Determining the Resilience of Rural Households to Food Insecurity during Drought Conditions in Fars Province, Iran

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

the paper proposes an investigation on the different levels of resilience to drought recorded in some families of farmers in the Fars region of Iran, very involved in drought. The paper is based on a strictly quantitative analysis modeled on parameters of the FAO and the main institutions involved in food policies. The paper has an appropriate section of charts and graphs. The bibliography is updated and consistent. Structure and objectives are clearly delineated.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your kind comments on our article. We are also very pleased to have the opportunity to collaborate with this respected magazine.

With the best regards

Reviewer 2 Report

Generally, the paper presents a good topical issue on household resilience to food insecurity. Though the research is important, some sentences are poorly structured and grammatically weak in many sections. The study findings do not address all the objectives in the manuscript. The Discussion and conclusion sections are weak and should be improved.

Some of the specific revisions are as follows:

Title: The title is not clear and should be rephrased.

Abstract: Abstract: Poorly constructed abstract. Several statements should be rephrased in acceptable manuscript structure.

Line 26: Revise the sentence.. “Environmental conditions could not be ignored...”

Line 75-76: The authors should consider changing the sentence: .. “ is among most 75 vulnerable sectors to the risks related to global climate change..” to read .. “ .. is among the most vulnerable sector to the risks related to global climate change”

Line 106 and 110: The word .. “ sever” should be .. “ severe”

Line 145 and line 163: Tab should read Table.

Line 157-158: Rephrase the sentence: .. “ It can disable farmers to get access to resources 157 that are required to improving their adaptation and resilience under crisis condition”

Line 164: Figure 2- some labels not clear and some boxes under “SUS” are not linked. Provide more details about the figure in the caption.

Discussion: There should be more discussion of the study findings. This should also include a discussion of study limitations.

Conclusion: This section is not well structured and should be improved

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your useful comments. We have carefully reviewed the comments and have revised the manuscript accordingly. Our responses are given in point-to-point manner below. Changes to the manuscript are shown in the attached file.

Point 1: Some sentences are poorly structured and grammatically weak in many sections. The study findings do not address all the objectives in the manuscript. The Discussion and conclusion sections are weak and should be improved.

Response 1: Thank you for your reminder, grammatical and written editing was done in the whole text. The results and discussion and conclusion sections were reviewed. (You can see the mentioned corrections as highlights in the track changes file).

Point 2: Title: The title is not clear and should be rephrased.

Response 2: The title was changed to “Determining Rural Households’ resiliency toward food insecurity in drought Conditions”

Point 3: Abstract: Abstract: Poorly constructed abstract. Several statements should be rephrased in acceptable manuscript structure.

Response 3: The abstract was reviewed according to the framework of the journal and changes were made in terms of structure and Grammatical points.

Point 4: Line 26: Revise the sentence. “Environmental conditions could not be ignored...”

Response 4: Corrected as follows: “Its impact on economic, social and environmental conditions cannot be ignored”.

Point 5: Line 75-76: The authors should consider changing the sentence: .. “ is among most vulnerable sectors to the risks related to global climate change..” to read .. “ .. is among the most vulnerable sector to the risks related to global climate change”

Response 5: Thank you, it changed that way.

Point 6: Line 106 and 110: The word .. “ sever” should be .. “ severe”

Response 6: I'm sorry for this mistake, it was corrected.

Point 7: Line 145 and line 163: Tab should read Table.

Response 7: Thank you, they were corrected.

Point 8: Line 157-158: Rephrase the sentence: .. “ It can disable farmers to get access to resources that are required to improving their adaptation and resilience under crisis condition”

Response 8: Rephrased to “It can prevent farmers from getting access to resources that are required to improve their adaptation and resilience under crisis condition”.

Point 9: Line 164: Figure 2- some labels not clear and some boxes under “SUS” are not linked. Provide more details about the figure in the caption.

Response 9:  Thanks for the tips, they were applied.

Point 10: Discussion: There should be more discussion of the study findings. This should also include a discussion of study limitations.

Response 10: Addressing to the limitations of the research was added in the conclusion section.

Point 11: Conclusion: This section is not well structured and should be improved

Response 11: An attempt was made to rewrite the conclusion in a more structured way.

I hope the revised version is now suitable for publication and look forward to hearing from you regarding our submission. We would be glad to respond to any further questions and comments that you may have.

With the best regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have made a good attempt to correct the manuscript based on previous comments. However, there remains several sections/sentences that are poorly corrected and should be revised.  

Title: Still not well structured. The word resiliency doesn’t sound correct in the title and in the whole manuscript- correct to read “resilience”.  Consider rephrasing the title to read: “Determining the Resilience of Rural Households to Food Insecurity during Drought Conditions in Fars Province, Iran.

Abstract: The abstract remains poorly constructed despite some attempt by the  authors to make some additions and changes.  For example, the authors make some statements like… “ that were presented in the FAO’s model.. “ . this is confusing and leaves the readers to wonder what the model is about.   other statements that are poorly constructed are: “The sample population was 270 respondents from Fars Province using Shaffer formula”. The authors should note that abbreviations can only be used after giving a full meaning at first mention. The whole section must be revised with well structured sentences and grammar. 

Line 83-86: The statement “They provide a framework for determining resiliency of farm households to water scarcity based on three adaptations to water scarcity, retaining structure and function, and retaining individual capabilities factors” is not clear and should be rephrased.

Figure 2: Labels are totally distorted in the revised manuscript.  

Conclusion: An improvement  from previous version. However, the statements are poorly constructed and should be rephrased with correct flow and grammar. The objective of the study as mentioned in this section is totally different from what is in the abstract

Author Response

Point 1: Title

 Still not well structured. The word resiliency doesn’t sound correct in the title and in the whole manuscript- correct to read “resilience”.  Consider rephrasing the title to read: “Determining the Resilience of Rural Households to Food Insecurity during Drought Conditions in Fars Province, Iran.

Response 1: thank you very much. It is changed to “Determining the Resilience of Rural Households to Food Insecurity during Drought Conditions in Fars Province, Iran”

Point 2: Abstract:

The abstract remains poorly constructed despite some attempt by the authors to make some additions and changes.  For example, the authors make some statements like… “That were presented in the FAO’s model. “. This is confusing and leaves the readers to wonder what the model is about.   Other statements that are poorly constructed are: “The sample population was 270 respondents from Fars Province using Shaffer formula”. The authors should note that abbreviations can only be used after giving a full meaning at first mention. The whole section must be revised with well-structured sentences and grammar. 

Response 2: After reviewing and modifying again, the abstract has changed. it can be seen in the "track changes 2" file.

 Point 3: Line 83-86

The statement “They provide a framework for determining resiliency of farm households to water scarcity based on three adaptations to water scarcity, retaining structure and function, and retaining individual capabilities factors” is not clear and should be rephrased.

Response 3:

It is changed to “They provided a framework for determining resiliency of farm households to water scarcity based on three factors included “adaptations to water scarcity”, “retaining structure and function”, and “retaining individual capabilities”.

Point 4: Figure 2

 Labels are totally distorted in the revised manuscript.  

Response 4: Thank you for your attention. Labels have not distorted.

Only the abbreviated names of the indicators that were contracted by the author (during the analysis time), have been corrected as defined in Table 1.

For example:  Access to Basic Services: was labeled as “AS” (based on two blue letters),

So changed to “ABS” (based on three blue letters):  Access to Basic Services.

For example: Social Safety Nets: was labeled as “SN”

      Changed to:     Social Safety Nets: changed to “SSN”

  Point 5: Conclusion

An improvement from previous version. However, the statements are poorly constructed and should be rephrased with correct flow and grammar. The objective of the study as mentioned in this section is totally different from what is in the abstract.

Response 5: The objectives were rewritten based on what is presented in the abstract. The whole section was rephrased with re-corrections. Visible in the file "Track changes 2"

Author Response File: Author Response.docx