Household Migration and Intentions for Future Migration in the Climate Change Vulnerable Lower Meghna Estuary of Coastal Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

 Household migration and intentions for future migration in the climate change vulnerable Lower Meghna Estuary of coastal Bangladesh

 

Interesting research manuscript to read. However, I find several issues in the manuscript and would like to raise them.

1. Formatting issues – You have to write the correct and full affiliation of the authors.
2. Abstract – The research need has to be clearly stated.
3. Introduction – acceptable amount of literature is cited. However, authors have very much failed to understand and compare the worldwide scenarios. Therefore, this has to be incorporated in the revised version.
4. The authors have discussed only on The August 2020 flash flood event, is there any particular reason at least not to check the previous events?
5. Equation numbers?
6. Figure titles in correct way?
7. Results and discussion – Authors try to generalize the 2020 flash flood event, which is controversial. Can the authors at least to identify anther flood event and see the things? You may not be able to conduct the surveys but you probably have some statistics available in Disaster Management Center of Bangladesh?
8. Conclusions – “Like most migration studies about the coastal area of Bangladesh, this empirical research also found that only a tiny proportion of people left or intend to leave either permanently or temporarily, which challenges current narratives about vulnerability to environmentally induced migration.” This is interesting; however, why the world thinks other way round? Any particular reason?
9. Why don’t you incorporate the economic status in the coastal areas into the research? Would that be a reason?
10. I need at least another location or another event to understand the results; if not this is not comprehensive, isn’t it?
11. Turnitin scores are at 14%, which is acceptable.

 

 

Author Response

Responses:

1. Formatted the authors affiliation
2. Abstracted revised accordingly
3. We added global perspectives at the beginning of the manuscript and Result sections. We reviewed in this section on definition of migration and non-migration in context of Bangladesh. If we bring here global perspective, we think that the focus of the Literature Review will be lost.
4. We focused on this particular event as previously no known event occurred in the similar magnitude in the recent past.
5. Added numbers for the equation
6. We checked the figure and their title accordingly
7. Added the more context on page 13.

 “ A similar finding was also reported by Rahman et al. (2015) [67]who conducted an empir-ical study in Kutubdia Island after it experienced a flash flood in August 2012. That island is located in the eastern coastal zone of Bangladesh and bounded by the Bay of Bengal on the north, west, and south and the Kutubdia channel on the east. With an average width of about two miles (3.2 km), the channel separates the island from the mainland. The flood was caused by tidal waves, storms, and continuously heavy rainfall for two days. The study found that no survivors of flash flood moved to other districts. Most residents whose houses were lost by the sea, destroyed, or damaged by the event were relocated to the in-land of the island [67]. The study did not collect information about future migration intensions.”

8. Revised the conclusion
9. Added a new table 3 on page 11
10. Added contexts from literature on similar studies different locations “

“A similar finding was also reported by Rahman et al. (2015) [67]who conducted an empir-ical study in Kutubdia Island after it experienced a flash flood in August 2012. That island is located in the eastern coastal zone of Bangladesh and bounded by the Bay of Bengal on the north, west, and south and the Kutubdia channel on the east. With an average width of about two miles (3.2 km), the channel separates the island from the mainland. The flood was caused by tidal waves, storms, and continuously heavy rainfall for two days. The study found that no survivors of flash flood moved to other districts. Most residents whose houses were lost by the sea, destroyed, or damaged by the event were relocated to the in-land of the island [67]. The study did not collect information about future migration inten-sions.

Empirical studies (e.g., Mortreux and Barnett 2009; Bradsley and Hugo 2010; Kelman et al. 2019; Berlemann and Tran 2020 and 2021) [6, 70-73]; conducted in other tropical countries found no effect of disasters on migration flows from the coast to inland areas. They ex-plained this in terms of both short- and long-term in situ adaptations that reduce their exposure and vulnerability to the problems. As such, they are unlikely to opt for migration as their first and preferred strategy.  “

Reviewer 2 Report

The article examines actual migration and future potential migration in weather related vulnerable communities in Bangladesh. The authors employed quantitative and qualitative methods in the field and concluded that a small number of households intended migration in the future. This case study would contribute to the whole academic body in terms of migration study in the climate change era, though this study has significant room for improvement in theoretical framework and analysis parts.

 

General Comments

2 Review Part

Although this case study focuses on migration in Bangladesh, literature review from a global perspective is strongly required. The authors discussed neoclassical migration theory in the later part of the section with enough volume of migration studies, but observation of uniqueness of migration in Bangladesh compared with global context is missing.  Readers might expect literature review from a global perspective, then reviewing literature in Bangladesh to understand similarity and unique issues in the case of Bangladesh. I would suggest structural modification would highlight key findings of this study.

 

5. Results

Even though the authors collected 310 questionnaire surveys with 66 questions, the results indicated only a piece of the whole. Scholars in migration literature are paying attention to not only past migration and disaster experiences but also ownership of the land (or houses), place attachment, livelihood, and social support, and so on. The authors concluded with respondents’ perception and intention of future migration. We are not able to identify the reasons, differences, and root causes why the respondents answered they would migrate or stay. The authors put qualitative results for potential migrants in Page.10, but I suppose the authors have enough data with the questionnaire, thus additional analyses with cross tabulations for potential migrants as well as those who would stay at the same place are strongly needed.

 

 

Specific Comments

1. Introduction

Page.2 Line 73-75.

The authors indicated the contribution of this study particularly in the specific area, research field, but novelty of this study and emphasis of this research contribution to the whole academic body is required.

2. Issues

Page.4 table.2

In general, tables have “Remarks” rather than “Comment”, and pronouns are not used in journal papers.

 

4. Material and Methods

Page.8 Figure.3

Readers are not familiar with the specific locations and geographical features. If the authors add topographic information in the map, flood impacted areas, the boundaries of communities (villages, unions, Upazila, etc.).

Author Response

1. This is a case study and does not represent the entire coastal Bangladesh, even not to the central coastal area where the study site is located. We mentioned the limitation of this study in the conclusion section “It is worth noting that as a case study, our findings are not representative of all coastal areas in Bangladesh. They may not even apply to the whole central coastal zone”.
2. Changed according from comments to Remark
3. Added new layers in the map that include the recent flooded area of 2020 and union boundaries.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Revisions are acknowledged.

Author Response

Checked English language and spelling accordingly. 

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments

The revised manuscript has been improved in terms of the introduction and the details of the respondents accordingly. Although Table.3 gives us the demography of the respondents well, there is no cross analysis with the migration decision (Table.4). What are the major primary occupations for the movers? Are there any differences of occupations, income, education level for movers and non-movers? Such cross analysis is strongly required to enrich the study.

 

Specific Comments

1. Figure.3

Page.10

The authors added flooded areas and Union Boundary in the map, but it is difficult to identify the overlap. I would suggest that additional detailed maps (smaller scale) would help readers to understand flood inundation areas overlapped the impacted houses.

Author Response

1. Added a new map with flooded area on page 10
2. Added a new paragraph under results section (line 489-501) on page 14
3. Added a new table (Table 5) as suggested by the reviewer. Line 502 on pages 14-15