Socio-Economic Factors Influencing Small-Scale Farmers’ Market Participation: Case of Rice Producers in Dano

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting and useful paper. I was left with the feeling that this is an interdisciplinary team and each person wrote a piece from their own disciplinary knowledge and style. 

My main issue is that the paper is actually about marketing - choosing to market or not, what assists marketing etc but the introduction is all about rice growing in the region so I strongly believe that the current introduction should be reduced to a paragraph or so and then a new introduction written that addresses the marketing aspect and in particular the roles of the groups the farmers found helpful and gender differences. Some of this material is now in the results/ discussion but must have been known beforehand or questions would not have been asked about it. 

I think it would also be valuable to clarify the particular contribution of this research - at the moment it is a bit lost in the discussion 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

We would like to thank the reviewer for carefully and thoroughly reading our manuscript and for providing invaluable guidance that have helped greatly in shaping the revised paper. Below; we provide a point by point response to your comments and suggestions and how each one has been addressed in the revision.

Point 1: My main issue is that the paper is actually about marketing - choosing to market or not, what assists marketing etc but the introduction is all about rice growing in the region so I strongly believe that the current introduction should be reduced to a paragraph or so and then a new introduction written that addresses the marketing aspect and in particular the roles of the groups the farmers found helpful and gender differences. Some of this material is now in the results/ discussion but must have been known beforehand or questions would not have been asked about it.

Response 1: We have revised the introduction: rice growing section was deleted (lines 63-82); more information on marketing aspect, the roles of the farmers groups and gender differences were provided.

 Point 2: I think it would also be valuable to clarify the particular contribution of this research - at the moment it is a bit lost in the discussion.

Response 2: As suggested by the reviewer, we have provided the contribution of this research in line 140.

Reviewer 2 Report

The writing and clarity in the exhibition is good. However, the quality of the graphics (figures) could be improved, to go in line with the rest of the work. In figure 3 there is also a spelling error: where it says "umimproved" it should say "unimproved".

The analysis presents data for the years 2010 and 2011. However, for the realization of this work the data was collected during 2017, as indicated. It would be advisable to update the socioeconomic figures, so that they correspond with the moment of carrying out the analysis. The methodological tools and the sampling carried out are appropriate and explained in the work.

The study is consistent and provides interesting aspects about a specific region. It would be important that the study allow to extrapolate the results obtained, beyond the very specific geographical scope of the article's analysis. Given the circumstances, what would be the geographic impact of this analysis? Are the results only valid for this region?

Some of the limitations of the work are well explained. However, I consider it of great importance to include certain external factors in the analysis (e.g. market prices, or the level of complexity to access different distribution channels), so they are elements that can significantly influence the analysis performed and that could alter the results obtained or, at least, the implications and recommendations derived from the study.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like to thank the reviewer for careful and thorough reading of this manuscript and for the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions, which help to improve the quality of this manuscript. We have revised our manuscript in response to his/her suggestions. Our response follows (the reviewer’s comments are in italics)

Point 1: The writing and clarity in the exhibition is good. However, the quality of the graphics (figures) could be improved, to go in line with the rest of the work. In figure 3 there is also a spelling error: where it says "umimproved" it should say "unimproved".

 Response 1: As suggested by the reviewer, we have revised Figure 3.

Point 2: The analysis presents data for the years 2010 and 2011. However, for the realization of this work the data was collected during 2017, as indicated. It would be advisable to update the socioeconomic figures, so that they correspond with the moment of carrying out the analysis. The methodological tools and the sampling carried out are appropriate and explained in the work.

 Response 2: The correction has been made. We apologize for the confusion and thank you for pointing out this. This was due to the non-availability of data on the study areas lowlands rice production beyond 2010. Actually, we consider the total rice production of the region.

Point 3: The study is consistent and provides interesting aspects about a specific region. It would be important that the study allow to extrapolate the results obtained, beyond the very specific geographical scope of the article's analysis. Given the circumstances, what would be the geographic impact of this analysis? Are the results only valid for this region?

Response 3: Lowland use is the same in almost all region of Burkina Faso; initially, it was devoted to grazing and combination crop production (maize / rice). It uses for only rice cropping was introduced by projects. We believe that the replication of such study with a much larger sample size at different regions would enable better generalizability of the findings of the study.

Point 4: Some of the limitations of the work are well explained. However, I consider it of great importance to include certain external factors in the analysis (e.g. market prices, or the level of complexity to access different distribution channels), so they are elements that can significantly influence the analysis performed and that could alter the results obtained or, at least, the implications and recommendations derived from the study.

Response 4: Thank you for this valuable recommendation, we considered access to secure market (Output market) as a proxy as we did not have information on actual market price. Moreover, we wanted to consider historical data on paddy price; but the available information was only from 2005-2009. However, we consider this suggestion as a limitation of this work and recommend it for future investigations.

Round  2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am satisfied with the  revisions - it's an interesting paper

Reviewer 2 Report

After having undergone intense revisions, this work is now much more complete, and the English writing is much better.

I still consider important to include some external factors in the research (some more than the mentioned, price), since they could influence the analysis. Anyway, limitations of the research are well explained and also the implications and recommendations have improved considerably the section, and the whole paper.

I am satisfied with the revisions.