Climate Change Adaptation in the Delta Nile Region of Egypt: Implications for Agricultural Extension
, Fahd O. Aldosri 1,* and Gary S. Straquadine 3Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Sustainability Manuscript: Climate Change Adaptation in the Delta Nile Region of Egypt: Implications for Agricultural Extension
General Comments:
The study uses mixed methods to investigate farmers’ and extension workers’ awareness levels of adaptive measures to climate change and its implications for agricultural extension at micro-, meso-, and macro-levels in Egypt. Below I provide modest suggestions that I hope improve the manuscript.
Specific Comments:
1. Introduction – The introduction focuses more on the discussion of adaptation measures on climate change; it does not discuss the role agricultural extension plays in the climate change adaptation in general. Discuss it briefly.
Cite previous studies that looked at the issues addressed in the present study, i.e., the role of agricultural extension services in climate change adaptation in the region, and Egypt in particular. Discuss what was not so good in those studies, in what ways this study differs from them, and whether (and if so why) you present a better approach/methodology than those studies. Do you provide further insights that the previous case studies could not? If so, elaborate and discuss why.
It will also help to provide a background of the agricultural extension in Egypt. Discuss/describe each target stakeholder as well.
2. Research Framework – Figure 2 is not clear. Is this some kind of a theory of change? Briefly discuss each component and how it relates to the other component. For example, differentiate the three levels of climate change adaptation required – macro, meso and micro. What do you mean by “environmental practices”?
3. Lines 186-187. How are the 59 extension workers in the two governorates selected? Are they randomly selected?
4. Line 189-191. What are the “main results” that were discussed from the workshop? Not clear. Are these the results of the farmer survey?
5. Lines 192-194. How are the eight directors of extension who participate in the focus group discussions selected?
6. Lines 194-196. How are the participants selected? Is this complete enumeration?
7. Lines 205-209. Briefly explain what a binary logistic regression model is. You can use an equation to do this.
What is the dependent variable (Y) and what value does it take? What does adoption of on-farm adaptation strategies mean? How many adaptation strategies are there? Does this mean if a farmer adopts, he/she adopts one or more adaptation strategies? Have you considered stratifying by the number of strategies adopted?
Also, explain how the independent variables (X) in Table 1 affect adoption of adaptation measures. For example, education is plausibly related to adoption. Higher education may enable the farmer to better process the information provided by different sources such as extension agent.
Farmer’s awareness of climate change and sources of climate change information may also influence his/her decision to adopt adaptation measures. It would also be interesting to see (if there is any) effect of extension x assistance/info received from extension visit(s).
Gender and household size may also play a role in adoption.
Have you tried including these variables into your model?
8. Lines 222-223. Why do you think that smallholder farmers are less likely to adopt adaptation measures?
9. Lines 233-234. Table 2. Summary statistics by governorate? See presentations of results in other tables which are by governorate. Be consistent.
Alternatively, you can present the mean and standard deviation instead of the distribution of farmers based on socio-economic characteristics, by governorate and then by total of all respondents.
In Table 1, education is defined as the “number of years of formal education” of a farmer. How do you categorize “education” in Table 2 then? What is “Basic education”? I would assume that those who have “basic education” and have attended “secondary school” can “read and write”. Clarify.
10. Lines 240-245. Not clear (at least to me). Why do you think that farmers in Kafr-El-Sheikh have better knowledge of climate change? Have you checked if this difference is statistically different from each other? What could explain the governorate-specific effect? Elaborate more on that and clarify the arguments.
11. Lines 255-256. How did the farmers choose the answer to the question related to sources of information? Did they only choose one? Or farmers chose multiple answers? It is possible that farmers have multiple sources of information.
12. Lines 258-260. Again, what could explain the governorate-specific effect?
13. Lines 266-267. Table 4. Add columns for TOTAL.
Does “decreased productivity of the crops” mean “decrease in yield” here?
What does the “Mean” indicate? Or is this percentage of adopters who are actually aware of a specific adverse effect?
Not clear to me how the “Total” is calculated and its interpretation. Also, how do you interpret the “Overall mean”? Clarify.
14. Lines 289-290. Table 5. Present the results by governorate, then by total, for consistency.
15. Lines 316-318. Table 6. Include number of observations, and columns for TOTAL. How do you interpret the mean? Is it the average number of practices practiced by farmers?
Also, is membership to the WUA an adaptation practice? Why and how? I would think that membership in an organization is one of the factors that could affect the decision of farmer’s to adopt technologies (Y), hence membership to WUA is an independent variable (X).
16. Lines 327-328. Table 7. The governorate-specific effect is not captured in the model (Refer to comment #10). Have you tried running the model by governorate first? And then run the model using the whole sample size, controlling for governorate? See comments #7 for other independent variables that can be included in the model.
17. Lines 329-361. Discussion of Table 7 results. Isn’t the question whether or not agricultural extension has an impact on the decision of farmers to adopt? If this is the case, shouldn’t the initial discussion focus on the adoption of strategies associated with extension? After that is established, then the other information can appear.
How many farmers do not adopt at all any of the adaptation practices? This relates to comment #7. Define adoption and show the summary statistics for this. Did you ask farmers their reasons for non-adoption?
18. Lines 358-361. The arguments are not clear. If “farmers with access to extension services have an edge in adopting strategies of adaptation”, why does it reflect “low effect of extension services”? Many studies show that interaction with extension services positively affect farmer’s technology adoption decisions (see Kilpatrick, 1996; Garforth et al. 2003; Pan et al. 2018). As Table 5 also indicates, farmer’s awareness of climate change and extension service are positively related.
In your study, why do you think extension service has no effect on the decision of farmers to adopt? Did you ask about the topics/issues covered during extension visits? Were farmers satisfied with the on-farm demonstrations they attended? What were those on-farm demonstrations about? What were the trainings conducted/attended? Did the extension agents conduct the trainings themselves? Were the number of extension meetings the same as the training sessions attended? Why did you treat it as one? Were training sessions held during extension meetings? Discuss in more detail the independent variables used in the model.
The results should be interpreted with caution given the method used may underestimate the benefits of extension engagement. There might be endogeneity concerns in the analysis. For example, how are the farmer-participants in the training or on-farm demonstrations selected? It is possible that more capable farmers are more likely to attend on-farm demonstrations and trainings. Hence, extension has no effect on the decision of farmers to adopt. What factors affect the decision of farmers to engage in extension services? What are the possible factors contributing to the failure of the extension service to affect farmers’ decision to adopt strategies?
19. Lines 419-420. Table 8. Include number of observations (n), and columns for total (for both governorates).
Literature Cited
Kilpatrick, S. (1996) “Change, Training and Farm Profitability” Canberra: National Farmers’ Federation.
Garforth, C., et al. (2003). "Fragmentation or creative diversity? Options in the provision of land management advisory services." Land Use Policy 20(4): 323-333.
Pan, Y., et al. (2018). “Agricultural extension and technology adoption for food security:
evidence from Uganda.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 100(4): 1012-1031.
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments | Response |
Reviewer 1 | |
Introduction – The introduction focuses more on the discussion of adaptation measures on climate change; it does not discuss the role agricultural extension plays in the climate change adaptation in general. Discuss it briefly. | We added new paragraph about that in the introduction. |
Cite previous studies that looked at the issues addressed in the present study, i.e., the role of agricultural extension services in climate change adaptation in the region, and Egypt in particular. Discuss what was not so good in those studies, in what ways this study differs from them, and whether (and if so why) you present a better approach/methodology than those studies. Do you provide further insights that the previous case studies could not? If so, elaborate and discuss why. | We added new paragraph about that in the introduction. |
It will also help to provide a background of the agricultural extension in Egypt. Discuss/describe each target stakeholder as well. | We added new paragraph about that in the introduction. |
Research Framework – Figure 2 is not clear. Is this some kind of a theory of change? Briefly discuss each component and how it relates to the other component. For example, differentiate the three levels of climate change adaptation required – macro, meso and micro. What do you mean by “environmental practices”? | We relate the research frame work with review of literature for more clarification. |
Lines 186-187. How are the 59 extension workers in the two governorates selected? Are they randomly selected? | The method for selection was clarified in the methodology. |
Line 189-191. What are the “main results” that were discussed from the workshop? Not clear. Are these the results of the farmer survey? | Yes, there the results of farmer survey. |
Lines 192-194. How are the eight directors of extension who participate in the focus group discussions selected? | The method for selection was clarified in the methodology. |
Lines 194-196. How are the participants selected? Is this complete enumeration? | The method for selection was clarified in the methodology. |
Lines 205-209. Briefly explain what a binary logistic regression model is. You can use an equation to do this. | We used an equation. |
What is the dependent variable (Y) and what value does it take? What does adoption of on-farm adaptation strategies mean? How many adaptation strategies are there? Does this mean if a farmer adopts, he/she adopts one or more adaptation strategies? Have you considered stratifying by the number of strategies adopted? | We changed the anlaysis and put this point in our consideration in the methodology section. |
Also, explain how the independent variables (X) in Table 1 affect adoption of adaptation measures. For example, education is plausibly related to adoption. Higher education may enable the farmer to better process the information provided by different sources such as extension agent. | All information about variables was presented in Table 1. |
Farmer’s awareness of climate change and sources of climate change information may also influence his/her decision to adopt adaptation measures. It would also be interesting to see (if there is any) effect of extension x assistance/info received from extension visit(s). | Included in the paper. |
Gender and household size may also play a role in adoption. Have you tried including these variables into your model?
| We didn’t include gender or house hold size in our analysis. All farmers in the study area are male. |
Lines 222-223. Why do you think that smallholder farmers are less likely to adopt adaptation measures? | We delete the interpretation from this section and add more discussion about effect of socio economic profile in the sections of awareness and adoption. |
Lines 233-234. Table 2. Summary statistics by governorate? See presentations of results in other tables which are by governorate. Be consistent. Alternatively, you can present the mean and standard deviation instead of the distribution of farmers based on socio-economic characteristics, by governorate and then by total of all respondents. | We don’t aim to make comparison between the two governorates. For consistence, we present the results by the total in all tables. |
Table 1, education is defined as the “number of years of formal education” of a farmer. How do you categorize “education” in Table 2 then? What is “Basic education”? I would assume that those who have “basic education” and have attended “secondary school” can “read and write”. Clarify. | We modify this point in Table 1. Basic education means primary or elementary school. |
Lines 240-245. Not clear (at least to me). Why do you think that farmers in Kafr-El-Sheikh have better knowledge of climate change? Have you checked if this difference is statistically different from each other? What could explain the governorate-specific effect? Elaborate more on that and clarify the arguments. | we present the results by the total in all tables. |
Lines 255-256. How did the farmers choose the answer to the question related to sources of information? Did they only choose one? Or farmers chose multiple answers? It is possible that farmers have multiple sources of information. | The choose from the list sources and clarified under the table. |
Lines 258-260. Again, what could explain the governorate-specific effect? | we present the results by the total in all tables. |
Lines 266-267. Table 4. Add columns for TOTAL. | Added to the paper. |
Does “decreased productivity of the crops” mean “decrease in yield” here? | Yes, it means and modified. |
What does the “Mean” indicate? Or is this percentage of adopters who are actually aware of a specific adverse effect? | Yes, this is percentage of adopters who are actually aware of a specific adverse effect and modified in the paper. |
Not clear to me how the “Total” is calculated and its interpretation. Also, how do you interpret the “Overall mean”? Clarify. | We deleted the total |
Lines 289-290. Table 5. Present the results by governorate, then by total, for consistency. | we present the results by the total in all tables. |
Lines 316-318. Table 6. Include number of observations, and columns for TOTAL. How do you interpret the mean? Is it the average number of practices practiced by farmers? | We included number of observations, and columns for TOTAL |
Also, is membership to the WUA an adaptation practice? Why and how? I would think that membership in an organization is one of the factors that could affect the decision of farmer’s to adopt technologies (Y), hence membership to WUA is an independent variable (X). | We added membership of the WUA as independent variable in our model. |
Lines 327-328. Table 7. The governorate-specific effect is not captured in the model (Refer to comment #10). Have you tried running the model by governorate first? And then run the model using the whole sample size, controlling for governorate? See comments #7 for other independent variables that can be included in the model. | we present the results by the total in all tables. |
Lines 329-361. Discussion of Table 7 results. Isn’t the question whether or not agricultural extension has an impact on the decision of farmers to adopt? If this is the case, shouldn’t the initial discussion focus on the adoption of strategies associated with extension? After that is established, then the other information can appear. | For consistence, we focus in significant variables, and then we discuss insignificant variables. |
How many farmers do not adopt at all any of the adaptation practices? This relates to comment #7. Define adoption and show the summary statistics for this. Did you ask farmers their reasons for non-adoption? | We added a separate table about this point. |
Lines 358-361. The arguments are not clear. If “farmers with access to extension services have an edge in adopting strategies of adaptation”, why does it reflect “low effect of extension services”? Many studies show that interaction with extension services positively affect farmer’s technology adoption decisions (see Kilpatrick, 1996; Garforth et al. 2003; Pan et al. 2018). As Table 5 also indicates, farmer’s awareness of climate change and extension service are positively related. | More discussion added to this point. |
In your study, why do you think extension service has no effect on the decision of farmers to adopt? Did you ask about the topics/issues covered during extension visits? Were farmers satisfied with the on-farm demonstrations they attended? What were those on-farm demonstrations about? What were the trainings conducted/attended? Did the extension agents conduct the trainings themselves? Were the number of extension meetings the same as the training sessions attended? Why did you treat it as one? Were training sessions held during extension meetings? Discuss in more detail the independent variables used in the model. | More discussion added to this point. |
The results should be interpreted with caution given the method used may underestimate the benefits of extension engagement. There might be endogeneity concerns in the analysis. For example, how are the farmer-participants in the training or on-farm demonstrations selected? It is possible that more capable farmers are more likely to attend on-farm demonstrations and trainings. Hence, extension has no effect on the decision of farmers to adopt. What factors affect the decision of farmers to engage in extension services? What are the possible factors contributing to the failure of the extension service to affect farmers’ decision to adopt strategies? | More discussion added to this point. |
Lines 419-420. Table 8. Include number of observations (n), and columns for total (for both governorates). | number of observations (n), and columns for total were added to the paper. |
Reviewer 2 Report
The researchers have investigated a timely important topic that is well suit to the scope of the journal. The introduction and literature review is well done. The research method/ approach is not clear. As I understood, the survey, focus group discussion and workshops are not in line. Authors could have to improve the analysis, particularly survey data. Mostly the results are based on descriptive analysis. The descriptive analysis are well known. What is the contribution of this research to the literature? The macro level analysis is just a discussion of policies. Finally what did you find in your analysis? What are the conclusion and recommendations? For instance, you have found the extension is insignificant, but you recommend to improve the extension facilities without any justification. Anyway, I think you have collected very important data that you can analysed well and make a good manuscript. In this format I think it is not suitable for publication. I wish authors all the best.
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments | Response |
Reviewer 2 | |
The research method/ approach is not clear. As I understood, the survey, focus group discussion and workshops are not in line. Authors could have to improve the analysis, particularly survey data. | We made modification in our research framework and relate it to review of literature to clarify the link between the approaches used. Also, we made modification in the methodology for more clarification. |
Mostly the results are based on descriptive analysis. The descriptive analysis are well known. What is the contribution of this research to the literature? The macro level analysis is just a discussion of policies. Finally what did you find in your analysis?. | We made modification in our analysis and add more discussion in different parts to clarify the contribution of our paper. |
What are the conclusion and recommendations? For instance, you have found the extension is insignificant, but you recommend to improve the extension facilities without any justification | Justification of extension added to the discussion of the paper. Moreover, we rewrite the conclusion again. |
Reviewer 3 Report
Before publishing the reviewed manuscript, I suggest the following:
Fig. 1 should be replaced with the original figure,
-in the "Research Design" chapter, the quantitative and qualitative methods used should be listed (named),
-the discussion should be extended - the current one is not sufficient,
-percentages should be expressed to one decimal place (e.g. line 245),
-all units should be given in the International System of Units,
-not all variables (Table 5) have a distribution close to normal and therefore should not be evaluated by Pearson's correlation analysis.
Author Response
Reviewer’s comments | Response |
Reviewer 3 | |
However the authors have not convinced me of their understanding of adaptation from the literature or in practice. Unfortunately the paper lacks a level of depth and meaningful insights, and so I cannot consider it suitable for publication in its current form. Although the survey sample size is impressive and the analysis of the responses appears robust, it is not clear to me what the contribution is to the literature. While studies of this type are useful to understand the preferences of farmers in the extension information they receive, and to understand what adaptation is currently occurring, the paper would require a deeper analysis in order to make a meaningful contribution to the literature. | We add our understanding about adaptation and how we measure it in the methodology. Also we made deep change in our analysis, presenting the results and discussion for more clarification. |
First, it would be necessary to understand what types of climate impacts the farmers are currently experiencing. In the introduction the authors mention that a large portion of arable land in the Nile Delta is particularly sensitive to climate change, and that this 'might' significantly affect farming activities, but there is no evidence or further discussion of current impacts of climate change. Perhaps the farmers are not seeing any climate changes yet and therefore there is no need for them to adopt adaptation measures? It is not clear from the description of the survey whether farmers are being asked about the adverse climatic changes they have experienced themselves, or whether they are simply being asked what impacts they are aware could occur? | We add new paragraph about current impacts of climate change in the study area in the introduction. The farmers were asked about the adverse climatic changes they have experienced themselves. |
It also wasn’t clear to me whether the survey or interviews asked open-ended questions of the farmers and the adaptation options listed are therefore provided by the farmers, or whether the adaptations listed in the paper were provided to the farmers and they were able to select which of the options they had adopted? There may be other measures farmers use that aren’t listed? | The adaptation measures listed in the paper were provided to the farmers and they were able to select which of the options they had adopted and added to the methodology. |
Furthermore, it would be interesting to understand why farmers are not adopting more adaptation measures (assuming there is a need to do so). What are the behavioural, social, cultural, financial, institutional barriers preventing them? There is a much broader picture to understand than simply the extension information. | I didn’t ask in our survey about barriers, but the results gained from probit model could be suitable way to discover the effect of variables under investigation. |
The authors present a framework for conceptualising the research framework for their study, however they do not relate this to other frameworks in the literature? | We relate the frame work to review of literature. |
Another aspect of the paper that could be improved on is a number of unsubstantiated and/or unexplained statements. For example, in Section 3.1 there are several very broad statements that would need some evidence – the first sentence for eg. “farmers (46%) were in the 36-50 age category, indicating they might be able to access and process the new information and engage in agricultural innovations”. Why? Another example: “Small-scale farmers are less able to apply adaptation measures to cope with the consequences of climate change”(p6 line 222). Why? What is the evidence for this? The article contains a number of statements like this that really need more explanation and evidence to be credible. Others are difficult to understand such as p9 line 277/8 “Farming experience develops a sense among farmers to feel the adverse effects of climate change on their activities” | We delete the interpretation from this section and add more discussion about effect of socio economic profile in the sections of awareness and adoption. |
P2line 90, the authors state “the first step to devising a framework is to implement….the adaptation options…. across the country”. Much of the literature would disagree with this and indicates that the first step would be to understand the risks and then plan the adaptation strategies to avoid unintended consequences, lock-in, maladaptation etc. | We delete this sentence from the introduction. |
It would be helpful to have some description of the adaptation strategies presented and why they are helpful to adapt to climate impacts. For example, it’s not clear to me what “Commitment of irrigation periods” means? And I’m not familiar with the effect of shortening the irrigation period in high temperatures? | We made modifications on the name of the adaptation measure to be more understandable for readers. |
More detail and exploration of what the findings mean for the agricultural sector in this area now and in the future, and what steps could be taken to enable more adaptation actions and enhance the overall adaptive capacity would strengthen the paper. | More discussion added to the paper. Also, the authors rewrite the conclusion again to reflect this point. |
I also suggest the authors find someone to assist in the editing of a future version to strengthen the English. | We sent the paper to MDPI editing services to fix all grammatical errors and improve the writing style and we made all corrections needed. |
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have attempted to improve the previous version but overall my rating is average.
Author Response
we have improved the paper according to all reviewers' comments.
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for responding to my previous comments. Some of the changes strengthen the paper but I do have a number of serious concerns remaining.
The first and most obvious is the quality of English. While you do state that you have had the English edited, the quality remains poor, particularly of the new additions. Some of it is very difficult to interpret, making the reading of the entire paper challenging, and in places it feels like it has been written very quickly. It is very difficult to see beyond this to the actual content of the paper unfortunately.
Other than the English, my main problems lie in the introductory sections, which continue to display a very limited and rudimentary understanding of adaptation to climate change. In places it appears the authors have inserted a range of references but it doesn’t feel like they fully appreciate the complexity and nuances of adapting to climate change. The survey and the analysis are of interest, with an impressive sample size, although I do have some comments regarding the implications of the results.
Some sentences are either very confusing or appear meaningless. The opening sentence is one example - I’m not quite sure whether it is circular or tautological but please rephrase. Another example is on p2 line 84 – what does this mean??
There remain some unsubstantiated statements (but thank you for removing the ones mentioned previously). For example, like 18 of the abstract: “a well-structured questionnaire”. In whose opinion is it well-structured?
P2. Line 50 – under what scenarios are these changes expected?
P2. Line 42 – Nelson (2009) – This is not an appropriate reference for this kind of statement. You could refer to the IPCC. The second part of the sentence is incorrect – agriculture is not cited by anyone as being the primary source of GHG emissions at the global level, although it may be the case in Egypt. Please clarify.
P2 Line 63 – please provide a reference to this figure, and I suggest rearranging point (i) to read “a decline in agricultural productivity by 30-40% and resulting farm net revenue”
P2 Line 64 – (iv) the primary effect of the increase in air and water temps would be the effect on agricultural production – crops, livestock etc. I’m not sure what the reduced system efficiency and power generation really means?
P2 Line 68 – the reference to 2m of sea level rise is rather extreme – by when is this projected to occur? The effect on wheat would presumably be a minor consideration in such a scenario.
P2 Line 71 – please clarify whether the effect on barley, maize, and rice productivity is negative or positive.
P3 line 128 – “down-top” – I think you must mean “bottom-up”?
Thank you for the background to the extension situation on p3, this is a useful addition.
I think the end of section 2.1 would be a good place to include some examples of the types of climate changes that the region is already experiencing, so that the reader can get a feel for the types of adaptation options that would be useful.
I still have issues with the “framework” – I think it’s an overstatement to call this a framework, it’s really just three factors with boxes around them. It’s not clear whether or how they interact with each other. I suggest you remove this section as I don’t see that it contributes much to the paper.
P5 line 179 – I assume you mean “combating” rather than “compacting”?
P5 line 191 – Adaptive capacity is a function of many factors, perception of climate change may be one but there are many more. A seminal paper I suggest you consult is: Brooks, N, W N Adger, and P M Kelly. 2005. “The Determinants of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity at the National Level and the Implications for Adaptation.” Global Environmental Change 15: 151–63.
P9 line 320 – Why unfortunately? And why is it so low? Are there actually agricultural researchers available and accessible to farmers?
The description of the model and analysis has been considerably strengthened. My main concern with this section is around the fact that one of the most significant variables is education, yet the authors never return to this after mentioning it on page 13. The subsequent discussion is all about how to strengthen extension, which is interesting (or would be, if it was easier to read). But surely a critical mechanism to increase the adaptive capacity of the sector would be to focus on education?
p.17 the authors state that “determinants that were shown to mitigate the use of adaptation measures” – I don’t understand what the authors mean here at all?
The conclusion is currently weak – unfortunately the English here really needs attention, but also the conclusions are not very imaginative, and the concluding sentence is particularly uninspiring.
I’m sorry for the negative comments, I think the analysis has some potential interest but the presentation needs much more work before this would be publishable in my opinion.
Author Response
Response to comments of the reviewer 2
1- The first and most obvious is the quality of English. While you do state that you have had the
English edited, the quality remains poor, particularly of the new additions: Thank you for your comments, we sent the paper for English editing and made needed corrections.
2- Some sentences are either very confusing or appear meaningless. The opening sentence is one example - I’m not quite sure whether it is circular or tautological but please rephrase: Thank you for your comments, rephrased
3- Another example is on p2 line 84 – what does this mean??:Thank you for your comments, rephrased
4- There remain some unsubstantiated statements (but thank you for removing the ones mentioned previously). For example, like 18 of the abstract: “a well-structured questionnaire”. In whose opinion is it well-structured?: Thank you for your comments,modified
5- P2. Line 50 – under what scenarios are these changes expected?: Thank you for your comments,scenarios were added to the paper.
6- P2. Line 42 – Nelson (2009) – This is not an appropriate reference for this kind of statement. You could refer to the IPCC: this sentence is not related to Nelson, but to UN.
7-The second part of the sentence is incorrect – agriculture is not cited by anyone as being the
primary source of GHG emissions at the global level, although it may be the case in Egypt. Please
clarify. Sorry, I disagree, it is cited by this reference as it is mentioned.
8- P2 Line 63 – please provide a reference to this figure, and I suggest rearranging point (i) to read “a decline in agricultural productivity by 30-40% and resulting farm net revenue”: Thank you for your comments,reference was cited.
9- P2 Line 64 – (iv) the primary effect of the increase in air and water temps would be the effect on agricultural production – crops, livestock etc. I’m not sure what the reduced system efficiency and
power generation really means?: Thank you for your comments, clarified in the paper.
10- P2 Line 68 – the reference to 2m of sea level rise is rather extreme – by when is this projected
to occur? The effect on wheat would presumably be a minor consideration in such a scenario.: Thank you for your comments,clarified in the paper.
11- P2 Line 71 – please clarify whether the effect on barley, maize, and rice productivity is negative or positive: Thank you for your comments, clarified in the paper.
12- P3 line 128 – “down-top” – I think you must mean “bottom-up”?: yes, it is “bottom-up and modified in the paper.
13- I think the end of section 2.1 would be a good place to include some examples of the types of climate changes that the region is already experiencing, so that the reader can get a feel for the types of adaptation options that would be useful: Thank you for your comments, added to the paper.
14-I still have issues with the “framework” – I think it’s an overstatement to call this a framework, it’s really just three factors with boxes around them. It’s not clear whether or how they interact with each other. I suggest you remove this section as I don’t see that it contributes much to the paper: For my point of view it is an important section to the paper.
15-P5 line 179 – I assume you mean “combating” rather than “compacting”?: Thank you for your comments, modified.
16-P5 line 191 – Adaptive capacity is a function of many factors, perception of climate change may
be one but there are many more. A seminal paper I suggest you consult is: Brooks, N, W N Adger, and P M Kelly. 2005. “The Determinants of Vulnerability and Adaptive Capacity at the National Level and the Implications for Adaptation.” Global Environmental Change 15: 151–63: Thank you for your comments,we already add similar perspective to this part.
17-The description of the model and analysis has been considerably strengthened. My main concern with this section is around the fact that one of the most significant variables is education, yet the authors never return to this after mentioning it on page 13. The subsequent discussion is all about how to strengthen extension, which is interesting (or would be, if it was easier to read). But
surely a critical mechanism to increase the adaptive capacity of the sector would be to focus on education?: Thank you for your comments, discussion of significance of education mentioned in the results and discussion section and in conclusion.
18-p.17 the authors state that “determinants that were shown to mitigate the use of adaptation measures” – I don’t understand what the authors mean here at all?: Thank you for your comments, modified
19-The conclusion is currently weak – unfortunately the English here really needs attention, but also the conclusions are not very imaginative, and the concluding sentence is particularly uninspiring. Thank you for your comments,we rewrote the conclusion again depending to the comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The subject matter of the manuscript is in line with the profile of the „Sustainability” journal.
I recommend the article for publication.
Author Response
thank you very much for your response.
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper is much improved in this version, particularly the English, which makes it much more readable. A remaining point that I feel is still not sufficiently recognized, is the importance of education beyond the "knowledge" of farmers, but more generally. Educating the population as whole (not specially with regard to climate change but around literacy, numeracy, science etc) will have benefits in building the adaptive capacity of farmers as well as for the general population.
Author Response
The point was considered and added to the paper (lines 450-458).
