Uptake and Level of Use of Climate-Smart Agricultural Practices by Small-Scale Urban Crop Farmers in eThekwini Municipality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attached document

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

There are a few editorial mistakes that need to be rectified. 

Author Response

Thanks for the valuable comments and feedback. We have addressed the comments and recommendations as per the attached file (see attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is “Uptake and level of use of climate-smart agricultural practices by small-scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality”. Some detailed comments are as follows:

(1) Abstract: “Yet, data on the adoption of CSA practices and their level of use among small-scale urban crop (SSUC) farmers remains scanty.” This is not a reason to study this content.

(2) The Results section should be the Results and Discussion section.

(3) Conclusions: The research conclusions need to be further summarized.

(4) The format of the table needs to meet the requirements of the journal.

(5) It is not appropriate to have as many as 122 references as a research article.

(6) The format of the references did not meet the requirements of the journal, and the journal names in the references were not abbreviated as required.

(7) A proof reading by a native English speaker should be carefully conducted to improve both language and organization quality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English language of this manuscript needs improvement.

Author Response

Thanks for the valuable comments and feedback. We have addressed the comments and recommendations as per the attached file (see attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In the manuscript of Sustainability-3065923, I think the author has provided a promosing work regarding the CSA concept and its actualization in a selected area. The work is good, the revision could be considered as

(1)  For the introduction, I suggest the authors could make it concise. The current introduction provided really detailed information about how climate is important and affect the agriculture in South Africa, which is not quite necessary. But the information about CSA is insurficient. I suggest to give a clear definition about what is CSA, what is the benifit from uptaking CSA to the current agriculture in South Africa. Moreover, it is important to clearly state why this investigation is important, what kind of problems (including practical and scientific) could be solved from knowing the uptake and actrulization of CSA, as well as the perspective after knowing these information.

(2) About the selected area of this investigation, need to provided addtional content, why the author choiced eThekwini? What is the characteristic of the agriculture in this area. Also, need to check the area name, as in the title, figure and text, the name is different.

(3) The first Table 4 should be Table 3

(4) The quality of Figure 2 need to be improved.

(5)  Better to provide the reason why the investigation need to choice some parameters that seems show no significant effects on actrulizating CSA, such as gender, marital status.

(6) Need to provide a summary to the obtained results, and a brief discussion about such results.

(7) Consider to cite  https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15122741 in the revised manuscript.

 

Author Response

Thanks for the valuable comments and feedback. We have addressed the comments and recommendations as per the attached file (see attachment).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author still needs to check the English language before publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The author still needs to check the English language before publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

My comments were well addressed. And the quality of this manuscript was improved obviously. I have no further comments on this work.