Status of Farmland Abandonment and Its Determinants in the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Farmland abandonment is a very important topic that affects many countries around the world. It is worth noting that the article is written at a very high scientific level. The structure of the article is very clear. Research material suitable. Research methods (statistics) appropriately selected for the conducted research.
Author Response
Author(s) response: Thank you very much for your valuable appreciation for our work.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your submission on the problem of farmland abandonment in Gandaki River Basin which is a pressing issue for regional sustainability. Overall your topic is interesting, and you have conducted many surveys and collected very valuable data, however, some important aspects were omitted, I would require the following major changes:
In the introduction part, you reviewed some previous studies and determinants of farmland abandonment, but it was not clear for research gaps and significance of your study. In addition, you should specify your research questions and objectives clearly. And a brief description of the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin is appropriate for covering the research gaps. Since this journal is about “sustainability”, you should also mention that in the abstract and introduction: how does your research can meet the scope of this journal?
In the methodology,you should firstly describe that how the study villages can represent the conditions of farmland abandonment in each physiographic region as it is considered that there are also some variations within the region. Secondly, you should also tell us why a binary logistic regression (BLR) is suitable for your study, it seems like that because other scholars are using, and you just follow them. That is not persuasive at all. Thirdly, how you selected your variables for your model is also not clear. In studies conducted in other countries, variables depicting the attractiveness of non-agricultural sectors such as labor market (large numbers of non-agricultural enterprises, salaries.) are also significant. And other information including soil conditions, climatic information, etc. If the authors have access to data depicted above, it is highly recommended to add such variables and repeat the statistical procedure. However, if do not have access to such data, you should mention it and present argumentation in favor of limitation of variables for this study.
The discussion part is overall descriptive and lacks in-depth discussions. Authors divided the research areas into 4 regional parts in Figure 1. Authors aware that this division is effective for analysis. Therefore, the discussion should focus on this division and try to focus on their similarities and differences regarding determinants of farmland abandonment. The authors also presented people’s perceptions regarding farmland abandonment, so, what are the differences between people’s perceptions and your statistical results of farmland abandonment driving forces? That would be much more significant and interesting.
Based on the above revised discussions, it is also suggested to rewrite your conclusion. In the conclusion part, firstly briefly indicate the most important findings in terms of their implications and impacts. Secondly, add more detailed recommendations for future policies to manage farmland abandonment.
Your writing style and language suffer from serious problems. Try to use the phrases such as: firstly, secondly, thirdly, finally at etc. which will make your paper easier to read and with logic. Be careful of your tense, subjects and selecting of verbs at etc. I have found tremendous grammar mistakes in the manuscript, I suggest you to go through a professional English language proofreading otherwise language is a big issue for publication.
E.g. Line 22has should be – have, line 24 factor should be – factors, also, line 31 relationship should be – relationships
Line 27household head lack of training should be – lack of training for household head because lack is a verb
Line 30 you use in contrast,but the sentence did not exhibit any transition relationship to the previous contents, you mentioned close distance to market centers have positive relationship to farmland abandonment. It should be distance to market centers?
There are more language problems and I have no time to point all of them out, please revise carefully.
7.Small remarks:
Please add statistics descriptive information in your Table 2, such as mean, max, min, S.D. at etc. of your variables.There is no information about the time range concerning variables. It can be done either in the title or for each variable.
There are some overlap of figure contents and formulas in Figure 2, please revise it and make it easier to read.
Please check the total percentage of Hill regions in Fig. 3 as it does not equal to 100%in total.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Thank you for your submission on the problem of farmland abandonment in Gandaki River Basin which is a pressing issue for regional sustainability. Overall your topic is interesting, and you have conducted many surveys and collected very valuable data, however, some important aspects were omitted, I would require the following major changes:
In the introduction part, you reviewed some previous studies and determinants of farmland abandonment, but it was not clear for research gaps and significance of your study. In addition, you should specify your research questions and objectives clearly. And a brief description of the Transboundary Gandaki River Basin is appropriate for covering the research gaps. Since this journal is about “sustainability”, you should also mention that in the abstract and introduction: how does your research can meet the scope of this journal?
Author(s) response: The processes and the drivers of land abandonment are diverse and vary with time and space. Though a few studies have been carried out, they are focused on specific time and area. In order to capture the variation in the processes and drivers by time and space, an understanding of the processes and the drivers covering different biophysical and socioeconomic contexts is needed. The study aims to capture the variation in the processes and drivers in different physiographic regions in the Gandaki River Basin. In order to understand the farmland abandonment processes, this study covers four different physiographic regions (Mountain, Hill, Tarai, and Gangetic Plain). The results and findings of this work would help to design strategies for sustainable utilization of agricultural land and improve the level of production and reduce the problem of food insecurity.
Sustainability journal is cross-disciplinary covers the issues on environmental, cultural, economic, and social sustainability of human beings and overall sustainable development. Our study also covers the environment as well as human beings, livelihoods, and social phenomenon, which meets the scope of the journal.
In the methodology, you should firstly describe that how the study villages can represent the conditions of farmland abandonment in each physiographic region as it is considered that there are also some variations within the region. Secondly, you should also tell us why a binary logistic regression (BLR) is suitable for your study, it seems like that because other scholars are using, and you just follow them. That is not persuasive at all. Thirdly, how you selected your variables for your model is also not clear. In studies conducted in other countries, variables depicting the attractiveness of non-agricultural sectors such as labor market (large numbers of non-agricultural enterprises, salaries.) are also significant. And other information including soil conditions, climatic information, etc. If the authors have access to data depicted above, it is highly recommended to add such variables and repeat the statistical procedure. However, if do not have access to such data, you should mention it and present argumentation in favor of limitation of variables for this study.
Author(s) response: This study adopts multi-stage sampling methods. Firstly, all physiographic regions in the study area were considered and each physiographic region was taken as a separate unit for further sampling. Secondly, in each physiographic region, we selected at least 2-4 sample villages purposively. The criteria for the selection of village for household survey was the size of cultivated land in the village. The village having a relatively large size of cultivated land were selected. The size of cultivated land was estimated based on the land use and land cover map prepared for GRB and Google Earth images. Keeping in view this minimum threshold for sample size, quota sampling with size ranging from 40 to 56 depending on the total number of households in the village was fixed. The household for the interview was selected randomly.
The dependent, as well as most of the independent variables were dichotomous (yes or no). Only a few variables have a continuous number. So binary logistic regression is appropriate to examine the association among independent and dependent variables. Some of the variables which were found important by the studies in the past such as soil conditions, climatic information, and labor markets are not included in the regression model. Due to a time limit and far distances, we did not visit all the abandoned farmland to obtain soil information. The climate change information perceived by farmers have discussed in farmers’ perception sections (section 3.3 and 4.3). Regarding the labor market, we focused only on foreign employment and remittances.
The discussion part is overall descriptive and lacks in-depth discussions. Authors divided the research areas into 4 regional parts in Figure 1. Authors aware that this division is effective for analysis. Therefore, the discussion should focus on this division and try to focus on their similarities and differences regarding determinants of farmland abandonment. The authors also presented people’s perceptions regarding farmland abandonment, so, what are the differences between people’s perceptions and your statistical results of farmland abandonment driving forces? That would be much more significant and interesting.
Author(s) response: In the current version of the manuscript, we have analyzed based on physiographic region. In addition, we have also revised the discussion section and presented the farmers’ perception and model analysis.
Based on the above revised discussions, it is also suggested to rewrite your conclusion. In the conclusion part, firstly briefly indicate the most important findings in terms of their implications and impacts. Secondly, add more detailed recommendations for future policies to manage farmland abandonment.
Author(s) response: We have addressed your suggestions in the conclusion section in this current version of the manuscript.
Your writing style and language suffer from serious problems. Try to use the phrases such as: firstly, secondly, thirdly, finally at etc. which will make your paper easier to read and with logic. Be careful of your tense, subjects and selecting of verbs at etc. I have found tremendous grammar mistakes in the manuscript, I suggest you to go through a professional English language proofreading otherwise language is a big issue for publication.
Author(s) response: We have revised our language and grammatical errors by native English speaker in this current version of the manuscript.
E.g. Line 22 has should be – have, line 24 factor should be – factors, also, line 31 relationship should be – relationships
Author(s) response: Now we have edited these lines.
Line 27 household head lack of training should be – lack of training for hashousehold head because lack is a verb
Author(s) response: Now we have edited this line.
Line 30 you use in contrast, but the sentence did not exhibit any transition relationship to the previous contents, you mentioned close distance to market centers have positive relationship to farmland abandonment. It should be distance to market centers?
Author(s) response: Now we have edited these sentences in the current manuscript.
There are more language problems and I have no time to point all of them out, please revise carefully.
Author(s) response: We have revised our language and grammatical errors in this current version of the manuscript.
Small remarks:Please add statistics descriptive information in your Table 2, such as mean, max, min, S.D. at etc. of your variables. There is no information about the time range concerning variables. It can be done either in the title or for each variable.
Author(s) response: Since many of the variables do not have a continuous number. It is in yes=1, no=0. There is no meaning for presenting mean, max, and SD in Table 2.
There are some overlap of figure contents and formulas in Figure 2, please revise it and make it easier to read.
Author(s) response: We have revised in the current manuscript.
Please check the total percentage of Hill regions in Fig. 3 as it does not equal to 100%in total.
Author(s) response: Thank you very much for showing errors. The data level is showing the total number of household. Now we have edited text of Figure 3.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
This study provides an interesting look into farmland abandonment in the Gandaki River Basin. The paper is well organized, with an exhaustive description of results and well argued discussion.
I have only some specific comments reported in the following:
Lines 97-98
Of course, 36% + 36 % is 72% precisely. The same information in one sentence.
Line 103
Please add a reference to the physiographic map.
Lines 116-121
Systematic random sample or simple random sample was used?
Lines 117-118
What percentage of households was covered by the survey?
What are the selection criteria for 12 villages from different regions?
Line 133
Could you put the general number of households in each village into the table 1?
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
This study provides an interesting look into farmland abandonment in the Gandaki River Basin. The paper is well organized, with an exhaustive description of results and well argued discussion.
I have only some specific comments reported in the following:
Lines 97-98
Of course, 36% + 36 % is 72% precisely. The same information in one sentence.
Author(s) response: Thank you very much for pointing out English error in lines 97-98. We edited this sentences and removed the repetition in the current version of the manuscript.
Line 103
Please add a reference to the physiographic map.
Author(s) response: Currently we have added references for the physiographic division of Nepal and India.
Lines 116-121
Systematic random sample or simple random sample was used?
Author(s) response: For the household selection, we followed simple random sampling methods in this study.
Lines 117-118
What percentage of households was covered by the survey?
Author(s) response: Based on the total household of the selected village, this study covers between 15% and 28% sample household in the different physiographic region.
What are the selection criteria for 12 villages from different regions?
Author(s) response:
Firstly, all physiographic regions in the GRB were considered and each physiographic region was taken as a separate unit for further sampling. Secondly, in each physiographic region, we selected at least 2-4 villages purposively. The criteria for the selection of village for household survey was the size of cultivated land in the village. The village has a relatively large size of cultivated land were selected. The size of cultivated land was estimated based on the land use and land cover map of the study area and Google Earth images. Finally, we conducted simple random sampling methods to select the household for the questionnaire survey. We have mentioned in the current version of the manuscript.
Line 133
Could you put the general number of households in each village into the table 1?
Author(s) response: According to focus group discussion, each selected villages regard tentative between 200 and 380 households. These households are vary based on physiographic region (mentioned in table 1).
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Although the revised manuscript has shown some improvement, it is still required the following revision.
In the revised manuscript, the authors indicated that the research gaps are to capture the variation in the processes and drives by time and space. If so, please show your hypothesis (in other words, what is the mechanism) to explain the variation of farmland abandonment by time and space. The lack of this part also makes the discussion very difficult to understand and impossible to know what are the new findings by your research work. In addition, the reason for selecting Gandaki River Basin is not convincing enough. At least, you need to explain the following two points. First, why the division (Mountain, Hill, Tarai, Gangetic Plain) in GRB is an effective way to explain the spatial variation of abandonment. Second, as the GRB straddles the border between Nepal and India, which is also considered that the ownership, physical conditions of land and so on are different between Nepal and India. So please explain why it is important to analyze the spatial variation of land abandonment by selecting a cross-border region. The authors indicated that the criteria for selecting the sample villages is due to the large size of cultivated land in the villages. It is different from the typical method to select villages with a high abandonment rate. So, please specify the advantages to select the sample villages based on your criteria. Still, your discussion part is not well structured. The main reason is that the authors only repeat the results and lack the connections to other important theories and findings. This is also due to the lack of hypothesis in the introduction part as I mentioned. For example, the authors listed up a lot of previous findings and similarities with their results. However, they should focus more on the differences and why such differences exist in the study areas. And lastly, add some specific policies implication to suggest better management of farmland abandonment. So, I strongly recommend the authors to revise the introduction and discussion parts. There are also some small remarks on the discussion. First, the references of the condition of farmland abandonment in mountainous regions of China, Eastern Europe, Sothern Scandinavia in 4.1 have nothing to do with the description of the Mountainous region in GRB as the physical conditions are considered to be totally different. The same question (the references of southwest China, Japan, EU, and so on) can also be seen in the description of Hill region. Second, if the results between farmers’ perception and model analysis are similar, I cannot understand what does it mean in this manuscript to do the same thing twice. Abandon farmland, abandoned land, land abandonment, agricultural land abandonment, farmland abandonments (can you have s in this terminology) have been mixed, please check and unify them by using one terminology if they are the same thing. You still have English language mistakes, please go through the whole pages by PROFESSIONAL experts carefully. (E.g. line 125: before conduct – before conducting; line 129: I cannot imagine there are two verbs in this sentence; line 279: no verbs in your sentence)Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments
Although the revised manuscript has shown some improvement, it is still required the following revision.
In the revised manuscript, the authors indicated that the research gaps are to capture the variation in the processes and drives by time and space. If so, please show your hypothesis (in other words, what is the mechanism) to explain the variation of farmland abandonment by time and space. The lack of this part also makes the discussion very difficult to understand and impossible to know what are the new findings by your research work.
Author(s) response: In the manuscript, the hypothesis are analyzed with the help of Table 2. Further, in the revised version of the manuscript, we have separately discussed the trend and drivers of farmland abandonments by each physiographic region.
In addition, the reason for selecting Gandaki River Basin is not convincing enough. At least, you need to explain the following two points. First, why the division (Mountain, Hill, Tarai, Gangetic Plain) in GRB is an effective way to explain the spatial variation of abandonment. Second, as the GRB straddles the border between Nepal and India, which is also considered that the ownership, physical conditions of land and so on are different between Nepal and India. So please explain why it is important to analyze the spatial variation of land abandonment by selecting a cross-border region.
Author(s) response: The physiographic region of Nepal and India is divided mainly based on landform characteristics, altitude, climatic zone, and river relief. Therefore, each region is unique due to diverse landforms, different agricultural practices, and socio-economic characteristics of the people. Tarai (low plain/flat area of Nepal) and GP (India) region are similar in bio-physical context but, the socio-economic context, as well as the policies, legislation and governance systems, are completely different within two countries. Therefore, there is spatial variation of farmland abandonment and its drivers are different based on physiographic region.
The authors indicated that the criteria for selecting the sample villages is due to the large size of cultivated land in the villages. It is different from the typical method to select villages with a high abandonment rate. So, please specify the advantages to select the sample villages based on your criteria. Still, your discussion part is not well structured. The main reason is that the authors only repeat the results and lack the connections to other important theories and findings. This is also due to the lack of hypothesis in the introduction part as I mentioned. For example, the authors listed up a lot of previous findings and similarities with their results. However, they should focus more on the differences and why such differences exist in the study areas. And lastly, add some specific policies implication to suggest better management of farmland abandonment. So, I strongly recommend the authors to revise the introduction and discussion parts.
Farmland abandonment is a very common phenomenon in the GRB and increasing trend, and less likely to reuse abandoned farmland in the future. Therefore, suitable land use policies, programs and practices could be fundamentals for restoring and minimize farmland abandonment in the future. There is physical and social diversity within the GRB, therefore, some specific policy should be developed based on physiographic region. The agroforestry practices and increase taxation for abandoned farmland may reuse the abandoned farmland in Hill and Mountain region. In the GP region, drought tolerance crops, drip irrigation, crop diversification seems a more effective way to control farmland abandonment. In addition, groundwater also a potential source for irrigation in the water scare villages of the GP region.
There are also some small remarks on the discussion. First, the references of the condition of farmland abandonment in mountainous regions of China, Eastern Europe, Sothern Scandinavia in 4.1 have nothing to do with the description of the Mountainous region in GRB as the physical conditions are considered to be totally different. The same question (the references of southwest China, Japan, EU, and so on) can also be seen in the description of Hill region. Second, if the results between farmers’ perception and model analysis are similar, I cannot understand what does it mean in this manuscript to do the same thing twice.
Author(s) response: We have revised discussion as well as other parts to address the aforementioned suggestion.
Abandon farmland, abandoned land, land abandonment, agricultural land abandonment, farmland abandonments (can you haves in this terminology) have been mixed, please check and unify them by using one terminology if they are the same thing.
Author(s) response: We have consistently used the word farmland in the revised manuscript.
You still have English language mistakes, please go through the whole pages by PROFESSIONAL experts carefully. (E.g. line 125: before conduct – before conducting; line 129: I cannot imagine there are two verbs in this sentence; line 279: no verbs in your sentence).
Author(s) response: To utilize valuable suggestions from the reviewer, we have carefully corrected such language errors in the revised version of the manuscript and the revised manuscript also polished by the professional. We have corrected line 125, 129, and 279.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised manuscript has been largely improved for the introduction and material parts; it is still required some minor revisions.
As I mentioned previously, for discussion parts the authors should focus more on their new findings and explain why such differences exist for their research. For example, it is obvious that in different physiographic regions, there might be distinctive determinants of abandonment. Therefore, to explain the mechanisms of farmland abandonment become more attractive and interesting.
I strongly suggest restructuring the conclusion part. The authors should not just list up their findings or results, but more general conclusions that can be applied to other regions of the global should be refined and presented. Using words such as “first, second, third at etc.” to make your conclusions easier to understand and with logic.
Your English still suffers problems of “Agreement between subject and verbs”, please go through the whole manuscript and revise carefully.
In the whole texts, you should use farmland abandonment consistently, replace “farmland abandonments” or “farmland abandon”
Line 162 to 164: denotes-denote
Line 193: line indicate-lines indicate
line 219: delete ‘are’
line 300: low-lower
line 303: delete ‘were’
line 384: water scare area-water scarce area
line 398, 401: left abandon-left abandoned
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The revised manuscript has been largely improved for the introduction and material parts; it is still required some minor revisions.
Author(s) response: Thank you very much for your appreciation for our work. We have carefully revised reviewer suggestions and comments one by one.
As I mentioned previously, for discussion parts the authors should focus more on their new findings and explain why such differences exist for their research. For example, it is obvious that in different physiographic regions, there might be distinctive determinants of abandonment. Therefore, to explain the mechanisms of farmland abandonment become more attractive and interesting.
Author(s) response: We have highlighted our new findings by adding some sentences in revised version of the manuscript.
I strongly suggest restructuring the conclusion part. The authors should not just list up their findings or results, but more general conclusions that can be applied to other regions of the global should be refined and presented. Using words such as “first, second, third at etc.” to make your conclusions easier to understand and with logic.
Author(s) response: We have restructured the conclusion part highlighting general conclusions with some examples using words first, second, third etc. as suggested.
Your English still suffers problems of “Agreement between subject and verbs”, please go through the whole manuscript and revise carefully.
Author(s) response: We have revised and edited the English, grammar problems in this current version of the manuscript.
In the whole texts, you should use farmland abandonment consistently, replace “farmland abandonments” or “farmland abandon”
Author(s) response: we have corrected farmland abandonment in the whole texts for consistency.
Line 162 to 164: denotes-denote
Line 193: line indicate-lines indicate
line 219: delete ‘are’
line 300: low-lower
line 303: delete ‘were’
line 384: water scare area-water scarce area
line 398, 401: left abandon-left abandoned
Author(s) response: We have corrected all these lines (from 162 to 401) in the revised manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
