Exploring the Barriers to the Adoption of Climate-Smart Irrigation Technologies for Sustainable Crop Productivity by Smallholder Farmers: Evidence from South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In this study authors aimed to explore barriers to adoption of climate smart irrigation technologies by small holder farmers in south Africa. Agriculture is an important sector of south African GDP and faced with climate risk efficient use of water is crucial. However, the authors of the study have used very simplistic statistics (frequency and percentages) to explore the barrier which could be misleading. I would suggest authors to utilize binary logit/probit regression or if they have categorical dependent variables they can use multinomial logit or ordered logit. Descriptive are not sufficient for establishing a conclusion about adoption decision or barriers.

Also author mentioned that, “theoretical explanations and empirical evidence indicated that restrictions regarding adopting CSIT by SHF in South Africa are often linked to gender-based barriers, lack of  knowledge, and lack of access to farm resources and markets” when all this is known, why do authors are doing the same work again. I could not see the research gap and contribution of this study.

 

Authors need to add a description of the dependent and independent variables and add socio-economic, farm, village, and institutional variables in the model to explore determinants of adoption decision.  

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

• Comment 1: I would suggest authors utilize binary logit/probit regression, or if they have categorical dependent variables, they can use multinomial logit or ordered logit. Descriptive is not sufficient for establishing a conclusion about adoption decisions or barriers.
• Response: We acknowledge the comment of reviewer #1: Based on the reviewer's suggestion, we employed the multinomial logistic regression model. It is important to note that not all variables presented significant variations, hence only a few parameters are presented in Tables 5 and 9.

 

• Comment 2: Also, the authors mentioned that “theoretical explanations and empirical evidence indicated that restrictions regarding adopting CSIT by SHF in South Africa are often linked to gender-based barriers, lack of knowledge, and lack of access to farm resources and markets” when all this is known, why do authors are doing the same work again. I could not see the research gap and contribution of this study.

Response: We acknowledge reviewer #1. The statement on lines 92-100 stated, "The impact of CSIT can only be assessed once SHF starts to accept and adopt the technology [5]. However, theoretical explanations and empirical evidence indicated that restrictions regarding adopting CSIT by SHF in South Africa are often linked to gender-based barriers, lack of knowledge, and lack of access to farm resources and markets. The presented statement indicates restrictions regarding adopting the CSIT by smallholder farmers in South Africa. Although the information is available on the restrictions to the adoption of CSIT, limited studies have gone into detail and explored the restrictions. Furthermore, the presented study [Ntshangase et al., 2018] was only conducted to understand the perceptions of SHF in the KwaZulu Natal province; hence the current study conducted in the Limpopo province (Vhembe and Capricorn districts) will contribute to the stated gap.

 

• Comment 3: Authors need to add a description of the dependent and independent variables and add socio-economic, farm, village, and institutional variables in the model to explore determinants of adoption decisions.
• Response: We employed the multinomial logistic regression model based on the reviewer's suggestion. It is important to note that not all variables presented significant variations, hence only a few parameters are presented in Tables 5 and 9. Some of the parameters pointed out by the reviewer were not significantly different.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The study of water conservation through the adoption of climate-smart irrigation tecnologies is interesting and very current in the scientific community. Specifically, the development of territories and communities  depends on their ability to accept innovations. This manuscript is a good attempt to pursue this objective, with a good literature and methodology. The approach utilised to choose the geographical area of the study is clear, similarly to the company interviews and the processing of the data collected.

 Two useful literature references that could improve the paper:

1) Zema D.A., Filianoti P., D’Agostino D., Labate A., Lucas-Borja M.E., Nicotra A., Zimbone S.M. 2020. Analyzing the Performances of Water User Associations to Increase the Irrigation Sustainability: An Application of Multivariate Statistics to a Case Study in Italy. Sustainability (MDPI), 12(16): 6327. ISSN: 2071-1050. DOI: 10.3390/su12166327.

2) Fava N, Laganà VR, Nicolosi A. The Impact of COVID-19 on Municipal Food Markets: Resilience or Innovative Attitude? Journal of Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity. 2022; 8(2):87. https://doi.org/10.3390/joitmc8020087

One minor check: Chapter 2.2 states the temperature for exclusion from field surveys (anti-Covid19 measures) was 39.4C, and it seems a bit too high. 

The study has the potential to help public decision makers and stakeholders. The section on training programs is also very interesting.

 

Author Response

Reviewer #2:

• Comment 1: One minor check: Chapter 2.2 states the temperature for exclusion from field surveys (anti-Covid19 measures) was 39.4C, and it seems a bit too high.
• Response: The comment is acknowledged. The temperature has been changed to 37.4C.

Reviewer 3 Report

line 74  Irrigation methods are determined not only by agro-climatic and social conditions, but also by soil, natural (features of the wind regime, relief, etc.), agrobiological properties of cultivated agricultural crops (such as root system, moisture-loving, drought resistance, the need for fertilizing, sensitivity to weeds and diseases, etc.)

Line 78. 291 Mulching does not relate to irrigation technologies, it is an agrotechnical technique (production operation) used in agriculture.

Line 87.88 The introduction of technology may also be limited by access to financial and credit resources, the presence or absence of infrastructure, forms of ownership (land ownership), corruption.

Also it would be  great to present the administrative-territorial structure of the division of Limpopo province in the form of a table in which to indicate:

1. total area and area of agricultural land,

2. the number of people employed in the agricultural sector of the economy,

3. agricultural specialization and commercial products.

Present a table with weather-climatic, agrometeorological and soil indicators for the Limpopo province.

also nessesary to decide on the construction of a sample of objects, since two approaches are "mixed" in the text – agroecological zoning of the territory and administrative division of the territory. To present the selection criteria in the form of a table/diagram/diagram in the section "Sampling technique and data collection".

line 155 If agroecological zoning of the territory is selected, submit a map on agroecological zoning. 

Line 169 It mentions the methods of resource–saving agriculture (drip irrigation and rainwater harvesting), in addition, the title of the article talks about increasing crop yields, there is no information in the text about reducing production costs - and this is an integral condition of resource-saving agriculture.

Line 184-185 The section "Data analysis" refers to the processing of data to describe socio-economic barriers, which does not agree well with the title of the article and the lack of information in the text about the declared economic parameter (crop yield) and its processing. Economic indicators are reduced to consideration – loans, public financing, etc.

Author Response

Reviewer #3:

• Comment 1: line 74 Irrigation methods are determined not only by agro-climatic and social conditions but also by soil, natural (features of the wind regime, relief, etc.), agrobiological properties of cultivated agricultural crops (such as root system, moisture-loving, drought resistance, the need for fertilizing, sensitivity to weeds and diseases, etc.).
• Response: The comment is acknowledged. However, the definition provided in line 74 was selected because it provided a clear explanation for climate-smart irrigation technologies. Also, the source provides an acceptable reference for the manuscript. However, a paragraph has also been added to provide another explanation for climate-smart irrigation technologies.

 

• Comment 2: Line 78 Mulching does not relate to irrigation technologies, it is an agrotechnical technique (production operation) used in agriculture.
• Response: The mulching technique has been removed from the sentence.

 

• Comment 3: Also, it would be great to present the administrative-territorial structure of the division of Limpopo province in the form of a table in which to indicate: the total area and area of agricultural land, the number of people employed in the agricultural sector of the economy, agricultural specialization, and commercial products.
• Response: The comment is acknowledged with thanks. The information has been added under Table 2, and a paragraph in the text has been revised (Page 5 of 20) to give full information as per the suggestion of the reviewer.

 

• Comment 4: Present a table with weather-climatic, agrometeorological and soil indicators for the Limpopo province.
• Response: The information is presented in Tables 1 and 3. The paragraph text in the manuscript on pages 3, 4 and 5 has been added to provide more information.
• Comment 5: Also necessary to decide on the construction of a sample of objects since two approaches are "mixed" in the text – agroecological zoning of the territory and administrative division of the territory. To present the selection criteria in a table/diagram/diagram in the "Sampling technique and data collection" section.
• Response: The comment is acknowledged with thanks. The selection criteria have been presented in the form of a table (Table 4 on page 6).

 

• Comment 6: line 155 If agroecological zoning of the territory is selected, submit a map on agroecological zoning.
• Response: A map indicating the two districts (Vhembe and Capricorn) has been provided in the manuscript as Figure 1 (page 4). The coordinates of the two districts have also been added to give a full description of the study sites.

 

• Comment 7: Line 169 It mentions the methods of resource–saving agriculture (drip irrigation and rainwater harvesting), in addition, the title of the article talks about increasing crop yields, but there is no information in the text about reducing production costs - and this is an integral condition of resource-saving agriculture.
• Response: The comment is acknowledged with thanks. The manuscript is titled “Exploring the Barriers to the Adoption of Climate-smart Irrigation Technologies for Sustainable Crop Productivity by Smallholder farmers: Evidence from South Africa” We would like to explain that the sustainable crop productivity by smallholder farmers mentioned in the title does not refer to the experiments that were conducted on crops which will allow the authors to present data on crop yields. The title refers to the challenges that smallholder farmers are facing in the adoption of climate-smart irrigation technologies, which prohibit them from attaining increased yields. Some of the challenges and limitations explained in this study were obtained through a survey study, hence there is no information on crop yields.

 

 

• Comment 8: Line 184-185 The section "Data analysis" refers to the processing of data to describe socio-economic barriers, which does not agree well with the title of the article and the lack of information in the text about the declared economic parameter (crop yield) and its processing. Economic indicators are reduced to consideration – loans, public financing, etc.
• Response: The comment is acknowledged with thanks. To avoid any confusion, the term” socio-economic “ has been removed. To ensure that the statement agrees with the title.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The author (s) have incorporated all recommended changes.