Assessing the Contribution of Farm Forestry Farmer Field Schools to Climate Resilience in a Mixed Crop–Livestock System in Dryland Kenya

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the role of Farm Forestry Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in enhancing climate resilience within mixed crop-livestock systems in dryland Kenya. The study design is robust, employing diverse data collection methods such as interviews, focus group discussions, and household surveys. The analysis is thorough, offering valuable insights into FFS's contributions to climate adaptation. However, I still have the following concerns:

1-The context is well-described, but the uniqueness and urgency of FFS in Kenyan drylands could be emphasized further to strengthen practical relevance.
2-ropensity Score Matching (PSM) is appropriately used, but the rationale for selecting matching variables and addressing potential endogeneity requires more detail.
3-Table 5 shows no significant difference in climate-related losses between FFS and non-FFS households, yet the text suggests FFS households may be more adaptive. Clarify this contradiction.
4-The conclusion notes FFS's untapped potential but lacks actionable recommendations (e.g., policy or market linkages). Propose specific steps to enhance FFS impact.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Kubo et al. examines the role of FFS in enhancing climate resilience within mixed crop-livestock systems in dryland Kenya, focusing on case studies in Embu and Taita Taveta counties. The study employs a case study approach, combining qualitative and quantitative methods to assess the impact of FFS on agricultural practices, learning capacity and household resilience. While the topic is relevant to the scope of Sustainability, addressing climate resilience and sustainable agricultural practices in vulnerable dryland regions, the manuscript suffers from several critical shortcomings in terms of research quality, innovation, methodological rigor and clarity. Below, I provide a detailed evaluation of the manuscript.

Major concerns:

1. The study lacks significant novelty. While it examines the role of farm forestry FFS, the findings are not particularly groundbreaking. The manuscript does not clearly articulate how it advances the existing literature (see study by Davis et al., 2012) or introduces new theoretical or practical insights.
2. The manuscript struggles to establish a causal link between FFS participation and enhanced climate resilience, as they claim FFS households show greater adaptability under certain conditions, the evidence (see Table 5) shows no significant differences in drought impacts or tree survival rates between FFS and non-FFS households. This undermines the central claim of the study.
3. Furthermore, the results and discussion sections are largely descriptive, presenting data without deep analytical engagement.

Other comments:

1. Abstract overstates the impact of FFS by claiming it “strengthened farmers capacity” and led to “greater adaptability” which is not consistently supported by this study results.
2. The research questions are clearly stated but lack specificity. For example, “how farm forestry FFS could enhance the capacity of a mixed crop-livestock system” is too vague and does not specify measurable outcomes.
3. The introduction is overly broad, relying on general statements about climate vulnerability without sufficiently narrowing down to the specific contributions of farm forestry FFS.
4. The indicators for assessing climate resilience such as asset holding, knowledge, group participation is relevant but incomplete. Key resilience indicators, like water access, soil moisture retention, or specific agroforestry practices, are not systematically measured.
5. The household survey was conducted in May-June 2023, while interviews and FGDs occurred in November 2022. This temporal gap could introduce inconsistencies, especially given the dynamic nature of climate impacts.

Results:

1. Also, authors do not describe how qualitative data were analyzed reducing transparency and replicability.
2. More importantly, the results are predominantly descriptive, with limited statistical significance in key outcomes, which weaken the claim that FFS enhance climate resilience.
3. Also, the exclusive use of tables without graphics limits visual interpretability and fails to highlight trends or variability of this study.

Discussion:

1. The discussion is disorganized and repetitive, reiterating results without adding substantial analytical depth and lacks sufficient engagement with the literature.
2. Authors claim of an “expanded mixed crop-livestock system” is not strongly supported by data, as the integration of trees does not appear to significantly alter system outcomes.

Conclusion:

This section is overly long and includes new ideas (e.g. water scarcity solutions) that are not adequately explored in the results or discussion. It overstates the impact of FFS by claiming it reshapes social dynamics and community organization without robust evidence. Also, the recommendations are generic and not well-supported by the study findings.

Minor comments:

1. Some citations are outdated or not fully integrated into the discussion to support claims. The manuscript could benefit from more recent studies on agroforestry and resilience in dryland contexts. Authors need to update references with more recent literature and ensure citations are used to critically engage with prior work.
2. Author need to improve the English language of the manuscript. Some sentences are awkwardly phrased and some showed vague phrases. For example, line 393 “In this section, we discuss the findings of the study. The discussion is guided by the 393 two complementary perspectives…………….” Line 415 “The above discussion suggests that the key structures and functions of a mixed crop-415 livestock system are expanded……….”.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language must be improved. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

the manuscript presents a valuable and timely case study on the role of Farm Forestry Farmer Field Schools (FFS) in enhancing climate resilience in dryland Kenya. The conceptual framework combining system-based and learning-based perspectives is well applied, and the empirical material is rich and relevant. The study is clearly structured and engages appropriately with the literature.

However, a few areas would benefit from further clarification. First, while the paper shows behavioral changes among FFS participants, the evidence for improved resilience—particularly in terms of coping with climate shocks—remains limited. It would strengthen the paper to discuss this limitation more openly and, where possible, to support the claims with more concrete quantitative indicators. Second, although FFS households appear more engaged in tree-growing for commercial purposes, differences in outcomes such as tree survival rates and income from wood sales are not statistically significant. This point should be acknowledged in the discussion, especially when interpreting the practical effects of the intervention.

The discussion on transformational learning is promising, but its empirical basis is still narrow. The authors might consider whether any broader changes beyond farming practices have emerged or reflect on conditions that could enable such change. The use of propensity score matching is appropriate, but the limitations of using a single set of covariates for multiple outcomes should be more explicitly addressed. It would also help to clarify whether the 2025 citations refer to published or internal sources.

Overall, Your manuscript makes an important contribution and should be considered for publication after addressing these minor issues.

 

 

Kind regards :)

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have revised the manuscript well, and it now reads much better than before. The quality has improved, and the study can be considered for publication in Sustainability. However, there are still some minor suggestions that should be addressed to further improve clarity and presentation.

1. Remove the title “Author source” from all figures and tables, as it is vague and unnecessary.
2.  Include significance indicators such as letters or asterisks in the figures to clearly show differences between treatments
3. The abstract is too long and descriptive. I suggest summarizing it in a more concise manner, focusing on the key findings and their significance.
4. The introduction is still overly detailed. I recommend streamlining it by removing unnecessary background information and focusing more on the research gap and study objectives.
5. The conclusion is also overly detailed. It should be revised to provide a concise summary that highlights the key take-home message of the study.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf