The Mirage of Drinking Water Security in Chilean Patagonia: A Socio-Ecological Perspective

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The authors show the overestimation of the managers in charge of water supply of the water quality and security of the system. I would advise the authors to put some of these details into a Supporting Information part, so that the storyline of the message becomes more clear.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment, so we edited the text in the social study results to refine the storyline and moved the qualitative results to Appendix B. Multiple blue text between lines 961-1046

Comments 2: Apart from the detailed information, I do miss something. For example, what is the effect of El Niño and La Niña on water availability? For example, line 315 and Figure 3 show high variability. What does this mean for water supply in the future?

Response 2: Agree. We added a paragraph in discussion to emphasize this point. Lines 675-683.

Comments 3: Municipal water supply normally is a smaller part of total water consumption. In general, agriculture is the largest user, followed by industry. What is the role of these two sectors for water security?

Response 3: This information is more relevant in terms of site characterization, and is not the principal focus of this study, nevertheless the region may be both unusual from a global mean perspective yet typical from an early development perspective. We added a paragraph to emphasize this point. Lines 690-697.

Comments 4: A worrying conclusion is that water managers have too little insight and are overconfident in their performance to supply drinking water (lines 639-642). I would suggest the authors to come with some strong advises for policy makers to change this situation.

Response 3: In the conclusions, we add several sentences with solid advice for policymakers, based on international experience and local information needs for decision-making. Lines 890-892, 898-901, 912-915, 928-930.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: The abstract is too descriptive and does not sufficiently emphasize the novelty of the study. Please highlight the unique contribution of linking Water Stress Index (WSI) analysis with governance perceptions, and provide more quantitative results (e.g., % of watersheds with high WSI, % of leaders reporting insecurity).

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment and have modified the summary, incorporating quantitative results, highlighting the socio-hydrological approach and the novelty of the study. We stress that the novelty of this study is that it reflects a comprehensive analysis of a highly institutionalized rural potable water supply program unique to Chile, comparing user perception to natural constraints on water availability

Comments 2: Introduction: The literature review is broad but not sufficiently focused on socio-hydrology and water governance frameworks. Key international references are missing, and the research gap needs to be stated more clearly. Please also specify the hypotheses or expected outcomes.

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, revised approximately 30 articles and 5 book chapters, to base the introduction on the socio-ecological framework, with an emphasis on socio-hydrology and water governance. The relationship of this research to the SDGs was also addressed.

Comments 3: Groundwater sources, which represent more than half of the systems (51.6%), were not characterized. This limits the representativeness of the study. Please discuss this limitation more explicitly.

Response 3: Groundwater was addressed in this study in the context of tendencies, as a future secure yet non guaranteed source. However characterization is highly limited by the lack hydrogeological maps and piezometric networks/hydrogeological characterization in the region. Ground water is increasing exploited in urbanizing regions without a the corresponding characterization of aquifers (yield, extent, etc). Consequently, any attempt to calculate the level of water stress is limited by the lack of this basic information. This limitation was addressed in the discussion, and one conclusion highlights a lack of critical information for future water governance, and the future potential conflict of water source shift to an unknown yet vulnerable source. Lines 711-716, 737-740, 896-898.

Comments 4: Results are largely descriptive. Consider including correlation or regression analyses to better demonstrate how morphometric or land-cover characteristics influence WSI and water security outcomes.

Response 4: Agree. Regarding correlation analysis, we have incorporated a new water security outcomes correlation analysis section, which includes eco-hydrological and social variables, with a table summarizing the results obtained. See table 4.

Comments 5: While rich in detail, this section is disproportionately long. Results should be condensed and structured around key themes (e.g., infrastructure vulnerability, governance gaps, seasonal insecurity). The heavy reliance on self-reported satisfaction may introduce optimism bias; triangulation with objective performance data would strengthen conclusions.

Response 5: We modified the results to make them more concise and better explained, and moved the qualitative results to Appendix B, in order to maintain the storyline. We reorganized the sections to summarize the information.

Comments 6:The discussion frequently restates results rather than engaging critically with broader socio-ecological water governance literature (e.g., Ostrom’s SES framework, Integrated Water Resources Management).

Response 6: The discussion was reorganized and enriched with the extensive socio-ecological water governance literature reviewed.

Comments 7:The conclusions are overly long and repeat much of the discussion. Please shorten to 4–5 focused points emphasizing main findings, governance implications, and urgent policy needs.

Response 7: We agree with the comment. We have shortened the conclusions to five statements, which emphasize the main social and ecological findings, the implications for water governance, and the urgent political and legislative needs surrounding drinking water sources.

Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: line 56-60: There is a lack of literature support and it does not indicate exactly what synergy effects there are.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We have revised approximately 30 articles and 5 book chapters, to strenght the introduction on socio-ecological framework, with an emphasis on socio-hydrology and water governance.

Descriptions of synergistic effects were better explained.

Comments 2: The use of NASADEM and ALOS PALSAR DEM is not justified—no explanation is provided for the selection of these two DEMs, their resolution and accuracy differences, or how they were fused or selected for the applicable model.

Response 2: Agree. We have written a new paragraph in the methods section, explaining the information basis and justification for using those DEMs. Lines xxx-xxx.

Comments 3: It was mentioned that 20 morphometric parameters (such as Strahler series, compactness index, etc.) were calculated, but no calculation methods or formulas were cited, lacking repeatability. Additionally, there are no 20 morphometric parameters in Table 1.

Response 3: In the methods section, we have cited the source of information for calculating the morphometric parameters. LINE xxx. The table shows the most relevant selected parameters.

Comments 4: Software such as R, RStudio, and QGIS were mentioned, but the specific version numbers were not specified.

Response 4: We added the software version numbers. LINE XXX-XXX

Comments 5: The study does not address the current status of wastewater treatment infrastructure and its impact on water quality safety. It is recommended to supplement this in the Discussion.  

Response 5: We understand the importance of wastewater to water security and water governance. However, the scope of the study does not consider wastewater because there is limited public information regarding treatment infrastructure and its effects on water quality. This limits any analysis or discussion on the topic.

Comments 6: Dedicated analysis of groundwater resources should be added. Currently, the study focuses heavily on surface water, while groundwater accounts for 51.6% of the extraction points. Further analysis of its vulnerability, pollution risks, and sustainability is needed.  

Response 6: Groundwater was not addressed in this study because we lack hydrogeological maps that allow us to identify and characterize aquifers. Consequently, any attempt to calculate the level of water stress is limited by the lack of this basic information. This limitation was addressed in the discussion, and one conclusion highlights a lack of critical information for future water governance.

Comments 7: There is a lack of discussion on the impact of extreme rainfall events on water quality under climate change. It is suggested to supplement the analysis of the impact of heavy rainfall on surface water turbidity and pathogen transmission.  

Response 7: We understand the importance of extreme events in general, and we take a general approach to various climate change phenomena, without going into detail about them but citing relevant references for the area of ​​study.

Comments 8: In social surveys, relying solely on system administrators without covering the perspective of ordinary users may lead to deviations in the survey results. It is suggested to specify in the limitations.  

Comments 9: Why choose telephone interviews instead of face-to-face ones, especially in remote areas where communication may be poor? 

Response 8 y 9: Thank you for your question. Chilean Patagonia presents unique logistical challenges for face-to-face data collection. Our study encompassed 333 APR systems across three regions spanning over 240,000 km², with many communities accessible only via unpaved roads, ferry connections, or requiring multi-hour travel through challenging terrain. The financial and time costs of reaching these dispersed systems would have been prohibitive, potentially limiting our sample size and geographic representation—key strengths of our current dataset. Contrary to assumptions about communication quality in remote areas, our approach proved highly effective. We achieved a strong 86.7% response rate among contacted systems, with successful contact established for 40.5% of all systems in the database. Our systematic contact protocol (1-5 attempts per system) and the widespread mobile coverage in Chile (21.5% of households rely exclusively on mobile connectivity) enabled reliable communication access. Meta-analytic research confirms that telephone surveys achieve comparable response rates and data quality to face-to-face interviews while providing enhanced participant anonymity—particularly valuable for governance-related questions where leaders might feel more comfortable discussing system challenges without the physical presence of an interviewer. Also, in the small rural communities of Chilean Patagonia (typically 50-200 residents), telephone surveys offered crucial anonymity benefits that face-to-face interviews could not provide. This was especially important given that our participants were easily identifiable community leaders discussing potentially sensitive governance and infrastructure issues. The successful completion of 117 surveys across diverse geographic zones (coastal, valley, mountain) demonstrates that telephone methodology was not only feasible but enabled comprehensive geographic representation that would have been difficult to achieve with face-to-face approaches given resource constraints. To clarify this for other researchers and readers, we enriched our description in the methods, adding LINES XXX-XXX.

Comments 10: The source or frequency of water quality monitoring data was not specified. It is recommended to supplement the methods for obtaining and using the actual water quality monitoring data of the APR/APU system.

Response 10: We are aware of the importance of water quality monitoring, but this is a very deficient area, as mentioned in the introduction to Lines XXX-XX. This is why we do not conduct a comprehensive analysis of this area of ​​water security and we present it as a significant shortcoming that needs to be addressed.

In the case of APU systems, the information is private, and drinking water companies generally do not share it because they consider it strategic for their business.

Regarding APR systems, water quality information is only obtained from the distribution network, i.e., from already treated water. Furthermore, the information is scattered and discontinuous (e.g. Fuentes et al. 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/w16192830 ); in many cases, there is no systematic historical record.

Comments 11: It is recommended that the percentage values in Table 1 be uniformly retained to one decimal place to enhance consistency.  

Response 11: Agree. We modified table 1 percentage values.

Comments 12: The Results section should briefly indicate which watersheds have the highest WSI values and provide a preliminary analysis of their common characteristics (e.g., land use, population density)  

Response 12: We modified the results to make them more concise and better explained. We reorganized the sections to summarize the information and added a text detailing the watersheds with highest WSI values. LINES xxx-XXX.

Comments 13: Background statistical information of the respondents, such as age, educational level and years of work experience, should be supplemented in the results of social surveys to enhance the  interpretability of the results.  

Response 13: Thank you for your questions and for raising these considerations. The survey instrument deliberately excluded individual demographic characteristics of governance participants for several methodological and ethical reasons aligned with our research objectives. First, our research questions specifically focused on institutional perceptions and system-level characteristics rather than individual respondent attributes. The unit of analysis was the APR system and its governance structure, not the individual leader. Including demographic variables would have shifted the analytical focus from organizational governance capacity to individual characteristics, potentially obscuring the institutional dynamics that were central to our research questions. Second, the inclusion of demographic questions raised significant privacy and confidentiality concerns in small rural communities where governance leaders are easily identifiable. In communities of 50-200 residents typical of APR systems, combining demographic data with governance role information could have compromised participant anonymity, potentially affecting response rates and response honesty—particularly problematic given the governance-focused nature of our questions where leaders might face community scrutiny. Third, governance committee members in APR systems are elected representatives whose responses reflect collective institutional knowledge rather than personal perspectives. Their legitimacy stems from their formal roles (President, Secretary, Treasurer) and community mandate, not individual characteristics. Previous research in similar contexts has demonstrated that elected community leaders' responses correlate more strongly with organizational factors than with individual demographics. To clarify this for other researchers and readers, we have added a text within the methods section, LINES XXX_XXX. Additionally, within a limitations paragraph, we added LINE XXX_XXX. And, in the conclusions, there is a paragraph which reinforces this point: LINES XXX-XXX

Comments 14: The impact of lacking or inadequate wastewater treatment infrastructure on water quality safety should be discussed in depth. Many rural areas may lack centralized wastewater treatment systems, and direct discharge may contaminate groundwater and surface water sources  

Response 14: As we previously reported in the response to comment 5, this topic was excluded from the analysis because it is outside the scope of the research and we do not have baseline information.

Comments 15: It is suggested to supplement the data on sewage treatment rates in rural areas of Chile and analyze the potential gap between them and water quality perception.  

Response 15: As we previously reported in the response to comment 5, this topic was excluded from the analysis because it is outside the scope of the research and we do not have baseline information.

Comments 16: Has the potential pollution of water sources from agricultural non-point sources, such as chemical fertilizers and pesticides, not discussed been taken into account? It is suggested that this be supplemented during the discussion.  

Response 16: This topic is not addressed in detail because the use of these types of agrochemicals in the study area is very limited through state agricultural development instruments. There is no systematic information on the applications carried out by private individuals on their fields.

Comments 17: The conclusion is too lengthy and needs to be condensed. The conclusion section should summarize and refine the three research purposes of this study.  

Response 17: We agree with the comment. We have shortened the conclusions to five statements, which emphasize the main social and ecological findings, the implications for water governance, and the urgent political and legislative needs surrounding drinking water sources.

Comments 18: The figures in the appendix do not have titles or legends

Response 18: Missing elements have been added to the figure in Appendix A.