The Influence of Environmental Transformation on Small-Scale Fishing Communities’ Livelihood
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear Authors
This paper is based on citations older than 2016, most of them 10 to 20 years old, with an average > 10 ys old, which is not acceptable. The discussion is not supported by new citations (< 5 ys old). Besides, your paper is not related to climate change, as you present it, and used the concepts of vulnerability (the old, but good ones) for climate change; however, you then talk about climate variability and extreme climate events. In addition, you do not explain the difference, nor explain which ones. The scientific support is less than poor; to my surprise, even the methods, despite being clearly explained (and valid) are supported by old (good) references. The discussion is poor and not supported by references.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
I have done according to the reviewer comments which I marked in red color.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is a study of how climate change could affect three small-scale fishers’ communities in inland open waters areas in northern Malaysia. The authors carried out household surveys and conducted interviews in the three communities and used the data obtained to score the communities comparatively on a ‘livelihood vulnerability index’ to determine which communities were most at risk and how they could be best helped to deal with those risks.
The paper is generally well-written and it is focused on an important and salient topic. However, I have five reservations about it.
First, the authors’ conceptualisation of vulnerability is problematic. For one thing, on line 167, they refer to “two livelihood vulnerability indices”, yet on lines 242-243, they refer to only one such index: “the livelihood vulnerability index (LVI) is utilized to analyze the SSF community's climatic vulnerability”. What and where is the second index? For another thing, six of the seven components of vulnerability identified by the authors raise questions. For instance, the first component is ‘socio-demographic profile’ (SDP) which the authors characterise as follows:
“Dependency ratio, percentage of female-headed households, percentage of households where the household head did not attend school, average number of family members in the household, percentage of households where women family members are not allowed to work outside the house, and average age of the household head are all subcomponents of SDP in this study” (lines 248-253)
But the authors make no attempt to explain why these characteristics exemplify vulnerability. Why is a female-headed household more (or less?) vulnerable than a male-headed household? Why is a lack of school attendance by a head of household a measure of vulnerability? Are larger families more or less vulnerable than smaller families? Why is a household where women are not allowed to work outside the home more vulnerable as a result? Are older families more or less vulnerable than younger families? The second component is ‘livelihood strategies’, but the authors never explain what they mean by this term, let alone how it is correlated with vulnerability. The third component is ‘social networking’, but again the authors do not explain what they mean by this term nor how it is correlated with vulnerability. The fourth component is ‘health’, which the authors characterise in terms of the time taken to travel to a health facility but they do not explain why this factor is more closely correlated with vulnerability than are other health factors such as chronic disease. The fifth component is ‘food’, which is characterised in terms of the struggle to find adequate food for families. This component is obviously linked to vulnerability, but the authors need to explain the reasons for the struggle: for example, is it because of lack of agricultural or aquatic supplies? The sixth component is water, which the authors do not characterise in terms of vulnerability. The seventh component is ‘natural disaster and climate variability’, which the authors characterise in terms of “the reported number of floods, storm, rock rain and cyclone events in the past 5 years” (lines 270-271). This component does exemplify vulnerability.
My advice to the authors is to explain in much more detail in their Results/Discussion section exactly how their components of vulnerability exemplify vulnerability. In doing so, they could take note of what they themselves say in their Conclusion:
“all households are experiencing health-related issues, such as chronic health problems, a lack of hygienic latrines, missing work or school due to illness…They also have limited access to financial capital assets…Furthermore, the…majority of SSF households lack physical assets such as land, fishing gear, boats, and fishing nets. As a result, they were unable to obtain formal financing from banks or non-governmental organizations…Reduced fish catching, food scarcity, and everyday food shortages…are all threatening their livelihood” [lines 327-338]
Second, the authors’ conceptualisation of ‘adaptive capacity’ is unexplained. It appears to be used to indicate how some communities will be more able than others to deal with climate change, but the authors merely say the following about it:
“The socio-demographic profile, livelihood methods [presumably ‘strategies’], and social networking are all aspects that contribute to adaptable [presumably ‘adaptive’] capacity” [lines 298-299]
In what ways do socio-demographic profiles, livelihood methods/strategies, and social networks contribute to adaptable/adaptive capacity? The authors must explain.
Third, the authors do not make clear precisely how climate change will impact on these three communities.
Fourth, it is unclear how primary data were obtained. The authors make the following opaque statement:
“Both quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be used in this investigation. The majority of the time, quantitative approaches are employed to acquire the study's background data. On the other side, qualitative data will be used in this study to obtain more thorough and standard information…In addition, prepared questions for household surveys are included in the quantitative methodologies for this study. Oral interviews, vulnerability matrices, key information interviews, and Focus Group Discussions were among the qualitative methodologies used (FGDs)” (lines 199-205)
How many ‘household surveys’ were carried out, and in which communities? How many ‘oral interviews’ were conducted and in which communities? How many ‘key information interviews’ were conducted and in which communities? What is the difference between ‘oral interviews’ and ‘key information interviews’? How many ‘focus group discussions’ were carried out and in which communities? How many people took part in these focus group discussions? How were all these respondents selected by the researchers?
Fifth, in the Methodology section, the impression is given that the research has yet to be carried out:
“This research will choose households from the intended sampling frame using a random sampling procedure. This study will employ a web-based random number generator application to assure randomization. It will keep generating numbers till the sample size is reached. Random numbers will be created for this purpose” (lines 176-179)
If the authors deal satisfactorily with these five reservations, I will be happy to recommend publication of their paper.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Done according to the reviewer comments which I marked in red color into the text.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors. This paper was improved; however, it is still based on old references and a less than good management of climate change and extreme weather concepts. I expected more from you. Another improvement is needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1) Why have the authors not submitted a detailed cover letter explaining how they have responded to my detailed comments? The peremptory response below is not acceptable:
“Author's Notes
Done according to the reviewer comments which I marked in red color into the text.
Author Response File
author_response.pdf
Reviewer 1: Reviewer’s Comments Author’s Response. Latest Citations Done in page 2, 10, 12, & 13 in green colour. Need to relate climate change Done in page 2 in green colour. Supported by references Done in page 10 in green colour”
(2) On Page 7: Table 2, the authors repeat their list of factors that they claim without explanation to be indicative of vulnerability:
“Socio-Demographic Profile
- Dependency Ratio. 2. Percent of female headed households. 3. Percent of households where head of the household has not attend the school. 4. Percent of households with orphans.
Livelihood
- Percent of households with family member working in a different community. 2. Percent of households dependent solely on agriculture as a source of income. 3. Average Agricultural Livelihood Diversification index”.
The authors do not explain what it is about these seven factors that makes them indicative of vulnerability. So the authors have failed to deal with my first reservation
(3) On page 10, the authors say:
“according to IPCC adaptive capacity is the ability of a system to adjust to climate change, to moderate potential damage, to take advantage of opportunities, or to cope with the consequences. Though, adaptive capacity often being considered as a prerequisite for the respective communities’ adaptation ability to change after the occurrence of climatic events, it can be increased by doing some practical coping strategies”.
If this is supposed to be the authors’ response to my second reservation (that they do not explain what they mean by “adaptive capacity”), it is incomplete. It fails to explain precisely how a system adjusts to climate change; how it moderates potential damage; what opportunities it takes advantage of; how it copes with the consequences; and what are practical coping strategies.
(4) Where do the authors respond to my third reservation – that they do not make clear precisely how climate change will impact on the three SSF communities?
(5) Where do the authors respond to my fourth reservation – that they failed to explain details of their primary data collection such as how many household surveys were carried out?
Because of these failures to deal with my comments, I have no alternative but to recommend rejection of this revised paper.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
You have addressed most of my queries, but not all. For example, so far as I can see, you have not directly answered the following questions:
Why is a female-headed household more (or less?) vulnerable than a male-headed household? Why is a lack of school attendance by a head of household a measure of vulnerability? Are larger families more or less vulnerable than smaller families? Why is a household where women are not allowed to work outside the home more vulnerable? Are older families more or less vulnerable than younger families?
Author Response
|
Reviewer Comments |
Authors Response |
|
Why is a female-headed household more (or less?) vulnerable than a male-headed household?
|
There is a general perception that women are socially more vulnerable than men because of higher poverty rates and fewer job opportunities, and this perception is more widespread for female-headed households due to fears of intergenerational poverty transmission [41, 42]. Female-headed households are forced to play multiple, conflicting roles after losing their spouses, and have to work in marginal, part-time, informal, and low-income jobs due to lack of access to high-paying jobs. These women are unable to maintain their health due to problems such as poverty, poor socioeconomic status, and multiple responsibilities [43]. As a result, they experience more high-risk behaviours and lower quality of life and family satisfaction. They also suffer from Stress, mental disorders, depression, drug abuse, and financial and cultural poverty [44]. |
|
Why is a lack of school attendance by a head of household a measure of vulnerability?
|
Since most women in the study area have low literacy and are unable to pursue a specific occupation, they face many problems after their husband’s death and accepting the head of the household role. In some cases, children from these families are forced to work as child workers and stay away from school. Somehow the cycle of poverty within the family is reproduced, and poverty is passed on to the next generation, with an indefinite future awaiting them. |
|
Are larger families more or less vulnerable than smaller families?
|
Children in small families, especially first and only children, tend to have higher school and personal achievement levels than do children of larger families. The financial costs of maintaining a household are lower. It is easier for both parents to combine careers with family life. Therefore, smaller families are less vulnerable than larger families.
|
|
Why is a household where women are not allowed to work outside the home more vulnerable?
|
Due to the gender stereotypes and the patriarchal system in the area under study, accepting a woman as head of household can be difficult even for male children, and there can be resistance, so women have their intra-family pressures in addition to social pressures. In Asian Countries society, women are not provided with proper economic and social support, and the socio-cultural conditions do not allow them to work outside the home in many cases, so the economic burden of these families is more on the children. Thus, many children are forced to start working at an early age, drop out of school and no longer have a chance to have a better life in the future, resulting in the reproduction of poverty and disability in the female-headed family. |
|
Are older families more or less vulnerable than younger families? |
Poverty is expressed as those receiving assistance, families below the poverty line, and individuals older than 65 and younger than 18 in poverty. A high rank indicates a high rate of poverty and a more vulnerable population. Advanced age by itself does not create vulnerability. However, certain problems that are more common in old age can increase vulnerability. They include decreased strength, poor tolerance of physical activity, functional limitations, decreased sensory awareness, a greater prevalence of chronic conditions, multi-morbidity, cognitive impairment, and medication. That is why, older families are more vulnerable than younger families.
|
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
