Sustainability Viewed from Farmers’ Perspectives in a Resource-Constrained Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The abstract does not show the methods of data collection and analysis.

With a small sample size of 36 how can statistical methods of data analysis be used?

The authors needs to be clear on the which research design was used and describe clearly the data analysis.

Author Response

Rw’s comment 1 : The abstract does not show the methods of data collection and analysis.

• Authors' response 1: Done

Rw’s comment 2 : With a small sample size of 36 how can statistical methods of data analysis be used?

• Authors' response 2: We have added the following sentence l.138 explaining why multivariate analysis can be used and is useful with small samples. We also added a reference supporting this affirmation. “Indeed multivariate analyses are exploratory statistical tools adapted to a small sample as well [31]. They are useful when each individual is described with 4 variables or more, by showing a range of features and interactions between variables that are difficult to detect otherwise [32]”

[31] Shaukat, S.S.; Rao, T.A.; Khan, M.A. Impact of sample size on principal component analysis ordination of an environmental data set: effects on eigenstructure. Ekológia (Bratislava) 2016, 35, 173–190, doi:10.1515/eko-2016-0014.

[32] Jung, S.; Lee, S. Exploratory factor analysis for small samples. Behav Res 2011, 43, 701–709, doi:10.3758/s13428-011-0077-9.

Rw’s comment 3 : The authors needs to be clear on the which research design was used and describe clearly the data analysis.

• Authors' response 3: We have clarified the two following points according to the two reviewers’ comments:
• We have recoded the farms from 1 to 36 in order to avoid any confusion regarding the sample (we have adjusted the farm codes from 1 to 36 in Figure 2 and 3 in order to avoid the confusion mentioned by Rw2: Indeed, at the beginning of the study, and for the first analysis (article 1), our sample size was 48 farmers, but we discarded 8 cases with inconsistent answers, to retain only 40 farmers. Then for the next two analyses (article 2, and this article), our sample included only 36 farms, which corresponded to the farmers who wished to continue the study among the first 40).
• We have explained why we have used ACP/CAH as the main analytical tool applied to our dataset (see above).
• With these two clarifications, we estimate that our research design (sample + data analysis) supported by the joint Tables and Figures is clearly described.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript by Baccar et al. entitled “Sustainability viewed from farmers’ perspectives in a resource-constrained environment” is well written and organized and presents an insightful analysis of sustainability perceptions of a group of limited-resource farmers in the Saïs region of Morocco. The methodology appears to be appropriate and sound and the authors build upon previously published work. As this study deals with “the economic and environmental performance of farming systems” (lines 39-40) and farmer understandings of what the concept of sustainability means I would like to recommend that the authors consider requesting that this article be included in the current special issue “Environmental and Economic Performance of Farming and Food Systems” if it is not already planned for another issue:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Farming_Food_Systems

It would make an excellent addition to this volume.

I have just three very minor comments/questions for the authors. Otherwise I feel that this manuscript is ready for the next step toward publication.

First, there is a typographical error in the Abstract (line 15). The word “Morocco” is misspelled as “Morroco.”

Second, can the authors provide some rationale for the sample size of 36? It appear that more farms were included in some of the earlier work as there are numbers in the dendrograms of Figures 2 and 3 ranging up to 47. So, it appears that some farms were excluded from this analysis for some reason. I think some explanation would be helpful here and provide assurances to readers that data were analyzed in a completely objective and unbiased manner.

Finally, I find it interesting that the authors decided to dedicate a subsection for figures and tables rather than inserting them in the manuscript near where they are first mentioned. I find this organization just fine but the editorial staff may request more conventional placement.

Author Response

Rw’s comment 1 : The manuscript by Baccar et al. entitled “Sustainability viewed from farmers’ perspectives in a resource-constrained environment” is well written and organized and presents an insightful analysis of sustainability perceptions of a group of limited-resource farmers in the Saïs region of Morocco. The methodology appears to be appropriate and sound and the authors build upon previously published work. As this study deals with “the economic and environmental performance of farming systems” (lines 39-40) and farmer understandings of what the concept of sustainability means I would like to recommend that the authors consider requesting that this article be included in the current special issue “Environmental and Economic Performance of Farming and Food Systems” if it is not already planned for another issue:

https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability/special_issues/Farming_Food_Systems

It would make an excellent addition to this volume.

• Authors' response 1: We agree with this suggestion but we leave this decision to the Editor since our article was not originally written according to this special issue.

I have just three very minor comments/questions for the authors. Otherwise I feel that this manuscript is ready for the next step toward publication.

Rw’s comment 2 : First, there is a typographical error in the Abstract (line 15). The word “Morocco” is misspelled as “Morroco.”

• Authors' response 2: Done

Rw’s comment 3 : Second, can the authors provide some rationale for the sample size of 36? It appear that more farms were included in some of the earlier work as there are numbers in the dendrograms of Figures 2 and 3 ranging up to 47. So, it appears that some farms were excluded from this analysis for some reason. I think some explanation would be helpful here and provide assurances to readers that data were analyzed in a completely objective and unbiased manner.

• Authors' response 3: Indeed, at the beginning of the study, and for the first analysis (article 1), our sample size was 48 farmers, but we discarded 8 cases with inconsistent answers, to retain only 40 farmers. Then for the next two analyses (article 2, and this article), our sample included only 36 farms, which corresponded to the farmers who wished to continue the study among the first 40. Therefore, we have adjusted the farm codes from 1 to 36 in Figure 2 and 3 in order to avoid the confusion mentioned by Rw2.

Rw’s comment 4 : Finally, I find it interesting that the authors decided to dedicate a subsection for figures and tables rather than inserting them in the manuscript near where they are first mentioned. I find this organization just fine but the editorial staff may request more conventional placement.

• Authors' response 4: The article was organized by following the Journal instructions given to the authors. Indeed, it is requested either to have a subsection with figures and tables or to integrate them in the text near where they are first mentioned. We made the first choice in order to facilitate the reviewers’ reading.