Gender and Equity Considerations for Building Climate Resilience: Lessons from Rural and Periurban Botswana

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

First, thanks to the reviewer for the comprehensive and constructive review. As junior, emerging academics, sometimes very obvious things, like 'a conclusion is lacking' are obvious when pointed out, but are difficult to see when you are in the trenches of writing. So, helping strengthen a weak manuscript was very valuable to us. We have taken on board particularly the need to expand the methods and discussion sections, and add  a conclusion. This is in addition to the various editorial suggestions that were made. A table of inputs and responses is pasted below. 

The title does not capture exactly the scope of the paper. Inclusion of rural –urban comparison aspects in the title would make it more representative.	This has been included in the revised title.
The Abstract, although almost sufficiently informative, needs to be structurally adjusted. The sentence “A household level baseline survey conducted across two sites in Botswana used participant coded narratives to understand participants definitions of resilience” needs to be explicit in terms of the sample size and the exact methodology used.	This has been reworked, with further detail added.
The introduction section is well written. However, an editorial issue on line 51 should be corrected.	Fixed
First, the statement on line 186 that selection of sites was deliberate needs further explanation for replicability. A choice of any other rural and urban areas may not necessarily give the same results	This has been moderated and clarified.
Second, the choice of 141 participants – line204- needs a convincing statistical explanation. The formula employed and the degrees of freedom will be instructive in this regard.	This has been explained – noteworthy is the fact that the aim was not for a statistically representative sample (as the questions were mostly qualitative and exploratory), so I hope more description makes this clear.
Thirdly, the methods mentioned in the Results and Discussions sections are not clearly indicated in the Materials and Methods section.	This inconsistency has been resolved.
The discussions section presents discusses findings of the study. Several interesting findings are apparent. However, their interpretation is lacking	This section has been expanded to strengthen the discussion and further illustrate the relevance of the data.
For instance, Line 430 asserts that Botswana’s gender adaption policy may not or is bound to be unsuccessful. This needs explanation based on the data.	This has been expanded for clarity and meaning, and linked back to the data presented.
Further, line 431-432 should be explicit in term of the alluded deepening of understanding.	This section has been expanded to strengthen the discussion and further illustrate the relevance of the data.
Finally, a conclusion section is lacking. It would be interesting and provide new knowledge as long as the authors make it focused and succinct.	This has been added!

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article addresses an important topic and integrates a study where the opinion of 141 participants from two communities of Botswana (Ramotswa and Xhumaga) are analysed with the aim of understanding “the gendered variations of how communities understand resilience to climate change, and how these views are reflected in current climate adaptation policies and responses.” The responses of these participants (men and women) were explored through a survey with open questions (although this is not stated clearly), a technique that seems appropriate for this purpose, and were analysed using the “participant coded micronarrative approach”.

However, to clearly understand the study and to be able to replicate it, the paper lacks a lot of information, especially in the Methods. In addition, there is also not really a discussion of the results. Thus, I feel that major revisions should be made to the article before it can be considered for publication.

 

2. Materials and Methods (line 179).

I would rather see the study objectives closing the theoretical introduction section than at the beginning of section 2.

 

There are some acronyms throughout the manuscript where their meaning is not referred to in full. For example, SDGs (line 132) and SADC (line 188). In order to understand exactly what it is, I suggest that it is referred to in full and then the acronym is put in brackets. For example: Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

 

It is necessary to explain what is exactly the “participant coded micronarrative approach”.

 

As section 2 stands, it is impossible to replicate the research referred to. To seek to make this possible, I suggest that this section is described in a more traditional way, integrating the usual sub-sections: Participants, Procedure, Material/Instrument, and Data Analysis.

 

Participants - In this section, the participants from Ramotswa and from Xhumaga should be characterized, that is, the sociodemographic data of the sample should be presented (e.g., the sex of the participants, their age or the average ages of women and the average ages of men, and so on).

 

Procedure - In this section, you should ensure that all information related to the procedure is mentioned, that is, have you received an ethics committee approval from any of the authors' institutions, how you reached the participants, whether they signed an informed consent form, whether they were informed of the objectives of the study, where the study was conducted, how long it took to complete the survey, and so on.

 

Material/Instrument - This section should contain information on all the material or instruments used in the study as well as the variables or questions under study, which should be referenced.

 

Data Analysis - Here, it should be clearly stated how the data analysis was carried out. It is not enough to say that "The research took a participant coded micronarrative approach". It is important to add what this methodology consists of; what exactly it allows to do or identify; how the analysis was performed; who did the data analysis, if it was done by one author or by all authors, and so on, in order that the analysis can be replicated.

 

As section 2 is worded, several questions remain. For example, is it a qualitative or quantitative study, or does it adopt both approaches? It seems to be a qualitative study, namely because it only has the objective and no hypotheses are raised, but it is not said anywhere. The only time it mentions the application of “household level baseline survey” is in the Abstract. In the methods it is never mentioned, which is unthinkable.

 

I suggest that anything that is considered results should go to the Results section.

 

3. Results (line 281)

In line 308, you intend to say “As the triads above demonstrate…” or As the triads bellow demonstrate?

 

The section “3.1. Barriers to accessing water” should be 3.2., because there is already another section numbered 3.1.

 

Given that you wish to adopt a gender perspective in the analysis, I suggest adding information about the gender of the respondents in the excerpts presented. For example, in line 329, instead of just referring to "response, 41" in the first excerpt presented, I suggest adding “man” or “woman”.

Why does the first excerpt refer to “Response” and the second one refers to “Participant” (line 373)? I think that this information should always be similar and, as I said, it would be better if you mention the participant's gender.

 

The figures must all be referred to in the text, so that readers can understand when you are talking about them.

 

Figure 3 should have a legend, saying the colour of the small dots that correspond to men and the dots that correspond to women. 

 

4. Discussion (line 421).

In the discussion section, only a summary of the results is presented as a conclusion. There is no real discussion of the results considering the theory presented in Introduction, as I would advise.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

First, we would like to express our gratitude for a comprehensive and constructive review, and the opportunity to significantly improve our initial writing. The biggest revisions we made were around details added to the methodology section, as well as an expansion of the discussion. A range of smaller technical issues were also addressed. 

 

 

the paper lacks a lot of information, especially in the Methods	The methods section has been significantly expanded, with some restructuring and more detail on sampling and analysis particularly
there is also not really a discussion of the results	Discussion has been expanded
I would rather see the study objectives closing the theoretical introduction section than at the beginning of section 2.	This section has been moved.
There are some acronyms throughout the manuscript where their meaning is not referred to in full. For example, SDGs (line 132) and SADC (line 188).	These have been spelled out in full.
It is necessary to explain what is exactly the “participant coded micronarrative approach”.	This has been described in more detail
, I suggest that this section is described in a more traditional way, integrating the usual sub-sections: Participants, Procedure, Material/Instrument, and Data Analysis.	This has been restructured
In line 308, you intend to say “As the triads above demonstrate…” or As the triads bellow demonstrate?	Revised
The section “3.1. Barriers to accessing water” should be 3.2., because there is already another section numbered 3.1.	Thank you! Fixed.
Given that you wish to adopt a gender perspective in the analysis, I suggest adding information about the gender of the respondents in the excerpts presented. For example, in line 329, instead of just referring to "response, 41" in the first excerpt presented, I suggest adding “man” or “woman”.	This has now been included.
Why does the first excerpt refer to “Response” and the second one refers to “Participant” (line 373)? I think that this information should always be similar and, as I said, it would be better if you mention the participant's gender.	This has been revised for consistency
The figures must all be referred to in the text, so that readers can understand when you are talking about them.	All figures are now referred to in text
Figure 3 should have a legend, saying the colour of the small dots that correspond to men and the dots that correspond to women.	A legend has been added.
In the discussion section, only a summary of the results is presented as a conclusion. There is no real discussion of the results considering the theory presented in Introduction, as I would advise.	A conclusion has been included, and the discussion section has also been built out to relate the findings back to the literature.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

On page 272, please consider changing "not fully" to "quasi"

Author Response

Thanks so much for the second round of reviews; most edits this round were focused on editorial improvements, as well as alignment of language around gender. There were also some typographical corrections, and improvements in clarity and grammar. Referencing was cleaned up, and sections were renumbered. A little more explanation was given around the methods as well, which has been the section needing the most work.

 

Input received	Changes made
Reviewer 1
On page 272, please consider changing "not fully" to "quasi"	This change has been made
Could improve clarity around the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods.	Minor expansion was made around the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods, for both more detail and clarity.
Reviewer 2
where it says “2.3. Instruments”, it should say “2.2. Instruments”.	Thank you! This change has been made, with a check on other heading levels.
More importantly, if the manuscript adopts a gender perspective, it is necessary to be more careful with the concepts, namely, when referring to “sex” and “gender”.	Attention has been given to this, with consistency around gendered terms.
For example, in Table 1, the authors refer to “Gender” but then, in the Description, they refer to “male” and “female”.  Yet, when we refer to “Gender”, we should say “men” and “women” and when we refer to “sex” we should say “male” and “female”.	Thank you! This has been corrected throughout.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article “Gender and equity considerations for building climate resilience in rural and peri-urban Botswana” focuses on a very relevant topic, integrating an interesting qualitative study. The authors managed to respond to my comments and integrated all my suggestions, so the revised manuscript is now much better.

However, I strongly recommend a final and very careful reading of the whole text since the article has some shortcomings. For example, where it says “2.3. Instruments”, it should say “2.2. Instruments”. More importantly, if the manuscript adopts a gender perspective, it is necessary to be more careful with the concepts, namely, when referring to “sex” and “gender”. For example, in Table 1, the authors refer to “Gender” but then, in the Description, they refer to “male” and “female”. Yet, when we refer to “Gender”, we should say “men” and “women” and when we refer to “sex” we should say “male” and “female”.

In think that, after those minor changes, the manuscript should be accepted for publication.

Author Response

Thanks so much for the second round of reviews; most edits this round were focused on editorial improvements, as well as alignment of language around gender. There were also some typographical corrections, and improvements in clarity and grammar. Referencing was cleaned up, and sections were renumbered. A little more explanation was given around the methods as well, which has been the section needing the most work. 

Input received	Changes made
Reviewer 1
On page 272, please consider changing "not fully" to "quasi"	This change has been made
Could improve clarity around the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods.	Minor expansion was made around the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods, for both more detail and clarity.
Reviewer 2
where it says “2.3. Instruments”, it should say “2.2. Instruments”.	Thank you! This change has been made, with a check on other heading levels.
More importantly, if the manuscript adopts a gender perspective, it is necessary to be more careful with the concepts, namely, when referring to “sex” and “gender”.	Attention has been given to this, with consistency around gendered terms.
For example, in Table 1, the authors refer to “Gender” but then, in the Description, they refer to “male” and “female”.  Yet, when we refer to “Gender”, we should say “men” and “women” and when we refer to “sex” we should say “male” and “female”.	Thank you! This has been corrected throughout.