(Un)Affordability of Informal Water Systems: Disparities in a Comparative Case Study in Beirut, Lebanon

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Water affordability between two communities, Aicha Bakkar and Verdun were compared, and found that has lower total water costs, but the water of the lower income community of Aicha Bakkar is less affordable than that of the higher income community of Verdun as residents pay 2.2 times more for water relative to their income. The results from this study suggest that the lower income community is more vulnerable to water insecurity issues in both quality and quantity under global water resources shortage, and that that we should focus on the water justice between the poorer and the richer. Although the study is conducted on a local scale, conclusions from it have wide scale implications. However, minor issues are still to be addressed.

The main results, common conclusions and suggestions should be supplemented.

L206 FMCG?

L245 LP？

Equation 2 what does  '3.6...' mean?

I think that presentation of the results is not logical. 3.2 should be 3.1 and 3.3 should be 3.2, and 3.4 be 3.3. In addition, as there are about 50 samples in each site, the differences in some variables you investigated in some tables and figures should be showed the significance level with t-test or chi-square test. As you know, when talking about the differences between two variables, we often refer to the significant difference. At current version, there is lack of quantitative analysis. Conclusions should be from only these statistically significant differences in variables.

Author Response

L206 FMCG?

Thank you for pointing out this abbreviation as it might be misleading. This refers to Fast Moving Consumer Goods, which means consumer packaged goods, including packaged foods, beverages, toiletries, candies, cosmetics, over-the-counter drugs, dry goods, and other consumables. We removed the abbreviation from the manuscript and replaced it with the exact title, line 206-207.

L245 LP？

We assume that you are asking about HP and not LP as line 245 does not include “LP”. This refers to Horse Power. We removed the abbreviation from the manuscript and included the exact wording, line 245-246.

Equation 2 what does  '3.6...' mean?

This is a conversion factor to calculate power consumption of the pumps. For more details, please refer to: https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-pumping-costs-d_1527.html. We added a clarification under the equation, line 273-275

I think that presentation of the results is not logical. 3.2 should be 3.1 and 3.3 should be 3.2, and 3.4 be 3.3. In addition, as there are about 50 samples in each site, the differences in some variables you investigated in some tables and figures should be showed the significance level with t-test or chi-square test. As you know, when talking about the differences between two variables, we often refer to the significant difference. At current version, there is lack of quantitative analysis. Conclusions should be from only these statistically significant differences in variables.

Thank you for the comments on results order. We initially had the results section ordered as your suggestion. However, since the focus of this research is on the water affordability of the communities and their disparities, we decided to show those results first and then elaborate with the remaining sections on income, volume, and cost.

Concerning the sample size, thank you for pointing out the importance of highlighting the statistics significance differences between variables. We conducted a t-test for the three informal sources (bottled water, tankers and wells) at three levels: Consumed (Liters/Person/Day), Cost ($/Person/Day), Cost per Liter ($/Liter). Our results show the following:

Difference in volumetric consumption between the two communities is not statistically significant, meaning that both communities are more or less consuming the same volume from all informal sources. In terms of cost per liter, there is a statistically significant difference in bottled water only. This is related to the higher income community buying more bottled water and more expensive brands. Moreover, in terms of total water costs, there is a statistically significant difference between tankers and wells. For tankers this is related to the higher income community accessing cheaper tankers (because of economies of scale of them being able to purchase from larger tankers that provide cheaper water per unit delivered). For wells this is related to the higher income community accessing more wells and using expensive reverse osmosis units to treat their water.

We have included t-test results in section 3.4.1, lines 440-450 “To identify statistically significant differences between the communities, t-tests were applied to evaluate differences in informal source volumes and unit costs for the two communities.  Differences in volume consumed between the communities were not statistically significant. However, as indicated in Table 5 the cost difference per liter for bottled water is statistically significant. This might be related to Verdun residents purchasing more bottled water that is more expensive per bottle. Moreover, Table 5 also shows that tanker and well water cost differences are statistically significant for these communities. Tanker cost differences might be related to economies of scale where Verdun residents can access cheaper water from larger tankers; whereas for wells this might be related to Verdun residents accessing more wells and using expensive RO treatment units.”

And the discussion section, lines 490-508: “A major significant statistical difference was the cost of bottled water related to differences in the number and cost of water bottles purchased in these communities. These differences are mainly from disparities in access to bottled water. Verdun residents can afford more expensive brands. Moreover, they buy more bottled water as they use it for drinking and cooking. In contrast, Aicha Bakkar residents tend to buy cheaper brands and generally boil tap water to cook.

We also found significant statistical differences in total costs for tankers and wells. These differences not only related to the purchasing power of Verdun residents but can also be explained by factors linked to the community’s urban structure and economies of scale. Aicha Bakkar has smaller streets (due to its earlier and informal settlement pattern), so only smaller tankers, which are more expensive to operate per unit delivered, can enter the area. Moreover, Verdun residents have larger storage capacities from their larger building footprint. We did not measure storage capacity per community since the reservoirs are usually stored under and above the buildings; however, it is likely that the water storage capacity likely grows with the building’s footprint. Thus, it is possible that the Verdun residents have the capacity to refill and store more water at each cycle, by purchasing larger tankers (cheaper per unit delivered) and fill more water from the piped infrastructure (the cheapest source).”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

I read with interest your paper on the affordability of water in Lebanon. I would suggest the following edits:

- The introduction needs to clearly explain and set the gap in the relevant literature (explain what this literature is), and the overarching research question you aim to answer

- Better link the conclusion/discussion with the question

- The literature review should include more work from local scholars; see for instance the work of Ramy Zuraik from AUB and of Roland Riachi

- You should also account for the grown demand for water since 2012 due to the influx of refugees; read and include the work of Alberto Natta (UNDP) and others on this topic published in "Water" "Syrian refugees, water scarcity, and dynamic policies: how do the new refugees discourses impact water governance debates in lebanon and jordan?"

I hope these suggestions are helpful in improving your paper, and I am available to review a revised version, if needed.

Author Response

- The introduction needs to clearly explain and set the gap in the relevant literature (explain what this literature is), and the overarching research question you aim to answer.

The introduction highlights the different affordability frameworks that have evolved to measure different components of volume, cost, expenditure, and income. In the first paragraph we mention that the main gap in the literature is that frameworks have not included informal sources in their methodologies nor really focused on disparities.

Please refer to:

- Lines 27-31: “Most affordability frameworks neglect the additional costs of informal water sources and how communities with different socio-economic resources cope with these added costs. This introduction highlights developing notions of water affordability and identifies some major components and gaps of their frameworks by focusing on alternative informal sources.”

- Lines 88-89: “Few studies analyze simultaneous affordability disparities of informal water sources across different income groups.”

- Lines 90-98: “The affordability frameworks reviewed above can be divided in two categories: those that evaluate the cost and affordability of accessing multiple water sources and activities, and others that capture water affordability of different income groups focusing on lower income communities. [….] To answer the research question and fill gaps in the literature, the study combines two frameworks. We assess water affordability of Lebanese households by comparing costs of formal and informal water sources with median income levels of two communities (high and low-income). We also develop a detailed per household income analysis. Our focus on affordability disparities of informal water sources for different income groups allows us to address the gaps in the field of informality.”

Moreover, thank you for pointing out the importance of highlighting the research question. We rephrased our introduction to include clearly our research question in lines 94-96: “This study seeks to answer the following research question: how accessing multiple (formal and informal) water sources can affect water affordability for communities of differing socioeconomic status?”

- Better link the conclusion/discussion with the question

Thank you for highlighting the importance of linking our main research question with the discussion and conclusion. The first paragraph of the discussion section highlights our main answer to our question and main results in lines 472-479: “To answer our main research question, the study shows that most household water costs are for informal sources (even though they provide the smallest volumes), with bottled water being the most expensive source. This study shows that informal water sources increase total cost of water and create stark disparities among communities of different economic levels. Based on affordability threshold found in the literature [4, 30], water is rather unaffordable for the entire sample population impacting more lower income communities. We develop some recommendations to address these disparities in water unaffordability.”

Moreover, the first sentence of the conclusion also highlights our main answer in lines 611-614: “This study showed the financial impact of informal sources for two communities of different income levels in Beirut, Lebanon, compared their income-based water affordability ratios, and highlighted their affordability disparities.”

- The literature review should include more work from local scholars; see for instance the work of Ramy Zuraik from AUB and of Roland Riachi

Thank you for pointing out these readings. We definitely agree on the importance of including local scholars in the literature review. We have already included the work of local scholars: Zawahri et al 2011 (Reference #6), Zaatari 2016 (Reference #41), Haddad 2002 (reference #42), Rosenberg et al 2007 (Reference #44), Jaafar et al 2020 (Reference #47), El-Fadel et al 2003 (Reference #63), Alameddine et al 2018(Reference #64) and Constantine et al 2017 (Reference #66).

Zuraik’s work focuses on water needs in agricultural production, which is not particularly relevant to the focus of this paper. Riachi’s work focuses on the poor state of the piped infrastructure and we added their reference in line 563-566 “[…] ,this might be challenging politically. Public institutions often are poorly managed [63-64], tend to focus on large infrastructure projects, and peoples’ lack of trust in public institutions might result in unwillingness to pay more, knowing that they might never receive the promised volumes [65]”

Reference #65: Riachi, Roland. The Private Modes of Water Capture in Lebanon. International Alert, London, 2015, 39-45.

- You should also account for the grown demand for water since 2012 due to the influx of refugees; read and include the work of Alberto Natta (UNDP) and others on this topic published in "Water" "Syrian refugees, water scarcity, and dynamic policies: how do the new refugees discourses impact water governance debates in lebanon and jordan?"

Thank you for your comment. We agree that the influx of refugees in Lebanon and the region will put more pressure on water sources and increase overall water security. However, this is not the main focus of this paper, so we did not add in any additional discussion of this topic. Instead, we maintain a clear focus on how informal water sources are an added cost to two Lebanese communities of different economic levels and how those added costs result with high levels of disparities.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Sorry to disagree, but I think the paper of Alberto Natta is quite relevant to the scope of your paper, and therefore I'd suggest considering including it. 

Author Response

Sorry to disagree, but I think the paper of Alberto Natta is quite relevant to the scope of your paper, and therefore I'd suggest considering including it. 

Thank you for pointing out the study by Alberto Natta and colleagues. We have included their work in the discussion section to highlight the importance of considering geopolitical context for current water stressors and when planning for future access and affordability issues. Please refer to lines 748-755: “[…] Hence, moving forward, it is important for engineers and planners to be aware of the difficulties of analyzing and accounting for informal sources and the need to develop more holistic methods to better assess disparities in affordability. These considerations become very important for areas experiencing geopolitical uncertainty, such as in Lebanon and the Middle East, especially with the rise of number of refugees that will add more pressure on water sources [68] and will impact even more the accessibility and affordability of water sources”

Reference # 68: Hussein, H., Natta, A., Yehya, A.A.K. and Hamadna, B. Syrian refugees, water scarcity, and dynamic policies: how do the new refugee discourses impact water governance debates in Lebanon and Jordan? Water, 2020, 12(2), 325-340. https://doi:10.3390/w12020325