Farmers’ Understanding about Impact of Climate Change on Cropping Systems and Nutrition: A study on Dingaputa Haor of Netrakona District in Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank the authors for the submission of the manuscript entitled “Farmers’ Understanding about Impact of Climate Change on Cropping Systems and Nutrition: A study on Dingaputa haor of Netrakona District in Bangladesh”. The study aimed to improve the farmers’ understanding about climate change, to explore existing cropping systems and nutritional status of haor farmers and to identify haor farmers’ existing and future adaptation actions for changing climate. Although some novel ideas are presented, I have some comments for the authors to improve the manuscript.

(1) The Abstract: instead of heavily focusing on the results of this study, could you please also summarize the objective(s) of this research and why your study is important? When abbreviating a term, please use the full term the first time you use it, followed immediately by the abbreviation in parentheses, e.g., “SWOT” in line 22, Page 1.

(2) The introduction section: when introducing the background of this study, could you please clearly describe and focus on the objectives of this study, why this study is important, and how it could contribute to the literature in terms of other existing studies? Please use the necessary background information to support the main research issues of your study.   

(3) In Lines 141-143, Page 4: could you please provide more explanations or literature support about the method you used to choose the sample size (i.e., “the repetitiveness of the data served as the basis for choosing the sample size”)? As you mentioned about “samples were gathered up until the point”, what metric did you use to choose the “point” or did it just depend on the subjective judgment of “the researcher"?

(4) Results: this study summarizes the results from many aspects, but these results don’t clearly show readers what are your key findings. Are the results in sections 3.1-3.7 used to support section 3.8?

 

(5) Discussion: in this section, this study mainly agrees with the findings of existing studies, but could you please also show readers what are the contributions of this study to the literature relative to other studies? Also, what are the limitations of this study?  

The quality of English is good to be understood.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. Among the criteria of the study, I did not notice that elements such as:

- access to electricity,

- access to the Internet,

- access to a computer,

- use of cable and mobile phone,

- access to radio and television.

On the other hand, it is good that the educational level of Haor residents was assessed.

The absence of such questions detracts very much from the scientific value of the manuscript, as a survey of the level of knowledge of the inhabitants was made, but no attempt was made to find out the reasons.

The amount of land owned and the level of education is only some of it. In the world, the radio, television, Internet, and computers increase knowledge and awareness in societies.

These factors have been underestimated, making the manuscript and research findings poor. 

The discussion needs a response to the results, an in-depth analysis of the results and, a statement of what should be improved, information on how to use them to improve the living conditions of the inhabitants of Haor. 

2. In the conclusions and conclusion, the authors have yet to attempt a comparative analysis, i.e., amount of land, education versus awareness, and knowledge.

3. The study's results do not contribute anything to future actions. No suggestion of any undertaking resulting from the research results was described. The current state is summarised, understanding of climate change is found to be at a poor level, and what next? Farmers are poor and exposed to all the misfortunes resulting from climate change and from the current nature and climate.

Based on the information obtained, I propose to analyse the survey results and draw conclusions on future actions that the local Haor administration and the government of Bangladesh should take to improve the living condition and safety of the people, and first of all, their environmental awareness and education.

Such conclusions should be included in a scientific manuscript. I also propose to see the literature of works on similar topics in other countries with similar problems, but where there are indications of how slowly, by improving public education in various ways, public awareness is changing.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have evaluated the manuscript entitled "Farmers’ Understanding about Impact of Climate Change on Cropping Systems and Nutrition: A study on Dingaputa haor of Netrakona District in Bangladesh" and found it is suitable to the journal aim and scope. The manuscript required some modification before acceptance as listed below:

1. Novelty of the investigation need to be improve further.

2. The flow of the information in the introduction and discussion is staggered that need to be modify.

3. It will be better if authors provide the regional/national comparison with the investigated region. Accordingly research gap need to be improve.

4. Line no 148-149 need to be re-formed.

5. The "Farmers’ opinion about changing trends of climate" and "Natural hazards/disasters and crop cultivation" need to be compare along with the historic data set and accordingly conclusion need to be redraw.

6. The available schemes for climate resilient agriculture and farmers access need to be included utilizing the available information and coverage should be compared with the farmers actual adaptation. 

7. The discussion need to be improved further after inclusion of the above suggestive outputs.

8. Conclusion also need to be redraw and rewrite accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has been modified significantly.