Livelihood Impacts of Large-Scale Agricultural Investments Using Empirical Evidence from Shashamane Rural District of Oromia Region, Ethiopia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Since the main object in social disciplines is people and their behaviors, producing publications can be more difficult and complex than in other fields. In this sense, valuable work has been done.
|
Point 1 |
Line 42 |
Please add reference (almost 80% of its population residing in rural areas |
|
Point 2 |
Line 45 |
You mentioned the abbreviation LSAI (Large Scale Agricultural Investment) on line 35 in the summary section. Please use these abbreviations from the part where you use abbreviations in the text. (Line 237 Propensity score matching model (PSM)) |
|
Point 3 |
Line 52 |
Please add reference (than 11% average annual growth rate) |
|
Point 4 |
Line 71 |
Please add punctuation (even greater benefits [15] In recent times,) |
|
Point 5 |
Line 59 |
Please add a space in the text (tries by 2025[20] [19].) |
|
Point 6 |
Line 104, 109 |
This section should be the expression of the conclusion section. |
|
Point 7 |
Line 256, 264 |
Please provide references in the text in a standard way (Line 256 [50] [52]. Line 264 [48,51].) |
|
Point 8 |
Line 268 |
Please check this sentence. Sentence-finished punctuation is not done. (arise[46] since it is not possible to estimate) |
|
Point 9 |
Line 345 |
Please present the tables after the sentence in which they are first used in the text. |
|
Point 10 |
Line 381 |
Please pay attention to abbreviations |
|
Point 11 |
Line 413 |
In this section you have explained the data of Table 3, but Table 3 is not given in this section. |
|
Point 12 |
Line 480 |
Please pay attention to punctuation. |
|
Point 13 |
Line 491, 492 |
Please pay attention to the style references are shown in the text. (Baumgartner (2015) [16], Deininger (2016) [18] and Hufe (2017) [63]) |
|
Point 14 |
Line 492, 501 |
Please pay attention to references. (Hufe & Heuermann, (2017) [63]) Hufe (2017) [63] |
|
Point 15 |
Line 517 |
Please pay attention to abbreviations. What does NGO mean? |
|
Point 16 |
Line 531 |
Please pay attention to space. (over access to land[72].) |
|
Point 17 |
Line 572 |
Please pay attention to space. ([38,84].This indicates) |
|
Point 18 |
Line 586, 590 |
Please pay attention to space and abbreviations. (Considering SLF is holistic approach , the present study adopts) (United Arab Emirates. Yemen, and) |
|
Point 19 |
Line 604-626 |
It would be useful to review the conclusion section. In the conclusion part, the purpose is emphasized, but it is not explained why the research is needed. In the conclusion part, the background of the research, introduction, material, method and discussion section should not be the subjects. The findings of the research and the conclusion reached should be mentioned. |
|
Point 19 |
Line 604-626 |
Please pay attention to space. (economy[89].) |
Author Response
-
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors, please check these suggestions in order to improve quality of the research:
- line 77. give the full name for the abbreviation GTP because it appears here for the first time;
- all figures are not transparent because they are small in size and have low resolutions;
- in the subsection 3.4., authors mentioned that they used a questionnaire, but there are no details about it. Please indicate what kind of questionnaire did you used, what types of questions/items did it contain?
- line 167 ( 5Kms, 7kms, and 5.5kms) - In speech we may say five kilometers, but in notation the units are always in the singular, as km and not kms. Please, correct this throughout the whole paper.
- Table 1. - in the title of the table there is Chi2, but it should be "a chi-square statistic", since 2 is used only for χ2 . Also, it is not clear what are numbers 1 to 4 for education level. ž
- The sentence "This includes natural capital..." in the lines from 408 to 413 is repeated. We already have the same sentence in the text.
- The conclusion section should be fully rewritten since it does not provide an adequate information. First of all, the conclusions should be presented in general, so other areas could benefit from them, and theoretical and practical implications are missing. Also, add limitations of your research and recommendations for future research.
- Finally, the whole paper needs to be proofread by a native English speaker.
Author Response
-
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the authors for the contribution of their manuscript for review. The authors present an article examining the livelihood impacts of LSAIs using a combination of data sources and techniques in the Shashamane Rural District of Oromia Region in Ethiopia. This type of development is increasingly prominent in African countries and other regions of the globe and to my knowledge the contribution analyzing this region is novel and important work. The author's analysis does conclude that the LSAI has negatively affected this region when compared with the control households. I feel that the work done with survey data is appropriate, the findings are novel, and the scope of the work is appropriate for the journal. My concerns are primarily with the structure of the article and the strength of the language used in the Discussion and Conclusion sections.
The current structure of the article features few to no paragraph breaks in within each sub section of the paper. This makes the paper seem dense and difficult to read. There are also many punctuation errors, typos, and incorrect words throughout the body of the manuscript that makes interpretation of the author's meaning difficult at times. The readability and presentation of the manuscript need to be improved before the article is acceptable for publication.
In the Discussion and Conclusion sections of the manuscript, the authors state their conclusions clearly in relatively harsh language for a scientific journal. In the current form it reads more like a policy piece rather than a research paper, especially as the findings counter many previously published pieces of work (e.g. lines 498-503) on the subject. I would suggest a rewrite of these sections to make them more concise and examine why their results differ from previous studies.
Also in reading through the manuscript, the authors do include access to water as once of the variables in their model. However, the authors do not appear to discuss the meteorological/climatological conditions during their study period. Given that access/availability to water is important, it would be helpful to for the reader to understand what the background conditions were like during the study period (i.e. was is a wet period, dry, normal)? Climatic conditions would likely affect the outcomes of the groups in different ways considering their differing abilities to access resources.
I feel that there is good potential for the article to be published in this journal following a major revision of the manuscript.
Author Response
-
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This is an interesting manuscript which deserves publication in the journal Sustainability, following a minor revision. English is very good, but authors are advised to check catrefully the entire document for potential typing and grammar/style inconsistencies.
Abstract:
Could you specify regional toponimes (geographical terms) in a more gentle way? To international readers it is difficult to orientate themselves in this regard (north, south, etc., it could help).
Line 12: what was the study area?
Introduction:
Lines 33-35: I really do not understand this LSAI. Could you specify it more precisely? Was it some initiative by the Ethiopian government? This is a focal point of this paper, and it needs to be properly introduced.
Line 46: what do you mean by ‘’notable’’?
Line 49: which comparative advantage? Please explain.
Line 56-61: this sentence should be revised.
Line 77: what is GTP?
Lines 81-84: this is not clear. Please, give more precise details.
Line 97: LSAI, not LSLI
Lines 105-107: delete parentheses
Line 107: what is PSM?
Lines 101-109: objectives of the study should be clarified. The current version is not precise.
Line 112: what is SLF?
Figures 1 and 2: they should be improved (2 in particular) with respect the visibility of their components.
Lines 157-169: this should be revised; it is very difficult to follow the story. Maybe it will be easier when Figure 2 is improved.
Line 179: what is Kebele?
Line 188: where is it on the map?
Equations should be numbered.
Line 225: every 16th of what?
Line 260: it should be explained.
Line 365: 42 years (round the numbers)
366: 45 years
599: countries
Author Response
-
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors paid good attention to reviewer comments. I suggest publishing this paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
I thank the author's for submitting their thoughtful revision. Following the submission of the revised manuscript, my concerns have been addressed. I recommend the article be accepted for publication in this journal.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
