PCLM-D-23-00111

Local social-ecological context explains seasonal rural-rural migration of the poorest in a rural community in southwestern Bangladesh.

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Lucie Clech

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by16 September, 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ferdous Ahmed, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

2. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent. In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (1) whether consent was informed and (2) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information."

3. Please note that PLOS CLIMATE has specific guidelines on code sharing for submissions in which author-generated code underpins the findings in the manuscript. In these cases, all author-generated code must be made available without restrictions upon publication of the work. Please review our guidelines at https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/materials-and-software-sharing#loc-sharing-code and ensure that your code is shared in a way that follows best practice and facilitates reproducibility and reuse.

4. Please provide separate figure files in .tif or .eps format.

For more information about figure files please see our guidelines:

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures 

https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/figures#loc-file-requirements

5. Please amend your detailed Financial Disclosure statement. This is published with the article. It must therefore be completed in full sentences and contain the exact wording you wish to be published.

a. State the initials, alongside each funding source, of each author to receive each grant.

b. State what role the funders took in the study. If the funders had no role in your study, please state: “The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.”

c. If any authors received a salary from any of your funders, please state which authors and which funders.

If you did not receive any funding for this study, please simply state: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Very important mixed methods work!

Comments by line(s)

Abstract

6-7 ? “test the hypothesis” or elucidate mechanisms by which climate-induced…., more in keeping with mixed method configurational approach

14 – if Chirps is Climate Hazards Group InfraRed Precipitation with Station data (CHIRPS), then should be all upper case

15+ Would tend to start with the 2nd sentence as most general. ? most significant change – ? refer to the MSC methodology as well? Covid-19 upper case first letter…lockdowns an aggravating factor for waterlogging? More likely for inequality. Suggest re-work paragraph, link references to waterlogging across paragraph. Check tense of verbs, sometimes past – long time scale, sometimes present with unclear rationale for shift.

Introduction

43 – verb agreements need checking throughout manuscript e.g. Bangladesh….showS

44-45 ….one of the vulnerable countries most affected by CC

48-49 ….heavy rainfall AND land use change are among the challenges EXPERIENCED (experimenter en anglais)

58-59 suggest… climate-induced migration decision and pathways are EMBEDDED in a complex socio-economic, behavioral, and environmental context.

i.e. you are focusing on the former, so want to distinguish it from context.

62 …result of local limitationS

64 – 67 Important argument re heterogeneity – need to define “local” given its multiple meanings in international development, from village level up to southern nation.

71 meaning of sub-regional? Vs local? Clarify scale whenever using such terms

75-76 reference to a map would help – could cite the map in your protocol paper

82+ good set of orienting questions, with some modifications, including numbering. First, inappropriate to contrast “perceived changes” with “reality”, as falls into an outdated paradigm of risk or change. If by the latter, you mean natural science data and analysis, specify. 2nd livelihood impacted differentially – adverb better. 3rd – more precision on rural community – one? Or multiple rural villages? Or what scale? 4th identifying recommendations from your participants? or yours, flowing from your analysis?

Methodology

92 – impressive two country protocol on health system resilience! Comparing those methods with these, this study seems to be in parallel, as focus different i.e. used the protocol study platform to develop this complementary study. Correct?

93 – SE perspective appropriate.

95 - …scale of “the community” – what kind of community? Linked to what geographic scale(s)?

96 – glad to see use of the term “explore” here. More appropriate than “test hypothesis” in the abstract.

97 Need to reference, define configurational approach, as key analysis method.

117 – several times refer to last five years (presume 2017 to 2022? Worth specifying when qualitative data collected), yet abstract refers to 25 yrs, and climate data analyses cover two decades up to 2021. Clarify time frames for each, and when different.

132 – what kind of content analysis e.g. inductive, deductive? Please reference and clarfy. What categories of livelihoods? reference classification approach. Similarly configurational approach – are you drawing on organizational management literature https://journals.aom.org/doi/abs/10.5465/256809? Or more https://www.jstor.org/stable/26271859 Needs fuller explanation and referencing

Also need methods used for synthesizing across quantitative and qualitative e.g. as per typology in book cited in your protocol paper Ref 38. Creswell JW, Plano Clark VL. Designing and conducting mixed methods research. Third edition, international student edition. Los Angeles LondonNew Delhi Singapore Washington DC Melbourne: Sage; 2018. 492 p. Which one in terms of timing, etc.

155+ Good to have more info on the study site, here and in the beginning of the results For me, this must come up front in the methods before data collection and analysis, It would have answered some of my queries earlier about scale, nature of community etc.

Results

213 –first section of the results, right?

Sn 1.1 [? Numbering?] Fascinating results. Well indicated what came from FG. Less clear the numbers before quotes lines 235+ and in table of these. How did the numbers get so high. Did you select some interviews and reject all the others in between? If so, how selected? Or are these numbers in the larger project dataset? Please clarify.

Very neat to see correspondence between FG and Interview participants experience and rainfall data analyses – nicely done.

Fascinating section 2.2. on unskilled seasonal migration

294 – “settler’s” who are these people - not colonizers or their descendents, I presume. And “villagers” – are these participants from “the community” in FG or individual interviews?

Good to hear re political actions, ways forward – out of the FG and individual interviews? Or other sources?

Sn 3 – so a model resulted – as per Figure 2 at the end of the article? If so, should be indicated in methods. Seems like a spaghetti diagram e.g. Waltner-Toews et al https://esajournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1890/1540-9295%282003%29001%5B0023%3APCEMEF%5D2.0.CO%3B2?casa_token=RmL6YqT8vfkAAAAA%3Ar3qH0hRx9IIVdF-DhXICEvkK-Ftdz8r4xUmEVrj2icKG7EupiYppksMEE_Q09eJ7DjQXBllh3AdNVA

Some of the 1st paragraph is methods, and should be moved up there. Validated just by 3 researchers, not with stakeholders – why?

Explicit linkage between the text and figure would be most helpful, as hard to follow either. Different colours for identification of different pathways changes>impacts>responses>impacts to key impacts of interest, perhaps bolded, would help.

Discussion

Less re-iteration of results up front – get right into the linkages with both Bangladeshi and global literature. Much of the section insightful, including the critique of development models towards the end with almost poetic language �

Conclusion

Does not add much for me, except for polycrises concept which should be in results or discussion. Already a long paper. Suggest focus on abstract for conclusions.

References

Very good set substantively (less methodologically), need to shift all French months etc. to English

Reviewer #2: This manuscript contains rainfall data that it combines with local qualitative data on environmental problems in southwest Bangladesh, Tala upazils (in Satkhira?).

It’s a promising paper but it is not publishable in its current form. The structure is currently confusing. Much of the necessary local context explaining environmental problems are only briefly mentioned in the discussion.

Firstly, is it necessary to center the analysis along “climate-induced changes”? Waterlogging is described as the worst problem, yet this is only assumed to be climate related both in the introduction, abstract and first half of the paper. The first interview data also contain quotes from fairly well off properties farmers- yet the pooorest are landless and wage labourers. Tala is cultivating brackish tiger prawn and this has contributed to several conflicts with water manAgement, resulted in salinisation and worse rural livelihoods. Who are the informants in this study? See dewan et al 2014 and 2015 respectively, Paprocki and Cons joint article and Paprocki’s article on anticipatory ruination as well as Dewan’s 2023 climate refugees or labour migrants. While dewan 2021’s book is referenced, the insights on how embankments worsen waterlogging and the ways in which shrimp farm worsen environmental degradation does not come across in this paper - nor the context of structural underemployment in this region. When writing about fish farming, do the authors mean brackish tiger-prawn cultivation? This context is currently missing and would be useful in better understanding the nature of waterlogging. As dewan 2023 notes, shrimp villages have structurally vulnerable embankments and suffer more during cyclones.

Bernzen et al 2019’s article critically assessing climate-induced migration in Bangladesh is also a must to engage with. What would be interesting would be an analysis showing how rainfall data cAn help us better understand these existing issues. If the rains are becoming more irregular, what does this mean in practice? To stop tiger-prawn, maintain embankments or pursue tidal river management (Uttaran has apparently conducted a pilot in Tala? See also chapter 3 in Dewan’s book).

Sometimes it comes across as though waterlogging is induced by climate change. Yet the reasons are complex and intimately tied to embankment infrastructure as dewan and others have written. More context and background on waterlogging is needed early on, also explaining the longstanding issues of saline shrimp farming. It would be good if these local environmental problems are not conflated with “climate-induced changes” but rather a discussion of changing rainfall and seasons May aggregate these issues further. What can be done?

I believe with revisions that are clearer on these local conflicts, and a clearer discussion of how rainfall data helps us better understand risks for the future and potential ways forward, this manuscript has the potential to be publishable. In any case, the abstract and introduction should be fullly rewritten to to better reflect the material itself.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Donald C Cole

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PCLM-D-23-00111R1

Local social-ecological context explains seasonal rural-rural migration of the poorest in south-west Bangladesh.

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Lucie Clech

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process. Please submit your revised manuscript by 7 January 2024. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Ferdous Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. We do not publish any copyright or trademark symbols that usually accompany proprietary names, eg  ©, ®, ™  (e.g. next to drug or reagent names). Please remove all instances of trademark/copyright symbols throughout the text, including ® on page 4.

2. Please amend your Data Availability Statement and indicate where the data may be found.

3. Some material included in your submission may be copyrighted. According to PLOS’s copyright policy, authors who use figures or other material (e.g., graphics, clipart, maps) from another author or copyright holder must demonstrate or obtain permission to publish this material under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License used by PLOS journals. Please closely review the details of PLOS’s copyright requirements here: PLOS Licenses and Copyright. If you need to request permissions from a copyright holder, you may use PLOS's Copyright Content Permission form.

Please respond directly to this email or email the journal office and provide any known details concerning your material's license terms and permissions required for reuse, even if you have not yet obtained copyright permissions or are unsure of your material's copyright compatibility. 

Potential Copyright Issues:

Fig 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

"

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: (No Response)

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Partly

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I don't know

Reviewer #3: I don't know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors should be commended for a significantly improved manuscript, where the Discussion and Conclusion are quite compelling. However, many of the comments that I have could be addressed through restructuring the paper more in lines with a social science paper and not based on results - discussion- conclusion. Currently, some of the critical points and insights only show up on page 12 onwards and could be flagged earlier.

I am also left wondering about the history of shrimp cultivation and its relationship with rainfall data and whether the two changes exacerbate environmental degradation? This is not really spelled out.

Lastly, what is the article's original contribution in terms of concepts and theories? This is not really spelled out either, but could make the paper stronger. Based on the literature reviewed, what gaps is this paper filling and how?

In the abstract the authors write "tiger prawn farms, a lucrative and local adaptation to waterlogging and

salinisation, worsen the situation for the less wealthy, causing waterlogging and salinisation of the adjacent agricultural lands and buildings, the disappearance of traditional fishing and a reduction of the local job market". The tension here must be resolved. In half the paper the authors make it seem that 'fish farming' is a response to 'climate-induced waterlogging' related to rainfall change, but in the latter half acknowledging the role shrimp farmers have in inundating arable land with saline water during the dry season.

Below are some detailed comments I hope will be of use to the authors.

Methodology

who are the we? The authors or did you use any local help? Who helped you and what were there roles? Did you use an NGO? Translators? How were the people selected for the FGDs and who selected them? When you say fish farmers, do you mean shrimp cultivators or shrimp businessmen? How large landholding did the people have that were invited?

What kind of program for fish farmers, brackish aquaculture? What kind of program? USAID and World Bank related?

The use of ‘fish farmers’ is extremely vague. What kind of term was used in Bangla? How large land holdings did they have? Is this brackish tiger-prawn cultivation that is often by large landholders? If so (which in this context is likely) the focus on ‘climate-induced’ here is extremely problematic since salinity is manmade, especially during the dry season. Also discussed indepth in Dewan 2023 and by Paprocki. The statement “Many crop farmers have become fish farmers.” is therefore devoid of history and context as it makes this transition seem as inevitable when there are a lot of political forces behind it.

This needs to be explained better: “All changes cited were directly or indirectly climate-induced,” what is indirectly climate-induced? To what extent is this paper engaging in climate-reductive translations that misread the Bengal delta?

1.1.

What kind of farmers? How much land did they own, or were they leasing land? Did they work the land themselves, or hire manual labourers? I ask, because there is a huge difference between larger landowners and smaller ones, as well as sharecroppers, but ‘farmers’ as a category homogenises them.

The changes of 20-25 years directly coincide with the introduction with shrimp cultivation under USAID and the World Bank, under Structural Adjustment Policies and the Washington Consensus in the 1990s. Engaging with the history of hoq shrimp cultivation was introduced might help the authors strengthen the argument of the paper.

The covid information is really interesting and important, but very little theorising. It shows the importance of political contexts in understanding livelihoods, and that much can be lost when focusing too much on looking at ‘climate-induced’ changes. Perhaps consider lifting up how including 'external changes' allowed you to include such important events like Covid - and perhaps think through what this does for your analysis and express it more clearly while setting up the paper.

The issue of elevation is also one that is known for those researching salinity intrusion for shrimp farming, yet the use of sluice gates and pipes to bring saltwater in during the dry season is not mentioned at all by the authors in this section, only much later.

1.3 To call brackish tiger-prawn farming ‘fish farming’ is highly misleading and to call forced salinity intrusion by reversing the purpose of flood-protection embankments as ‘waterlogging’ is also highly misleading. It renders invisible the violence of aquaculture in Satkhira, with a long and bloody past. The people are forced to convert to shrimp if their lands are salinized by others.

In 2012 BELA filed against expansion of shrimp cultivation and the High Court agreed. It’s disheartening to see that the state is now pushing for more of this. I do not see any ecological accounts of how expanding area for shrimp is actually resulting in salinisation of the soil and biodiversity loss. The consequences are not ambivalent, but well-known and documented. It is only on page 12 that the saltwater intrusion and tiger-prawns are mentioned, with its negative ecological effects. This could be brought up earlier.

Pages 12-15 were the most interesting – but detached from existing literature.

“Seasonal migration of the unskilled workers is results from a complex interaction of climate-(non)-related changes” what does this mean? Strange sentence.

Discussion

- This reads like a literature review that would have been useful to have in relation to the findings. In terms of structure, what would happen to have this contextual discussion as a background section early on in the paper and to not divide the paper as a natural science paper, but thematically based on arguments as a social science paper? I ask because much of the insights from the discussion are missing early on in the paper and causing some of the problems – especially the forced salinity intrusion that is only referred to as ‘climate-induced waterlogging’

Thanks again for the opportunity revise such a promising paper

Reviewer #3: Thank you for inviting me to review the manuscript entitled "Local social-ecological context explains seasonal rural-rural migration of the poorest in south-west Bangladesh". I understand it is a revised version, having been reviewed by 2 other reviewers before. While the study contains a lot of interesting insights into the local livelihood and mobility dynamics in Bangladesh, the structure of the paper is somewhat confusing. The title suggests that the two main themes of the papers are "local social-ecological context" and "rural-rural migration of the poorest (?)", but looking into the analysis and the research questions of the paper, I do not see a strong connection. Section 2 seems to be focussing most on this, but is rather limited and superficial. The discussion is also not really structured according to the research questions. Regarding section 3, the conceptual model, it is not clear how it is related to the results of this study. Usually a conceptual model is proposed to test relationships, here it is presented as a result. The authors need to restructure the results according to the research questions, and use the discussion section to answer the last RQ, namely: "What recommendations can be made from our study to inform future policies?". Rural-to-rural migration patterns also need to be worked out further, considering it is the main focus of the paper. Regarding the rainfall data, this is done on national level, though it would make more sense to just focus on the local level, and link local perceptions with local climate phenomena?

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Local social-ecological context explains seasonal rural-rural migration of the poorest in south-west Bangladesh.

PCLM-D-23-00111R2

Dear Prof. Dr. Lucie Clech

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Local social-ecological context explains seasonal rural-rural migration of the poorest in south-west Bangladesh.' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Ferdous Ahmed

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: I don't know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors must be commended for significant revisions that have improved the paper and made the contribution to existing debates much clearer.

There are some minor issues that are quickly fixed that I would urge the authors to address before the article is published formally.

that shrimp in Bangladesh was introduced by the government in the late 60’s. Please provide a reference. By most accounts it was introduced in the 1980s and took off in the 1990s. See Fake blue revolution: environmental and socio-economic impacts of shrimp culture in the coastal areas of Bangladesh by AK Deb

Language and grammar:

“What significant changes do villagers believe have impacted their village and livelihoods over the past five years, and do these changes reflect in rainfall data analysis?” Change to *are* these changes

Assumptions in this research question

"3. What are the connections between climate-induced changes and unskilled seasonal migration of the poorest in this village?"

I would suggest using ‘environmental’ changes since it is difficult, as you have mentioned, to prove that environmental change like waterlogging is mainly induced by climatic change. I find this formulation still problematic in its assumption. Consider a question that better reflects this point you raise on p. 6 "We wanted to include all types of recent or ongoing 184 external events or changes perceived as important by the community members to understand 185 how crucial climate-induced changes have been for this community and how changes or events 186 of all types related to each other. Rather than an exclusive criterion, the external changes 187 provide an entry point into the discussion of the issues faced by community members and allow 188 us to be more open to other changes perceived possibly as more important to the community 189 than climate change."

p. 5 Tala – Is this not a test site for recent Tidal River Management efforts implemented by Uttaran? Did you come across this at all and hear local people’s views on it? Tala has historically suffered from much waterlogging. Might be useful as a footnote for context.

p.8 What is the difference between fish farmers and fishermen? Shrimp in Bangla is chingri mach (shrimp fish), do you mean brackish shrimp farmers? Kindly specify when it is freshwater galda, rui etc versus brackish tiger-prawn/bagda. Please go through the text carefully and revise.

p 9. Can you explain what practicing fish farming means.

It is a really important finding that “Analysing rainfall trends at regional level allowed us to identify a rainfall reduction (red 363 colours in Figure 1c) during the dry months, particularly during January over the interest region.” I think this should be highlighted more in the introduction, abstract and also for further research in the conclusion. This means it is even more urgent to address siltation and improve the water retention capacity of rivers and canals, to restore wetlands rather than fill them up and make them into land.

1.3 Fishing to fish farming. Kindly be specific with what kind of ‘fish’, is it freshwater indigenous species (rui, katla, golda), or brackish ones like bagda (tiger-prawn). The more specific, the more convincing. Please do not use fish as equal as brackish shrimp. In the vignettes, kindly use the bangla words for ‘shrimp’ used, is it bagda or golda? Are the dynamics the same? Again, use of ‘fish farmer’ for tigerprawn cultivators here is problematic. Bagda cultivators divert saltwater, not those that cultivate freshwater species.

Kindly replace ‘fish farms’ with ‘brackish tiger-prawn farms’ where appropriate. E.g. p 14

For this discussion on the operation of sluice gates see also Dewan et al 2014 Imposition of Participation and Dewan et al 2015 Historical evolution of water management in Bangladesh – it is not BWDB’s role to operate the sluice gates.

Last sentence about excavating canal themselves is part of a wider problem. Above articles might help situate this finding.

In terms of shrimp and its relation to both employment and migration, both the work of Kasia Paprocki on adaptation regime and anticipatory ruination, as well as Dewan’s chapter on shrimp and article in JPS on migration could be relevant to engage with. This becomes slightly addressed later on when discussing Etzold and Berntzen texts.

P21. Important point about land fragmentation and inheritance as contributing to need for migration due to economic reasons.

Hope these comments are useful: critical before publication is to specify 'fish farmers' 'fish farms' etc and revise Research question 3 to better reflect the actual discussion of the paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

**********