Adoption Potential of Sustainability-Related Agriculture Technologies for Smallholder Farmers in the Global South

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 1:

This article introduces three types of sustainable agricultural technologies that had/have been used in the developed world and explore their applications in the developing nations, with a special focus on apply them in food security issues. Overall, the topic and research questions are of great importance, structure is well-designed, and manuscript is well-written.

Response: We are grateful for your time in reviewing our manuscript and providing your helpful comments. We would also like to note that that the initial submission was done under the incorrect article type. This manuscript is not representative of a pure research article or a comprehensive literature review, but rather fits best as an “opinion”. Per the MDPI “article types” website, an “opinion” is a “short article that reflects the author’s viewpoints on a particular subject… they are significantly shorter and focused on the author’s view rather than a comprehensive, critical review (https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). We have had the editor update the article type to “opinion” in the online system during this review process. To our knowledge, our “opinion” piece is unique from others in that it highlights key sustainable agriculture technologies that could be used by smallholder farmers, which we see as fitting well with the special issue for which this manuscript is targeted which focuses on the nexus of “food security and sustainability in the Global South”. Additionally, we have made substantial changes and additions to the article that have expanded the literature references and deepened the discussion relative to the initial submission.

I just have a few minor comments:

• apart form the barriers that authors mentioned, institutional factors, e.g. land tenure normally plays vital role; and quality and patterns of extension services are not mentioned, in my opinion, are great pity.

Response: Thank you for making this important point. We have added a paragraph to discuss the importance of land tenure in facilitating investments in technologies that influence long-run productivity under subsection 3.1 “Economic and infrastructure constraints” on page 6, lines 392-396, which reads: “While the short-run profitability implications are a fundamental consideration, several of the analyzed technologies relate to improving soil health over the longer run. Thus, a lack of land tenure rights, which is common but to varying extents in developing countries [29], is a severe inhibiting factor for adoption of technologies and practices that relate to improving soil conditions over a multi-year time horizon [30].” We have also expanded our discussion of the importance of agricultural extension in educating users of technologies on related skills such as data acquisition and management on page 7, paragraph 2. We also added some additional discussion about the importance of agricultural extension in response to your third comment.

• although authors had briefly introduced the approximate cost of the facilities or devices (Table 1), whether they are cost-effective and affordable to targeted farmers, I guess you may convince the readers more.

Response: Thank you for bringing this issue up, as it was an important omission in the initial submission. To address this omission, we expanded the discussion of technology affordability under subsection 3.1 “Economic and infrastructure constraints.” Specifically, on pages 5 – 6, lines 356, the expanded paragraph now reads: Another barrier is that these technologies may be expensive when implemented on small operations [28, 29, 30, 31, 32]. While the approximate cost of the lowest cost version makes it seem that the technologies could be affordable in at least some developing country contexts, the extent of affordability and availability of mechanisms that can improve affordability, such as finance, vary widely across developing countries. Despite variation, there is broadly a substantial gap in financing availability between developing country and developed country farmers [33].

• Since the application (and/or adoption) of a certain technology is heavily depend on the cite-specific factors, you had better emphases its calibration and adjustment before applying it.

Response: This is a great and well appreciated point. To address our initial omission, we expanded the discussion of the importance of agricultural extension, and specifically, their role in implementing field trials and disseminating results under section 4 on the strategies for overcoming barriers to adoption. Specifically, we added a passage on page 7, lines 484-489 that reads: “Agricultural extension systems can play a particularly key role in implementing experiments that allow for determination of effective usage of the new technologies in the agroecological contexts and farming systems that predominate in a region. A principal example is the implementation of field trials using the new technology and then implementing dissemination activities to describe the usage requirements and observed effects of the technology on farm outcomes [40].”

 

References added that were cited in the responses:

OECD. Good Blended Finance Practices Can Scale Up Finance for Agri-SMEs. OECD report DCD(2021)7. 2021. Available online: https://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=DCD(2021)7&docLanguage=en (accessed 21 September 2022).

 

UN-Habitat. Land Tenure in Selected Countries. United Nations Human Settlements Program Report 2/2014 HS/039/14E. 2014. Available online: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/download-manager-files/Land%20Tenure%20Security%20in%20Selected%20Countries_English_2014.pdf (accessed 21 September 2022).

 

IFAD. Land Tenure Security and Poverty Reduction. International Fund for Agricultural Development Report. 2015. Available online: https://www.ifad.org/documents/38714170/39148759/Land+tenure+security+and+poverty+reduction.pdf/c9d0982d-40e4-4e1e-b490-17ea8fef0775 (accessed on 21 September 2022).

 

Henke, C.R. Making a Place for Science: The Field Trial. Soc. Studies of Sci. 2000, 30(4), 483-511.

Reviewer 2 Report

General comments

The paper is a speculative study about potential adoption of some innovative technologies in the “global south”. Despite the interesting theme treated and the fact that ideas and information on the topic were well explained and the text is readable, I have doubts on some points. In general, I think that the paper must be improved by expanding the literature references and deepening some aspects that now are superficially treated.

 

Firstly, in the Introduction, you correctly stated that is difficult to define what is a sustainable technology. Then, it seems to me, that sustainable technologies sometimes became a synonym of precision agriculture technology (for example, line 73 and somewhere else) or climate-smart technologies. Instead, precision agriculture could be not sustainable and not all the sustainable practices are related to precision agriculture. I suggest to better specify the definition of the two concepts, referring to different authors and including different point of view and debates.  

 

Constraints that impede the adoption of some technologies must be deeply discussed. For example, the ease of internet access, that largely differs from a country (or from an area) to another and in general the so-called “digital divide”. The paper is weak in the discussion about the key-point of farmers’ perception and adoption of new technologies. I think that is necessary to argument about how a new technology can penetrate in an area and its possibility to be adopted by local farmers, including social aspects. The literature on this topic is flourishing.

 

In line 80 you affirm that the identified technologies do not require substantial complementary equipment. However, the technologies just find rough data that must be converted in an information adapted to the specific process and farm and this process requires mature infrastructure (such as the extension services) otherwise they are useless.

 

I think that literature must be improved. The following keywords can help your bibliographic research: adoption of technologies and perception; attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies; drivers of precision agriculture technologies adoption.

 

Specific comments

·         Line 26: the reference numeration must be consecutive, please start with the number one citation.

·         Line 158: in my opinion a NDVI index map is not a good example for yield mapping since this term refers specifically to data obtained during harvesting (as stated in your reference N. 24).

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

The paper is a speculative study about potential adoption of some innovative technologies in the “global south”. Despite the interesting theme treated and the fact that ideas and information on the topic were well explained and the text is readable, I have doubts on some points. In general, I think that the paper must be improved by expanding the literature references and deepening some aspects that now are superficially treated.

Response: Thank you for providing this review. Before we address your specific comments below, please note that the initial submission was done under the incorrect article type. This manuscript is not representative of a pure research article or a comprehensive literature review, but rather fits best as an “opinion”. Per the MDPI “article types” website, an “opinion” is a “short article that reflects the author’s viewpoints on a particular subject… they are significantly shorter and focused on the author’s view rather than a comprehensive, critical review (https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). We have had the editor update the article type to “opinion” in the online system during this review process. To our knowledge, our “opinion” piece is unique from others in that it highlights key sustainable agriculture technologies that could be used by smallholder farmers, which we see as fitting well with the special issue for which this manuscript is targeted which focuses on the nexus of “food security and sustainability in the Global South”. Additionally, we have made substantial changes and additions to the article that have expanded the literature references and deepened the discussion relative to the initial submission.

Firstly, in the Introduction, you correctly stated that is difficult to define what is a sustainable technology. Then, it seems to me, that sustainable technologies sometimes became a synonym of precision agriculture technology (for example, line 73 and somewhere else) or climate-smart technologies. Instead, precision agriculture could be not sustainable and not all the sustainable practices are related to precision agriculture. I suggest to better specify the definition of the two concepts, referring to different authors and including different point of view and debates.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation to mention that the definition of “sustainability” varies within the literature. We have made two changes to help address this issue. First, we have adjusted the title so that it replaces “Sustainability” with “Sustainability-related”. Second, we added a comment and two new references on page 2, lines 87-88, that reads: “This is because the definition of what constitutes sustainability can vary based on views from agronomic, economic, political, social, and other viewpoints [7, 8].”

Constraints that impede the adoption of some technologies must be deeply discussed. For example, the ease of internet access, that largely differs from a country (or from an area) to another and in general the so-called “digital divide”. The paper is weak in the discussion about the key-point of farmers’ perception and adoption of new technologies. I think that is necessary to argument about how a new technology can penetrate in an area and its possibility to be adopted by local farmers, including social aspects. The literature on this topic is flourishing.

Response: This is a great and well appreciated point. To reflect this constraint more thoroughly, we added a new paragraph under subsection 3.1 “Economic and infrastructure constraints” on page 6, lines 382-391 that reads: “A lack of communication and information-related technology infrastructure is particularly poignant constraining factor for adoption of the analyzed technologies in this paper because many have associated operational and data management functionalities linked to a smartphone. There are thus, two related limiting factors, which are the owning of a smartphone by the smallholder farmer and a reliable data network that can facilitate data transmission. These issues are particularly constraining in rural regions of Africa. For example, as of 2015, only 19-percent of adults in Africa reported owning a smartphone, compared with 72-percent in the U.S. [28]. Additionally, in the same 2015 survey, only 25-percent of adults in Africa reported either using the internet occasionally or owning a smartphone, while 89-percent of adults in the U.S. reported doing so [28].”

In line 80 you affirm that the identified technologies do not require substantial complementary equipment. However, the technologies just find rough data that must be converted in an information adapted to the specific process and farm and this process requires mature infrastructure (such as the extension services) otherwise they are useless.

Response: This is another great point, and we appreciate your recommendation to describe this in more detail. We added the following passage under the subsection 3.3 “Education and information on sustainability-related agriculture technologies” on page 7, lines 450-458 that reads: “The presence of information on the technologies and the human capacity to determine whether a technology would be useful on one’s farm is necessary but not sufficient for adoption and continued use of the technology. This is especially the case for the analyzed technologies that gather types of data that may not be familiar to the user and may also require additional conversion from the primary data gathered into interpretable forms. Thus, as with other digital technologies, a lack of capacity among both stakeholders who engage with smallholder farmers, such as agricultural extension agents, and the smallholder farmers in areas such as digital literacy and data management is a key limiting factor for adoption of data-intensive sustainability-related technologies [39].”

I think that literature must be improved. The following keywords can help your bibliographic research: adoption of technologies and perception; attitudinal acceptance of digital farming technologies; drivers of precision agriculture technologies adoption.

Response: Thank you for your recommendations to expand the literature encompassed into our paper. We have added 7 new references after editing the paper based on your recommendations and those made by other reviewers.

Specific comments

•  Line 26: the reference numeration must be consecutive, please start with the number one citation.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. The references now start with number 1 and have been re-numbered to account for the references added during the revision process.

•  Line 158: in my opinion a NDVI index map is not a good example for yield mapping since this term refers specifically to data obtained during harvesting (as stated in your reference N. 24).

Response: This point is well taken. Our aim for discussing yield mapping was to describe a practice that can be combined with the discussed technologies to produce useful information. In this case, if there were multiple years of yield maps, which, as you describe, is typically representative of actual yields at harvest, and NDVI data, then they could be combined to obtain estimates of yields for the full field during the growing season. We edited this section so that it now reads: “Yield Mapping, in which actual farm yields are represented spatially on a map based on current crop conditions [25]. The most typical type of yield map displays whole field yield variation based on harvest data, which can be used for such purposes as identifying areas where there may be a problem such as a lack of water drainage. However, once multiple years of yield maps are created and there are also NDVI data obtained during the growing season for the same field, then the farmer could combine the historical yield data with current NDVI data to produce maps of estimated yields for the current crop year in advance of harvest. Since NDVI is correlated with plant growth, the NDVI value associated with each pixel can be translated into a plant growth or yield estimate [18]. Mapping expected yield for an entire farm allows producers to plan for harvest (e.g., necessary equipment and labor), post-harvest needs (such as crop storage), and develop a marketing plan.”

 

References added that were cited in the responses:

Keeney, D. Sustainable agriculture: Definition and concepts. J. Prod. Agric. 1990, 3, 281-285.

 

Wallace, A. Sense with sustainable agriculture. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1994, 25(1&2), 5-13.

 

Pew Research Center. Smartphone Ownership and Internet Usage Continues to Climb in Emerging Economies. 2016. Staff report, Washington, DC.

 

Mehrabi, Z.; McDowell, M.J.; Ricciardi, V.; Levers, C.; Martinez, J.D.; Mehrabi, N.; Wittman, H.; Ramankutty, N.; Jarvis, A. The global divide in data-driven farming. Nature Sustain. 2021, 4, 154-160.

Reviewer 3 Report

The review article is lacking the novelty and hypothesis of the study. This looks more like a book chapter rather than a review article. Can you please explain how your study is different from other available articles on the potentiality of farmers towards acceptance of innovative crop production technologies? 

 

 

Author Response

The review article is lacking the novelty and hypothesis of the study. This looks more like a book chapter rather than a review article. Can you please explain how your study is different from other available articles on the potentiality of farmers towards acceptance of innovative crop production technologies?

Response: Thank you for your time in providing this review. Please note that the initial submission was done under the incorrect article type. This manuscript is not representative of a pure research article or a comprehensive literature review, but rather fits best as an “opinion”. Per the MDPI “article types” website, an “opinion” is a “short article that reflects the author’s viewpoints on a particular subject… they are significantly shorter and focused on the author’s view rather than a comprehensive, critical review (https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). We have had the editor update the article type to “opinion” in the online system during this review process. To our knowledge, our “opinion” piece is unique from others in that it highlights key sustainable agriculture technologies that could be used by smallholder farmers, which we see as fitting well with the special issue for which this manuscript is targeted which focuses on the nexus of “food security and sustainability in the Global South”. Additionally, we have made substantial changes and additions to the article that have expanded the literature references and deepened the discussion relative to the initial submission.

Reviewer 4 Report

The article deals with the extremely important issue of adoption of sustainable agriculture techniques.

Despite the interesting subject matter, the article has a number of shortcomings.

1. The summary does not reflect the content of the article.

2. In the title, the authors refer to the adoption of sustainable techniques, while in the body of the article they deal with climate protection. This is not quite the same thing.

3. There is no information as to why the authors chose these methods. There are many others that can also be applied.

4. The text on page 4 is a repetition of the table on page 3.

5. The aim of the work appears only at the end. It can hardly be said to have been realised.

6. The most serious objection: the article has little scientific significance. No methods, no hypotheses, no objective. It is only a not very extensive, selective literature review, without going into detail. If the focus is on these selected methods, it would be necessary to present exactly what benefits they bring, how exactly they work.

7. Overall, the article is not research-based and is too general for a literature review.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 4:

The article deals with the extremely important issue of adoption of sustainable agriculture techniques.

Despite the interesting subject matter, the article has a number of shortcomings.

1. The summary does not reflect the content of the article.

Response: Thank you for pointing out that the abstract could be edited to reflect the content of the paper more accurately. We have substantially edited the abstract. First, we have described our submission as a “paper” rather than article, since we should have identified our paper type as an “opinion” rather than an “article” in the initial submission. The article type has now been adjusted by the editor. To better reflect this type of article designation, the edited abstract now specifies clearly that the contents reflect our propositions rather than actual data or evidence.

2. In the title, the authors refer to the adoption of sustainable techniques, while in the body of the article they deal with climate protection. This is not quite the same thing.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation to mention that the definition of “sustainability” varies within the literature. We have made two changes to help address this issue. First, we have adjusted the title so that it replaces “Sustainability” with “Sustainability-related”. Second, we added a comment and two new references on page 2, lines 87-88, that reads: “This is because the definition of what constitutes sustainability can vary based on views from agronomic, economic, political, social, and other viewpoints [7, 8].” 

3. There is no information as to why the authors chose these methods. There are many others that can also be applied.

Response: Thank you for your recommendation to add some discussion pertaining to our strategy for this paper, and a more thorough description of the value of the paper. We added a paragraph in the introduction that states that the descriptive approach that we used is helpful for framing of future empirical studies that empirically investigate empirically the outcomes and impacts of adoption of the specific technologies. The added paragraph on page 2, lines 77 – 81 reads: “The descriptive approach of this paper helps to frame future empirical investigations pertaining to issues such as estimating outcomes and quantifying impacts of use of sustainable agriculture technologies by smallholder farmers in the Global South by identifying the set of technologies that have plausible adoption potential in developing country agricultural systems.”

4. The text on page 4 is a repetition of the table on page 3.

Response: We believe that aspects of the text on page 4 are important even though they do, to some degree, overlap with the contents in the table on page 3. First, while the contents in the table are as complete as possible to ensure that it “stands alone” well, the content is primarily definitional, while the text on page 4 helps to describe in greater detail how the technologies can be useful for agricultural producers. Thus, we have maintained much of the text on page 4 as it is but remain open to reducing some of that discussion per the preferences of the editor.

5. The aim of the work appears only at the end. It can hardly be said to have been realised.

Response: We edited the introduction of the paper to start a new paragraph where the objectives for the paper are spelled out. Specifically, on p. 2, line 61, a new paragraph that now starts with the phrase, “Thus, the objectives of this paper are to…”

6. The most serious objection: the article has little scientific significance. No methods, no hypotheses, no objective. It is only a not very extensive, selective literature review, without going into detail. If the focus is on these selected methods, it would be necessary to present exactly what benefits they bring, how exactly they work.

Response: Thank you for your thoughts. Please see our response to your next comment in which we describe how the article type was incorrectly selected in the initial submission, and this has been corrected during the revision phase.

7. Overall, the article is not research-based and is too general for a literature review.

Response: Please note that the initial submission was done under the incorrect article type. This manuscript is not representative of a pure research article or a comprehensive literature review, but rather fits best as an “opinion”. Per the MDPI “article types” website, an “opinion” is a “short article that reflects the author’s viewpoints on a particular subject… they are significantly shorter and focused on the author’s view rather than a comprehensive, critical review (https://www.mdpi.com/about/article_types). We have had the editor update the article type to “opinion” in the online system during this review process. To our knowledge, our “opinion” piece is unique from others in that it highlights key sustainable agriculture technologies that could be used by smallholder farmers, which we see as fitting well with the special issue for which this manuscript is targeted which focuses on the nexus of “food security and sustainability in the Global South”. Additionally, we have made substantial changes and additions to the article that have expanded the literature references and deepened the discussion relative to the initial submission.

References added that were cited in the responses:

Keeney, D. Sustainable agriculture: Definition and concepts. J. Prod. Agric. 1990, 3, 281-285.

 

Wallace, A. Sense with sustainable agriculture. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 1994, 25(1&2), 5-13.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

None

Author Response

Reviewer 2: None.

Response: We are grateful for your time in reviewing our revised manuscript and for submitting your review report. Please note that we have implemented a spell and grammar check using the Microsoft Word Editor function, as well as implemented a careful read and edit of the manuscript prior to this second resubmission.

Reviewer 3 Report

It can be proceeded with minor spell check and needful editing 

Author Response

Reviewer 3: It can be proceeded with minor spell check and needful editing.

Response: We are grateful for your time in reviewing our revised manuscript and for submitting your review report. Please note that we have implemented a spell and grammar check using the Microsoft Word Editor function, as well as implemented a careful read and edit of the manuscript prior to this second resubmission.

Reviewer 4 Report

If an article is submitted as an Opinion, this indeed strongly changes the way it is reviewed.  Once the previous amendments have been taken into account, it can be published in its current form.

Author Response

Reviewer 4: If an article is submitted as an Opinion, this indeed strongly changes the way it is reviewed.  Once the previous amendments have been taken into account, it can be published in its current form.

Response: We are grateful for your time in reviewing our revised manuscript and for submitting your review report. We have made all recommended previous amendments in the revised version per our responses to the reviewer comments during the first round of revisions. We have also implemented a spell and grammar check using the Microsoft Word Editor function, as well as implemented a careful read and edit of the manuscript prior to this second resubmission.