 -
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Timothy Norris, 27 Nov 2023
This might also be useful:
Goodchild, Michael F. (2007). Citizens as sensors: the world of volunteered geography. GeoJournal, 69(4), 211-221. doi: 10.1007/s10708-007-9111-y.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC3 -
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sally Rangecroft, 04 Apr 2024
Thank you for this suggestion
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC4
-
AC4: 'Reply on RC3', Sally Rangecroft, 04 Apr 2024
-
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
We thank the reviewer for their insights and comments. Please find below our responses to the reviewers specific comments, using the same headings, sub-headings and order as used by the reviewer in RC2:
General Comments:
We thank you for your time, insights and comments. We would like to emphasize that we have submitted this article as a short Insights piece, rather than a full research article. We have already published a full research article exploring the data and findings in detail (Rangecroft et al., 2023) and here we opted for a much shorter piece to look to communicate insights from the app development and implementation itself. We want to make sure this is clear as we believe it shows that a number of these suggestions are not possible/relevant given the focus, limited word count and limited reference list possible for a Geoscience Communications Insights article. For example, due to the nature of this short article (1,500 words), we were not able to provide a full description of the wider and deeper process of research tool development (including piloting the tool with local students) that went into the creation of the Nuestro Rio app.
We would like to emphasize that participatory research can be and mean a range of things, but importantly here we don't claim any 'deep' participation. Instead, we highlight the need for more participatory methods to enable local voices to be heard, and we offer an example of how we have tried to do that in a small way using a novel app. In this article we specifically consider the important lessons - the advantages and the shortcomings - of developing and using technology for this purpose. We will reframe our article to ensure this is front and center, and to ensure that readers are aware of our full research article (Rangecroft et al., 2023) where they can learn about the project methods and findings in much more detail.
Specific Comments:
Figure 1: Again, we would like to emphasize that the purpose of this short article was not to explore the findings themselves, and this information can be read in Rangecroft et al., 2023. However, from the reviewer's comment we can see that we need to state more clearly in our article that Figure 1 is purely for science communication and illustrative purposes, it is not a representation of our in-depth findings. We will endeavor to do this in a revised version. Please also note that it was participants who rated the water quality, through their perception, not scientific instruments. We will can make this clearer in the article/figure caption.
Lessons Learned:
In personal engagement: This was a pilot project which lasted just over 1 year (2021-2022). The short time-frame is related to funding constraints, which means there is not an ongoing campaign (something we will look to state and reflect on as a limitation within our article in our revised version). Instead, here we wish to communicate our insights through this journal article to help others who might be designing similar science communication and participatory research. For more details on the project, methods and findings, please see our published article Rangecroft et al., 2023.
Challenges of digital (in)accessibility: We had very limited scope with the number of references we could draw upon for this short article (25 references maximum), which explains why we weren’t able to fully represent the range of previous research that exists in this field. We would like to point out that the Nuestro Rio pilot project was not specifically about monitoring water quality, but instead about exploring local perspectives of water quality, and about exploring how a novel digital tool could be used for this purpose.
Need for co-produced knowledge and solutions: Please see our full research article, Rangecroft et al. 2023, for more information on our project findings. We would also like to re-emphasize that this was a pilot project that did not have the scope to combine social and physical data, although we agree that these could be a powerful way to assess water quality in future work.
Complexity of "water quality as an environmental concept: Again, we would direct you to our published work which introduces the project, the methods and the findings in detail (Rangecroft et al., 2023), but it is also clear that we need to better signpost to this in our article. In this GC Insights article our intention is to explore the lessons from our process of developing and implementing the Nuestro Rio tool for others who may be considering developing technological tools for encouraging participation and engagement with research. Participatory research is both a range of methods and an ideological perspective. It is fundamental that the subjects of the research become involved as partners in the process of the enquiry, and that their knowledge and capabilities are respected and valued. In this piece we are not claiming deep or substantial research co-design. We have offered an opportunity for local stakeholders to tell us, through imagery and words, about their understandings of their local water environments (participants were involved in choosing what, where and when to show us), and how they feel about these environments (we valued and respected their perspectives). We are aware that much of the previous research in this river basin has a focus on physical observations, and has often excluded local perspectives and experiences. It was our intention to explore the value of these perspectives as indicators of water quality in their own right, providing a voice for social perspectives and knowledge within water quality research.
References: Rangecroft, S., Dextre, R.M., Richter, I., Grados Bueno, C.V., Kelly, C., Turin, C., Fuentealba, B., Camacho Hernandez, M., Morera, S., Martin, J., Guy, A. & Clason, C., (2023), Unravelling and understanding local perceptions of water quality in the Santa basin, Peru, Journal of Hydrology, 625(A), 129949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129949
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC2
-
RC3: 'Reply on RC2', Timothy Norris, 27 Nov 2023
-
RC4: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2115', Jacob Hileman, 28 Nov 2023
General Comments:
The aim of this Geoscience Communication manuscript is to share insights from participatory research on water quality in the Rio Santa basin of Peru. More specifically, the focus is on (or should be on) the use of a novel methodology or tool – the Nuestro Rio photo elicitation app – to improve the participatory research process in several key ways. These topics are certainly within the scope of the journal, and I expect with minor to moderate revisions the manuscript will be suitable for publication as a GC Insights article.
Specific Comments:
My chief, and really only, concern with the manuscript at present is that the novel contribution – the Nuestro Rio app – is not always front and center. On their own, the four key lessons learned are not especially surprising. The value added, and the reason the manuscript merits publication as a GC Insight article, is due to the ability of the Nuestro Rio app to help address these four issues and improve research outcomes to the benefit of the research team and local communities in the basin. Hence, I would suggest the “lessons learned” be explicitly framed around how the app helps to address these issues/challenges to participatory water quality research, or can be improved upon in the future to do so. While this suggestion is one that cuts across the entire manuscript (i.e., it requires revising everything from the abstract through to the recommendations and conclusions), it is largely a matter of reframing the existing text, rather than wholesale rewriting.
Technical Corrections:
These are all quite minor suggestions, so take them or leave them as you see fit!
In the first sentence of the abstract, you use the term “water security”, while the research is centered on “water quality”. You note the important water security implications in the introduction, but given the overarching focus of the paper is on water quality you might want to use this word in that first sentence.
The acronym TEK is defined for “traditional ecological knowledge”, but since you only use the acronym one more time thereafter, there’s really no need to use the acronym in the first place.
Make sure to define any concepts that you introduce (e.g., food-water-energy nexus), or alternatively avoid using them entirely if they are not germane to the focus of the manuscript.
While the research project is certainly interdisciplinary, which you note several times, it is also fully transdisciplinary. You might want to include this term in conjunction with interdisciplinary, just to reinforce the strong connections between the research project and non-academic stakeholders.
I am familiar with the use of the term cosmovisión in Spanish, but I am not sure how widely used it is in English. Unless your aim is to communicate something deeper – drawing on deeper cultural meaning embedded in the term – then I would replace it with “worldview” (or alternatively elaborate on the meaning of cosmovisión).
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-RC4 -
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
We thank the reviewer for their time, insights and positive comments. Please find below our responses to the reviewers specific comments, using the same headings and order as used by the reviewer in RC4:
Specific Comments:
We thank you for reviewing this article, and for providing such positive and constructive comments. We like the idea of changing the framing to bring the app into these lessons more to show how research like this can both be valuable while identifying challenges for future researchers to consider, so we thank you for bringing this suggestion to the forefront. We will seek to do this in our revised version, reflecting that all three reviewers have suggested the importance of framing this work around the app rather than the findings themselves (which can be explored in Rangecroft et al., 2023). We believe we can successfully make these changes within a revised version of this paper.
Technical Corrections:
Use of the term water security rather than water quality in the first sentence: Thank you for this suggestion, which we will consider when revising this paper.
Use of acronym TEK: This is a good point and we will remove the acronym.
Defining concepts or avoiding them, such as food-water-energy nexus: This is also a valuable point, thank you - we will look to either define this or completely remove.
Transdisciplinary research: We agree that our research is both inter- and transdisciplinary in nature and will seek to clarify this in our revised paper.
Use of the term cosmovisión: Thank you for this suggestion - we will replace cosmovision with worldview in order to best communicate to an international readership.
References: Rangecroft, S., Dextre, R.M., Richter, I., Grados Bueno, C.V., Kelly, C., Turin, C., Fuentealba, B., Camacho Hernandez, M., Morera, S., Martin, J., Guy, A. & Clason, C., (2023), Unravelling and understanding local perceptions of water quality in the Santa basin, Peru, Journal of Hydrology, 625(A), 129949, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129949
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2115-AC3
-
AC3: 'Reply on RC4', Sally Rangecroft, 03 Apr 2024
Peer review completion
Journal article(s) based on this preprint
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 345 | 91 | 28 | 464 | 26 | 19 |
- HTML: 345
- PDF: 91
- XML: 28
- Total: 464
- BibTeX: 26
- EndNote: 19
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Sally Rangecroft
Caroline Clason
Rosa Maria Dextre
Isabel Richter
Claire Kelly
Cecilia Turin
Claudia V. Grados-Bueno
Beatriz Fuentealba
Mirtha Camacho Hernandez
Sergio Morera Julca
John Martin
John Adam Guy
The requested preprint has a corresponding peer-reviewed final revised paper. You are encouraged to refer to the final revised version.
- Preprint
(640 KB) - Metadata XML