Income Vulnerability of West African Farming Households to Losses in Pollination Services: A Case Study from Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso
, Marc Victor Hansen 2, Katharina Stein 3, Andreas Buerkert 1 and Wilhelm Loewenstein 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I read the manuscript by Stenchly et al " income vulnerability........". Manuscript has interesting ideas and lots of reviews about income vulnerability for WA farming. it has mentioned losses of pollination service is the factor of reducing household income. These kind of information required to understand the small holder farm and effect they have due to several factor. I appreciate author approach. I have some suggestions and questions to improve the manuscripts. Manuscript based on questionnaire survey and authors assumed lot extra ideas than actual interpretation. Author has mentioned did a questionnaire survey about productivity for the year 2018 and provided Household vulnerability index(HVI). I am wonder why there is no supplementary file provided for questionnaire they made to collect the data? As my understanding HVI index does-not makes sense for one year data if you are saying loses in household income due to losses or reduction of pollinator services. Productivity loss could be defined based on several year data instead single year even though author acknowledges the previous studies. I mean single year data do not tell anything except low fruit or seed production. This could be serval factor, eg. drought, shown seed or tuber might be affected by disease and so on except pollinator deficiency. Author need to be explicit to define and calculate these part. Every study wants to more inclined towards pollinators without understanding but I believe author might have pretty-well the rational. some of the ideas presented requried to suport by REFERENCE ln40-41: required REFERENCE. again in 41-41: add REFERENCE LN 49-54: first part required to support by REFERENCE and second of sentence is too confusing, better to split. ln77-86: required to revise. sentences ares too confusing. author said ln 116-130: farmer were questionnaire but I canot see any question what are they and how it was questioned? required to provide as supplementary file. Data need to upfront. ln 147: required ref for mathematical equation. It seems that ln 159 eq.1 has some problem. please recheck carefully. ln 266-270: said 3 household losses >50% income by total pollinator loss. I am reluctant to support the result just presenting without any proof and supporting evidence. questionnaire survey do not provide those total loss so required multiyear data on the same household and area. author required to be more careful while using pollinator and pollination service and reducing of productions. This could be solved mentioning that our questionnaire survey for single year shows that ...... instead. ln 302-306. little confusing. ln 338: if you are doing survey for 1 year than assumption is the only option. As I suggested above author required to change the presentation only based on survey without over interpreting their assumption. I can assume anything. somewhere else in the manuscript said that data were collected 2018 but again its said data in sup files are from 2016. I am not sure which is true. Table S1 is review paper only and does not seems data collected by author.
Author Response
Response on comments made by Reviewer I
Thank you for your valuable comments that helped to improve the manuscript. As mentioned in the cover note, your main points of criticism were copied and were answered in the following.
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | ( ) | (x) | ( ) | ( ) |
Response: In the context of our revision, we added the information that is needed to explicitly describe our sampling design and the used methods. Particularly the missing information about the year from which our data originate was incorporated into the manuscript where required. Corrections can be found in line 119, 123, 154 and 331 as well as in supplementary material Table S1 and Table S2.
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
I read the manuscript by Stenchly et al " income vulnerability........". Manuscript has interesting ideas and lots of reviews about income vulnerability for WA farming. it has mentioned losses of pollination service is the factor of reducing household income. These kind of information required to understand the small holder farm and effect they have due to several factor. I appreciate author approach. I have some suggestions and questions to improve the manuscripts. Manuscript based on questionnaire survey and authors assumed lot extra ideas than actual interpretation.
Reviewer comment: Author has mentioned did a questionnaire survey about productivity for the year 2018 and provided Household vulnerability index(HVI). I am wonder why there is no supplementary file provided for questionnaire they made to collect the data? As my understanding HVI index does-not makes sense for one year data if you are saying loses in household income due to losses or reduction of pollinator services. Productivity loss could be defined based on several year data instead single year even though author acknowledges the previous studies. I mean single year data do not tell anything except low fruit or seed production. This could be serval factor, eg. drought, shown seed or tuber might be affected by disease and so on except pollinator deficiency. Author need to be explicit to define and calculate these part. Every study wants to more inclined towards pollinators without understanding but I believe author might have pretty-well the rational.
Response: Indeed, we missed to clearly communicate that collected household and production data originate from the year 2015, hence from the previous year to the actual data collection in 2016. The missing information about the year from which our data originate was incorporated into the manuscript where necessary. Corrections can be found in line 119, 123, 154 and 331 as well as in supplementary material Table S1 and Table S2.
As correctly stated by the reviewer, ideally a household vulnerability index should be determined from a set of data collected either over many consecutive years or at regular intervals. However, a well-founded data basis regarding the importance of pollinators at household level by integrating socio-economic aspects, especially in West African countries, is factually not available. This makes it all the more important that our approach was extensively discussed with regard to its application possibilities and limitations, with reference to the importance of further investigations in order to best determine the HH vulnerability of West African farmers in this region. Furthermore, we are aware of the fact that our study constitutes only a snapshot in time and of the region – which is why we have tried to discuss our approach critically, but with the intention to evaluate it as a possible step for further studies that are related to urbanization and agricultural intensification in West African countries.
Reviewer comment: Some of the ideas presented requried to suport by REFERENCE ln40-41: required REFERENCE. again in 41-41: add REFERENCE LN 49-54: first part required to support by REFERENCE
Response: To support our introduction regarding the impact of pollinator decline in developing countries facing fast urbanization rates and uncontrolled agricultural intensification we referred to the work of Novais et al. 2016 as well as Timberlake & Morgan 2018 (line 43, 44).
Reviewer comment: …and second of sentence is too confusing, better to split. ln77-86: required to revise. sentences ares too confusing.
Response: We made corrections accordingly and deleted the second part of the sentence as is does not contain any further information needed to support our study.
Reviewer comment: …author said ln 116-130: farmer were questionnaire but I canot see any question what are they and how it was questioned? required to provide as supplementary file.
Response: To complement our research and to give readers a comprehensive picture of our methods, we added an additional Table as supplementary material (Table S1). This table constitutes a summary of collected data and posed questions at individual-based interviews during the survey to evaluate income vulnerability of farming households to losses in pollination services in rural, peri-urban and urban areas of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. Tables S1 of the former version has now changed to Table S2.
Reviewer comment: Data need to upfront. ln 147: required ref for mathematical equation.
Response: The missing reference was added (line 147) that confirms firstly, an appropriate usage of the applied categorization of crops’ dependency on insect pollination service and secondly, the applicability of our method.
Reviewer comment: It seems that ln 159 eq.1 has some problem. please recheck carefully.
Response: Equation 1 showing the Household Production Function was corrected.
Reviewer comment: ln 266-270: said 3 household losses >50% income by total pollinator loss. I am reluctant to support the result just presenting without any proof and supporting evidence. questionnaire survey do not provide those total loss so required multiyear data on the same household and area. author required to be more careful while using pollinator and pollination service and reducing of productions. This could be solved mentioning that our questionnaire survey for single year shows that ...... instead.
Response: We made corrections accordingly and added further results that complement the number of households that were classified to be strongly affected by considering now moderately affected households. The paragraph was changed to: “Nevertheless, from the 224 interviewed HHs in and around Ouagadougou, only three urban HHs could be classified as strongly affected as they would lose more than 50% of their household income by total pollinator loss. Further 20 HHs that were also mainly active in urban open-space farming could be classified as moderately affected as they would lose between 20 and 50% of their household income by total pollinator loss. Except for HH location, no other factors such as number of income sources, crop diversity or household age dependency ratio correlated with the HVI for pollinator loss.”
Reviewer comment: ln 302-306. little confusing.
Response: We rephrased the paragraph to increase readability.
Reviewer comment: ln 338: if you are doing survey for 1 year than assumption is the only option. As I suggested above author required to change the presentation only based on survey without over interpreting their assumption. I can assume anything. somewhere else in the manuscript said that data were collected 2018 but again its said data in sup files are from 2016.
Response: Indeed, we missed to clearly communicate that collected household and production data originate from the year 2015, hence from the previous year to the actual data collection in 2016. At this point we would like to refer you to the second response of our letter.
Reviewer comment: I am not sure which is true. Table S1 is review paper only and does not seems data collected by author.
Response: The assumption that Table S1 (now Table S2) consist of literature data and not collected data is true. We consider it useful to indicate the pollinator dependency of each crop type to the readers and to provide them with corresponding literature. We would like to point out that after our corrections Table S1 is now Table S2.
Reviewer 2 Report
Very well written and intersting study. Good use of the Urban-Rural Index
latin name for millet is missing
Author Response
Response on comments made by Reviewer II
Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the manuscript. As mentioned in the cover note, your main points of criticism were copied and were answered in the following.
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Very well written and intersting study. Good use of the Urban-Rural Index
Reviewer comment: Latin name for millet is missing
Response: The scientific name of millet is provided within the sentence in line 51 when it was firstly mentioned within the main text. “However, with the shift in agricultural land use from crops that do not rely on insect pollinators for fruit and seed development such as sorghum (Sorghum bicolor Moench), millet (Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.) and maize (Zea mays L.) towards crops in which pollinating insects contribute significantly to fruit quantity and quality, it is expected that WA farmers’ livelihoods and food security will be increasingly affected by future losses in biodiversity [5].” Throughout the manuscript: each crop species is only named with its scientific name at the first occurrence. In the following we only refer to the common name for better understanding.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have presented a commendable study, understanding the income vulnerability index in West African farming households, in response to the loss in pollination services. The work is thorough and well studied. The caveats of the methodology have also been well discussed. I just have a few minor suggestions:
1. Please include recent citations to draw parallel conclusions in the introduction/discussion sections (for e.g.: Samuel M. A. Novais et al. 2016 PLoS ONE) for countries where rapid urbanization is posing a major threat to pollination services and subsequently making the crop-dependent households vulnerable.
2. Some of the thorough survey data by the authors may also draw similar analyses or conclusions based on other studies like Barbara Smith et al. Biological Conservation 2017.
3. L255 – L260 Please either rephrase to suit the results section or please move it to discussion.
Author Response
Response on comments made by Reviewer III
Thank you for taking the time and energy to help us improve the manuscript. As mentioned in the cover note, your main points of criticism were copied and were answered in the following.
English language and style
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style
Yes | Can be improved | Must be improved | Not applicable | |
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Is the research design appropriate? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the methods adequately described? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the results clearly presented? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Are the conclusions supported by the results? | (x) | ( ) | ( ) | ( ) |
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The authors have presented a commendable study, understanding the income vulnerability index in West African farming households, in response to the loss in pollination services. The work is thorough and well studied. The caveats of the methodology have also been well discussed. I just have a few minor suggestions:
Reviewer comment: Please include recent citations to draw parallel conclusions in the introduction/discussion sections (for e.g.: Samuel M. A. Novais et al. 2016 PLoS ONE) for countries where rapid urbanization is posing a major threat to pollination services and subsequently making the crop-dependent households vulnerable.
Response: In the context of our revision, we referred to the work of Novais et al. 2016 as well as of Timberlake & Morgan 2018 (line 43, 44). Thank you for the advice.
Reviewer comment: Some of the thorough survey data by the authors may also draw similar analyses or conclusions based on other studies like Barbara Smith et al. Biological Conservation 2017.
Response: After reading the work conducted by Barbara Smith, we agree to implement her research into our discussion/introduction part particularly regarding the applied method that future research on farmers’ household vulnerability in fast urbanizing countries with uncontrolled agricultural intensification should be considered.
Reviewer comment: L255 – L260 Please either rephrase to suit the results section or please move it to discussion.
Response: Indeed, this sentence already slightly discusses the data presented here. Hence, we have moved this sentence to the discussion section (line 320) according to your suggestion.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
author clarified my previous questions and improved the mansucript
