Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Adoption of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices in Zomba, Eastern Malawi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Determinants of smallholder farmers’ adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in Zomba, eastern Malawi

Introduction:
1. The Introduction is rather lengthy. The authors have not been able to describe the knowledge gap with respect to adoption of CSA? Could 'compatibility' and 'simplicity' or the 'bottom-up approach' be the research question with respect to adoption of CSA?

2. Figures 1-3 and associated text can be deleted to provide the readers with the focus of the paper.

Materials and Methods:

3. For 'bottom-up approach', please see Sandhu (2012) https://doi.org/10.3390/su13042171

Results and Discussions

4. Line 300: table 3 should read table 4.

5. Line 381: Bars in Figure 7 should be ordered from high to low%. Statistical significant level must be provided and discussed.

6. Line 397: Figure 8 caption should be convey the 'Challenges with adopted CSA practices'.

7. Line 461: Figure 9: Bars should be ordered from high to low% and all bars must be labelled. Statistical significant level must be provided and discussed. 

8. Line 457: "Determinants of..." should read "Farmers' reason for...".

9. Please provide limitations of the current research for further research to fill the knowledge gap.

Conclusion

10. Line 561: 'bottom-up approach' came out from nowhere. 

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work. Please see the attachment for all details. I had three different files: 1. responding to the raised issues 2. with track changes 3. the revised version However, due to space here, only two have been merged and uploaded. I hope the Managing Editor will share the one with track changes as well.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract

The abstract section provides a general overview of the whole study. It has been reported that smallholder farmers in Malawi primarily practices rainfed agriculture with little use of climate-smart techniques. According to a study conducted in Zomba, compatibility and simplicity are important elements. However,  only 26% of farmers have implemented these techniques. Farmers are a late majority. They tend to favour less labour and capital-intensive approaches and wait for benefits to become apparent. However, to effectively promote farmers, implementing agencies should customise their strategies to meet their needs.

Introduction

The introduction section provides the introductory part of the study. It has been depicted that the agriculture sector in Malawi which employs 85% of the labour population and makes up a sizable portion of the country's GDP, is extremely vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Climate-smart agriculture or CSA, is essential to reduce these effects and support adaptation, greenhouse gas mitigation, and food security. Additionally, smallholder farmers continue to have poor adoption rates despite government measures such as ASWAp-SP II. These can be attributed to a number of causes including limited resources, market accessibility, weather patterns, and lack of information. Hence, promoting CSA practices and fostering resilience in vulnerable agricultural communities require an understanding of these processes.

Materials and Method

The materials and method section describes the methodological part by which the research has been conducted. It has been identified that the study which concentrated on the Matandani Section of Group Village Nthiko, was conducted in Malosa EPA, Zomba District. The utilisation of a mixed research approach made it practicable to acquire qualitative and quantitative data at the same time. Purposive and basic random sample methods were used to choose key informants and smallholder farmers.  At the same time, interviews, field observations, and questionnaires were used to gather data. Thematic analysis was utilised for qualitative methods and descriptive statistics were applied for quantitative methods. However, the investigation shed light on how climate-smart farming methods are being adopted by smallholder farmers.

Results and Discussions

The result and discussion section provides the analysis of the research and discusses according to the result. It has been noticed that the study focused on the adoption of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) techniques and the demographics of smallholder farmers in Nthiko through a survey of these farmers. It has been identified that the majority of them were married, female, under 50, in farming, with monthly incomes under MK10,000 and literate. Only a small percentage of farms had implemented CSA practices. Financial limitations, a lack of critical farm supplies and a shortage of corn stalks were among the difficulties encountered. The study suggested thorough training programmes to improve farmer’s comprehension and adoption of CSA activities in addition to low-cost, user-friendly and locally focused CSA methods.

Conclusion

The conclusion section provides the concluded part of the study. Adoption of CSA techniques by smallholder farmers in Nthiko is influenced by various aspects, including benefits, input accessibility, extension services, training and understanding of climate change. Adoption is determined by compatibility and appropriateness. Practices requiring a lot of labour and capital might not be adopted as much.

Comments

The study investigates the variables affecting Nthiko smallholder farmers' adoption of CSA techniques. It highlights how important appropriateness and compatibility are. The recommendations put forward a bottom-up methodology that involves interacting with local communities to guarantee efficacy and relevance. Practical implications for policy and intervention techniques are provided by the study.

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work. However, I have failed to upload the one with track changes because of space. I have only managed to combine the responses to the raised issues and the revised manuscript in the attachment. I hope the Managing Editor will share the one with track changes. Please see the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The description of the article is accessible and understandable. The research tools are simple. The questionnaire proposed by the authors can be easily used in other agricultural regions, which increases the value of the proposed approach. The results obtained are described correctly, they are not complicated. To enhance the quality of presentation of research results, it would be possible to additionally use special statistical methods, for example, the principal component method or the cluster analysis method. But the authors achieved the desired result using simpler methods. Therefore, I recommend the article for publication.

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work. However, I have failed to upload the one with track changes because of space. I have only managed to combine the responses to the raised issues and the revised manuscript in the attachment. I hope the Managing Editor will share the one with track changes. Please see the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript entitled "Determinants of smallholder farmers' adoption of climate smart agricultural practices in Zomba, Eastern Malawi" is important and interesting as it is focussing on climate smart agricultural practices with focus on factors influencing adoption of these practices by the smallholder farmers. I suggest the following to improve the quality of the manuscript:

1. The Authors need to follow the Journal Guidelines in terms of Research Manuscript Sections as outlined under  Instruction for Authors.

2. The Authors need to cite references in the text in accordance with Journal Guidelines as appear under Instruction for Authors whereby the reference number (not the name) must be placed in a square brackets for citation in the text. This must be done throughout the manuscript. The listing of references must then follow the reference citation number as appear in the text.

3. The Authors must include hypothesis of the study under Introduction.

4. Authors must also indicate the location of the study area using Latitude and Longitude.

5. The manuscript lacks important information on climatic conditions of the study area, the general dominating soils in the study area and the farming systems of the study area. This information is essential to allow other researchers to build on the results obtained from this study. In addition, this information is also important for the alignment of the Materials and  Methods section with the Title of the Manuscript.

6. The manuscript must have separate sections of Results and Discussion as outlined under Instructions for Authors of this Journal.

7. Authors need to indicate the limitations  of this study under Conclusions section.

The quality of English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work. However, I have failed to upload the one with track changes because of space. I have only managed to combine the responses to the raised issues and the revised manuscript in the attachment. I hope the Managing Editor will share the one with track changes. Please see the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 5 Report

This is an important work that needs to be published; however to be truly useful the manuscript, MS, needs to be improved to allow the reader to achieve full benefits of the insight into this important work.

1) CSA definition is buried inside a reference with little to no information as to EXACTLY what it entails.  Given this entire body of work revolves around this specific methodology it needs to be brought out in the MS in detail.  The first place would be at first mention, in addition to the reference, line 47, where an overview of what CSA entails with some examples (then provide the reference for more details to the interested reader.  The next mandatory place to discuss CSA practices that the study put into practice is in materials and methods section where the MS needs to discuss in great details the ACTUAL STUDY IMPLEMENTATION, which is bound to have differences from the references given the target study commercial test cases (example; differing rain-fall, different soil-types, different population cultural practices, distance from irrigation sources (is use of supplemental irrigation possible?  possibilities to store water? in which case topology and availabiity of clay or liners becomes important; as to access to labor (manual or machine).  There are WAY too many specifics that can't possible be contained within a reference.  In summary if this study is to have the HIGH IMPACT that we would all like to see; due dilligence in the crafting of the MS is critically important.  As the very backbone of science is to provide enough details so that the readers can fully duplicate the study in its entirety, this MS falls far short of this scientific standard.  As you work on revision, keep this critically important concept in mind.  As a reviewer, that is the lens by which I'll be weighing to accept or reject this MS. 

Also of critical note is that the figures MUST contain ALL information requisite to understanding the concepts that they are meant to convey.   A key example of where this MS falls short is Figure 9, where the # of labels is far short of the number of bars with no legend to describe what the bars actually mean or how they line up.  This is just sloppy and is in most cases grounds for MS rejection.  Figure 7 is a nice graph, but as it only highlights the birds eye view perspective, a great deal more insight and information is necessary in the supporting text.  What exactly where the challenges, how were they being overcome?  What support did they growers receive in their attempts to adopt these new cultural practices?  These are all critically important questions that must be assessed in order to convey the strengths AND weaknesses of the studies attempts to transfer the CSA technology to the adopting producers.  This MS can provide a critically important blueprint for further additional work as well as to others looking to perform similar acheivements.  Again, this is a VERY important body of work; but it can only achieve this with due dilligence in the crafting of this MS with an eye to transfer what insights, trials and tribulations that this study found. 

Best of luck; there's a LOT of potential for this MS to have high impact, but a lot of work must be done before that potential can be unlocked.  Note: you'll likely only get one more shot at getting it right as the next round is typically going to be accept or reject.  In its current state it won't be accepted; so bear in mind it needs serious work in order to pass the high bar that brings it up to the standard that is sufficient for acceptance of a scientific MS.

In most spots, english is fine; however as with any scientific publication; it needs care in the organization and presentation of the material in order to truly convey ALL of the information that was learned in the study and pass it on to the readers in a form that is truly useful for them.  

Author Response

Thank you so much for taking the time to review our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your work. However, I have failed to upload the one with track changes because of space. I have only managed to combine the responses to the raised issues and the revised manuscript in the attachment. I hope the Managing Editor will share the one with track changes. Please see the attachment for the details.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate your effort in improving the manuscript. I have one minor comment to add a paragraph on 'bottom-up approach' in the Introduction section.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript. Please find attached the reviewed manuscript as per your advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

1. The Author(s) did not address my comments under point 3 (hypothesis). The  Author(s) must remember that this is a Research manuscript and NOT a Review manuscript. I just want to bring to the attention of the Author(s) that in this study the Author(s) do have idea about factors that might determine the adoption of Climate Smart Agricultural Practice (CSA) but they (Authors) are uncertain hence conducting this investigative study with smallholder farmers to find the truth about which factors really determine the adoption of CSA. For this I refer the Authors to Figure 9. Therefore hypothesis is relevant and necessary to be included in this manuscript.

2. The Author(s) also did not address my comment under Point 4 (Location of the Study Area). The Author(s) can easily find information on the Latitude and Longitude of the study area, but for this, the Authors need to give themselves time to search for this information. I managed to find this information myself.

3. The Author(s) also did not address my comments on Point 5 (climatic conditions and general soils of the study area). The Author(s) can find this information in the literature. I also did find it.

4. The Author(s) did not address my comments on Point 7 (limitations of the study). The Author(s) need to attend to this.

It is very important for the Author(s) to address these comments.

The English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.

Author Response

Thank you so much for reviewing our manuscript. Please find attached the reviewed manuscript as per your advice.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

General Comment:  Some issues still need to be addressed as indicated below:

1. The comment about hypothesis has not been addressed by the authors and this need to be addressed. Authors must remember that in qualitative research study (like this study) ideas on expected outcomes from research to be conducted must be drawn and then hypothesis is stated. That is why hypothesis provide directions to guide the study and expected outcomes or results.

2. The symbol for minutes under subsection "Study area" need to be indicated when writing Latitude and Longitude for the benefit of the readers e.g. 15°17S must be written as Latitude 15° 17' S. Similarly 35° 24E must be written as Longitude 35° 24' E

3. Authors still have not addressed my comment about including limitations of the study under Conclusion. I request that Authors address this.

The English Language is relatively fine but needs minor editing.

Author Response

Once again, thank you so much for reviewing our article. We greatly appreciate what we are learning through the process. Please find the revised manuscript in the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf