The Effects of Commercial Orientation on (Agro) Pastoralists’ Household Food Security: Evidence from (Agro) Pastoral Communities of Afar, Northeastern Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Review for the manuscript called

The effects of commercial-orientation on (agro-)pastoralists’ household food security: Evidence from (agro-)pastoral communities of Afar in northeastern Ethiopia

Journal: Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID: sustainability-1482841

 

Overall, the manuscript presents an interesting topic. The manuscript is well thought out and detailed, although in some cases it presents the information in a relatively concise manner. One of my main problems is that while the manuscript uses advanced econometric methods, its description is missing. Obviously, a detailed description is not desirable, but PSM is a relatively advanced technique, the elaboration of its basic idea and its connection to the topic of the article would certainly be desirable. Nevertheless, the manuscript makes useful suggestions and conducts compelling research, so I think it could be a useful part of the literature if properly revised.

Major comments:

• What is not clear in some cases is the minimum and maximum value of the variables. Table 1. should be extended by these values or with the information of what variables were combined and how. Part of this information could be found in the text, but it is not exactly clear to me.
• In Table 3, you presented the results of a logit regression. How did you verify the model? In the case of usual regression, residuals are tested for multicollinearity and heteroskedasticity. Which methods were used to verify the logit model?
• Line 498-499: “commercial-oriented households had smaller scores/indices in both HFIAS and rCSI, suggesting that they achieved better records of food security” Is it possible to define how strong this difference is (as a strong, medium, or weak difference)? The t-test says it is significantly different, but that does not imply the strength of the difference.
• Line 516: “Furthermore, commercial-oriented ones are more likely to be at closer distances from market centers, whereby an easy access to market enables them to develop commercial behavior.” Have they developed commercial orientation because they were already closer to the market, or have they settled down directly close to the market because they wanted to commercialize the products?
• Line 521: “The likelihood ratio in our logit model has a chi-square distribution..” I think the distribution does not add to the value of this sentence, so only the significance should be highlighted and the distribution may be reported under the tables.
• Line 522: We see only the correctly predicted share. Could you include the full confusion matrix of the logit regression?
• Line 544: “Furthermore, production risk factors such as livestock deaths due to either of diseases or conflicts impede commercial orientation.” Could be a two-way relationship here? Those farmers with low access to the market may have less budget allocated to risk-management tools.
• Line 766 – 769: “Men and young boys who often take authority of selling livestock in towns at distant from villages may also be attracted by town life visiting hotels and bar ladies, where they spend greater portion of sales income and smaller remains for grain purchases for the family to support consumption.” I think you should rephrase this sentence, especially the part about visiting hotels and bar ladies, which seems really out of context for me. It’s fine that urbanization may be attractive for young generations, but the rest seems to be a conjecture.
• Line 792 and section: I think it is not a surprise that greater income means a larger share devoted to non-food and enjoyment products, like alcohol for example. This was already highlighted in Banerjee and Duflo: Poor Economics: A Radical Rethinking of the Way to Fight Global Poverty (2012) and many of their previous articles.
• Conclusion section: The conclusion lacks an important part, namely the regional conflicts and problems in the region. It was mentioned in the manuscript, but I think some kind of solution should be highlighted in the conclusion section. Who could mitigate these conflicts? I assume only the government. The same applies to the lack of infrastructure. Commercialization requires infrastructure, which is, again, can be provided by the state only.

Minor comments:

• HFIAS and rCSI should be defined before the first use of the shortcuts
• The use of the term “Chi-square” and the use of the Greek letter should be aligned.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors,

It is a valuable study. Here are some suggestions. In the introduction, it is better to mention the cultural and social dimensions of the issue. The fact is that in rural areas of developing countries, commercial mentality is more important than structure or technique. This issue should also be emphasized in the discussion and conclusion section of the article. The objectives of the study should be transferred to the introduction section. In my opinion, the mental dimensions of the subject are very important and the most important challenge in the field of the present study. Therefore, in addition to structure and technique, this important issue should be mentioned and it should be suggested to pay attention to this issue and dimensions in future studies. In addition, in my opinion, it is better to emphasize the issue of local commercialization. Because in the context of globalization, underdeveloped and developing countries can not pursue commercialization on a global scale and recent theories confirm this.

All Best

Author Response

Please see the attachment!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Thank you for taking my suggestions into account. I wish you success in your future work. I have no further comments on the manuscript.

Best Regards,