Citizen science flow – an assessment of simple streamflow measurement methods

Davids, Jeffrey C.; Rutten, Martine M.; Pandey, Anusha; Devkota, Nischal; van Oyen, Wessel David; Prajapati, Rajaram; van de Giesen, Nick

doi:https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1045-2019

Articles | Volume 23, issue 2

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1045-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-1045-2019

© Author(s) 2019. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.

Articles | Volume 23, issue 2

Research article

|

20 Feb 2019

Research article |

| 20 Feb 2019

Citizen science flow – an assessment of simple streamflow measurement methods

Jeffrey C. Davids, Martine M. Rutten, Anusha Pandey, Nischal Devkota, Wessel David van Oyen, Rajaram Prajapati, and Nick van de Giesen

Download

Final revised paper (published on 20 Feb 2019)
Supplement to the final revised paper
Preprint (discussion started on 21 Aug 2018)
Supplement to the preprint

Interactive discussion

Status: closed

AC: Author comment | RC: Referee comment | SC: Short comment | EC: Editor comment

- Printer-friendly version

- Supplement

RC1: 'Interesting study, but better observational data needed', Anonymous Referee #1, 15 Sep 2018
- AC1: 'Initial Reply to Reviewer #1', Jeffrey Davids, 02 Oct 2018
- AC3: 'Final Reply to Reviewer #1', Jeffrey Davids, 24 Oct 2018
RC2: 'Interesting dataset but shortcomings in the data analysis and interpretation', Anonymous Referee #2, 15 Sep 2018
- AC2: 'Initial Reply to Reviewer #2', Jeffrey Davids, 02 Oct 2018
- AC4: 'Final Reply to Reviewer #2', Jeffrey Davids, 24 Oct 2018

Peer-review completion

AR: Author's response | RR: Referee report | ED: Editor decision

ED: Reconsider after major revisions (further review by editor and referees) (08 Nov 2018) by Laurent Pfister

AR by Jeffrey Davids on behalf of the Authors (09 Nov 2018) Author's response

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (16 Nov 2018) by Laurent Pfister

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (05 Dec 2018)

Suggestions for revision or reasons for rejection

While this is the second round of reviews, it actually could also be seen as the first one as the authors changed their manuscript substantially. I really appreciate the way the authors responded to the concerns and by considering the earlier comments and performing new field experiments, they largely improved their study. Having said this, there are some issues, that need to be addressed. Besides some more general comments, I also list some minor points. While these are easy to fix, the amount of these issues was a bit unfortunate when reading this version of the manuscript. Please check your manuscript careful before submission!

Comments on the methods:

Float: I did not realize this before, but the way the float method is used is rather uncommon. Normally one float is used, which usually ends up in the middle of the stream. I do not see how one can force a float to stay in a certain section. Of course, using several sections also increases the required time. The recommended distance of 1-2 m also sounds shorter than what I am used to. The ‘one float’ method should at least be mentioned.

Salt: I am still wondering where the amount of 1667 g per m3 came from. The idea to record a movie to get high temporal resolution data from a device without logger is smart. Can you say anything about the time needed to analyze the video and digitize the values?
Bernoulli: while I see the general idea, I do not think this approach can work (e.g., the width will influence results significantly, which is not at all considered).. If anything, a Pitot tube would be more correct. I tried to find this method in the provided reference but could not find it there (the only ref to Bernoulli I could find in USBR 2001 was about a different method). Please clarify the method and also why this was chosen instead of other options such as Pitot tude or weir stick.

Comments regarding the structure

The structure is partly confusing. Section 1 includes points which would better fit in the methods (i.e., 1.2). Also, the short section 1.5 might be better be integrated into the introduction (btw, please clarify what this project is about in more concrete terms, the text here sounds a bit like taken from a general advertisement of the project). The results include some methods (maps). Section 5 should rather present conclusions than a summary. Also, Table 5 should be moved to the results
Overall the text is now rather long. I would recommend moving the ‘recipe’ instructions to an appendix.

Other general comments

The terms pre- and post-monsoon are used throughout the manuscript, but actually as far as I understand these were just different periods and it is less significant whether these were before or after the monsoon, better to talk about period 1 and 2?
Please check the author guidelines for the equations, multi-letter variable names are mathematically incorrect!

Detailed comments:

P1L16: larger scale: involving a larger number of people
P1L17: were these all authors? Specify all or x of the authors
P1L21: all: each
P1L21: specify how these reference flows were measured (which instrument)
P2L25: pre: pre-
P1L29: addition: additional
P2L28: The measurements are not text message based, but just sent through text messages. The measurements are done with a fixed staff gauge that citizens can read when passing by.
P3L14 The authors could include some recent work on flow estimation and citizen science such as Etter et al. (2018)
P3L18: delete forward
P3L32: be careful with the terms score and rank, here rank is probably more appropriate
P3L34: related to the comment above, I would rename the category applicability, as "low applicability" sounds negative and this was a bit confusing when reading this bit, as evidently you want a low score overall.
Table 1: use some space to make the rows clearer
Figure 1 and elsewhere: the term inner quartile is new to me, do you mean inter-quartile?, x-axis: 20 instead of 20.0, y-axis: do you really mean reference EC differences? This does not make sense to me.
P9L10: as long as you measured water in natural streams, laminar flow is highly unlikely. Sorry, but this is a typical misconception, please check the types of flow
P9L21: using a single velocity measurement introduces of course some uncertainty. The decision to do so might be reasonable due to time constrains, but please mention that the limitation to one velocity per section can introduce uncertainties. Actually this makes the method more similar to the float with the only difference that with the current meter you can take the single velocity measurement at a more representative depth which eliminates the need for correction factors.
P13L9, please explain what the open data kit is
P15L8ff: I suggest to present this as a table with the columns Q#, question, 1,(2),3
P16L6: 15: 15. (add dot)
P16L26: pre and post-monsoon measurements. = all measurements?
P17L7: km2: exponent!
Figure 2 text:delete (green … ) Well known scale - not necessary to explain, especially as also available in legend.
P19L7: streams: stream
Table 4: the column with times raises the question how long each observation took, certainly longer than a minute
Figure 4: add one boxplot summarizing all observations, in the caption delete e.g. n=9 (obvious) and move the sentence ‘to facilitate’ …. To the end
Figure 5: Why not use a red, orange, green scale - more intuitively associated with positive to negative.
Figure 6: maps would rather belong to the methods, histograms not really needed here
P25L7: why underlined?
P25L31: 10: ten, explain how to estimate k in a citizen science project?
P26L16: add selection after site
P26L31: delete of after 33
Etter, S., Strobl, B., Seibert, J., and van Meerveld, H. J. I.: Value of uncertain streamflow observations for hydrological modelling, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 5243-5257, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-5243-2018, 2018. .

Hide

ED: Publish subject to revisions (further review by editor and referees) (17 Dec 2018) by Laurent Pfister

AR by Jeffrey Davids on behalf of the Authors (19 Jan 2019) Author's response Manuscript

ED: Referee Nomination & Report Request started (21 Jan 2019) by Laurent Pfister

RR by Anonymous Referee #1 (22 Jan 2019)

ED: Publish as is (07 Feb 2019) by Laurent Pfister

AR by Jeffrey Davids on behalf of the Authors (08 Feb 2019) Manuscript

Short summary

Wise management of water resources requires data. Nevertheless, the amount of water data being collected continues to decline. We evaluated potential citizen science approaches for measuring flows of headwater streams and springs. After selecting salt dilution as the preferred approach, we partnered with Nepali students to cost-effectively measure flows and water quality with smartphones at 264 springs and streams which provide crucial water supplies to the rapidly expanding Kathmandu Valley.