Localized Institutional Actors and Smallholder Irrigation Scheme Performance in Limpopo Province of South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Irrigation research has become essential as our climate becomes extreme. The examined results point to the need for external support for irrigation.
Author Response
English language editing was done and syle was corrected.
Research design and methodology was revised.
please may you refer to revised manuscript attached
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper evaluates different local institutional arrangements and their performances in agricultural productivity. The study has collected both qualitative and quantitative data from Limpopo Province of South Africa to illustrate how smallholder farmers organize resources required for maintaining their agricultural production. The study reveals that an array of formal and informal agencies and actors substitute each other to provide resources to the farmers. Overall, the paper is well-written, although it needs some conceptual and analytical clarity and structural improvements before being considered for publication.
Introduction: This section gives a nice description about the background of the study and highlights the importance of addressing the research questions. However, it requires some conceptual clarity. For example, the definition of institutions is unclear. There are no clear definitions of formal, informal and local institutions given the paper. As a result, the authors have put down both local formal and informal institutions together. Without clarity, it is unclear who is responsible for what actions. For clear formal and informal institutions definitions, I would recommend the authors the following paper.
North, D.C., 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspective.
Rahman, H.M.T., Saint Ville, A., Song, A.M., et al., 2017. A framework for analyzing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. International Journal of the Commons
I am not sure, why the authors have referred to the IAD framework. They haven’t organized their data collection and analysis following the framework. I would like to suggest the authors to exclude the mention of the framework. I understand the implication of Ostrom’s works in the study that can still be referred without mentioning the framework. In addition, the term ‘action arena’ is no longer in use in the IAD literature. Ostrom herself revised this term and replaced it with ‘action situation’ in her Ostrom (2011) paper, which the authors have referenced.
Methods: First paragraph of this section needs to be removed. It is also important to give a clear description about qualitative data collection, particularly considering how the FGD participants were selected and what questions they were asked. The authors have given a nice description about quantitative data analysis, but qualitative data analysis remains unexplained. It is also necessary to describe how they dealt with both qualitative and quantitative data. Why have they collected both types of data? Was it for triangulation and/or substitution? In its current form, the data collection looks like mixed method type, which needs to have a clear and concise description. I am not sure why the authors have mentioned they conducted Factor analysis in some places and elsewhere PCA. These two are different types of analysis, although based on similar statistical logic.
Results: The quantitative data analysis part has been nicely done. I would suggest the authors to add a table describing different local formal and informal institutional actors and their roles in agricultural production system. However, I haven’t seen any clear reflection of qualitative data. The authors should either add a clear summary of qualitative data (e.g., quotes, table, figure) or entirely exclude it from their analysis. Please also add Cronbach alpha results of each factor.
Discussion: I can understand how different institutional actors are involved to provide different production inputs to the farmers. It overall looks like a new type of institutional landscape has been emerging in the study area. However, it is not clear how the institutional landscape is coordinated. Even if they are not, it is important to notify what positive and/or negative outcomes they generate in the absence of an inter-institutional coordination and how it affects the production system.
Conclusion: Overall, this section is nicely written. I would expect a concise lesson of the study that may have wider implication beyond the study area.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
Point 1: This paper evaluates different local institutional arrangements and their performances in agricultural productivity. The study has collected both qualitative and quantitative data from Limpopo Province of South Africa to illustrate how smallholder farmers organize resources required for maintaining their agricultural production. The study reveals that an array of formal and informal agencies and actors substitute each other to provide resources to the farmers. Overall, the paper is well-written, although it needs some conceptual and analytical clarity and structural improvements before being considered for publication.

Response 1: Thank you for commenting this paper
Point 2: Introduction: This section gives a nice description about the background of the study and highlights the importance of addressing the research questions. However, it requires some conceptual clarity. For example, the definition of institutions is unclear. There are no clear definitions of formal, informal and local institutions given the paper. As a result, the authors have put down both local formal and informal institutions together. Without clarity, it is unclear who is responsible for what actions. For clear formal and informal institutions definitions, I would recommend the authors the following paper.
North, D.C., 1991. Institutions. Journal of Economic Perspective.
Rahman, H.M.T., Saint Ville, A., Song, A.M., et al., 2017. A framework for analysing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. International Journal of the Commons
Response 2: The definitions were clarified as recommended. However, after clear analysis, we realise that the paper mainly focus on local institutional actors, hence defining formal, informal and local institution was not necessary. Formal and informal institutions removed since we clarify that the study focus on local institutional actors
Institutions are human-created formal and informal mechanisms that shape social expectations, interactions, and behavior [21,22]. Formal institutions are constitutions, contracts, and forms of governments, while informal institutions are traditions, customs, moral values, religious believes, and norms [22]. The formal institutional actors are officially sanctioned by formal institutional arrangements, while informal institutional actors are enforced outside officially sanctioned channels [23]. However, LIAs are either organizations, players, agents, enterprises, or social structures in which people cooperate and influence the behavior of individuals [24,25] by setting rules, oversees/observe operations, provide services, and produce policies within their confines [23,24,26]. The interaction of LIAs influences resource sharing, communication and interaction between multiple actors: resource users, managers and stakeholders [27,28]. However, institutional actors’ classification depends on the context on which they are operational [29]. Although it is possible to categorize LIAs in numerous ways in the context of institutional literature, for this study, three types of institutional actors considered were civic, private and public that operate in TIS. However, the gaps in current knowledge about LIAs’ roles in SIS impedes the potential magnitude of changes in institutions and social relations [23]. (Page 2, Line 72-86).
Point 3: I am not sure, why the authors have referred to the IAD framework. They haven’t organized their data collection and analysis following the framework. I would like to suggest the authors to exclude the mention of the framework. I understand the implication of Ostrom’s works in the study that can still be referred without mentioning the framework. In addition, the term ‘action arena’ is no longer in use in the IAD literature. Ostrom herself revised this term and replaced it with ‘action situation’ in her Ostrom (2011) paper, which the authors have referenced.
Response 3: The IAD framework was removed. Action arena was replaced with action situation. However, the mention of Ostrom was done without mentioning IAD. The following text was added
Evidence from Elinor Ostrom’s research on the commons, institutions and collective action which lead to the Social Ecological Systems Framework (SESF) show that institutional actors work together to solve social problems in a system with common pool resource and public good [33,34]. (Page 3, Line 104-106)
Point 4: Methods: First paragraph of this section needs to be removed. It is also important to give a clear description about qualitative data collection, particularly considering how the FGD participants were selected and what questions they were asked. The authors have given a nice description about quantitative data analysis, but qualitative data analysis remains unexplained. It is also necessary to describe how they dealt with both qualitative and quantitative data. Why have they collected both types of data? Was it for triangulation and/or substitution? In its current form, the data collection looks like mixed method type, which needs to have a clear and concise description. I am not sure why the authors have mentioned they conducted Factor analysis in some places and elsewhere PCA. These two are different types of analysis, although based on similar statistical logic.
Response 4: First paragraph of the section was removed as recommended by the reviewer. The qualitative relating to FDGs was removed, hence there is no need to give further explanation on it. Factor analysis.
Point 5: Results: The quantitative data analysis part has been nicely done. I would suggest the authors to add a table describing different local formal and informal institutional actors and their roles in agricultural production system. However, I haven’t seen any clear reflection of qualitative data. The authors should either add a clear summary of qualitative data (e.g., quotes, table, figure) or entirely exclude it from their analysis. Please also add Cronbach alpha results of each factor.
Response 5: The qualitative data was excluded from this analysis. Table on local formal and informal institutional actors and their roles was included. (Page 7, Line 240-243)
Cronbach Alpha results was added. (Page 4, Line 173-174), (Page 8, Line 250 -254).
Point 6: Discussion: I can understand how different institutional actors are involved to provide different production inputs to the farmers. It overall looks like a new type of institutional landscape has been emerging in the study area. However, it is not clear how the institutional landscape is coordinated. Even if they are not, it is important to notify what positive and/or negative outcomes they generate in the absence of an inter-institutional coordination and how it affects the production system.
Response 6: positive and negative outcomes generated by absence inter-institutional coordination was discussed.
Findings from the study show that each LIAs has numerous roles. However, the absence of clear inter-institutional coordination among the LIAs in the scheme results in some positive and negative outcomes in the scheme. This scenario help farmers to access some services from diverse LIAs. On the other hand, it results in lack of accountability of LIAs, thereby affecting farmers’ access to essential services resulting in the decrease in the scheme’s performance. Also, the existence of poor inter-institutional coordination among LIAs complicates access to critical services by farmers due to uncompleted tasks by some LIAs. On the other note, farmers’ access to critical services from a LIA are overshadowed by access to multiple services from the same actor. In the case of extension officers, their role in the distributing inputs subsidies weaken their relationship with farmers who assume unfair distribution of subsidies, but this may deprive farmers’ access to extension services. Also, some farmers view extension workers as distributors of subsidies compared to offering extension services.
Given that there were various LIAs offering a single service, poor engagement and competition between these actors widen the conflicts between the actors, hence compromising access to key services by scheme farmers. It was also noted that some institutions advance their commercial interest at the expense of offering the necessary services to the farmers. However, the existence of various institutions working with farmers implies that the “Market for lemons” scenario does not exist, where scheme farmers have asymmetric information on certain services, for example price of commodities. (Page 13, Line 430-446)
Point7: Conclusion: Overall, this section is nicely written. I would expect a concise lesson of the study that may have wider implication beyond the study area.
Response 7: Implication beyond the study area is given below
Future study needs to focus on the imbalance of power caused by imperfect information that deters sound decision-making, negatively impacting LIAs and farmers’ relations and reducing the scheme performance. Finally, the study suggests that LIAs in irrigation schemes play multiple roles; however, their interaction needs further study to reduce conflicts and duplication and better understand how they can benefit the local communities and improve scheme performance. (Page 14, Line 477-482).
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and suggestions are attached in word archive. Please, check.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 3 Comments
Point 1: The paper is interesting and overall, it is based on sound scientific evidence. The discussion and results are correct. However, it is necessary to introduce some improvements:

Response 1: Thank you for the comment
Point 2: Title:
The title is confusing. Three territories are mentioned (Limpopo province, Tshiombo and South Africa), but none of them are represented in the map. So, it would be advisable only add the main province and the country in the title.
Response 2: The title was changed to “Localized Institutional Actors and Smallholder Irrigation Scheme Performance in Limpopo Province, South Africa” (Page 1: Line 2 – 3)
The territories mentioned in the Topic (Limpopo and South Africa) were represented in the map. (Page 4)
Point 3: Writing:
It is correct, but lines 101-112 are copied directly from MDPI standards. It is unacceptable that this document will be delivered without reviewing.
Response 3: Text which was on line 101-112 was deleted.
Point 4: Contents:
When you are talking about the relationship between irrigated areas and smallholders, it is necessary to contextualize the current role of agriculture in South Africa, e.g, dealing with percentage of land irrigation, agricultural figures, property structure, different crops, landowners, etc. We cannot interpret the role of the smallholders without considering its social significance in the country agriculture, answering questions such as: how much land the landowners have respect to the small ones?; Is the irrigation model sustainable?; Where the water come from?
Response 4: the current roles of agriculture in South Africa was conceptualized
Agriculture contributes approximately 3% of South Africa’s GDP and 7% of its formal employment, thereby providing livelihoods; food and income security [15]. Also, agriculture exports in South Africa have been gradually rising by 13.6% per annum from 2008 to 2018 and represents 14.6% of South Africa’s trade value [16]. Nonetheless, increased rainfall variability is an imminent threat to South Africa’s agricultural productivity. Building on the idea that SIS could play a key role in transforming the agrarian farming systems of South Africa, hence, investment in the SIS is, therefore a critical venture for the nation.
Approximately 10% of the cultivated land is under irrigation in South Africa, of which 3.3% is held under SIS [17]. These SIS play an essential role in South Africa’s rural areas, where between 200 000 and 250 000 smallholder farmers own an average of 1.5 ha each [18,19]. Schemes are a source of employment, leverage rural poor livelihoods, boost pro-poor sustainable agriculture, and contribute to economic growth [20]. The SIS farmers in South Africa, grow a wide range of field crops (maize, wheat sugarcane, sweet potato, and Irish potato) and vegetable crops (tomato, cabbages, carrot, onion, and spinach) and trees [19,20]. Farrow and sprinkler irrigation systems are commonly used to deliver water to plots from dams, weirs, and rivers [5]. However, the success of the schemes has been a subject of debate in the light of the dilapidated irrigation infrastructure, leading to underutilization of land and water resources [20]. These SIS are operated and managed by locals following Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) in the early 1990s [19]. Numerous institutions play different roles in the SIS. (Page2, Line 53 – 71).
Point 5: Method
Some questions have to be solved: Why is this territory interesting for a study-case?, i.e., what makes it special with regard to regional agriculture?. We understand that in other neighbouring countries the smallholder irrigation performance is also limited.
Response 5: recommendations by the reviewer was addressed.
Limpopo province has the majority (about 53%) of the country’s schemes given that 170 of the 302 SIS in South Africa are in the province [17]. Moreover, of the 170 SIS in the province about 28% are either unutilized, lowly utilized and moderately utilized [20]. Also, TIS has the largest command area in the Limpopo province of 847 ha [17]. Therefore, this case study will be a significant reference to the region, which is experiencing limited performance of irrigation schemes. (Page 3, Line 133 – 138).
Point 6: The article talk about a questionnaire. How has that questionnaire been designed and under what parameters?, i.e., how does that questionnaire respond to starting theoretical approaches? Concerning the statistical method (regression model and PCA), it is mandatory to comment, at least briefly, on why this method has been chosen and not another similar method (cluster, etc.), justifying the advantages and limitations.
Response 6: design of questionnaire and parameters were clarified. How questionnaire respond to theoretical approaches was clarified. OLS and PCA were commented.
The questionnaire was pilot tested to assess its potential challenges, identify areas where research protocols may have been breached and test the measuring instrument’s effectiveness. To answer the question on role of LIAs, farmers were asked to select the all the services which they access from each LIA. Responses that include credit/loan, input/output market, extension services, market/price information, input supply, and irrigation scheme maintenance were provided on the key. However, farmers were provided with adequate space to add more services. (Page 4, Line 158-163)
The PCA is easily understood among factor analyses (FA) as it reduces the dimension of datasets, increasing interpretability while minimizing information loss [41]. It is the most sought-after method for the analysis of nonlinear processes. PCA does not have redundancy of data, reduces complexity in image grouping and reduces noise by choosing maximum variation [42]. (Page 5, Line 174-177)
The OLS is a consistent method of regression that can be applied to single, multiple, or appropriately coded categorical explanatory variables; however, it mainly assumes linearity [43], which was satisfied by the data used for this study. To provide the best estimates from OLS, the following conditions were met:
- regression coefficients were linear,
- predictors uncorrelated with residuals,
- absence of serial correlation,
- absence of multicollinearity, and
- normality of residuals [43]. (Page 5, Line 180-188).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The document has been improved following the comments
