Resilience Assessment of Swiss Farming Systems: Piloting the SHARP-Tool in Vaud

Round  1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sustainability.387787Resilience assessment of Swiss farming systems: piloting the SHARP-tool in Vaud

The paper is well organized and discusses the piloting of SHARP tool in Vaud with a comprehensive manner. The methods are well articulated with the topic of the paper along with the relevance of the topic. A sufficient amount of literature is reviewed related to the field. However, in the methods section, it is not clear how many farmers were contacted (and even the groups of farmers) respectively in phase I and II. Also what was the criteria for the selection of a particular farmer? At page 7, if it is the figure, then look for correct number of the figure whereas it looks more like a table. The results of the paper are quite insightful and present as per the aims of the study.

Minor: Line 316: ‘all live close to the office’ confusing.

Section 3.3.1 repeats at p. 11.

Author Response

We thank very much for the care you have take of the reading of the paper.

Here our answers to your comments.

However, in the methods section, it is not clear how many farmers were contacted (and even the groups of farmers) respectively in phase I and II. 

This is a good remark. The indications are given in the Results section, and it was because the core subject of the paper is the adaptation process, so we did considered that the choice of the farmers was part of this adaptation in the context of the test made after the rephrasing. 

Also what was the criteria for the selection of a particular farmer? 

Criteria is given in Section 3.3.1: 

We selected 25 farmers from the Canton of Vaud for the pilot-test. The sample does not statistically represent farmers of the Canton of Vaud due to the limited timeframe of the study. The sampling was not done randomly for logistical reasons; selected participants all live near to the office where evaluations and workshops took place.

The pilot test was carried out in a two-phase procedure as described in the Methods. Importantly, we looked for feedback to finalize SHARP-Swiss. 

Of the 25 farmers who participated in phase 1 in November 2016, only about half of them (13) participated in phase 2, organized for April 2017 due to spring work on the farm. Nevertheless, the workshop provided valuable output.

At page 7, if it is the figure, then look for correct number of the figure whereas it looks more like a table. 

Done

Minor: Line 316: ‘all live close to the office’ confusing.

We have changed into: near to the office

Section 3.3.1 repeats at p. 11.

We have adapted the numbering

Reviewer 2 Report

Τhe paper is well organized, comprehensive and interesting on the cutting-edge issue of climate change and the ability of farms to adapt and recover. It focuses on the resilience assessment of Swiss farming systems by adapting the SHARP- tool to the Swiss context. The analysis of both the concept and the SHARP tool is sufficiently detailed and meaningful (Chapter 2). Similarly, the strategy- methodology and the process of adapting, testing and developing the tool in a participatory way are insightful (Ch. 3).

Regarding the theoretical framework, the paper is based on the resilience thinking concept stressing on social-ecological systems, as to “better understanding, managing and governing complex linked systems of people and nature” in a perspective to move towards sustainable food production (l.68-70). In this context, the authors take into consideration the 'bounce-back' movement of the system as a neutral attribute often implying "as moving towards development and is often presented as being inherently positive" (l.46-47).

The theoretical discussion on socio-ecological resilience deserves further be explored in the perspective of sustainable agricultural / local / community development. This includes an emphasis on evolutionary approaches to resilience thinking and a “bounce-forward” movement implying adaptive capacity and transformation based on innovation, social capital, cooperation, etc. (rather than an equilibrium / bounce-back approach to return to normal/ regain the status quo after a major shock; which normal? do we want regain previous status? or move a step further?). This transformative perspective through innovation is clearly revealed in the results' chapter of the paper; indicatively all suggestions regarding “how the hindering factors causing low resilience could be improved” (l. 358-378) lay on social innovation, cooperation, networking, transition towards low carbon farming practices. Furthermore, as the SHARP tool provides analytical methods and insights for both local actors and policy makers (l.496-502), it would be beneficial not only in supporting but in empowering farming system resilience too (I suggest the paper of Scott Mark, 2013, “Resilience: a conceptual lens for rural resilience?”, Geography Compass 7/9: 597-610, including an extensive literature review on rural/community resilience).

Author Response

Thank you very much for your very valuable comments.

We have tried to address your main comment: The theoretical discussion on socio-ecological resilience deserves further be explored in the perspective of sustainable agricultural / local / community development. This includes an emphasis on evolutionary approaches to resilience thinking and a “bounce-forward” movement implying adaptive capacity and transformation based on innovation, social capital, cooperation, etc. (rather than an equilibrium / bounce-back approach to return to normal/ regain the status quo after a major shock; which normal? do we want regain previous status? or move a step further?). This transformative perspective through innovation is clearly revealed in the results' chapter of the paper; indicatively all suggestions regarding “how the hindering factors causing low resilience could be improved” (l. 358-378) lay on social innovation, cooperation, networking, transition towards low carbon farming practices. Furthermore, as the SHARP tool provides analytical methods and insights for both local actors and policy makers (l.496-502), it would be beneficial not only in supporting but in empowering farming system resilience too (I suggest the paper of Scott Mark, 2013, “Resilience: a conceptual lens for rural resilience?”, Geography Compass 7/9: 597-610, including an extensive literature review on rural/community resilience).

by adding the following in the paper (page 3, lines 101 and ff):

Considerations about what happens really after a shock would be very interesting to measure as well with the SHARP tool. Based on an extensive literature review, Scott [32] analyses for the rural communities that the “bounce-back” view must be seen as well by a “bounce-forward” perspective, as the ability to adapting after a shock is a component of resilience of this system. In fact, the evolutionary point of view of resilience is essential for understanding well the response’s ability of the farmers to any shock, especially when the shock are severe and repeat in time, as it is the case with the climate change. 

Reviewer 3 Report

The topic that the paper tackles is very interesting aand surely not only contributes to the body of literature relevant to farm resilience, but laso proposes a framework on how to actually assess it and enhance it. From this point of view, the paper is innovative. However, before being ready for publication, the paper needs to be revised. The key topics that need to be addressed are the following

·         The elaboration of the methodology  is not very presented well. For this reason, it is not easy for the reader to assess the robustness of the modified assessment tool. For instance, it will be nice to know how is the SHARP tool related to the 13 indictors described in Table 1. How many questions are there for the assessment of each one of them (among the total 56 questions)? Alsolater, you mention 90 questions, why werethereso many additions?

·         In several parts of the document reference is made to resilience to climate change. However, it seems that the scope of the assessment is the overall resilience of farms, for instance against external shocks from markets. I suggest that you become a little more specific  by defining the type of assessment you want to do and how SHARP approaches resilience.

·         What is the profile of participants? What do they cultivate? Or are they livestock farmers? Can you provide more information? Maybe also some of your findings could be assessed relative to their production practices and their farm type.

·         L 235-239 should be presented with a little more detail. Being in a note under the Table, it is difficult to understand what is going on in the analysis. Also I would suggest that you explain Table 1 and the methodology a little more.

·         L. 335-341 are not clearly presented and this causes problems in understanding the text in general. I understand that the authors want to say that low high or low importance is not the only criterion by means of which to assess the necessity to address a component of resilience, but then, if everything is relative, why bother assessing this importance? In fact, I cannot see that it plays a significant role in the discussion that follows

·         You choose to discuss with farmers (in the second phase) the three least resilient components based only on the “academic” assessment. Why don’t you use the sum (or average) of academic assessment and adequacy? Or maybe the overall sum of the three assessments? It is not clear why you do so, despite the fact that, if you did, the discussion could be led to completely different pathways.

·         In Figure 4, for self-assessed adequacy, the question seems to be almost the same with the one assessing the importance. I would expect to see something like ”to what extent you think that your current practices regarding the sales of your products ensures the benefits that you would have if you sold your products without intermediaries?”. In their current form, these two questions are difficult to discern. Also for the academic score of this component, a more pertinent question would be “how much of your production is sold directly to consumers or through farmers markets?”

·         In l. 352 and below, for all three components, the discussion is very interesting, but it seems highly sophisticated for a synthesis of farmers’ views. It is my understanding that  this part is a combination of farmers’ and scientists’ opinions or that the researchers posed specific questions to farmers, thus leading discussion to these specific remedial measures described here. I would expect that the authors clarify this part.

·         When finishing reading this paper, I was left with the impression that no specific information is provided regarding the  ways that farmers understand the notion of resilience an its importance for their farms. It would be interesting to actually see if farmers are knowledgeable about what resilience is and that this tool envisages to enhance their resilience in general and not just (for example) their economic performance.

Some specific comments

·         The results Table is Table 2, not Table 1. Also, please provide a more comprehensive title.

·         L. 192: led

·         L. 240:….SHARP approach are not…..

·         L. 249: you mention the causes of vulnerability, but you examine the causes of reduced resilience. This is not the same thing.

·         L. 269-270 are better suited for part 3.1.3

·         L. 289: please review the word consequent

·         L. 297-300: These lines are very enlightening and I propose that this issue sould be presented also in the introduction and be discussed a little more in the last part of the manuscript

·         L. 301-311 are redundant and have been explained before

·         L. 318-319: youdo not provide any information about the 5 pre-tests you made

·         L. 393: connected to instead of noticed to

·         L. 418: local or national instead of indigenous

·         L. 478-485 should be explained better in order to discern better among the three types of questions asked to farmers

·         L. 496-507 could be moved to the introduction, thus explaining a little more about how the tool works before the reader actually sees the results

Author Response

We thank you very much for your useful and helpful comments.

Here our responses:

·  The elaboration of the methodology  is not very presented well. For this reason, it is not easy for the reader to assess the robustness of the modified assessment tool. For instance, it will be nice to know how is the SHARP tool related to the 13 indictors described in Table 1. How many questions are there for the assessment of each one of them (among the total 56 questions)? Also later, you mention 90 questions, why werethereso many additions?

Response: we have added a sentence and slightly modified the text as in line 200:

"Questions continued to be matched against the 13 agroecosystem indicators mirroring the linkage of the original SHARP tool."  

and page 8 (lines 307 and ff):

"The original tool has over 50 ‘sets’ of questions in order to be comprehensive and adequately assess the 13 agroecosystem indicators. This is in part to ensure that there are responses to each of the agroecosystem indicators in case some are not applicable in a certain context. We found that adapting the full 90 questions from a developing country to the Swiss context was time consuming, however the process was feasible and should allow SHARP to be adapted for use in further contexts."

·         In several parts of the document reference is made to resilience to climate change. However, it seems that the scope of the assessment is the overall resilience of farms, for instance against external shocks from markets. I suggest that you become a little more specific  by defining the type of assessment you want to do and how SHARP approaches resilience.

Response:

This sentence was added line 82 page 2:

"The SHARP tool developed over 50 sets of questions to measure the resilience of agricultural systems to climate change. These questions were mapped against the 13 agroecosystems’ indicators to ensure that resilience was being comprehensively assessed [33]."

And page 4, line 124 and ff.:

"SHARP is a freely available, tablet-based survey is used to operationalize Cabell & Oelofse’s 13 indicators.  It is currently available in five languages. It comprises 56 sets of questions (totalling over 90 individual questions) covering four main dimensions: environmental, social, economics, governance. The tool focuses on shocks and stresses related to climate change, however does include factors not directly linked to climate change (e.g. market prices, conflict, nutrition etc.), recognising the impact that these factors can have on farm systems. Each question should be answered in three parts."

·         What is the profile of participants? What do they cultivate? Or are they livestock farmers? Can you provide more information? Maybe also some of your findings could be assessed relative to their production practices and their farm type.

Response: It was the objective to test the tool with a sample of 25 farmers, but the objectives of presenting causal relations or link with farmers' characteristics was not reachable due to the small sample. We are now in a new phase of research, with representative sample of the farmers of Vaud, which will be published in the coming months, based on the tool which is now adapted.

The description of the farmers was given in the Results part, as it was the objective to define the process of adapting (and testing) the tool to Swiss context, but not to have a representative sample of the farmers. We have insert more details about this aspect page 9, line 366

"We selected 25 farmers from the Canton of Vaud for the pilot-test. The sample does not statistically represent farmers of the Canton of Vaud due to the limited timeframe of the study. The sampling was not done randomly for logistical reasons; selected participants all live near to the office where evaluations and workshops took place.

The pilot test was carried out in a two-phase procedure as described in the Methods. Importantly, we looked for feedback to finalize SHARP-Swiss. 

Of the 25 farmers who participated in phase 1 in November 2016, only about half of them (13) participated in phase 2, organized for April 2017 due to spring work on the farm. Nevertheless, the workshop provided valuable output."

·         L 235-239 should be presented with a little more detail. Being in a note under the Table, it is difficult to understand what is going on in the analysis. Also I would suggest that you explain Table 1 and the methodology a little more.

We have added points below Table 2 and in the methodology.

·         L. 335-341 are not clearly presented and this causes problems in understanding the text in general. I understand that the authors want to say that low high or low importance is not the only criterion by means of which to assess the necessity to address a component of resilience, but then, if everything is relative, why bother assessing this importance? In fact, I cannot see that it plays a significant role in the discussion that follows

New text reads as follow:

It is worth to note that in this test, the “low resilient aspects” does not match the “important aspects” for the farmers. Indeed, aspects that are assessed as not resilient by the SHARPT tool may have in the particular context of the Swiss agriculture no current relevance for the well-being of the farmers. In fact, none of the three most important aspects belongs to the ten least resilient farm systems’ components. As a matter of fact, the results highlight the importance of considering both the resilience score and the importance score for prioritizing individual, group or government actions rather than simply aggregating results and deciding based on composite scores. As mentioned above, these scores are indicators and not true representations of preferences or resilience levels and should accordingly be used as a starting points for discussions to build resilience. 

·         You choose to discuss with farmers (in the second phase) the three least resilient components based only on the “academic” assessment. Why don’t you use the sum (or average) of academic assessment and adequacy? Or maybe the overall sum of the three assessments? It is not clear why you do so, despite the fact that, if you did, the discussion could be led to completely different pathways.

Response: it was the choice made for avoiding discussions between the farmers, who could have different individual opinion/perception about the importance and the adequacy. In fact, for the purpose of the discussion in phase 2, it was the best way to come with a consens about the topics that must be discussed. But actually, in other contexts, the total score could be taken as basis for choosing the topics to discuss in the workshops in phase 2.

·         In Figure 4, for self-assessed adequacy, the question seems to be almost the same with the one assessing the importance. I would expect to see something like ”to what extent you think that your current practices regarding the sales of your products ensures the benefits that you would have if you sold your products without intermediaries?”. In their current form, these two questions are difficult to discern. Also for the academic score of this component, a more pertinent question would be “how much of your production is sold directly to consumers or through farmers markets?”

Thanks a lot for these remarks, which will be taken in future versions of the CH SHARP tool. 

·         In l. 352 and below, for all three components, the discussion is very interesting, but it seems highly sophisticated for a synthesis of farmers’ views. It is my understanding that  this part is a combination of farmers’ and scientists’ opinions or that the researchers posed specific questions to farmers, thus leading discussion to these specific remedial measures described here. I would expect that the authors clarify this part.

we have added this sentence line 423-424

"The statements reported in this section are only those of the farmers themselves, without judgement or recommendations made by the researchers."   

·         When finishing reading this paper, I was left with the impression that no specific information is provided regarding the  ways that farmers understand the notion of resilience an its importance for their farms. It would be interesting to actually see if farmers are knowledgeable about what resilience is and that this tool envisages to enhance their resilience in general and not just (for example) their economic performance.

 You are right, it was not the objective of this paper, but we will try to address this question in a future paper.

Some specific comments (all addressed, see attached file)

·         The results Table is Table 2, not Table 1. Also, please provide a more comprehensive title.

Done

·         L. 192: led

Done

·         L. 240:….SHARP approach are not…..

Done

·         L. 249: you mention the causes of vulnerability, but you examine the causes of reduced resilience. This is not the same thing.

Vulnerability has been changed into "low resilience"

·         L. 269-270 are better suited for part 3.1.3

Displaced to line 362-363 

·         L. 289: please review the word consequent

Done

·         L. 297-300: These lines are very enlightening and I propose that this issue should be presented also in the introduction and be discussed a little more in the last part of the manuscript

We choose not to present this topic of information of the farmers more in this paper, but will come back to it in a future publication. It would have made too much details on this aspects, and this is surely very crucial point, but the paper is mostly framed around the adaptation of the tool

·         L. 301-311 are redundant and have been explained before

We have shortened the paragraph.

·         L. 318-319: you do not provide any information about the 5 pre-tests you made

We think it would not add substance to the paper

·         L. 393: connected to instead of noticed to

Done

·         L. 418: local or national instead of indigenous

Done

·         L. 478-485 should be explained better in order to discern better among the three types of questions asked to farmers

We prefer not explain again the 3 types of questions, because this is done in the next section (Use of SHARP and SHARP-Swiss)

·         L. 496-507 could be moved to the introduction, thus explaining a little more about how the tool works before the reader actually sees the results

Done