Unpacking Water Scarcity Adaptation Strategies for Sustainable Food Production Systems in Sub-Saharan Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
I appreciate your scientific effort to produce this manuscript. I found the study address a very important topic. However, the paper lacks in several following issues:

- Introduction: Overly long and repetitive. The research gap and objectives are not clearly articulated. The introduction should be streamlined and better focused on the novelty of this review.

- Methodology: While PRISMA is used, the inclusion/exclusion criteria need more explanation. For example, why were urban-focused studies excluded, and how might this affect the conclusions?

- Results: Findings are presented descriptively, with long text blocks. There is a lack of synthesis, visualization (tables, figures, maps), and quantification of trends (e.g., how many studies supported each category of strategy).

- The manuscript summarizes existing strategies but rarely evaluates their effectiveness or limitations. There is little critical appraisal of evidence quality or contextual challenges.

- The review lacks engagement with theoretical frameworks on adaptation or resilience. Linking strategies to broader adaptation theory would strengthen the scholarly contribution.

- Discussion: The discussion is general and lacks depth. It does not sufficiently engage with the latest literature or demonstrate how this review advances the field.

- Conclusion: Too general and repetitive of earlier sections. The conclusion should emphasize originality, highlight gaps in knowledge, and offer sharper, actionable recommendations.

- The manuscript contains redundancies, long sentences, and awkward phrasing. A professional language edit is necessary to improve clarity and flow.

- Some parts (e.g., the section on IKS) are much more detailed than others (e.g., digital tools), giving the impression of imbalance and uneven coverage.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed reviewer, Thank you for taking your time to review our manuscript. Refer to our responses to the comments and suggestions you made.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 1 COMMENTS

Dear authors,
I appreciate your scientific effort to produce this manuscript. I found the study address a very important topic. However, the paper lacks in several following issues:

- Introduction: Overly long and repetitive. The research gap and objectives are not clearly articulated. The introduction should be streamlined and better focused on the novelty of this review.

Response to comment: The reviewer’s comment on the length and ambiguity of the introduction section was implemented in the revised manuscript. Refer to Lines 30 – 52.

- Methodology: While PRISMA is used, the inclusion/exclusion criteria need more explanation. For example, why were urban-focused studies excluded, and how might this affect the conclusions?

Response to comment: The reviewer’s comment on the methodology section was taken in consideration with an answer to the questions raised found on Lines 316 – 331.

- Results: Findings are presented descriptively, with long text blocks. There is a lack of synthesis, visualization (tables, figures, maps), and quantification of trends (e.g., how many studies supported each category of strategy).

Response to comment: The content in the revised manuscript is visualised with minimal text blocks and more synthesis. Refer to Lines 222 – 620.

- The manuscript summarizes existing strategies but rarely evaluates their effectiveness or limitations. There is little critical appraisal of evidence quality or contextual challenges.

Response to comment: The challenges of the strategies have been in the Results and Discussion section including the discussion on the implications. Refer to Lines 600 – 620.

- The review lacks engagement with theoretical frameworks on adaptation or resilience. Linking strategies to broader adaptation theory would strengthen the scholarly contribution.

Response to comment: A theoretical framework has been added to strengthen the scholarly contribution of the manuscript. Refer to Lines 53 – 87.

- Discussion: The discussion is general and lacks depth. It does not sufficiently engage with the latest literature or demonstrate how this review advances the field.

Response to comment: The implications of the study findings and how the review advances the field can be found on Lines 242 – 458 of the revised manuscript.

- Conclusion: Too general and repetitive of earlier sections. The conclusion should emphasize originality, highlight gaps in knowledge, and offer sharper, actionable recommendations.

Response to comment: The reviewer’s comment was taken into consideration and the authors amended the conclusion as recommended. Kindly refer to Lines  622 – 646 of the revised manuscript.

- The manuscript contains redundancies, long sentences, and awkward phrasing. A professional language edit is necessary to improve clarity and flow.

Response to comment: The redundancies, long sentences, and awkward phrasing were removed with the aid of an English language editor.

- Some parts (e.g., the section on IKS) are much more detailed than others (e.g., digital tools), giving the impression of imbalance and uneven coverage.

Response to comment: That has been fixed by adding more details in the revised manuscript. Refer to Lines 341 – 377 and Lines 566 – 580.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors conducted a rigorous PRISMA-guided systematic review to analyze water-scarcity adaptation strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) like zai and matengo pits as crucial for resilience while also examining small-scale irrigation, drought-resistant crops, and digital tools. It offers a balanced view by detailing challenges such as fragmented institutions and limited funds alongside opportunities like youth engagement and policy momentum, and concludes with recommendations to research IKS transfer and policy support for IKS, aiming to inform sustainable, context-specific agricultural development in the region.

The detailed questions are listed as following, please answer the questions one-by-one.

1, Imbalanced content arrangement and insufficient depth in strategy discussion: The paper devotes nearly 60% of the Results and Discussion section to discussing IKS and small-scale irrigation, while “digital tools and climate information services” are only briefly mentioned with two cases (Esoko and M-Farm platforms) without analyzing implementation effect differences across countries or specific solutions to challenges like “digital illiteracy and poor connectivity.”.

2, Overly superficial analysis of “challenges and opportunities” without targeted insights: In 2.2.1 Challenges, issues such as “institutional fragmentation and insufficient funds” are listed, but no specific national cases are provided to illustrate the severity of the problems (no mention of specific policy failure cases caused by “overlapping responsibilities among national-provincial-local water departments in South Africa”). In 2.2.2 Opportunities, “youth engagement” only emphasizes the advantage of “accepting digital technologies” while ignoring practical obstacles like “funding gaps for youth agricultural entrepreneurship and difficulties in land acquisition”, making the recommendations lack pertinence. In 2.2.1 Challenges, please supplement specific national cases (policy failures from overlapping water department responsibilities in South Africa) to illustrate problem severity; in 2.2.2 Opportunities, it is suggested the authors add analysis of practical obstacles to youth engagement (agri-entrepreneurship funding gaps, land acquisition difficulties) and targeted solutions.

3, There is insufficient empirical data, and the argument lacks quantitative support. For instance, the paper repeatedly mentions that “small-scale irrigation increases crop yields” but fails to cite specific research data (L107); regarding the claim that “indigenous crops are more nutritious” (Section 2.1.4), only “high fiber, iron, and protein content” is described without providing specific comparative data. It is recommended to supplement tables to address the aforementioned shortcomings.

4, For many abbreviations of proper nouns, once they appear with their full names specified, their full names should not be used again in subsequent content, such as IKS and SSA.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed reviewer, Thank you for taking your time to review our manuscript. Refer to our responses to the comments and suggestions you made.

AUTHORS’ RESPONSE TO REVIEWER 2 COMMENTS

The authors conducted a rigorous PRISMA-guided systematic review to analyze water-scarcity adaptation strategies in Sub-Saharan Africa, highlighting Indigenous Knowledge Systems (IKS) like zai and matengo pits as crucial for resilience while also examining small-scale irrigation, drought-resistant crops, and digital tools. It offers a balanced view by detailing challenges such as fragmented institutions and limited funds alongside opportunities like youth engagement and policy momentum, and concludes with recommendations to research IKS transfer and policy support for IKS, aiming to inform sustainable, context-specific agricultural development in the region.

The detailed questions are listed as following, please answer the questions one-by-one.

1, Imbalanced content arrangement and insufficient depth in strategy discussion: The paper devotes nearly 60% of the Results and Discussion section to discussing IKS and small-scale irrigation, while “digital tools and climate information services” are only briefly mentioned with two cases (Esoko and M-Farm platforms) without analyzing implementation effect differences across countries or specific solutions to challenges like “digital illiteracy and poor connectivity.”.

Response: Additiional sections on Digital tools have been added in the revised manuscript. Refer to Lines Lines 341 – 377 and Lines 566 – 580.

2, Overly superficial analysis of “challenges and opportunities” without targeted insights: In 2.2.1 Challenges, issues such as “institutional fragmentation and insufficient funds” are listed, but no specific national cases are provided to illustrate the severity of the problems (no mention of specific policy failure cases caused by “overlapping responsibilities among national-provincial-local water departments in South Africa”). In 2.2.2 Opportunities, “youth engagement” only emphasizes the advantage of “accepting digital technologies” while ignoring practical obstacles like “funding gaps for youth agricultural entrepreneurship and difficulties in land acquisition”, making the recommendations lack pertinence. In 2.2.1 Challenges, please supplement specific national cases (policy failures from overlapping water department responsibilities in South Africa) to illustrate problem severity; in 2.2.2 Opportunities, it is suggested the authors add analysis of practical obstacles to youth engagement (agri-entrepreneurship funding gaps, land acquisition difficulties) and targeted solutions.

Response: A section dealing with legislative framework across Sub-Saharan Africa has been added. The section talks about different legislations in place to deal with the issues addressed in the above comment. Refer to Lines 378 - 458

3, There is insufficient empirical data, and the argument lacks quantitative support. For instance, the paper repeatedly mentions that “small-scale irrigation increases crop yields” but fails to cite specific research data (L107); regarding the claim that “indigenous crops are more nutritious” (Section 2.1.4), only “high fiber, iron, and protein content” is described without providing specific comparative data. It is recommended to supplement tables to address the aforementioned shortcomings.

Response: A table has been added to address the above comment. Refer to Lines 331 – 332 of the revised manuscript.

4, For many abbreviations of proper nouns, once they appear with their full names specified, their full names should not be used again in subsequent content, such as IKS and SSA.

Response: The suggestion by the reviewer has been implemented throughout the entire manuscript where such cases existed.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a very topical and relevant topic – water scarcity adaptation strategies for food systems in Sub Saharan Africa. It is well documented, covers a wide range of solutions (from indigenous knowledge to modern digital tools)and has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the specialized literature. However, in order to increase the clarity, coherence and also academic impact of the text, I consider some adjustments, additions and reformulations absolutely necessary. Below are my comments, point by point.

1. Introduction
The introduction manages to clearly outline the problematic context of food insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa, with an emphasis on the lack of water resources and the impact of climate change. It is well argued and supported by recent sources.
Comment 1. However, the text could be condensed and formulated more concisely, to avoid repetitions.
Comment 2. A clearer demarcation between the general objective of the study and the strict scope of the review would also be useful.

2. Review of concepts
The section dedicated to adaptation strategies is rich in examples and includes both indigenous knowledge (IKS) and modern technological solutions. It is a strong part of the paper, but some subsections are very descriptive and may seem exhaustive to a reader.
comment 3. A better synthetic structuring (comparative tables, schemes) is recommended to summarize the main advantages/limitations of each strategy.

3. Methodology
The use of the PRISMA framework for a systematic review is a very good point and provides methodological rigor.
Comment 4. However, the explanations are quite detailed and sometimes technical; a more visual presentation (figures, tables with criteria) would make the methodology more accessible.
comment 5. It would also be useful to clarify how possible biases or limitations of the literature selection were addressed.

4. Results and Discussion
The combined results & discussion section is very consistent and well documented, with numerous examples of indigenous practices, policies and digital tools. The strength is the integration of the socio-cultural dimension with the technological one.
comment 6. However, the text could be better balanced: some parts are very descriptive, and the critical discussion (comparisons with other regions, assessment of the limitations of the strategies) could be deepened.
commnet 7. In addition, some sub-sections repeat ideas from section 2. Review of concepts, which generates redundancy. These should be excluded.

5. Conclusions
The conclusions synthesize the main findings well, highlightings the role of indigenous knowledge and local solutions.
Comment 8. However, they could be clearer and more forward looking, with explicit recommendations for public policies, funders and educational programs.
Comment 9. It is recommended that more concrete research directions be formulated that show how the resilience of food systems in SSA can be strengthened.

Author Response

Dear Esteemed reviewer, thank you for reviewing the manuscript. Responses to your comments can be found below.

RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS

The manuscript addresses a very topical and relevant topic – water scarcity adaptation strategies for food systems in Sub Saharan Africa. It is well documented, covers a wide range of solutions (from indigenous knowledge to modern digital tools)and has the potential to make a valuable contribution to the specialized literature. However, in order to increase the clarity, coherence and also academic impact of the text, I consider some adjustments, additions and reformulations absolutely necessary. Below are my comments, point by point.

1. Introduction
   The introduction manages to clearly outline the problematic context of food insecurity in Sub-Saharan Africa, with an emphasis on the lack of water resources and the impact of climate change. It is well argued and supported by recent sources.
   Comment 1. However, the text could be condensed and formulated more concisely, to avoid repetitions.
   Comment 2. A clearer demarcation between the general objective of the study and the strict scope of the review would also be useful.

Response: A short and precise introduction has been put in place, showcasing clearly the study objectives and research gap, and scope. Refer to Lines 30 – 52 of the revised manuscript

2. Review of concepts
   The section dedicated to adaptation strategies is rich in examples and includes both indigenous knowledge (IKS) and modern technological solutions. It is a strong part of the paper, but some subsections are very descriptive and may seem exhaustive to a reader.
   comment 3. A better synthetic structuring (comparative tables, schemes) is recommended to summarize the main advantages/limitations of each strategy.

Response: The review of concepts section has been removed and replaced with a Literature review section. Refer to Line 88 of the revised manuscript.

3. Methodology
   The use of the PRISMA framework for a systematic review is a very good point and provides methodological rigor.
   Comment 4. However, the explanations are quite detailed and sometimes technical; a more visual presentation (figures, tables with criteria) would make the methodology more accessible.
   comment 5. It would also be useful to clarify how possible biases or limitations of the literature selection were addressed.

Response: The inclusion and exclusion criteria was expanded and also a table summarising the studies based on key themes has been added. Refer to Lines 194 -195 for the table, and Lines 197 – 221 for the expanded explanation of the inclusion and exclusion criteria.

4. Results and Discussion
   The combined results & discussion section is very consistent and well documented, with numerous examples of indigenous practices, policies and digital tools. The strength is the integration of the socio-cultural dimension with the technological one.
   comment 6. However, the text could be better balanced: some parts are very descriptive, and the critical discussion (comparisons with other regions, assessment of the limitations of the strategies) could be deepened.
   commnet 7. In addition, some sub-sections repeat ideas from section 2. Review of concepts, which generates redundancy. These should be excluded.

Response: The review of concepts section has been removed and replaced with a basic Literature review section that does not repeat ideas found elsewhere in the manuscript. Refer to Lines 88 – 187.  

5. Conclusions
   The conclusions synthesize the main findings well, highlightings the role of indigenous knowledge and local solutions.
   Comment 8. However, they could be clearer and more forward looking, with explicit recommendations for public policies, funders and educational programs.
   Comment 9. It is recommended that more concrete research directions be formulated that show how the resilience of food systems in SSA can be strengthened.

Response: The conclusion section has been overhauled to reflect the issues raised in the above comment. Refer to Lines 622 – 646 of the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have addressed all comments. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors The authors have properly addressed the questions I raised and rectified the issues I pointed out. I recommend accepting this manuscript.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form.