Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper aims to identify factors that determine smallholder farmers’ adaptation strategies to climate change in the home garden agroforestry system in Ethiopia’s Rift Valley. The authors recognize that several studies have developed models to study the factors that influence smallholder farmers’ decision on the adoption of measure to adapt to climate risks. However, they sustain the need to analyse the interactions and interdependences among the strategies using an appropriate model.

Introduction

This section clearly highlight the vulnerability of developing countries to climate change and to stress the importance to adopts strategies to adapt smallholder farming systems to these changes. However, the objectives of the study are not clearly defined: explain better the benefits to use the model you purpose in the study comparing to other similar studies.

Material and methods: sample selection and data collections are rigorously determined. However:

Subsection 2.4: explain better the model MVP (is it an acronym for what?). The sentence in line 176 seems incomplete.

Moreover, the paragraph between LL 166-176 is repeated between line 177 and 187.

Descriptive results

This section is well developed, describing the socioeconomic context of the smallholder farmers (independent variables) and explain the correlation among these traits and the farmers’ choice of adaptation strategies. Section 3.3 is probably too long. I would suggest shortening this paragraph limiting to describe the factors affecting farmers’ choice in adaptation strategies and add a discussion session in which you explain and interpret the correlation.

Figure 2 is not readable, please reorganize and replace it as graphic. Moreover, the paragraph between line 214 and 221 is repeated between line 225 and 232.

Line 236: grade 6 and 12 at which education level correspond in the international standard (primary…secondary…university…).

Line 247: please convert Birr in euro or dollar

Line 256-263: please explain how the 5 major adaptation strategies were identified

Table 2. insert the acronym PSWCPs in the third rows of the table.

Lines between 325 and340 are repeated between lines 341 and 356.

Conclusions

At the beginning, LL639-644, it is not necessary to repeat the list of factors that influence farmers’ choice, you have already well explained in in the previous paragraph. In the conclusions, you should focus more on the possible impact of the study and strength the positive socio-economic and environmental effect within the smallholder farmers’ communities.

Author Response

Dear Editor(s)

We are thankful for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Ethiopian Rift Valley: The Case of Home Garden Agroforestry Systems in Gedeo Zone.” We greatly appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers put into providing feedback on our paper, and we are grateful for their insightful comments and valuable suggesting that helped improve our work. We have incorporated most of the reviewers' suggestions, which are indicated in the manuscript with highlighted changes. Please refer to the point-to-point response below, marked in blue, for our detailed response to the reviewers' comments and concerns. All page numbers correspond to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Comments from Reviewer 1

Comment 1: [This section clearly highlights the vulnerability of developing countries to climate change and stresses the importance to adopts strategies to adapt smallholder farming systems to these changes. However, the objectives of the study are not clearly defined: explain better the benefits to use the model you purpose in the study comparing to other similar studies.]

Response: We acknowledge and accept. As a result, we have redefined the study's objectives and highlighted the advantages of using the model in the updated manuscript. This modification can be located on page 2, paragraphs 3 through 5, and lines 70 to 96, to stress this aspect.

Comment 2: [Material and methods: sample selection and data collection are rigorously determined. However: Subsection 2.4: explain better the model MVP (is it an acronym for what?). The sentence in line 176 seems incomplete.]

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of Analytical methods. We have incorporated your suggestion into the revised manuscript and made the necessary modifications on page 5, in paragraph 1, lines 176 and 177 to emphasize this point. Additionally, we have included a new paragraph on page 4, under subheading 2.4, paragraph 1, that explains the use of two theories employed to achieve the research objective and thoroughly addresses the relationship between adaptation techniques and rural households.

Comment 3: [Moreover, the paragraph between LL 166-176 is repeated between line 177 and 187.]

Response: We are grateful that you brought to our attention the repetition in our manuscript. We apologize for the mistake and have corrected it by removing the repeated paragraph in the revised manuscript. You can find the modification on page 5, in paragraph 1, lines 176 and 177, to highlight this point.

Comment 4: [This section is well developed, describing the socioeconomic context of the smallholder farmers (independent variables) and explain the correlation among these traits and the farmers’ choice of adaptation strategies. Section 3.3 is probably too long. I would suggest shortening this paragraph limiting to describe the factors affecting farmers’ choice in adaptation strategies and add a discussion session in which you explain and interpret the correlation.]

Response: Thank you for sharing your thoughts on Section 3.3. While I understand your concern about its length, I respectfully disagree with the suggestion to shorten the paragraph. The factors affecting farmers' choice in adaptation strategies are numerous and complex, and it is important to provide a comprehensive understanding of these factors to the readers. However, I appreciate your suggestion to add a discussion session to explain and interpret the correlation. I will definitely consider this in my future revisions. Thanks again for your valuable feedback.

Comment 5: [Figure 2 is not readable, please reorganize and replace it as graphic.

Response: We acknowledge that Figure 1 and 2 poses readability issues and needs to be restructured. We are grateful for your input and have made the necessary changes. The latest version of the graphics is now available on pages 3 and 6 of the revised manuscript, just below the original Figure 1 and 2.

Comment 6: [Moreover, the paragraph between line 214 and 221 is repeated between line 225 and 232.]

Response: We are grateful that you brought to our attention the repetition in our manuscript. We apologize for the mistake and have corrected it by removing the repeated paragraph. Additionally, we have revised the entire descriptive analysis. You can find this modification on pages 5-7, under heading 3 "descriptive analysis," between lines 204-254.

Comment 7: [Line 236: grade 6 and 12 at which education level correspond in the international standard (primary…secondary…university…)]

Response: Thanks for the suggestion. It would have been interesting to explore this aspect. However, it's worth noting that most countries worldwide follow the international standard for education levels that categorizes Grades 6 to 12 as secondary education and Grades 1 to 6 as primary education. Although there may be some variations in this categorization among countries, the general consensus remains the same. Tertiary education includes universities and colleges, while primary and secondary education constitutes Grades 1-6 and 7-12, respectively. Acknowledging these standard categorizations is essential to ensure consistency and clarity when discussing education systems across different countries.

Comment 8: [Line 247: please convert Birr in euro or dollar.]

Response: We appreciate your suggestion and found it intriguing to delve into that aspect. As a result, we have made the necessary changes and converted ETB to the dollar in the updated manuscript. To make it easier for you to locate, we have highlighted this point in paragraph 1 on page 6, specifically on lines 223 and 224.

Comment 9: [Line 256-263: please explain how the 5 major adaptation strategies were identified]

Response: We have made the necessary changes as per your request. Specifically, we have elaborated on how we identified the 5 major adaptation strategies to emphasize our point. To access this modification, please refer to page 6, under subheading 3.2 titled "The adaptation techniques are chosen by smallholder farmers to climate change", and read the first paragraph on lines 230-232 on the updated version of the manuscript.

Comment 10: [Table 2. insert the acronym PSWCPs in the third rows of the table.]

Response: We agree with the suggestion and have made the necessary changes. The acronym PSWCPs has been added to the third row of the table to highlight the point. You can find the modification (Page 7) on the updated version of the manuscript.

Comment 11 [Lines between 325 and 340 are repeated between lines 341 and 356.]

Response: We appreciate you notifying us about the repetition in our manuscript. We apologize for the error and have rectified it by removing the repeated paragraph. You can find this change on page 8, under subheading 3.2.5 "Multiple coping measures", in the first paragraph on lines 298- 312.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Good work was done. But need further elaborations and emendations as given below.

Rewrite the abstract using the background, objectives, results, and conclusion in that order.

Therefore, the Abstract, Introduction, and Conclusions need to be developed considering the rigor of your work. The novelty of this work?

Could you further improve the data collection, analysis, and survey part?

Research methodology should be further improved for more clarity and the use of applied research tools should be justified clearly. Could you also speak on the robustness/validation of the model?

See also the comments of the attached file and provide the rational responses and emendations.

Best regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Editor(s),

We are thankful for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Ethiopian Rift Valley: The Case of Home Garden Agroforestry Systems in Gedeo Zone.” We greatly appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers put into providing feedback on our paper, and we are grateful for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions that helped improve our work. We have incorporated most of the reviewers' suggestions, which indicated in the manuscript with highlighted changes. Please refer to the point-to-point response below, marked in blue, for our detailed response to the reviewers' comments and concerns. All page numbers correspond to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Comments from Reviewer 2

Comment 1: [Not sound results presentation? and these factors were selected among how many factors]

Response: We appreciate you taking the time to review our work and provide feedback. We understand the importance of improving the abstract to address the concerns you raised. To ensure a clear understanding of the main topic, research questions, and methods used, we have made the necessary revisions. As for the factors, we found that out of nineteen variables, only these variables had significantly affected smallholder farmers' adoption of adaptation strategies. You may locate these changes on the front page of our revised manuscript under the "abstract" heading and lines 13-30. We appreciate your valuable comments once again.

Comment 2: [Line 42 and 43: Need rewriting.]

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for reviewing our work. Your feedback is valuable to us, and we have carefully considered your comments. We have made the necessary revisions to the introduction section, and you can find these changes on page 2 of the updated manuscript under the heading "Introduction" and lines 34-97. Thank you for bringing this to our attention.

Comment 3: [The quality of Figure 1 and Figure 2 are not good]

Response: We replaced Figure 1 and Figure 2 with high-quality versions, which are available on pages 3 and 6 of the revised manuscript, located just below the original Figure 1 and Figure 2, respectively. We appreciate you bringing the quality issues to our attention, and we took note of them to ensure better versions used.

Comment 4: [Why do not study all six district?]

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our study. While we appreciate your suggestion to study all six districts, our research question was focused on three specific districts for a reason. Expanding the scope to all six districts would have made the study too broad and difficult to manage. Additionally, the sample size for the three districts we did study was already significant and provided sufficient data to draw meaningful conclusions. We appreciate your feedback but believe that our study had appropriately focused and executed.

Comment 5: [In sub-heading 2.3, line 152: add explanations on the secondary data]

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We appreciate your insightful comment on sub-heading 2.3, line 152. We agree that providing explanations about the secondary data used in our study would help to enhance the clarity of our work. We have incorporated your suggestion and now included additional one-paragraph explanation about the secondary data used into the revised manuscript in sub-heading 2.3 (page 4, paragraph 2, lines 149 -155) to emphasize this point. Once again, thank you for your valuable feedback

Comment 6: [It is suggested to provide the questionnaire as supplementary file.]

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for taking the time to examine our investigation. Your input is valuable to us. However, we respectfully disagree with the reviewer's recommendation to include the questionnaire as an additional file. While it may appear to be a feasible solution, it could lead to issues with data accuracy and replicability. If the questionnaire is offered as a separate file, there is a possibility of confusion regarding which version was employed throughout the study, and inconsistencies may arise in the data if different versions used by researchers.

Comment 7: [Results and Discussion need revision]

Response: We would like to express our gratitude for reviewing our work. Your feedback is valuable to us, and we have accepted your comments and revised it accordingly. You can find these changes on page 5 of the updated manuscript under the heading “Results and Discussion “and lines 193.

Comment 8: [If available, it is better to add some pictures as example from used techniques!.]

Response: Thanks for taking the time to provide your feedback on our article. We really appreciate it. We understand that pictures could have helped readers understand the techniques better, but unfortunately, we did not take any photos. Sorry about that.

Comment 9: [Please add 1 dollar equal to how much Birr? And Add the exact date (range) of field survey too.]

Response: We appreciate your suggestion and found it intriguing to delve into that aspect. As a result, we have made the necessary changes and converted ETB to the dollar in the updated manuscript. To make it easier for you to locate, we have highlighted this point in paragraph 1 on page 6, specifically on lines 223 and 224.

Comment 10: [For in-depth discussion, it is better to add other experiences from different countries.]

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s comments about in-depth discussion. We have incorporated your suggestion into the revised manuscript and made the necessary modifications on page 5, in paragraph 1, lines 176 and 177 to emphasize this point.

Comment 11: [Provide full name of all abbreviation used! Without it, the table is not stand alone.]

Response: We appreciate your feedback and understand the importance of including full names of abbreviations in the table for clarity. We apologize for any confusion caused and have rectified the issue by adding the full names of all abbreviations in the updated manuscript. You can refer to Figure 5 on line 399 to view the changes made. Thank you for taking the time to provide your valuable input.

Comment 12: [The conclusion section needs complete rewriting. Presenting such information is meaningless.]

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We value your feedback and acknowledge that we need to rewrite the conclusion to address the research question more effectively. We have re-evaluated our findings and revised the conclusion accordingly to ensure it provides a more accurate reflection of our research and a more satisfactory answer to the research question. To view these changes, please refer to page 14 of our updated manuscript under the heading "Conclusion" and lines 600-619. Once again, thank you for your valuable comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have gone through the manuscript entitled "Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Ethiopian Rift Valley: The Case of Home Garden Agroforestry Systems in Gedeo Zone" and found it interesting. However, below listed suggestion will improve its further utilization.

1. The figures quality needs to be improve for better readability as it is difficult to read in present form.

2. Quantified results need to be given in abstract.

3. The survey format need to be provided as supplementry file.

4. The long sentences such as line 639-644 need to be break into smaller one.

5. The conclusion need to be rewritten for better answer of the research question

6. The outcomes of the investigation is need to redraw in more focused way.

7. The quantifiable output need to be mention while drawing conclusion from the study. 

Author Response

Dear Editor(s),

We are thankful for the opportunity to submit a revised draft of our manuscript titled “Smallholder Farmers’ Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in Ethiopian Rift Valley: The Case of Home Garden Agroforestry Systems in Gedeo Zone.” We greatly appreciate the time and effort you and the reviewers put into providing feedback on our paper, and we are grateful for their insightful comments and valuable suggestions that helped improve our work. We have incorporated most of the reviewers' suggestions, which are indicated in the manuscript with highlighted changes. Please refer to the point-to-point response below, marked in blue, for our detailed response to the reviewers' comments and concerns. All page numbers correspond to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Here is a point-by-point response to the reviewers’ comments and concerns.

Comments from Reviewer 3

Comment 1: [The figure's quality needs to be improved for better readability as it is difficult to read in its present form.]

Response: We acknowledge that Figure 1 and 2 poses readability issues and needs to be restructured. We are grateful for your input and have made the necessary changes. The latest version of the graphics is now available on pages 3 and 6 of the revised manuscript, just below the original Figure 1 and 2.

Comment 2: [Quantified results need to be given in the abstract.]

Response: We agree with the reviewer’s assessment of Analytical methods. We have incorporated your suggestion into the revised manuscript and made the necessary modifications on page 5, in paragraph 1, lines 176 and 177 to emphasize this point. Additionally, we have included a new paragraph on page 4, under subheading 2.4, paragraph 1, that explains the use of two theories employed to achieve the research objective and thoroughly addresses the relationship between adaptation techniques and rural households.

Comment 3: [The survey format need to be provided as supplementary file]

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our study. We appreciate your feedback on mentioning including survey formats in a research paper. Including survey formats in a research paper is a subject that is open to interpretation. However, it is important to keep in mind that the main goal of an academic paper is to communicate research findings and their significance, rather than to provide readers with access to raw data. Including survey formats in a paper may cause a distraction and is not always necessary for readers to comprehend the research. Instead, researchers can provide a comprehensive methodology section that outlines the survey's design and implementation. Ultimately, the decision to include survey formats in a research paper should depend on the specific requirements and expectations of the target audience and publication outlet.

Comment 4: [The long sentences such as line 639-644 need to be break into smaller one.]

Response: We have taken the suggestion into consideration and made necessary changes to emphasize the point. To view these changes, please refer to page 14 of the updated manuscript under the heading "Conclusion" and lines 600-619.

Comment 5: [the conclusion need to be rewritten for better answer of the research question]

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our work. We value your feedback and acknowledge that we need to rewrite the conclusion to address the research question more effectively. We have re-evaluated our findings and revised the conclusion accordingly to ensure it provides a more accurate reflection of our research and a more satisfactory answer to the research question. To view these changes, please refer to page 14 of our updated manuscript under the heading "Conclusion" and lines 600-619. Once again, thank you for your valuable comments.

Comment 6: [The outcomes of the investigation is need to redraw in more focused way.]

Response: Thank you for taking the time to review our investigation. We appreciate your feedback and would like to respectfully disagree with your comment about redrawing the outcomes in a more focused way. We believe that the investigation was conducted with a clear focus and the outcomes accurately reflect the findings. However, if you have any specific concerns or suggestions on how we can improve the investigation outcomes, we would be happy to address them. Thank you again for your valuable feedback.

Comment 7: [The quantifiable output need to be mention while drawing conclusion from the study.]

Response: Thank you for reviewing our study. We appreciate your input on the need to mention quantifiable outputs while drawing conclusions. However, we disagree with this suggestion. Our investigation aimed to explore the interplay of different factors contributing to the studied phenomenon. Although quantifiable outputs are crucial, they aren't the sole measure of success or relevance for this type of study. We believe that our investigation was focused, and the outcomes accurately reflect the findings. However, we are open to addressing any specific concerns or suggestions for improvement you may have. Please feel free to provide us with any additional feedback that you feel would be helpful. Thanks again for your consideration.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf