The Role and Perspective of Climate Smart Agriculture in Africa: A Scientific Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In general, the article responds to the objectives set in the introduction, is well written and very fluent. However, it would need some adjustments, particularly in the introductory part where there are many repetitions and sometimes the text seems like a set of phrases that are not very connected to each other. I suggest to try to better amalgamate the various concepts already expressed in it without repeating things according to the different authors taken into consideration but, if in general the idea reported is the same, different authors can be cited together.

The review of the literature on the subject is very accurate and complete but perhaps a better schematization of the results and discussions could make the article more incisive. I mean that Africa is an immense continent, therefore, it would be better to try to divide the comments into macro-areas and try to identify the Climate Smart Agriculture for each of them. This is already mentioned in the document but it would be better to have a better schematization. In particular, the macro-areas should be identified and, after having defined or characterized them, it should be possible to try to divide the analysis of the literature for each of them. The objective is to present the results differentiated according to the area.

From a formal point of view, English is fluent and accurate, just pay attention to some small typos.

The pararaph “Limitation of the Study” should be moved to the conclusions, it does not go as a separate paragraph but just as a comment.

I hope that my comments helps you, my suggestions want just to encourage a different reorganization of introduction and part of the results but the article certainly offers a great contribution to the knowledge of the subject matter.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 comments

Point 1: In general, the article responds to the objectives set in the introduction, is well written and very fluent. However, it would need some adjustments, particularly in the introductory part where there are many repetitions and sometimes the text seems like a set of phrases that are not very connected to each other. I suggest to try to better amalgamate the various concepts already expressed in it without repeating things according to the different authors taken into consideration but, if in general the idea reported is the same, different authors can be cited together.

Response 1: Thank you for the comments. The introductory part of the article has been modified to remove repetitions and improve the flow of the sentences (refer to page 1-4 of 19, lines 39-177). The rest of the manuscript has also been similarly revised (throughout the document).

Point 2: The review of the literature on the subject is very accurate and complete but perhaps a better schematization of the results and discussions could make the article more incisive. I mean that Africa is an immense continent, therefore, it would be better to try to divide the comments into macro-areas and try to identify the Climate Smart Agriculture for each of them. This is already mentioned in the document but it would be better to have a better schematization. In particular, the macro-areas should be identified and, after having defined or characterized them, it should be possible to try to divide the analysis of the literature for each of them. The objective is to present the results differentiated according to the area.

Response 2: An introductory paragraph has been included in the section on review of literature to highlight the regional patterns in the manifestation of climate change and the responses to them. The discussion of the findings refer to the regional differences in a way that aligns well with the format adopted in such discussions in the literature (refer to page 5 of 19, section 3, lines 209-226).

Point 3: From a formal point of view, English is fluent and accurate, just pay attention to some small typos.

Response 3: Point taken. The manuscript text English grammar and spell check have since been extensively rechecked and redrafted in some sections (throughout the document).

Point 4: The pararaph “Limitation of the Study” should be moved to the conclusions, it does not go as a separate paragraph but just as a comment.

Response 4: Point taken. We have moved the limitation of the study to the conclusion section as a comment (refer to page 15 of 19, lines 698-701).

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Remarks to the paper „ Situation analysis on climate smart agriculture in Africa: a scientific review”

General opinion: very topical and interesting paper. The problem of evaluation of climate smart agriculture  is the priority, not only for Africa, but for the World.  Particularly important issue is proper methodology to evaluate the climate smart agriculture. There is the need to look for solutions/practices how to limit the scale of natural resources absorption by agricultural activity. The paper was evaluated positively, but some detailed remarks were specified.

No of lines:

2.The suggestion of title change: “Climate smart agriculture in Africa: a scientific review”

12: Abstract should additionally include: the aim of the paper – clearly defined (“the aim of the paper is …”); the period of analysis and short description of methodology.

33. the aim of the paper should be included at the end of introduction as well.

150.” …impact (?) in Africa” – please precise “impact on…..”

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 comments

Point 1: Page 1, line 2: Page 1, line 2: The suggestion of title change: “Climate-smart agriculture in Africa: a scientific review”.

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. The title of the paper has been changed to “The role and perspective of climate-smart agriculture in Africa: a scientific review” as suggested by reviewer 3 (refer to page 1 of 19, lines 2&3).

Point 2: Page 1, line 12: Abstract should additionally include: the aim of the paper – clearly defined (“the aim of the paper is …”); the period of analysis and short description of methodology.

Response 2: We have clearly defined the aim of the paper in the abstract session. We have also stated the period of analysis and included a short description of the methodology (refer to page 1 of 19, lines 17-22).

Point 3: The aim of the paper should be included at the end of introduction as well.

Response 3: We have included the aim of the paper at the end of the introduction (refer to page 4 of 19, lines 170-175).

Point 4: ” …impact (?) in Africa” – please precise “impact on…..”

Response 4: Point taken. We have changed the subtitle from “Climate change impact in Africa” to “Climate change impact on Agriculture in Africa” (refer to page 5 of 19, line 209).

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors carried out an interesting literature review on the climate smart agriculture in Africa. In my view the article nicely addresses a relevant research gap.

Please, find below some suggestions to improve the quality and readability of the manuscript:

• I suggest to modify the title, by removing “situation analysis” and by adding some key words that show better the contents and the objectives of the paper (e.g., role and perspective of CSA in Africa etc.)
• Materials and methods: this section could be improved by adding details on the selected papers. I suggest to include a more detailed classification of the reviewed papers according to their discipline/approach/country and/or type of paper (e.g., review, policy analysis, technical paper, etc.)
• From section 3.4 onwards, the reader would expect that the following sections would follow the categorisation included in Table 3. In following sections I suggest to use the same classification (and titles) of table 3

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 comments

Point 1: I suggest to modify the title, by removing “situation analysis” and by adding some key words that show better the contents and the objectives of the paper (e.g., role and perspective of CSA in Africa etc.)

Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. The title of the paper has been changed to “The role and perspective of climate-smart agriculture in Africa: a scientific review” as suggested (refer to page 1 of 19, lines 2&3).

Point 2: Materials and methods: this section could be improved by adding details on the selected papers. I suggest to include a more detailed classification of the reviewed papers according to their discipline/approach/country and/or type of paper (e.g., review, policy analysis, technical paper, etc.).

Response 2: We have enhanced the materials and methods section by adding a more detailed classification of the reviewed papers (refer to pages 4 & 5 of 19, lines 179-182, lines 196-199, and Table 1).

Point 3: From section 3.4 onwards, the reader would expect that the following sections would follow the categorisation included in Table 3. In following sections I suggest to use the same classification (and titles) of table 3.

Response 3: Thank you for the suggestion. Table 3, however, is a summary of the points in the comments preceding the table (CSA adoption). The section following the table is addressing a completely different subject matter (challenges facing CSA uptake) (refer to page 11 of 19, section 3.3, lines 461-526; refer to page 11-15 of 19, section 3.4, lines 528-696).