Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The topic of the article is interesting. The research, on the other hand, covers 2016, which seems to be quite a long time ago. However, the studies are well analyzed and provide a lot of information

To improve the quality of the article, I suggest:

• present arguments why this research is still relevant. Are there factors that cause this?
• besides, one should refer to other regions as it looks - for comparison elsewhere because now the results have no cognitive value
• The goals of the article and the hypothesis should be clearly presented
• the last part of the article - Conclusion and recommendations - should present the limitations of the study and the areas of future research.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Title: A typology of the level of market participation among small- holder farmers in South Africa: Limpopo and Mpumalanga Provinces

Overall:

I found this article really interesting, but there exists an inconsistent table format and some tables were unclear. It requests a major revision before the full review. Please check the points at below for further improvement.

Abstract:

· In the first hurdle result, the authors stated that the household size had a positive impact, but the results showed that the household size was not significant. The author should revise this section.

· The authors also mentioned that the results of the second hurdle show distance to the market had a negative effect on the extent of market participation among smallholder farmers, but in table 4.5 shows that distance to the market does not have a negative significance, but education and WEATHINDEX which have a negative significance and are not mentioned by the authors.

Introduction:

· As the authors provided a very interesting variable which is HIV cases in the results. Therefore, it would be better if the authors also explain why it is important to add the HIV case variable to this study and the information will help the reader to understand the reason as well.

Literature review

· There is a formatting error on page 5 in the second paragraph and please fix it.

Research Methodology:

· In the first paragraph, the authors state that the aim of this research was to obtain a comprehensive understanding of livelihood systems and to determine the extent of food and nutrition insecurity in South Africa. However, in the introduction and the results, the authors always mentioned that this study wants to examine the factors that influence smallholder market participation in South Africa. I think the authors must confirm the purpose of this study, and if the aim is more than one, thus, researcher it should be mentioned that there are more than one aims in this study. That information will also be helpful to help readers clearly understand what this research is about.

· There are several writing errors made by the authors, such as writing formulas that must be italicized and some formulas that are written sometimes do not have spaces. The authors must try to be consistent in writing formulas in the methodology part. This will help the reader to follow your paper clearly.

· In Table 1 the authors used several symbols such as ±, +, and -, but the authors do not explain the meaning of these symbols. It will be very helpful for readers if the authors include notes that explain the meaning of the symbols used in Table 1.

· The authors must add a note and source in table 1.

Results and discussion

· All tables in the result and discussion part do not have sources and notes, it would be better if the authors add sources and notes to all tables in order to make the reader understand more about the table.

· Not all readers of the paper have a strong background in statistics (science or social science) and to help readers understand that the variable is significant or not, it is better to add stars (***) to a significant variable in table 4.2.

· In table 4.3, the authors should explain why most smallholder farmers in South Africa do not get access to agricultural assistance and market information because this is one of the objectives of this study.

· The authors do not describe all demographic characteristics of smallholders in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces, South Africa in table 4.3. It would be better if the authors list all the variables used in the double hurdle results in table 4.3 and this will help the reader understand the description, frequency and presentation of all the variables used in this study.

· The overall frequency in each variable in table 4.3 shows different numbers such as Gender of household is 1.305, Access to agricultural assistance is 489, Access to market information is 489 and Ownership of livestock is 632, whereas the total number of respondents should be 1520. Why the number of numbers for each variable is different? Have all the farmers answered this question? and is this also categorized as a missing value?

· There are differences in the results of the first hurdle and second hurdle such as Household Age, but the authors have not fully explained why there can be differences in the results and which results will be used as a reference or which one is more appropriate? Is it the first hurdle or the second hurdle? I think the researcher should explain the reasons for those questions and make the reader more understand the results provided by the authors.

· Ate the household age (Table 4.4), age of household (Table 4.5), and age of household head (Table 4.2) are the same variables? if so, it would be better if the authors change the variable name to be consistent.

Conclusion and recommendations

• The conclusions that the authors provide are still relatively general they only provide suggestions on how to become a good agricultural extension. However, in the conclusion authors do not explain how farmers cannot get access to agricultural extension and access to markets as well as trying to provide the appropriate policy plans for policymakers or the government. It would be better if the authors also explained those reasons as that is the aim of this study.

References

• The authors must double check the recommended reference writing format from the sustainability journal because there are still some formatting errors, such as:

StatSA, Mid-year population estimates. https://www.statssa.gov.za/, 2019.

Macdonald, M. The contribution of small-scale fisheries to the community food security of one South African coastal community. Faculty of Science. 2019.

Sebatta, C. Smallholder farmers’ decision and level of participation in the potato market in Uganda. Modern Economy, 2014. 2014.

Development, I.F.f.A., Youth Involment in Agriculture. www.ifad.org. 2017.

Cervantes-Godoy, D.; Dewbre, J, Economic importance of agriculture for poverty reduction. 2010.

The format of writing references from journals, books and the websites above is still wrong and the correct one should be as below:

Websites:
Title of Site. Available online: URL (accessed on Day Month Year).

Journal Articles:     
Author 1, A.B.; Author 2, C.D. Title of the article. Abbreviated Journal Name Year, Volume, page range.

Books and Book Chapters:       
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Book Title, 3rd ed.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; pp. 154–196.
Author 1, A.; Author 2, B. Title of the chapter. In Book Title, 2nd ed.; Editor 1, A., Editor 2, B., Eds.; Publisher: Publisher Location, Country, Year; Volume 3, pp. 154–196.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you for an interesting manuscript. You have various research methods and the data is rich. Smallholders have been approach by the research from various ankles, that of yours brings additional information to really understand the complexity of the smallholder's situation in a bigger food system context.  

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for the changes and for the comment

Best regards

Author Response

Thank you. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Abstract:

·   In the abstract, the author mentioned only using descriptive statistics and a multiple barrier model to analyze the factors that influence smallholder decisions regarding participation in agricultural markets, however, I read that the author also used the t-test in this study and I suggest that author revise this section.

·   Variables that have a significant positive in the first hurdle result are not fully stated.

·   The authors mentioned that the results of the first hurdle show education had a negative effect on the extent of market participation among smallholder farmers, but in table 4.4 shows that education does not have a negative significance.

·   Please revise the paragraph below as it pretty much can confuse the reader because the author has explained the same thing twice (I have marked the sentence in red color)

(The results of the second hurdle model showed that household size, household age, HIV status of a member of a family and agricultural assistance were all statistically significant. Marital status, gender of household, educational status, wealth index and access to agricultural assistance had a negative effect on the extent of market participation among smallholder farmers, while household size, age and social grant had a positive impact).

·  The author also stated that gender and social grants have a significant positive effect on the results of the second hurdle, but table 4.5 shows that gender and social grants do not have a significant level. This is a serious problem that it must be fixed before it resubmits.

 

Introduction:

·  The introduction from this paper has been revised and is well written as well as easy to read and understand.

 

Literature review

·  There is a formatting error on page 5 in the second paragraph and please fix it.

 

Research Methodology:

·  In the explanation of the formula, the symbols used in the equation must be type in italic and almost all the symbols written by the author are not in italics and the authors should revise this section.

·  The author may change the name of the variable in table 1 because almost all of the names used in Table 1 are different from the table in the results and discussion part. Please adjust the variable name and make it consistent because this will help the reader to understand clearly about the variables that the author uses in this study.

 

Results and discussion

·  The authors reported that farmers who participate in markets are more educated than non-market participants and had more opportunities to participate in markets, but I am not really sure whether the author needs to explain this because the variables is not significant. If the author wants to compare based on the mean why the writer does not compare the age variable too? And why only education?

·  All numbers listed in the explanation of table 4.3 are wrong, because the numbers listed in the explanation with the numbers in table 4.3 are not the same. The author needs to review it again and improve it.

·  Several variables that show significance in Table 4.4 are not fully presented in explanation 4.1.1 on pages 11 - 13, however, why do the authors focus on explaining insignificant variables and do not explain some variables that show significance such as WEATHINDEX and members worked on a farm?

·  In explanation point 4.1.2 on page 13, the author said that based on AIC and BIC they can determine which model is more appropriate, but the author does not explain in detail about the AIC and BIC criteria that can be said to be suitable in the model.

·  In table 4.3, the authors should explain why most smallholder farmers in South Africa do not get access to agricultural assistance and market information because this is one of the objectives of this study.

·  The authors do not describe all demographic characteristics of smallholders in Limpopo and Mpumalanga provinces, South Africa in table 4.3. It would be better if the authors list all the variables used in the double hurdle results in table 4.3 and this will help the reader understand the description, frequency and presentation of all the variables used in this study.

 

Conclusion and recommendations

·  In the explanation of point 4.1.2 in the last paragraph, the author explains that access to agricultural assistance is negatively affected the level of participation in the market and it was statistically significant at a 1% level. Thus, this indicates the low performance of agricultural extension in South Africa and from these results, it is shown that they need to improve the quality of agricultural extension in South Africa. However, in the conclusion, the author only focuses on farmers such as small farmer groups that must be registered as farmers, so that they are easily visible and easily accessible by coordinated government support services, even though in my opinion the most important thing is to improve the quality of agricultural extension first before going any further. It is necessary for the authors to add those points because it is based on the results in this study.

 

Summary

Although authors have improved a lot from previous version, it still remains many problems. The number one problem would be the citing issue (Plagiarism) in the Research Methodology section. The second most important problem is that the outcome explanation does not fully be explained by the Table outcome you provided. It is highly suggested to fully revised and resubmitted.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

This study is an interesting topic, but the writing and data management needs more works. There are some points provided to authors for further revision.

P1. In abstract, the word of “secondary” should be replaced by the data source. The gender of household used in the Abstract and Result sections, and it is weird since what is the meaning of household? People in a family has the one of the other genders? Also why not just use male or female of variables? The sentence of “The result of the second hurdle … positive significant impact.” has poor writing, and especially impact on what? It should be able to make it clear. Shorter sentence is recommended.

P2. In page 6 at the second paragraph, the secondary data were mentioned, while the first sentence mentioned that “The study used a quantitative research method to collect data.” It seems contradictive each other. Further, authors seem to know well how the data had been collected, but when author used the “secondary” data, dose it mean that the data is published or private data? Also the data in this study mentioned that it was collected in 2016 in the Limitation section. Why not adopt the latest data?

P3. In page 6, the sentence of “It also allows large sampling as large sample … of the population.” seems not appropriate because how do you define large and small, and whether the number of respondents perform a large or small samples? The sentence after this one mentioned “In each site, the livelihood population, including farmers, was …” does it also include non-farmers? It is not clear of your sample. It should be farmers, right? Also, how do you define the smallholder farmers as it mentioned in your title? Does the data from the SAVAC explained about it?

P4. After testing the Instant Plagiarism Analysis in Turnitin website, the paragraphs in pages 7 and 8 show an almost 100% similar writing with previous studies.

P5. In the Research Methodology section, the data were mentioned as a household data, while the study topic in this study should be farmers. Authors should be more clear in this point for the Sustainability readers.

P6. In page 8, the Gender of household head in Table 1 is not clear. As it defines as the 0 for female, and 1 for male, but Table 4.4 shows the mean of 1.27. It is wrong, and if it remains the same for the Table 4.5 and 4.6, the all results may be bias.

P7. In page 8, the Martial status in Table 1 was not fully defined.

P8. Why number of crops sold in Table 4.1 use for SD not Freq.?

P9. In page 10, the sentence of “This means that market participants’ farmers …consume and sell the surplus in the market.” make me confused a lot since the authors mentioned the consume? Is it the point of “consume” necessary for high yield farmers in here?

P10. The variables set-up in Tables may make more confused if the household is used. Actually, it is more of respondents. If those are farmers, then authors may use farmer. Especially, you title use farmers, while the variables all are household, and it makes confusion.

P11. The Page 11 mentioned about the Table 4.4 is too short.

P12. The Table 4.4 has some variables with the questioned data setup: i.e., Gender of household head, Marital status, Ownership Livestock, Access to market information, Access to agricultural assistance, social grant, Irrigation type. If these variables should be dummy variable, but it did not set up as 0 or 1, then the first and second hurdle models testing may be wrong. Also why some of these variables in Table 4.4 do not fully explain as in Table 1. Especially, the variable of WEATHINDEX in Table 4.5 is not explained in Table 4.4.

P13. Tables 4.5 and 4.6 should provide the observation number.

P14. Although the title mentioned “A typology of the level of market participation…”, I wonder what if the total output of crops (KG) is used as the dependent variable in the second hurdle testing. Would it receive the same outcome?

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf