Adoption Drivers of Improved Open-Pollinated (OPVs) Maize Varieties by Smallholder Farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract line 18 – reads like the new varieties have cause food insecurity. Line 19 – knowledge gap and adoption – not clear what the authors mean, adoption gap? Please change citation style when addressing certain papers directly according to [4] reads weirdly, and it’s too many times the authors use that style; it doesn’t work well when citations are numbers. Lines 55-63 are pretty repetitive Line 76 – improved maize varieties has been abbreviated (OPV), but before the authors used OPV for open-pollinated varieties, needs to be changed Line 84 what are old improved varieties? And what do you mean by recycled seeds? Do they not keep seed from their harvest to use again? Line 92, which consumer-based theory is pointing this out? There are plenty, and each of them focuses on something specific, Also what is the meaning of good technology? Who decides what is good and what is not? Line 94 needs references Line 95/96 who makes that claim that fast-tracking technology adoption is important? Has it been shown? What were the benefits? Line 98 do they meet the growing population or the demand of a growing population? Line 105-107 that sentence is confusing as it misses commas Line 109 Why does the adoption of seeds need to be part of a technology package – can farmers not adopt new varieties without other aspects. I know many studies that investigated the adoption of new, improved varieties as a single component. I know other studies that investigate this as a package, like 1M5R in Vietnam for rice. What is the technological package the authors are talking about – it is not shown in the figure – the figure is about varieties, not technology packages. Figure 1 is not a very well designed figure. While the content is not wrong, the illustration could be done more carefully. Also, in the box with ‘Yield improvement’, the aspects shown in that box are not part of yield improvement; they are outcomes and impacts of yield improvement. The box in the middle with knowledge, perception and attitude – I suspect this relates to farmers intrinsic factors? I would highly recommend the authors review frameworks that have previously addressed these issues and review them critically; this is missing in the introduction. The framework presented is not explanatory in itself, and the reader has to make too many assumptions. Authors do not need to define the abbreviation OPV repeatedly; either use the abbreviation or improved varieties. I still don’t know what open-pollinated varieties are and why that was specified in the title. Line 137 The province has a population of 6 562 053 populations – please correct this grammar issue Line 138 derives their living – change and use correct words and grammar, are those smallholders or are those people just working in agriculture? Line 139/140 I doubt that being below the poverty line results in persistent poverty – I guess persistent poverty is the reason that this province is one of the ones that lie below the poverty line The study site selection part is too long; the most important information is in the second half the first half can be summarized. Sampling – It is unclear why irrigation schemes were a sampling unit and not if farmers grow maize. What is the connection between irrigation and making a livelihood from it and growing maize? Sex should be gender How was the qualitative part of the research evaluated? What is the qualitative part? The authors have only described a quantitative part. The variable selection and the presented conceptual framework do not match. No one needs the part on the calculations – the regression was run in STATA using the inbuilt function. Not sure about the appropriateness of the regression model because the final selection of participants was not random, and regression analyses require random sampling. It should be the last sampling stage that is random. Methods do not show an adoption variable; how do the authors know how many farmers were adopters? How do the authors know farmers use hybrid varieties? There is no measure presented. Authors should present a table with the results containing n, % means, SD etc. Only parts of those are currently presented in text, and there is a need to present all the other numbers as well. Did all farmers spent 10 years in school, or is that an average? The whole demographic section needs to be changed, so it contains all the important information. The authors should seek advice from published articles. Table 2 How do authors know that there was no mention of that in the methods part. The Authors need to revisit their methods and clarify what they asked the farmers; it is not enough to present the variables used in the model. How did the authors assess challenges? There is no description thereof. It suddenly appears. Line 338 to 340 – major grammatical flaws – makes it hard to read This manuscript needs to have a defined results section and a discussion section. It should not be merged. The discussion needs to align with the research aims and needs to be framed around the theoretical framework – but my understanding is that this might not be possible because not all variables in the framework were evaluated, or it wasn’t reported. I am still looking for how the authors could say that lack of knowledge about seeds was a factor when it wasn’t even evaluated – the authors had a dummy on knowledge about OPVs but not sure what that means. It is not clear how these variables were assessed, e.g. was the question Do you have knowledge about ….? Yes/no? The authors need to present a fully revised methods part, align the results, and then create a discussion addressing the research gaps.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I am glad to review this paper. The article entitled “Adoption drivers of improved open-pollinated (OPVs) maize 3 varieties by smallholder farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa” has written very well and according to the scope of Sustainability.

In this article, the authors have examined the factors affecting the adoption of OPVs by farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. Factors influencing the adoption of OPVs by smallholder farmers in the study were found. The inferential results showed that HYBRID is the most used type of improved maize variety than OPVs.

However, it requires a major revision.

1. The abstract should directly start from the objectives of the study.
2. Descriptive statistics should include in the abstract to present a more story.
3. Since Sustainability is an international journal; therefore, I highly recommend including literature in the introduction from various parts of the world.
4. Particularly, it lacks novelty and doesn’t have a proper research gap. The given paragraph should be added at the end of the last paragraph of the Conceptual framework.

“The previous studies have focused on the relationship of inputs and output of agriculture [1-5]. Some studies determined the impact of climate change on crop productivity [6-8]. Moreover, the socio-psychological behavior of farmers has also been determined to adopt improved technology [9]. However, limited studies have focused on adoption drivers of improved open-pollinated maize varieties by smallholder farmers. Therefore, the current article aims to ascertain factors affecting the adoption of improved maize seed varieties (OPVs) in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa”.

[1] Estimation of realistic renewable and non-renewable energy use targets for livestock production systems utilising an artificial neural network method: A step towards livestock sustainability. Energy. [2] Use of artificial neural networks to rescue agrochemical-based health hazards: A resource optimisation method for cleaner crop production. Journal of Cleaner Production. [3] The public policy of agricultural land allotment to agrarians and its impact on crop productivity in Punjab province of Pakistan. Land Use Policy. [4] Agricultural advisory and financial services; farm level access, outreach and impact in a mixed cropping district of Punjab, Pakistan. Land Use Policy. [5] Agricultural intensification and damages to human health in relation to agrochemicals: Application of artificial intelligence. Land Use Policy 83, 461-474. Doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.023. [6] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of  innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102255. [7] Farmer Perceptions of Climate Change, Observed Trends and Adaptation of Agriculture in Pakistan. Environmental management, Volume 63, Issue 1, pp 110–123. Doi. org/10.1007/s00267-018-1113-7. [8] Historical perspective of climate change in sustainable livelihoods of coastal areas of the Red River Delta, Nam Dinh, Vietnam. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management. [9] Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy, 102, 105250.

5. Figure 5 is blurred, it is recommended to improve the quality of the figure.
6. I recommend adding a schematic diagram in subsection 2.4.
7. Have you conducted the autocorrelation and multicollinearity tests? If so, you have included the results of both.
8. What methods were used to approach study objectives? It should be included in the conclusion as well.
9. Study limitations and recommendations for future study should be added at the end of the conclusion.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper examines the factors affecting the adoption of improved open-pollinated maize varieties in South Africa. This paper would contribute to the literature of technology adoption if revised correctly.

It appears that the authors put some effort into writing this effort; however, they can go further to dig into investigates the potential impact of such technology on crop yield or farm income, which is clearly lacking. The study on determining the factors associated with such technology might have little impact if it does not improve productivity or income. I will leave it up to the authors to convince the reader.

Besides, I have concern on methodology about the logistic regression model is being framed. There are several unnecessary mathematical equations from equations 1 to 14 (lines 224 to 252). Please remove these equations, as most of them are just misleading. Please see the following manuscript that uses logistic regression in different contexts but is nicely presented. You can adopt  (cite) these equations from the following manuscript if the authors do not access an intermediate-level econometrics book. 

Joshi, Ram D., and Chandra K. Dhakal 2021. "Predicting Type 2 Diabetes Using Logistic Regression and Machine Learning Approaches" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 18, no. 14: 7346. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147346

Another issue is that authors do not appear to follow the same font and size throughout the manuscript. Would you please maintain consistency? 

Also, please make sure to interpret your coefficients from the logistic regression correctly to make inferences. Authors could also calculate the marginal effect at the means of the independent variables after estimating logistic regression. Stata command to do so is "mfx." I will leave it up to the authors if they decide to compute marginal effects. 

Would you please try to write in an active voice if it is possible? 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The study is interesting and concerns an important issue especially for smallholder farmers in South Africa. The research process is understandable and clearly described. In order to improve the manuscript, I present only two remarks. 

1. The formulation of one or more research hypotheses would be a valuable element of the study.
2. The study lacks substantive justification for the selection of explanatory variables to the logit model. 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have not taken suggestions into account. the methods have not improved. The authors were asked to provide a clear description of the questionnaire, what questions were asked, what the answer options were. They do provide the coding they use but that is not the same. I am still puzzled about the semi-structured nature of the questionnaire - does that mean that the authors added questions when they wanted to know more? What were the free elements in the questionnaire and how were they evaluated? Furthermore, results need to be separate from the discussion, especially in a quantitative analysis, it is hard work to get through the manuscript as it is all over the place. I asked them before to fix this issue. If a native speaker has proofread the authors should consider another service, there are still plenty of mistakes in the manuscript. Apart from clarifying the sampling and working a bit on the introduction, the manuscript has not improved at all. I still don't see the contribution to the literature if the reader cannot even evaluate the reliability of the questions they asked in the questionnaire. 

Author Response

Please see the attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the revision of the article entitled “Adoption drivers of improved open-pollinated (OPVs) maize varieties by smallholder farmers in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa”. Authors have addressed previous comments; however, the article still requires some minor correction before a final publication.

1. There is no need to write period at the end of article title.
2. The references cited in the text are not according to the journal style. Authors must have to follow the guidelines of the article to correctly place the references in the List of reference and Text.
3. In many places, authors did not write proper references at the end of statements. Providing information or statements without references are not appropriate. For example, the given sentence at the end introduction don’t have proper references. It is highly recommended to update the given paragraph with previous studies as given below:

“Multiple previous studies have been conducted on estimation of the relationship between inputs and output of agriculture [1-4]. While some studies determined the impact of climate change on crop productivity [5-6]. Moreover, studies have focused on socio-psychological behavior of farmers to adopt improved technology [7-8]”. However, limited studies have focused on adoption drivers of improved open-pollinated maize varieties by smallholder farmers. Additionally, in South Africa, no study has focused on assessing adoption drivers of improved maize varieties by farmers with the intention to enhance maize productivity and farm returns. Therefore, the current study covers the research gap and contributes to the existing literature on farmers’ intention to use improved maize farmers in South Africa. Therefore, the current article aims to ascertain factors affecting the adoption of improved maize seed varieties (OPVs) in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. The second section discusses the data and the methods used. This section is followed by the results and discussion. The last section concludes the study.

[1] Agricultural intensification and damages to human health in relation to agrochemicals: Application of artificial intelligence. Land Use Policy 83, 461-474. Doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.023.

[2] Estimation of realistic renewable and non-renewable energy use targets for livestock production systems utilising an artificial neural network method: A step towards livestock sustainability. Energy.

[3] Use of artificial neural networks to rescue agrochemical-based health hazards: A resource optimisation method for cleaner crop production. Journal of Cleaner Production.

[4] Agricultural intensification and damages to human health in relation to agrochemicals: Application of artificial intelligence. Land Use Policy 83, 461-474. Doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2019.02.023.

[5] Extreme weather events risk to crop-production and the adaptation of  innovative management strategies to mitigate the risk: A retrospective survey of rural Punjab, Pakistan. Technovation. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.technovation.2021.102255.

[6] Historical perspective of climate change in sustainable livelihoods of coastal areas of the Red River Delta, Nam Dinh, Vietnam. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management, Vol. 11 No. 5, pp. 687-695 Doi. org/10.1108/IJCCSM-02-2018-0016.

[7] Understanding cognitive and socio-psychological factors determining farmers’ intentions to use improved grassland: Implications of land use policy for sustainable pasture production. Land Use Policy, 102, 105250.

[8] An investigation into the socio-psychological determinants of farmers' conservation decisions: method and implications for policy, extension and research

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper has made significant progress toward publications. Thank you for addressing my comments; however, I still have a few concerns. Please see below. 

Would you please pay attention while citing the manuscript? Make sure you cite correctly and provide a reference for each cited paper. For example, I don't see Abid et al. (2016) talking about the adoption of improved maize varieties. Similarly, there is a typo for another citation, "Joshi and Dhaka, 2021" (lines 276 and 264); it should have been Joshi and Dhakal, 2021, and there is no reference for this citation. Also, Please follow Journal's citation/ reference format. Again, for citation [22], this paper talks about the probit model, not logit, and your paper use the logit model, and you are referring to logit, which is not correct. Would you please remove citation [22] from line 264? 
Another vital issue is interpretation; the odds ratio in logistic regression is exp(beta). Make sure you have that. For instance, if the coefficient of extension service is 1.87, its odd ratio should be 6.49. Please double-check it. 
Please round off a number to the nearest 2/3 decimal places to make it look better and consistent. 
Please insert "variance in" before "the dependent variable in line 387..... which means 64% of the variation in the dependent variable .....
Again, interpretation is not entirely correct:

Line 398-404: First sentence is not correct, while the second one is okay. See below:
The frequency of extension visits is positive and significant at a 1% level. One additional extension visit increases the odds of adopting improved maize varieties by 555%, keeping all other variables constant. This is how you interpret your result {(exp(1.879)-1}*100%.  Your interpretation of the odds ratio is also correct should you have right the odds ratio. 
 
 

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

 

Line 16/17: this is still wrong – you collected cross-sectional data from a random sample of 150 farmers – I doubt you used cross-sectional data to randomly select those farmers, that wouldn’t make sense.

 

Line 20: should read: that the majority of farmers….

 

Line 25: ‘that hybrid is the most used maize variety than OPVs’ This sentence is still wrong – do you mean – hybrid is the most used maize varieties followed by OPVs? As in OPVs is the second most used variety? Or do you mean that the farmers rather use hybrid varieties than OPVs?

 

Line 29: farmer’ information days – should be farmer information days

 

Introduction

 

Line 39: Adopting improved maize variety – only one? Then it should read adopting an improved maize variety but if you refer to more than one it should be adopting improved maize varieties…

 

Line 67: significantly prolonged drought spells – this part of the sentence misses the link to the previous part, is that an example as in for example significantly ……

 

It is not clear what the benefits of OPVs are, the authors talk about hybrid and then interchangeably use the two terms. I think a short paragraph of OPVs is important and how they differ or are similar to hybrid varieties. Are OPVs a hybrid variety?

 

Line 112- 116, this part seems wrong here and actually is repeated word by word in lines 173- 175

 

Line 123 – 135, this has been said in the previous parts of the introduction, you should only focus on the factors that influence the adoption of OPVs in SSA

 

Line 141, needs a reference, who says so?

 

Line 152/153, needs a reference or needs to be written as an assumption but not as a statement.

 

 Line 159 to 165, the authors refer to studies but don’t cite any at the end of the sentences.

 

 Line 166 – 168: ,Additionally, in South Africa, no study has focused on assessing adoption drivers of improved maize varieties' adoption drivers to enhance maize productivity and farm returns.

 

Line 170, improved maize seed varieties (OPVs)  - I thought OPVs stands for open-pollinated varieties

 

General comment: the research aims should appear at the end of this section and not in the middle and not twice.

Methods:

 

Line 185, citrus farming – is that needed? If yes sentence needs a reference.

 

Line 185/186, ‘Smallholder farmers are mainly involved in agriculture for home consumption and agribusiness.’ Is that needed? That is the definition of a smallholder farmer.

 

Line 186/192, ‘Agricultural production is declining due to climate change, lack of credit, and ancient farming techniques.’…. – that has been said in the introduction already and is not needed again.

 

Line 194, …that involves the use of quantitative approach – should read: that involves the use of a quantitative approach

 

Line 211/212, ‘The randomly selected maize farmers in the selected local municipalities were functional and enhanced farmers' livelihoods.’ What does this mean? It is not clear.

 

Measures are still not explained in the paper. If I want to go into the field and want to ask the same questions on attitudes and knowledge I will not be able to as the authors don’t tell how they evaluated attitudes and knowledge. Same goes for the other measures.

 

Table 1, Household income, continuous in USD/per year? What is the Unit of measurement? Farm size – unit of measurement? Farm experience – unit of measurement? Non-farm income – unit of measurement? Distance to market – unit of measurement?

 

Line 249, challenges farmers face…How was that measured?

 

Line 273 – 301, in m y opinion is not necessary, I would prefer seeing how the authors measured the different constructs, rather than the calculation of a logit regression which was done in STATA using a predefined method.

 

Line 305 needs a reference

 

Line 305 – 307, ‘Adoption of involve factors that are normally beyond the control of farmers, such as 305 policy, institutional and environmental factors as well as household endowments, the agricultural business opportunities available, and the nature of the technology itself.’ What does that mean? Why is this important to note here in the methods? Methods should only include the methods chosen and their justification.

 

Line 307 – 309, ‘Furthermore, some of the factors that influence the continued use of the technology are associated to the user’s experience in using it; the more farmers become knowledgeable to the use 308 of a technology, the more they are likely to keep on using it.’ Needs a reference! So does line 310, the next sentence. Lines 310 – 321 this is in the wrong place here it should appear before when you describe the use of a logit regression. Keep it to the most important facts, there is no textbook answer required.

 

Line 328, reference needs to be in number form

 

Have the authors obtained ethical approval for this study? If not how was data privacy ensured?

Make sure all the relevant information is in the manuscript, there is no need to only tell me how you measured your variables all readers need to know.

Results and Discussion

 

Headline still says Results and Discussion – should it be results only?

 

Lines 334 – 339, this paragraph is not needed

 

Lines 345 should read – rather than OPVs

 

Lines 247 – 353 – this is not results, this is discussion and should not appear here

 

Lines 354/355 ‘Smallholders were married with 54% and an the average family size of was 6 people per household, which played a crucial role in farming by providing family labor.’ Authors infer the role of family labor, they don’t know that.

 

Lines 355 – 356, ‘Most (76%) maize farmers were full-time farmers, with 76% as they and rely solely on agriculture to live and derive livelihoods.’

 

Line 357/358 should not appear in results, it is discussion

 

Table 2 Units of measurement are missing for continuous variables

 

Lines 360/361, …farmers had a household income of R3 565.00 which contributes highly to household and farm operations. How do you know? Did you ask them? It’s an assumption.

 

Line 361 – 363, One of the significant constraints faced by maize farmers, with 78% stating they do not have access to credit. Rewrite: Farmers faced significant constraints, the one most stated was access to credit (78%). Farmers had access to extension services with (70%) and were members of farm organizations with (75%).

 

Line 364, Did you ask how far they travel to markets or how far they travel to purchase improved varieties? Not clear from the methods and should be specified.

 

Line 366/367 How do the authors know that? Is that a result of the study?  Did you ask the ratio of OPVs available? If not it is not a result.

 

Line 374 - 376 not a result it was stated in the introduction, needs to be deleted. The result is the varieties grown.

 

Figure 2 and text below: either have the actual numbers in the figure or the text, at the moment the reader does not know what the numbers are is it 25% hybrid?

 

Line 385 – 391 Should not be part of the results, it’s discussion

 

Line 395 -398 are not results, it’s discussion

 

Line 400 – 404 not results, discussion

 

Line 404 …6 people in the household.. how does that relate to the first part of the sentence are you implying 6 people in the household is enough or to few? Do you know who those household members are? Children, old people, both?

Line 410 -418 are not results

 

Figure 3: Why have % and frequency? They show the same, one is enough. Why are they linked? They shouldn’t be it is frequencies not a continuous line. Also we don’t know who it was measured, were these challenges given and farmers answered yes/no? Or did they mention it by themselves?

 

Line 423 and 425 why not just use OPVs no need to write the whole again and again

 

Line 429/430, ‘The higher the R², the more explanatory the model is, and the better it fits the sample.’ Needs a reference.

 

Line 430, Table 3 ort 4? Check with line 427  

 

Line 436 – Frequency of extension? Until now it was access to extension services. What is it?

 

Line 440 – 441 is a repetition from the sentence before

 

Line 442 – 448 are not results

 

Line 449 following: only present the results obtained from the modelling not the discussion of these results, they have to come out. Results should only contain results, they are technical without valuation and/or comparison.

 

Line 525 marginal effect analysis – this is how you write results! No need to add the beta values in the text if they are in the table.

 

Table 4. Not clear why there are two numbers in the marginal effect column

 

Discussion

 

A discussion discusses the results. Part of your discussion appears in the result section and needs to appear in the discussion section. First you discuss the characteristics of your sample, how representative is your sample what do the results imply and why? How comparable is your sample with other studies, etc…You follow on discussion the results you got, the factors that influence adoption, are they similar to other studies? Are they different? If so why? What are possible explanations? What do they contribute to our understanding.

 

Your discussion has no references that is not possible. Most of the references are currently in the results part and need to move.

 

The discussion should also include limitations the authors faced.

 

Conclusions are a brief section with the. Main points, not a second abstract. It summarizes the findings, in short. Your conclusions start at line 632

 

Author contribution check your names again AS might be AM?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx