Perception of Natural Hazards in Rural Areas: A Case Study Examination of the Influence of Seasonal Weather
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Overall: There are major gaps in the research design that need to be addressed. Furthermore, the methodology is not well described and insufficient details about both the case study area and the sample were provided. In addition, the relationship between the different datasets and sources of data was not thoroughly analyzed. A bigger issue is that the authors mix up climate extremes and weather extremes as well as several other keywords within this study.
Specific by line:
27: without “understand”?
29: the authors have “is” twice
34-36: this is a discussion about adaptation but the agricultural sector is also a major contributor to GHG emissions resulting in an increased occurrence of extreme weather events. Certain adaptation measures might thus increase the problem at hand. Therefore, this discussion should go simultaneously in the context of mitigation.
37: the start of this paragraph seems rather distant from the ending of the previous one. A smoother transition can be arranged because climate change is causing several natural disasters. Also, the definition given here does not fit the word natural hazard. Perhaps the authors mean “natural disaster” in this context rather than a natural hazard. A natural hazard is a risk to a natural disaster and not the disaster itself.
41: check grammar
51: replace “sensitivity to” by “awareness of”?
51-52: is this actually the case? Being aware of a risk does not mean one worries about it. Please add citations if this is the major research gap you are addressing in this manuscript.
58: check grammar
58-61: It is not clear from this description of why extreme climate events were chosen. Also, I recommend the authors to clarify and take note of the difference between extreme climate and extreme weather events. It would be good to clarify in the beginning of the paper what the authors are focusing on to avoid confusion.
64: why is it relevant that populations are growing in this paragraph? Please elaborate.
59: replace “understand to” by “understood”? + check grammar
87: replace “link” by “linked”?
91 + 93: remove “The” in “The vulnerability”
94-95: check grammar
97: “to examine”
97-108: check grammar
102: does the international demand for coffee not affect the price of the smallholders? The price might include too many variabilities to be compared with weather and perception of vulnerability.
119: A map of the samples in the area that this study is representing will be helpful for the reader.
139: So far the reader can only imagine smallholders; however, it is difficult to interpret what the average size of the farms is and what production techniques they use (e.g. agroforestry?). More description of the case study region will be helpful to put the context of the results in place.
169-173: remove if not applied on the case study or move to the introduction
190: much more description is needed here
191: the average man was living for more than 11 years in Caconde? What about conducting farming activities there? What is the range of duration across the sample? How does it compare to the statistics of the entire Caconde region?
202: I think the authors mean “weather” rather than “climate”
213: I am having doubts about whether the authors mean climate impact or weather impact after reading through previous sections.
228: It is the first time reading about a vulnerable group of rural area in this case study
232 – 235: this is a big assumption
Overall the conclusion needs to be modified according to the updates that need to take place across the drafted manuscript and put in context of existing well established and accepted literature in this field. It should also include a section on the limitations of the study, in particular in terms of the sample.
Author Response
Thanks for all the value comments!
Below I indicate the main changes:
The text has been reviewed; The specific chances had been made according to the indications; I include the map with the location and landscape (Fig.2 and Fig.3), and more detail baout the study area; The international demand for coffee not affect the price of the smallholders, but this aspect was not investigate in the study and compared with weather and perception of vulnerability; The limitations aspects were included in the end of the introdution, after the objective; Corrections had been made to the terms of climate and weather; The sentence in the conclusion social memory had been improved;best regards,
Reviewer 2 Report
Here are my suggestions for improvement:
work on language include information about methodology in the abstract give more information about the contribution of your paper justify how your topic is releted to the topic of the journal - sustainability extend results and analysis part, i.e. by applying some statistical methods, like a test for difference in means, ANOVA, etc., check for other determinants of different perception of risk than the only season (robustness check) add some discussion in conlcusions
More remarks in attached file.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thanks for all the value comments!
Below I indicate the main changes:
The text has been reviewed; The specific chances had been made according to the indications; I include the methodology description int e abstract; The objective in the introduction had been improved; Abou the comment: "I don't see relation between price and productivity expressed in tones/ha. Have growers managed to increase productivity in the same production cycle, as a reaction to the higher prices?" Yes, higher prices can increase the production cycle, as result of some agriculture practices at the plant as the “coffee pruning” that can “wait” some years (for example), usually the produces wait low prices or after some bad event. It is also important to say that the coffee produces around August, and we are looking the graphic the annual period between January/December. The item 4 with the results had been improved; The correction with the terms os weather and climate had been made; I descrive the season and not the yeas (2016-2017); The statistical coments had been made;
best regards,
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Although the authors did make an effort to improve several of the points raised, there is still a question of whether this study is sufficiently contributing to the research field.
The study in its present form does not place itself within the broader literature on perceptions of risk. This is a Sustainability Science journal and the authors should not hold back from reviewing literature outside of their own respected field, such as "psychology" and "DRR" studies in which it can contribute.
The sample size is on the low side (which can not be helped at this point, but this should be compensated by adding sufficient literature).
How do the results compare with relates studies?
What are the implications?
line 70: grammar check is needed
Author Response
Thanks for the values comments. We had included a literature review, comparing with other studies.
The statically aspects of the sample size was more detailed, including the difficult aspects of make fieldwork in rural areas (lines 139-141).
The implication involved of the influence of the weather in the social perception was better explained, including the figure 9 and 10. Especially in the conclusions (line 312-317)
The line 70: grammar check were corrected.
Reviewer 2 Report
I checked how you implemented my remarks:
work on language - OK include information about methodology in the abstract - OK give more information about the contribution of your paper - I still don't see how this work contribute to knowledge about sustainability justify how your topic is related to the topic of the journal - OK extend results and analysis part, i.e. by applying some statistical methods, like a test for difference in means, ANOVA, etc., - you used the most basic t-test, which is designed for small samples (<30), also I don't know how to interpret the sentence "The statistical t-test indicates a variance of 0.047 between the natural hazards from 249 the dry season and a variance of 0.067 for the answers from the rainy season." is 0.047 p-value? Consult some statistician and work on this part. check for other determinants of different perception of risk than the only - season (robustness check) - I'm sure in your survey you have more farmers features than season of survey, i.e. gender, farm size, etc. check how this features differentiate risk perception if more than season than you have to negate your hypothesis add some discussion in conclusions - just one reference but OKThe text has been reviewed; The specific changes had been made according to the indications;
I include the methodology description int e abstract, - but you still don't give information about statistic methods you used to test your hypothesis
The objective in the introduction had been improved;
About the comment: "I don't see the relation between price and productivity expressed in tones/ha. Have growers managed to increase productivity in the same production cycle, as a reaction to the higher prices?" Yes, higher prices can increase the production cycle, as result of some agriculture practices at the plant as the “coffee pruning” that can “wait” some years (for example), usually, the produces wait for low prices or after some bad event. It is also important to say that the coffee produces around August, and we are looking at the graphic the annual period between January/December. - Ok, thank you for clarification.
The item 4 with the results had been improved; The correction with the terms os weather and climate had been made; I describe the season and not the yeas (2016-2017); The statistical comments had been made
Author Response
Thanks for the values comments. We had included a literature review, comparing with other studies.
The statically aspects of the sample size was more detailed, including the description of difficult aspects of make fieldwork in rural areas (lines 139-141) and table 1 of the sample size.
The implication involved of the influence of the weather in the social perception was better explained, especially in the conclusions (line 312-317).
It was includied the figure 9 and 10 with a general anaylsis and specific analysis of each natural aspect.
