Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-dvtzq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-08T07:02:51.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 December 2023

Pennan Chinnasamy*
Affiliation:
Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India Rural Data Research and Analysis (RuDRA) Laboratory, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India Interdisciplinary Programme in Climate Studies (IDPCS), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India Centre for Machine Intelligence and Data Science(C‑MInDS), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India Ashank Desai Centre for Policy Studies, Indian Institute of Technology-Bombay, Mumbai, India Nebraska Water Center, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA
Meeta Gupta
Affiliation:
Centre for Technology Alternatives for Rural Areas (CTARA), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India Rural Data Research and Analysis (RuDRA) Laboratory, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Mumbai, India IIT Bombay-Monash Research Academy, Mumbai, India
*
Corresponding author: Pennan Chinnasamy; Email: p.chinnasamy@iitb.ac.in
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

North Gujarat in India currently extracts three billion cubic meters of groundwater per year, which is up to 95% of the groundwater resources available in the region. This unsustainable abstraction has led to changes in groundwater levels and created water scarcity in many parts of the region. To address these issues, integrated groundwater resource management is required, which should be driven by good quality and quantity of groundwater data. However, current groundwater data are scarce; thus, new, affordable monitoring approaches are necessary. Participatory and community-based monitoring involving citizen scientists provides an approach to complement existing government-run monitoring. This study demonstrates the feasibility of developing a large-scale groundwater level monitoring wells network by directly involving farmers in two agriculturally-dominated blocks in North Gujarat, India. First, long-term groundwater level data for government-monitored wells were analyzed, and the regions lacking monitoring were identified. Then a network of 43 farmers was established through the field survey, who were trained to provide groundwater level observations for their wells every month. The data collected through the field survey were then integrated with the data from the existing government monitoring programs to understand the groundwater dynamics in the region. Results for the post-monsoon season 2022 show that the groundwater levels in Unjha block (Mehsana district) have declined to more than 100 meters below ground level due to unsustainable pumping for irrigation. The evaluation of the participatory approach showed that concern for existing groundwater challenges, social inclusion and contribution to scientific knowledge were the top three reasons that motivated farmers to participate in this research. Of the total volunteering farmers, 71% have shown interest in providing long-term observations for up to 3 years, and 57% agreed to provide observations weekly. Additionally, 70% of the farmers agreed to engage fellow farmers in groundwater monitoring, and 50% agreed to train new farmers. Thus, this study shows that farmers can play an important role in improving the existing challenges of groundwater monitoring through participatory training, and the integration of primary and secondary data can lead to better decision-making regarding need for well construction, crop selection, recharge methods and pathways for sustainable groundwater management.

Information

Type
Overview Review
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Index map and study area location details.

Figure 1

Table 1. Demographic details of Patan block (Patan district) and Unjha block (Mehsana district) as per Census of India (2011)

Figure 2

Table 2. Descriptive statistics for long-term groundwater levels (1996–2020) in Patan block, Patan district and Unjha block, Mehsana district

Figure 3

Figure 2. Box plots for long-term groundwater levels (1996–2020) for groundwater well in Patan block (Patan district) and Unjha block (Mehsana district) in m bgl for (a) pre-monsoon period and (b) post-monsoon period.

Figure 4

Figure 3. Spatial distribution of depth to groundwater levels for the CGWB monitored wells in the Patan block (Patan district) and Unjha block (Mehsana district).

Figure 5

Table 3. Details about the wells in Patan block and Unjha block under the ATAL JAL scheme

Figure 6

Table 4. Descriptive statistics for the groundwater wells in Patan block (Patan district) under the ATAL JAL scheme

Figure 7

Table 5. Descriptive statistics for the groundwater wells in Unjha block (Mehsana district) under the ATAL JAL scheme

Figure 8

Figure 4. Spatial distribution of groundwater levels for the ATAL JAL scheme monitored wells in the Patan block (Patan district) and Unjha block (Mehsana district).

Figure 9

Table 6. Details of the open wells and borewells surveyed on the field

Figure 10

Figure 5. Farmers’ response to the reason that motivates them to be a part of this participatory groundwater monitoring approach.

Figure 11

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of groundwater levels for the farmer’s private wells in the Patan block (Patan district) and Unjha block (Mehsana district).

Figure 12

Figure 7. Spatial distribution of groundwater levels developed through combined ATAL JAL monitoring wells and farmers’ private wells in the Patan block (Patan District) and Unjha block (Mehsana district).

Figure 13

Figure 8. Dharoi right bank main canal network coverage in the study area.

Figure 14

Figure 9. Farmers’ response on the willingness to contribute to long-term groundwater monitoring.

Figure 15

Figure 10. Farmers’ response on the frequency of recording and providing data.

Figure 16

Figure 11. Farmers’ response on the frequency of recording and providing data weekly during monsoon season.

Supplementary material: File

Chinnasamy and Gupta supplementary material

Chinnasamy and Gupta supplementary material
Download Chinnasamy and Gupta supplementary material(File)
File 46.7 KB

Author comment: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R0/PR1

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R0/PR2

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The work deals with the adoption of participatory and community-based monitoring systems for supporting groundwater level monitoring programs, and shows how the integration of information from different sources can help highlighting the severe impact of pumping for irrigation on the aquifer overexploitation. The paper is well written and scientifically sound, but in my opinion needs some improvements, which are mainly: i) a more ‘general’ framing, to highlight the potential interest from a general reader and the potential for replication; ii) a more critical discussion on the value added of the work, the main barriers encountered and opportunities.

Detailed comments follow.

Introduction

- The section is well written and full of interesting information. However, I would suggest changing the focus a bit and to make it more general. The Authors dive directly into the complexity of Indian situation, whereas I would recommend starting with more general information that could be useful to better frame the problem at a global scale, as the issue of groundwater overexploitation (particularly for irrigation) and limited control/monitoring is widely acknowledged all over the world. Some of the information presented here would be, in my opinion, better placed in the ‘Study area’ section (I am mainly referring to lines 36 - 84)

- Referring to the lines 96-110 it would probably be worth to refer also to other experiences that have been carried out outside India.

- I would also suggest highlighting other challenges and elements of innovation, such as for the example the integration of citizen measurements with ‘traditional’ measurements, and the issues related to involvement of citizens in such activities. Before highlighting the main objectives of the study, I feel it would be valuable to discuss the main gaps (as highlighted in the literature) that the present work aims to overcome.

Section 3

- Please rename as Annex 1 (same comment also for the others)

- Subsection 3.2.2 is interesting as it provides information on how the citizens were first involved in measurements. It would be interesting also to have further details (maybe in the 4.2 section) on the main barriers encountered during this phase, and some reflections on how participation could be enhanced (e.g. which kind of ‘actionable’ information farmers might have back from the participation).

Section 4

- The section provides a detailed analysis of the results from different monitoring activities. I would recommend to better highlight (as from line 321 on) the need for integration of different data, along with the main technical challenges that can affect the process as well as data analysis.

- Lines 337-348. Not sure this is a result of the analysis and of the questionnaire. If this is ‘background’ information I would suggest moving it before, in the description of the study area, as this will also help the reader better understand the rationale behind some questions included in the questionnaire.

Review: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R0/PR3

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Review of the manuscript No. - WAT-22-0007, entitled “Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India”

In the present study authors have demonstrated the participatory and community-based monitoring approaches for developing a large-scale groundwater level monitoring network of groundwater wells in two blocks under overexploited groundwater conditions by directly involving the farmers in two agriculturally dominated blocks under overexploited groundwater conditions in the North Gujarat, India. The study presents a very nice effort of participatory approaches where several farmers are involved in understanding and measuring the groundwater level data, who also showed their interest to provide data in future at different time intervals.

General comments:

The study would have presented the present status of farmers’ perception towards the declining groundwater level, and then the improved understanding thereafter.

The approaches/methodology involved in participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting, should be presented and discussed.

The present study would have been better if it could have addressed some issues related to the existing conditions in the two overexploited blocks undertaken in the study by the means of proposing or understanding in terms of change in cropping patterns or some other feasible solutions instead of farmers being agreed to measure and provide groundwater level data.

In page, 3-4, lines 96-110, as reported by the authors, several studies have been carried out using the similar participatory approaches, where the farmers were not only trained but were also facilitated to form a water management team to measure different hydrological and groundwater level data that led to better water management and groundwater literacy, but the present study lacks to present such findings in the study.

There need to establish some outcomes of the study as how the citizen science applied has able to generate new scientific knowledge and how the process of collecting data has been able to tackle the existing issues of insufficient groundwater data, and in increasing the public’s understanding and awareness of groundwater issues, etc.

Recommendation: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R0/PR4

Comments

The study’s objectives should be framed in the context of addressing gaps identified in the literature. Additionally, it is important to provide a critical discussion on the value added by the research, main barriers encountered, and opportunities for improvement. The outcomes of the participatory approaches and their impact on generating new scientific knowledge and tackling existing groundwater issues should be clearly presented and discussed.

Decision: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R0/PR5

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R1/PR6

Comments

Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting:

Case study from India

Manuscript Number: WAT-22-0007

Editors and Reviewers' Comments to Author

Editor:

1. The study’s objectives should be framed in the context of addressing gaps identified in the literature.

Authors’ Response: First the authors would like to thank the Editor for the constructive and positive feedback and for arranging the reviews. We acknowledge the editor’s comments and have provided details on how we have addressed each feedback and incorporated the changes in the following sections.

As suggested by the editor for the first feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in Section 1, lines 124 -152:

The idea of engaging farmers and expanding the groundwater monitoring network maybe attractive, but certain limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, most of these citizen science studies have been looking into shallow groundwater wells (i.e., unconfined aquifer) majorly located in the village area or its periphery. Thus, the data and information on the deeper groundwater levels and farmer’s private farm wells have been almost limited or nil. Secondly, the data collected through the citizen science initiatives is stored and analyzed separately, i.e., these have not been integrated with the government-monitored wells data or other platform data (e.g. satellites based assessments). Thirdly, the availability of suitable measurement equipment could be a concern, as not all farmers might possess the necessary tools or resources to conduct groundwater assessments effectively. Many studies have deployed sensors or automated devices where the farmers mostly have to observe the readings and look after the functioning of the meters, while some have provided measuring tapes. Measuring the groundwater levels through measuring tapes might pose challenges in maintaining data quality accuracy, despite the extensive training. Lastly, factors like varying farm schedules, daily priorities, and weather conditions could lead to irregular data collection, which hinders the establishment of a consistent and reliable dataset.

Thus, to address these limitations, it is essential to include farmer’s deeper wells in the monitoring network, as the groundwater levels in certain regions have been observed to go below the unsustainable groundwater levels. This will also require a more rigorous and effective way to check/validate the observations provided by the farmers, along with more frequent one-to-one communication with farmers to build a long-term dataset. Additionally, one of the main purposes of the collaborative approach is to expand the existing monitoring network and generate a larger dataset; hence, integrating government data and data collected through farmers could help better understand the groundwater dynamics in the region and also help in validating the data collected through the citizen science participants.

Hence, to expand the research on the participatory approach along with addressing the limitations mentioned above, the objectives of our study are (i) to develop a large-scale groundwater monitoring network to enhance the spatiotemporal coverage of the shallow and deep groundwater level monitoring by mobilizing the farmers, and (ii) to integrate the data collected through farmers and government data to understand the groundwater dynamics for better management.

2. Additionally, it is important to provide a critical discussion on the value added by the research, main barriers encountered, and opportunities for improvement.

Authors’ Response: As suggested by the editor, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript.

The value added by the research in this study have been incorporated in the manuscript in the subsection 4.2.2, lines 402 - 408

Hence, with the help of integrative mapping, the groundwater behaviour for groundwater levels at both shallower and deeper depths can be observed, which was earlier limited to shallow depths. These integrative maps can be helpful for farmers to decide whether there is a need to build a deep tubewell in the region with high investments. Additionally, the farmers whose regions fall in the deep groundwater levels zone and who do not have their private wells or are unable to partner with other farmers to access groundwater for irrigation can plan on sowing less water-intensive crops during the winter season. This can open a possibility for them to sow crops in the summer.

The main barriers encountered in this study have been incorporated in the manuscript in sub-section 4.2.4, lines 450-473

The most significant output of the present research was the effective establishment of the groundwater monitoring network in the region by involving 43 farmers participants in the collaborative approach. While the collaborative approach of engaging farmers for data collection came as empowering farmers and improving groundwater information spatially and temporally, a few challenges were faced while selecting and engaging farmers for data collection. The limited number of farmers participants in the region stems from a complex interplay of factors which are discussed as follows:

• Resource poor farmers or limited mobile handling knowledge: Some farmers interviewed did not have smartphones, while some were not well-versed in using messenger apps to share monitoring observations and images. As a result of which, such farmers were not able to participate in the monitoring network. Also, in the long term, when the idea is to probably shift to using a dedicated mobile app (like MyWell) to provide the observed data, some of the farmers were sceptical about using modern technologies and techniques and were apprehensive about participating.

• Additional workload: This research focuses on taking measurements accurately, recording the observations by clicking pictures and communicating the same over messages; therefore, the whole process requires training for the same. However, some farmers found it additional work on their already demanding workloads, leading to resistance and reluctance to engage in the process.

• Focused on short-term and quick solutions: Some farmers were not keen to participate in the monitoring program due to their not-so-good experience in the past with the existing groundwater issues. The groundwater in the region has gone down so much that some farmers are more focused on immediate solutions regarding the availability and management of groundwater resources. Our research is the first step towards management through improving the region’s spatial and temporal scale of monitoring.

The opportunities for improvement have been discussed in the Sub-section 4.2.4 lines 474-488

Despite the challenges posed, through this study, baseline data on the deeper groundwater could be generated, which is crucial for understanding the groundwater trend and pattern in the region. The availability of smartphones with the farmers enabled the collection, transmission and quality control of data with ease. This approach’s simplicity, quick learning and affordability/ low-cost nature to measure the groundwater levels helps scale up in other villages and blocks. Thus, the further goal is to expand the network and get more farmers engaged in this monitoring experiment.

From the feedback survey, 70% of the farmers agreed to engage their fellow farmers to join the monitoring, and 50% agreed to train the new farmers on monitoring and reporting the groundwater levels. On this positive response to the engagement of more farmers for long-term monitoring, it is thought to incentivize the farmers in some way for their efforts and contribution, which could be providing internet data packs, organizing workshops and felicitating the farmers for their contribution in volunteering, and featuring their contribution on the online website. Additionally, although most of the farmers expressed their comfort in providing observations over WhatsApp due to ease of use, a scope for developing a dedicated mobile app (such as MyWell) for the region can be considered in the future for proper data management.

3. The outcomes of the participatory approaches and their impact on generating new scientific knowledge and tackling existing groundwater issues should be clearly presented and discussed

Authors’ Response: As suggested by the editor, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in subsection 4.2.2 lines 378-408:

As observed through the CGWB monitored wells for the year 2020 (Fig. 3), the bordering region of the two blocks showed groundwater existing at shallower depths and deeper levels in small pockets in the extreme eastern part of the Unjha block and the northern part of the Patan block. This interpolation results from the limited number of monitoring wells in the region. The spatial distribution improves due to more monitoring wells under the ATAL JAL scheme (Fig. 4), which shows a slightly different picture from the CGWB spatial distribution. The central part of the Patan block showed groundwater levels at the shallower depth. The bordering region observed groundwater levels of 80-100 m bgl and a small zone of deeper groundwater at >140 m bgl. The spatial map generated through the farmer’s well data (Fig. 5) somewhat matched the distribution produced through the ATAL JAL scheme (Fig. 4). The Unjha block groundwater level distribution resembled majorly, where the deeper groundwater levels were observed in the northern and northwestern part and shallower groundwater in the eastern and southeastern part. In the case of Patan block, as per the ATAL JAL scheme, the groundwater levels were mainly in the range of 10-80 m bgl, while the farmers’ data showed groundwater levels existing at a depth of more than 100 mbgl.

Thus, the difference in groundwater behaviour observed through secondary and primary data points out the need for an integrative approach to understanding groundwater dynamics for effective management. Additionally, more the number of monitoring locations better is the interpolation results obtained to understand the spatial nature of the groundwater levels. Fig.6 shows the integrated groundwater level data obtained from the ATAL JAL scheme and field survey from the farmers for the post-monsoon season (November 2022). With good spatial coverage in both the blocks, the spatial distribution of groundwater levels shows that groundwater levels have gone down by >100 m bgl in the Unjha block, while in most of the Patan block, the groundwater is available at 100 m of depth. Small pockets of deep groundwater levels exist in Patan block, where groundwater levels have decreased to 140 m bgl. This situation has severely affected the livelihood of many small and marginal farmers in both blocks.

Hence, with the help of integrative mapping, the groundwater behaviour for groundwater levels at both shallower and deeper depths can be observed, which was earlier limited to shallow depths. These integrative maps can be helpful for farmers to decide whether there is a need to build a deep tubewell in the region and invest that much money. Additionally, the farmers whose regions fall in the deep groundwater levels zone and who do not have their private wells or are unable to partner with other farmers to access groundwater for irrigation can plan on sowing less water-intensive crops during the winter season. This can open a possibility for them to sow crops in the summer.

Reviewer #1:

The work deals with the adoption of participatory and community-based monitoring systems for supporting groundwater level monitoring programs, and shows how the integration of information from different sources can help highlighting the severe impact of pumping for irrigation on the aquifer overexploitation. The paper is well written and scientifically sound, but in my opinion needs some improvements, which are mainly:

i) a more ‘general’ framing, to highlight the potential interest from a general reader and the potential for replication;

ii) a more critical discussion on the value added of the work, the main barriers encountered and opportunities.

Author’s Response: First the authors would like to thank the Reviewer 1 for the constructive and positive feedback. We acknowledge the reviewer’s comments and have provided details on how we have addressed each feedback and incorporated the changes in the following sections.

1. Introduction: The section is well written and full of interesting information. However, I would suggest changing the focus a bit and to make it more general. The Authors dive directly into the complexity of the Indian situation, whereas I would recommend starting with more general information that could be useful to better frame the problem at a global scale, as the issue of groundwater overexploitation (particularly for irrigation) and limited control/monitoring is widely acknowledged all over the world.

Author’s Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in Section 1 lines 36-47 with proper citations:

Groundwater has emerged as a primary water source to sustain a significant share of irrigated agricultural production for many countries where limited surface water resources, climate change and rising population are seen as major problems (Rawat et al., 2018). Groundwater is used for over 40% of global irrigation on almost 40% of irrigated land (Siebert et al., 2013). However, this irrigation expansion with groundwater has negatively impacted agriculture production and the environment (Zeng et al., 2016). To assess and manage groundwater resources sustainably, systematic monitoring efforts are needed to measure the groundwater levels and the usage. However, many countries do not have well-developed monitoring systems, and monitoring groundwater levels and usage is very rare, and if it is done, it is either infrequent or discontinuous (United Nations, 2022). Therefore, the low availability of spatial and temporal groundwater data prevents decision-making concerning groundwater that can balance the demand and supply for agriculture and other sectors, particularly in times of scarcity (Chinnasamy & Agoramoorthy, 2015).

2. Introduction: Some of the information presented here would be, in my opinion, better placed in the ‘Study area’ section (I am mainly referring to lines 36 - 84)

Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this suggestion and have accepted the same. The content related to study area has been revised, restructured and moved to the Section 2: Study Area.

3. Introduction: Referring to the lines 96-110 it would probably be worth to refer also to other experiences that have been carried out outside India.

Authors’ Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in Section 1 lines 80-90 with proper citations:

Citizen science application in groundwater monitoring is relatively recent and growing (Walker et al., 2020, Kirschke et al., 2022). Different stakeholders, such as residents/ villagers, school and college students and teachers, women groups, and farmers, have been engaged as participants in data collection. Some research has been performed monitoring groundwater through citizen science, such as the Smartphones for Water Nepal (S4W-Nepal) mobilizing a group of undergraduate students to monitor the shallow groundwater levels from the public and private wells in the Kathmandu Valley (Prajapati et al., 2020), coastal community stakeholders to monitor the shallow groundwater levels using automated water level loggers in the Bogur Banks, North Carolina (Manda and Allen, 2016), private well owners from the Rocky View County, Alberta, Canada to monitor the groundwater levels of their wells (Little et al., 2016), and, smallholder farmers participating in observing shallow groundwater levels in Potshini catchment, South Africa (Kongo et al., 2010)

4. Introduction: I would also suggest highlighting other challenges and elements of innovation, such as for the example the integration of citizen measurements with ‘traditional’ measurements, and the issues related to involvement of citizens in such activities

Authors’ Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in section 1 lines 124-137 with proper citations:

The idea of engaging farmers and expanding the groundwater monitoring network seems attractive, but certain limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, most of these citizen science studies have been looking into shallow groundwater wells (i.e., unconfined aquifer) majorly located in the village area or its periphery. Thus, the data and information on the deeper groundwater levels and farmers’ private farm wells have been almost limited or nil. Secondly, the data collected through the citizen science initiatives is stored and analyzed separately, i.e., these have not been integrated with the government-monitored wells data. Thirdly, the availability of suitable measurement equipment could be a concern, as not all farmers might possess the necessary tools or resources to conduct groundwater assessments effectively. Many studies have deployed sensors or automated devices where the farmers mostly have to observe the readings and look after the functioning of the meters, while some have provided measuring tapes. So, measuring the levels through measuring tapes might pose challenges in maintaining data quality accuracy, despite the extensive training. Lastly, factors like varying farm schedules, family priorities, and weather conditions could lead to irregular data collection, which might hinder the establishment of a consistent and reliable dataset.

5. Introduction: Before highlighting the main objectives of the study, I feel it would be valuable to discuss the main gaps (as highlighted in the literature) that the present work aims to overcome`

Authors’ Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in section 1 lines 124- 151:

The idea of engaging farmers and expanding the groundwater monitoring network seems attractive, but certain limitations must be acknowledged. Firstly, most of these citizen science studies have been looking into shallow groundwater wells (i.e., unconfined aquifer) majorly located in the village area or its periphery. Thus, the data and information on the deeper groundwater levels and farmers’ private farm wells have been almost limited or nil. Secondly, the data collected through the citizen science initiatives is stored and analyzed separately, i.e., these have not been integrated with the government-monitored wells data. Thirdly, the availability of suitable measurement equipment could be a concern, as not all farmers might possess the necessary tools or resources to conduct groundwater assessments effectively. Many studies have deployed sensors or automated devices where the farmers mostly have to observe the readings and look after the functioning of the meters, while some have provided measuring tapes. So, measuring the levels through measuring tapes might pose challenges in maintaining data quality accuracy, despite the extensive training. Lastly, factors like varying farm schedules, family priorities, and weather conditions could lead to irregular data collection, which might hinder the establishment of a consistent and reliable dataset.

Thus, to mitigate these limitations, it is essential to include farmers’ deeper wells in the monitoring network, as the groundwater levels in certain regions have been observed to go below the unconfined aquifer levels. This will also require a more rigorous and effective way to check/ validate the observations provided by the farmers, along with more frequent one-to-one communication with farmers to build a long-term dataset. Additionally, one of the main purposes of the collaborative approach is to expand the existing monitoring network and generate a larger dataset; hence, integrating government data and data collected through farmers could help better understand the groundwater dynamics in the region and also help in validating the data collected through the citizen science participants.

Hence, to expand the research on the participatory approach along with addressing the limitations mentioned above, the objectives of our study are (i) to develop a large-scale groundwater monitoring network to enhance the spatiotemporal coverage of the shallow and deep groundwater level monitoring by mobilizing the farmers, and (ii) to integrate the data collected through farmers and government data to understand the groundwater dynamics for better management.

6. Section 3: Please rename as Annex 1 (same comment also for the others)

Authors’ Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the correction has been incorporated in the manuscript.

7. Section 3: Subsection 3.2.2 is interesting as it provides information on how the citizens were first involved in measurements. It would be interesting also to have further details (maybe in the 4.2 section) on the main barriers encountered during this phase, and some reflections on how participation could be enhanced (e.g. which kind of ‘actionable’ information farmers might have back from the participation)

Authors’ Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in sub-section 4.2.4 lines 450-488:

The most significant output of the present research was the effective establishment of the groundwater monitoring network in the region by involving 43 farmers participants in the collaborative approach. While the collaborative approach of engaging farmers for data collection came as empowering farmers and improving groundwater information spatially and temporally, a few challenges were faced while selecting and engaging farmers for data collection. The limited number of farmers participants in the region stems from a complex interplay of factors which are discussed as follows:

• Resource poor farmers or limited mobile handling knowledge: Some farmers interviewed did not have smartphones, while some were not versed in using messenger apps to share monitoring observations and images. As a result of which, such farmers were not able to participate in the monitoring network. Also, in the long term, when the idea is to probably shift to using a dedicated mobile app (like MyWell) to provide the observed data, some of the farmers were sceptical about using modern technologies and techniques and were apprehensive about participating.

• Additional workload: This research focuses on taking measurements accurately, recording the observations by clicking pictures and communicating the same over messages; therefore, the whole process requires training for the same. However, some farmers found it additional work on their already demanding workloads, leading to resistance and reluctance to engage in the process.

• Focused on short-term and quick solutions: Some farmers were not keen to participate in the monitoring program due to their not-so-good experience in the past with the existing groundwater issues. The groundwater in the region has gone down so much that some farmers are more focused on immediate solutions regarding the availability and management of groundwater resources. Our research is the first step towards management through improving the region’s spatial and temporal scale of monitoring.

Despite the challenges posed, through this study, baseline data on the deeper groundwater could be generated, which is crucial for understanding the groundwater trend and pattern in the region. The availability of smartphones with the farmers enabled the collection, transmission and quality control of data with ease. This approach’s simplicity, quick learning and affordability/ low-cost nature to measure the groundwater levels helps scale up in other villages and blocks. Thus, the further goal is to expand the network and get more farmers engaged in this monitoring experiment.

From the feedback survey, 70% of the farmers agreed to engage their fellow farmers to join the monitoring, and 50% agreed to train the new farmers on monitoring and reporting the groundwater levels. On this positive response to the engagement of more farmers for long-term monitoring, it is thought to incentivize the farmers in some way for their efforts and contribution, which could be providing internet data packs, organizing workshops and felicitating the farmers for their contribution in volunteering, and featuring their contribution on the online website. Additionally, although most of the farmers expressed their comfort in providing observations over WhatsApp due to ease of use, a scope for developing a dedicated mobile app (such as MyWell) for the region can be considered in the future for proper data management.

8. Section 4: The section provides a detailed analysis of the results from different monitoring activities. I would recommend to better highlight (as from line 321 on) the need for integration of different data, along with the main technical challenges that can affect the process as well as data analysis

Authors’ Response: As per reviewer’s feedback, the following changes have been incorporated in the manuscript in the sub-section 4.2.2, in lines 378 -408:

As observed through the CGWB monitored wells for the year 2020 (Fig. 3), the bordering region of the two blocks showed groundwater existing at shallower depths and deeper levels in small pockets in the extreme eastern part of the Unjha block and the northern part of the Patan block. This interpolation results from the limited number of monitoring wells in the region. The spatial distribution improves due to more monitoring wells under the ATAL JAL scheme (Fig. 4), which shows a slightly different picture from the CGWB spatial distribution. The central part of the Patan block showed groundwater levels at the shallower depth. The bordering region observed groundwater levels of 80-100 m bgl and a small zone of deeper groundwater at >140 m bgl. The spatial map generated through the farmer’s well data (Fig. 5) somewhat matched the distribution produced through the ATAL JAL scheme (Fig. 4). The Unjha block groundwater level distribution resembled majorly, where the deeper groundwater levels were observed in the northern and northwestern part and shallower groundwater in the eastern and southeastern part. In the case of Patan block, as per the ATAL JAL scheme, the groundwater levels were mainly in the range of 10-80 m bgl, while the farmers’ data showed groundwater levels existing at a depth of more than 100 mbgl.Thus, the difference in groundwater behaviour observed through secondary and primary data points out the need for an integrative approach to understanding groundwater dynamics for effective management. Additionally, more the number of monitoring locations better is the interpolation results obtained to understand the spatial nature of the groundwater levels. Fig.6 shows the integrated groundwater level data obtained from the ATAL JAL scheme and field survey from the farmers for the post-monsoon season (November 2022). With good spatial coverage in both the blocks, the spatial distribution of groundwater levels shows that groundwater levels have gone down by >100 m bgl in the Unjha block, while in most of the Patan block, the groundwater is available at 100 m of depth. Small pockets of deep groundwater levels exist in Patan block, where groundwater levels have decreased to 140 m bgl. This situation has severely affected the livelihood of many small and marginal farmers in both blocks.

Hence, with the help of integrative mapping, the groundwater behaviour for groundwater levels at both shallower and deeper depths can be observed, which was earlier limited to shallow depths. These integrative maps can be helpful for farmers to decide whether there is a need to build a deep tubewell in the region and invest that much money. Additionally, the farmers whose regions fall in the deep groundwater levels zone and who do not have their private wells or are unable to partner with other farmers to access groundwater for irrigation can plan on sowing less water-intensive crops during the winter season. This can open a possibility for them to sow crops in the summer.

9. Section 4: Lines 337-348. Not sure this is a result of the analysis and of the questionnaire. If this is ‘background’ information I would suggest moving it before, in the description of the study area, as this will also help the reader better understand the rationale behind some questions included in the questionnaire.

Authors’ Response: We thank the reviewer for this feedback and have accepted it. The mentioned lines have been moved to the Section 2: Study Area in order to highlight the challenges in the region. This is given in lines 168-196 with proper citations:

Due to low rainfall and very limited surface water resources in the two blocks, the farmers are highly dependent on groundwater. Groundwater occurs under phreatic and confined conditions and is developed extensively in alluvium through dug wells, dug cum bore wells and tube wells for irrigation and domestic purpose (CGWB, 2020). However, both blocks have been categorized as overexploited since 2004 (with the stage of groundwater extraction >100% ) due to unsustainable large-scale groundwater pumping. The decadal pre-monsoon (May) groundwater levels (2012-2021), as assessed by CGWB, reveal that the groundwater levels have gone down 20 – 40 m bgl in the two blocks (CGWB, 2022b). Unjha block is three times smaller in area and population than Patan block, yet both blocks face a similar groundwater scenario of high depletion levels.

This widespread depletion has caused water stress in many villages in the two blocks, leading to the drying up of wells, higher construction and maintenance costs for wells and the energy used for pumping. As per the current groundwater situation, medium-scale or large-scale farmers do not have an alternative option but to construct a deeper groundwater well in one go. They believe the groundwater level will go further down in the years to come, thereby saving the cost of further investments in the deepening of wells. However, the challenges are inflicted on the marginal and small-scale farmers as the construction cost of a single borewell is around INR 10-15 lakhs (~ 1 million). Thus, many small and marginal farmers cannot invest this much money to construct their private deep well to pump groundwater. So, to get water for irrigating their farms, many small-scale farmers have partnered with other medium or large-scale farmers who provide irrigation water supply. Depending on the capacity of the borewell installed, the number of partners in the region varies from 4-100 farmers. The water is sold/purchased in two ways – either the water seller takes 1/3rd share in the production of the crops for which the water is supplied or charges farmers based on the number of hours of water supply. The price charged varies from around INR 70-250 per hour. However, the economically disadvantaged farmers who cannot access groundwater, either way, are facing issues of crop failures and are forced to either sell their land or become agricultural labourers for other farmers. The situation has become so severe that agricultural prospects in the region could be in danger in future due to the lack of irrigation water sources (Narula et al., 2011). Therefore, the two blocks are potential study sites to understand the groundwater dynamics and, in the longer run, help farmers in sustainable groundwater and agriculture management.

Reviewer #2:

Review of the manuscript No. - WAT-22-0007, entitled “Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India”

In the present study authors have demonstrated the participatory and community-based monitoring approaches for developing a large-scale groundwater level monitoring network of groundwater wells in two blocks under overexploited groundwater conditions by directly involving the farmers in two agriculturally dominated blocks under overexploited groundwater conditions in the North Gujarat, India. The study presents a very nice effort of participatory approaches where several farmers are involved in understanding and measuring the groundwater level data, who also showed their interest to provide data in future at different time intervals.

Author

Review: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R1/PR7

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Authors have addressed some of my previous observations/comments satisfactorily, but there should have been better revision/justification for my below points:

4. In page, 3-4, lines 96-110, as reported by the authors, several studies have been carried out using the similar participatory approaches, where the farmers were not only trained but were also facilitated to form a water management team to measure different hydrological and groundwater level data that led to better water management and groundwater literacy, but the present study lacks to present such findings in the study.

and

5. There need to establish some outcomes of the study as how the citizen science applied has able to generate new scientific knowledge and how the process of collecting data has been able to tackle the existing issues of insufficient groundwater data, and in increasing the public’s understanding and awareness of groundwater issues, etc.

I believe the lack of data being the project in initial phase, and presenting only the integrative map generated through secondary and primary data collected cannot be sufficient to provide the actual knowledge on groundwater dynamics and contribution to the scientific knowledge.

Moreover, spatial distribution and basic descriptive statistics of groundwater level, is not sufficient to recommend outcomes from the study and need to be incorporated with sound scientific study using suitable methodology and modeling techniques.

Review: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R1/PR8

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

The authors carefully replied to the reviewers' comments, and improved the paper accordingly

Recommendation: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R1/PR9

Comments

The authors have partially addressed some concerns but have not sufficiently revised or justified the absence of certain elements in the study, particularly related to the presentation of findings from similar participatory approaches and the establishment of outcomes regarding the generation of new scientific knowledge and addressing groundwater issues.

Considering the reviewer’s #1 valid points, it is recommended that the authors further revise the manuscript to address these concerns more comprehensively. Specifically, the authors should either incorporate findings from similar participatory approaches or provide a clear justification for their absence in the study. Additionally, the authors should consider incorporating a more robust discussion on how citizen science has contributed to new scientific knowledge, tackled data insufficiency, and increased public understanding of groundwater issues.

Decision: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R1/PR10

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Author comment: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R2/PR11

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Review: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R2/PR12

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none.

Comments

Authors have tried to address my comments in the previous two round of reviews, and I consider these responses as satisfactory and now I recommend publication of the manuscript in its present form.

Recommendation: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R2/PR13

Comments

No accompanying comment.

Decision: Participatory approaches for water monitoring and harvesting: Case study from India — R2/PR14

Comments

No accompanying comment.