Building Resilience: The Gendered Effect of Climate Change on Food Security and Sovereignty in Kakamega-Kenya
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Line 28 – given the emerging nature of literature on climate change, I strongly encourage the authors to revise the references used in this opening line to cite the most recent review articles on the topic. The references used (even one as old as 2002) are outdated.
Line 39 – Please fully spell out “ND-GAIN” for the first use.
Line 39-41 – Please choose to say that Kenya is ranked 151st or 31st. They are different numbers that mean the same thing and having both in one sentence is confusing to a potential reader.
Line 41 – May be interesting to describe how Kenya ranks compared to other African countries in addition to the global ranking
Overall, lines 26-129 can be reduced. It is not typical within the journal to have two introductions and some of the information at the beginning of the second section (example beginning line 73) is redundant from what was already written. ‘
Line 133 – Authors should remove this statement as the methodology should describe the methods not the findings of the study.
I encourage that authors to review a qualitative study research checklist as bits of relevant information within the methods are not currently described. I recommend COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist; however, other checklists are available for use and cover similar areas.
References need to be reformatted to meet MDPI author guidelines. Please confirm all references are listed (example: Feulner, G 2015)
Although the journal accepts free format submission, the manuscript is currently not written in the general “flow” of typical articles within the journal. Editorially the manuscript will need to be reformatted for the new MDPI template style and sections. References need to be reformatted as numbers within the text and author names and affiliations should be listed in the conventional MDPI
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, thank you for your work which I believe took a significant amount of effort to conduct, compile and organise. Your work is well-presented and your findings are clear, and there is value in bringing more importance to the role of gender in the interface between climate change and agriculture, of which this is welcome. I do have minor comments mostly related to the structuring of your manuscript, to help the reader anticipate better what to expect from your work.
For example a minor comment is to add some numbering into your sections. This helps the reader associate the particular sub-theme with the discussion of a particular section; this helps break up the long flowing text of your manuscript. It would also be helpful to add a few lines about your hypothesis/ assumptions, as well as to prepare the reader for the subsequent sections of your work to increase its ease of readability.
I have other minor comments below:
- Line 44 this production accounts for 65% of the total earning of the country --> this is not clear if county contributes to 65% of actual GDP or rather county/ country production?
- line 86 resistance, or resilience?
- The introduction overall is quite lengthy: can you describe more as to how this has informed your design of the study rather than a review of the concepts, which is not the main focus or benefit provided by your original research.
- Lines 133-134 are not methodology but rather findings already. Also note the typo of “Methodology”.
- Additionally, I suggest a map would be helpful to the reader to geolocate your described area of study. We are not as familiar as you with the geography of Kenya nor its counties/ subcounties.
- Lines 148-149 as men tend to dominate/shape their ideas … I do not shed doubt on this line but rather would like to see this more substantiated (e.g. in the literature)?
- In the last paragraph of your conclusion you mention financial support and government initiatives/programmes but without going into specifics. Indeed, this is the only small section where these are mentioned. In this case, these are important. Can you reference them or add more lines to support these lines?
Thank you very much.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your valuable comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I appreciate the author's revisions to the manuscript in response to my comments and the other reviewer. I have no further comments.
Author Response
Thanks for the positive feedback
