Effect of Climate Smart Agriculture Innovations on Climate Resilience among Smallholder Farmers: Empirical Evidence from the Choke Mountain Watershed of the Blue Nile Highlands of Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript aimed to examine the impact of climate smart agriculture (CSA) innovations on building climate resilience capacity in smallholder agriculture systems. The data and methods used in the study are well explained. The results are presented clearly and can support the conclusions adequately. The aims are reached in the end. 

However, there are some shortcomings and errors in the present version. The details are as follows:

1) Some words are covered up by boxes in Figure 1, which is not cited in the text; Figure 2 is lacking. Table 3 is not cited in the text.

2) Line 21: What does SWC mean? It should be explained at the first appearance.

3) Line 171: remove ", and the Watershed's".

4) Line 500-501: Where is Tabel 10?

5) The equations after Equation (7) are not numbered.

6) The style of the references is still not compatible with that of Sustainability. The year is placed before the volume but not in parentheses.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

My paper review is satisfactory. It is relevant, and the methodology is relatively well explained, although some clarifications are necessary. 

First, it is necessary to clarify the type of rotation used. Varimax rotation is usually assumed for this type of analysis, but there are other alternatives. 

Second, the scale used to measure the different analytical constructs (Likert, semantic differential, among others) is not specified. No reference is made to the results of the validation test of the scales such as Cronbach Alpha. 

Third, everything suggests that the study was limited to a type of exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and that the regression analysis was generated based on the factorial punctuations (construct s index), including the factorial punctuation (index) of the dependent variable. The EFA is a good alternative and possibly justified given that, according to the authors, it is the first time that this type of analysis has been carried out in the study area. It should have been specified and would have been enough to accept and validate the results. 

Fourth, given that the sample level reached (424), it was possible to conduct a confirmatory factor analysis or CFA (structural equation modelling). Figure 1 already suggests a confirmatory approach that is not finally developed since the analysis carried out is exploratory. I suggest modifying figure 1 or deleting it since one would expect a CFA when looking at it (it can be substituted with a plot of residuals from the regression in the results section). 

Finally, I strongly suggest separating the results of the discussion. It would allow a more precise paper s reading of the pa since the methodological burden is enormous making reading some confusing. The discussion must be cleaner and more fluid so that the verification of the hypotheses and the research questions can be appreciated more clearly. 

Conclusions must be reached to understand the sign and meaning of the results clearly. In addition, a separate discussion of the results would allow better articulation of the findings with the broader literature on the topic addressed. The paper is engaging, relevant and well-written, but it requires changes that improve its reading and show more clearly the articulation of the results with the broader framework of the literature so that the novelty of the findings becomes evident.  

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think the new version is much better, and I congratulate you on the changes. I think you have a good product. I recommend three final things:

• One last check of the English.
• Having shorter, more concise sentences.
• Giving one last look at the references to ensure as much consistency as possible.

After this, okay.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf