The Determinants of Adoption and Intensity of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices among Smallholder Maize Farmers
, Temitope Oluwaseun Ojo 3,4 and Simphiwe Innocentia Hlatshwayo 2,5
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript draft is devoted to an interesting problem that touches on the adoption and intensity of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices. The authors identified factors influencing the acceptance and intensity of CSA implementation among smallholder corn farmers. The authors analyzed 99 answers from respondents who were selected through simple random sampling. However, I have the following remarks:
1. The title is too long and not clear enough. The authors should clarify the title and the municipalities do not need to be mentioned.
2. Introduction section is good. In the final part of the introduction, a brief overview of the rest of the paper should be written. It is appropriate for the authors to explain not only the structure but also the logic of the remainder of the paper.
3. Table 2 presents the demographic characteristics of smallholder maize farmers. It could be guessed that the Tertiary education percentage is zero. The authors should write all the data for all descriptions.
4. The conclusion is not explained properly. The conclusion section should be extended using a comparison between the authors’ results and the initial hypothesis.
5. The research problem discussed in the article is an interesting topic. The authors could point out the algorithm for the next research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Job Review article " The determinants of adoption and intensity of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices among smallholder maize farmers in UMshwathi and uKhahlamba Municipalities”
The paper deals with the identification of factors affecting the implementation of climate-smart agricultural practices among smallholder maize producers. Food security is one of the most important challenges for many African countries. Currently, due to warfare on the territory of Ukraine, they have gained additional importance because there are limited exports of crops from the region. Therefore, the implementation of environmentally friendly practices (optimization of agricultural production) makes it possible to mitigate unfavorable weather events promotes the stabilization of food production, that is, improving the country's food security is important for the local population.
The work deals with the specifics of the region and the results presented are not utilitarian. The weakness of the work is the small number of analyzed survey data (99), so the conclusions obtained from their analysis add little to the knowledge already possessed. For example, there is no indication of which adaptation practices are most effective for small producers to better utilize the production potential of corn.
Comments and suggestions.
1. in Chapter 2 Methodology
In Figure 1 (map), indicate the study regions: Bergville and Swayimane
2. in Chapter 2.2 Methodology of data collection, it should be clarified how agricultural practices were grouped. The authors provide 5 categories, while in the text they list 6 categories for which the identified agricultural practices were assigned. Therefore, it is advisable to complete, the identified agricultural practices (33) should be listed and assigned to the categories listed.
"About 33 types of practices were identified with the assumption that each can deliver one or more CSA goals. These practices were grouped into five (5) categories. These categories are knowledge smart, carbon smart, nitrogen smart, water smart, weather smart, and energy smart."
3 In chapter 3.1.2, the time range of the analysis is given by the authors (2019-2020) while the authors describe and present in "Figure 3. Short-term CSA Practices adopted by Smallholder maize farmers to cope with natural hazards in the 2019-2022 season." Is this a mistake or different data?
4 In chapter 3.1.5 The smallholder maize farmers who employed adaptation strategies over ten years of maize production. In the text, the authors write Figure 5 shows five categories of long-term CSA practices. However, the charts show 4 categories: knowledge smart, carbon smart, nitrogen smart, weather smart.
5 A general note applies to the developed charts for which the descriptions and numerical scale should be standardized.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
This topic is very interesting, especially under the climate change condition, well written and well organized.
However, there are small minor comments that should be considered before publication as follows:
ABSTRACT
The word CSA should be spilled out for the first time
M&M
Section 2.1: 32 km2: Please take a space between 32 and km2 and superscript 2 to be (Km2)
Please convert mm/annum to mm yr-1
In Figure 1, please put an arrow or a point on the place to more determination
Section 2.2: Please modify the number of practice categories into six not five
Please add even brief description of the main categories of practices with examples of questions for stallholders for each category (knowledge smart, carbon smart, nitrogen smart, water smart, weather smart, and energy smart)
Please write the version of SPSS and the company
In Table 3, take space between CSA and adoption as well in Table 4 between CSA and number
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has much improved and this is very good! Congratulations!
The paper can be published in its present form.
