Review Reports - Climate-Driven Conflicts in Nigeria: Farmers’ Strategies for Coping with Herders’ Incursion on Crop Lands

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please do pursue this work for publication in an improved format. See my comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Title: Climate-Driven Conflicts in Nigeria: Farmers’ Strategies for Coping with Herders’ Incursion on Crop Lands

Review

Overview: This is an important article that focuses on documenting the coping strategies undertaken by farmers whose land faces incursions from herders in Enugu State, Nigeria. The study uses simple descriptive analysis followed by factor analysis to display the trends and effectiveness of coping strategies for farmers in dealing with incursions from herders. Ultimately, the authors take a farmer-centered approach with this analysis and make recommendations purely in the light of that perspective. I think this could be a useful contribution to the literature if the authors are willing to take a wider perspective and incorporate a political ecology or similar theoretical framework when drawing conclusions from their data. Overall, this work is not publishable in its current form but it has the potential to be. Please do take many of my comments into account and I will probably be citing this paper often if you are able to make the wider connections and preform a critical analysis. A note on the writing- please use signposting to tell the reader what is coming and guide them through the manuscript. I found this really difficult to follow. A literature review would also be nice. Despite a long reference list, you are also missing some foundational works in this space (Watts, 1983, etc.).

Question: Introduction: The introduction starts in a very applied setting and seems to set the stakes really high. It might be worth it to discuss the wider usefulness of this sort of study examining the major frameworks surrounding land conflicts in general. A livelihoods approach may also be useful in this context. It is also notable that there is not much discussion of food insecurity coping strategy literature in the theoretical section. Overall, the introduction needs to make connections with wider literature and similar studies and not immediately dive into the local context. The data collection was important and the questions that were asked have value but now the analysis needs to reflect more than just a report and conduct a critical analysis. Please do pursue this work from a more critical approach and it has the potential to be widely informative and a substantial contribution. However, in its current form, it is not a publishable manuscript in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive feedback. We agree that the introduction needed a broader theoretical grounding and stronger linkage to global and regional scholarship on land conflict and food security. In response, we have restructured the introduction to include a discussion of major frameworks related to land-use conflicts, such as the political ecology, livelihoods, and human security perspectives. This provides a conceptual foundation for understanding farmer–herder tensions beyond the local setting. Additionally, we have expanded the theoretical section to integrate literature on food insecurity and coping strategies, drawing from studies in sub-Saharan Africa and other conflict-prone rural contexts. These additions help position the study within the wider body of research on conflict, rural livelihoods, and adaptation. We have also revised the tone and scope of the introduction so that it first situates the study within global debates on land-use conflicts and resource competition before narrowing down to the Enugu State case (pages 2-3, lines 31-95)

Question: Methods: The sampling procedure seems to assume there is an available list of all farming households that have been impacted by this conflict. Does that exist? Are there some households that may have not been on this list? It is perfectly valid to have conducted a purposeful sampling strategy using the outlined parameters, but right now it is discussed as a truly random sampling that has potential representative claims. I do not think this has been accurately justified (how many total households were eligible?). A bivariate analysis would be useful. The lack of citations in this section is worrying. This is where you can show off some of the work that you did in analysis but you have not stated the explicit tests that you did run and what is included. I would like to see some multivariate regression too, as you have the data for it. You could to a logistic regression looking at the effectiveness of different coping strategies (just a suggestion) or the severity of incursion impacts on households (again, just ideas). A table displaying the variables and their types would be useful. Breaking this into sections could help. With site selection and data collection and analytical methods. I would also like to see a map of the study area. I am unsure what the factor analysis is actually saying. What are you saying besides a number when you are reporting this value? There is a claim to impact wellbeing but not empirical evidence of this (I think you have the data it just is not clear).

Response: We have clarified that a comprehensive list of all farming households affected by herder incursions was not available. The study, therefore, adopted a purposive, systematic sampling approach. Communities with documented incidences of farmer-herder conflict were first purposively identified, after which farming households were selected systematically using community registers and local leader validation. This revision acknowledges potential limitations in representativeness and avoids overstating the randomness of the sample. The total number of eligible households and the inclusion criteria are now clearly stated in the revised section. In line with the reviewer’s suggestion, we have included bivariate analysis (using Pearson’s correlation) to show the relationship between farmers’ socioeconomic variables and their coping strategies to herders' incursion on their crop farm land. (Pearson correlation: page 20-21, lines 529-570; limitation: Page 24, lines 609-625).

Question: Results: It would be useful to examine the bivariate relationships with key demographic factors and coping strategies. I would recommend doing this between the descriptive analysis and factor analysis to show the main variables that are interacting and displaying significant differences. The lack of tables makes this really difficult to digest. It seems like a lot of this could be told very quickly using a table. The results are difficult to follow and should be examined more critically outside of the univariate context. These should interact with the control variables to tell a cohesive narrative. That does not exist right now.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer once again for this valuable feedback and fully agree that the results section in the previous version needed a stronger structure and better analytical connection between variables. In response, we have now incorporated a bivariate analysis exploring relationships between key demographic variables (such as age, gender, education level, and farm size) and the coping strategies adopted by farmers. Pearson correlation was used to identify significant associations (Pearson correlation: page 20-21).

Question: Significance and contribution: The overall recommendations are very much focused on a preventative and conflict-driven solution. The herders are also active participants with agency in this context (not excusing the crimes that are committed, but there are clearly issues of agency). Shouldn’t there be more efforts to help them combat the growing threat of climate change and assist them with livelihood diversification to prevent incursions? This seems like a problem that would benefit greatly from a political ecology framework. Without a greater perspective, this is a better fit as a research report. Currently, this work does not connect with a wider body of literature.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this perceptive and valuable comment. We fully acknowledge that the dynamics of farmer-herder relations involve two sets of actors with distinct forms of agency, and that understanding the motivations, vulnerabilities, and adaptive capacities of pastoral herders is crucial for building comprehensive solutions.

However, we wish to respectfully clarify that the scope of this study was deliberately limited to farmers’ perspectives due to the unavailability and mobility of pastoral herders during the period of data collection. This limitation has now been clearly stated in the revised manuscript (under the Limitations section). The study therefore focuses on how farmers perceive, experience, and respond to herders’ incursions, rather than on the herders’ own decision-making processes. The paper’s contribution is now positioned as providing ground-level insights from the farmers’ side of the climate, conflict interface, insights that can inform future integrated studies involving both pastoral and farming communities. This revision ensures that the manuscript connects more clearly to broader debates on environmental conflict, adaptation, and resilience (limitation: page 24, line 621).

Question: The abstract does not need to discuss descriptive stats. Use this space to tell the story better. Also, the use of the term invasion seems intense.

Response: Thank you for the observation. The abstract has been revised to remove descriptive statistics and instead provide a more concise narrative that highlights the study’s purpose, key findings, and implications. Additionally, the term “invasion” has been replaced with “incursion” to convey the idea of herders’ entry into farmlands in a more neutral and appropriate tone (page 1, line 10-23).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript makes an important contribution by examining how climate-driven conflicts between farmers and herders affect agriculture in Nigeria. The study is timely, relevant to policy, and backed by sound methods. However, I recommend minor revisions to address some specific issues noted below, and upon addressing these concerns, the manuscript will be suitable for publication.

Abstract: The abstract outlines the main elements of the study. However, it is a bit lengthy and sometimes repeats points from the introduction. A shorter, more focused abstract would be more effective. It should emphasize the novelty of the work, briefly summarize the methodology, and highlight the key results with clear policy implications.

Introduction: The introduction provides useful background on farmer-herder conflicts and their connections to climate change, land scarcity, and weak governance. However, it repeats some ideas, which makes the section less clear. Structuring it into distinct parts - causes, impacts, and research gaps-would make it easier to follow. It should also clearly state how this study extends existing literature by focusing on coping strategies within a specific regional context.

Methodology: The methodology is suitable and well described. The use of multistage sampling and factor analysis enhances the credibility of the results. However, the snowball sampling method may introduce bias, and this limitation should be briefly acknowledged. It would also be beneficial to mention if the questionnaire was tested or validated before full deployment.

Results and Discussion: The results are clearly presented with well-structured tables, though standardizing formats like decimals and percentages would improve consistency. At times, the results are read more like a literature review, so separating findings from interpretation would enhance clarity. The discussion provides useful connections to farmer–herder conflicts but could be enriched by broader regional comparisons and deeper analysis of why certain coping strategies fail. Highlighting the role of social networks and group farming in resilience would add further depth.

Recommendations and Conclusion: The recommendations should focus on improved rural security, affordable protective measures, and stronger extension services. The conclusion restates the key points but is somewhat repetitive. It would be sharper if reduced to three messages: the conflicts threaten sustainable farming and food security, farmers rely mainly on small-scale and community-based coping strategies, and stronger institutional and policy support is urgently needed.

Author Response

Title: Climate-Driven Conflicts in Nigeria: Farmers’ Strategies for Coping with Herders’ Incursion on Crop Lands

Review

Question: Abstract: The abstract outlines the main elements of the study. However, it is a bit lengthy and sometimes repeats points from the introduction. A shorter, more focused abstract would be more effective. It should emphasize the novelty of the work, briefly summarize the methodology, and highlight the key results with clear policy implications.

Response: We appreciate your insightful comment on the abstract. In line with the suggestion, we have revised the abstract to make it more concise and focused. The revised version avoids repetition of points from the introduction, briefly outlines the methodology, and highlights the key findings along with their policy implications. We believe this improves the clarity and impact of the abstract (page 1, lines 10-23).

Question: Introduction: The introduction provides useful background on farmer-herder conflicts and their connections to climate change, land scarcity, and weak governance. However, it repeats some ideas, which makes the section less clear. Structuring it into distinct parts - causes, impacts, and research gaps-would make it easier to follow. It should also clearly state how this study extends existing literature by focusing on coping strategies within a specific regional context.

Response: Thank you for this valuable feedback. We have carefully revised the introduction to address the concerns raised. The section has now been restructured (pages 2-3, lines 32-95).

Question: Methodology: The methodology is suitable and well described. The use of multistage sampling and factor analysis enhances the credibility of the results. However, the snowball sampling method may introduce bias, and this limitation should be briefly acknowledged. It would also be beneficial to mention if the questionnaire was tested or validated before full deployment.

Response: Thank you for this constructive feedback. We have acknowledged the potential bias associated with the snowball sampling technique in the Limitations and Future Research section, noting that while the method may restrict representativeness, it was necessary due to the security-sensitive and hard-to-reach nature of the study population (page 24, lines 611-617)

Question: Results and Discussion: The results are clearly presented with well-structured tables, though standardizing formats like decimals and percentages would improve consistency. At times, the results are read more like a literature review, so separating findings from interpretation would enhance clarity. The discussion provides useful connections to farmer–herder conflicts, but could be enriched by broader regional comparisons and deeper analysis of why certain coping strategies fail. Highlighting the role of social networks and group farming in resilience would add further depth.

Response: Thank you for the thoughtful comments. The decimals and percentages have been standardized for consistency. While the Results and Discussion sections are presented together in line with the departmental format, efforts were made to better distinguish findings from interpretation. The discussion has been enriched with broader regional comparisons, deeper analysis of coping strategy failures, and a clearer emphasis on the role of social networks and group farming in resilience (page 8, line 238).

Question: Recommendations and Conclusion: The recommendations should focus on improved rural security, affordable protective measures, and stronger extension services. The conclusion restates the key points but is somewhat repetitive. It would be sharper if reduced to three messages: the conflicts threaten sustainable farming and food security, farmers rely mainly on small-scale and community-based coping strategies, and stronger institutional and policy support is urgently needed.

Response: Thank you very much for the feedback. We have revised the Recommendations section to focus more clearly on improving rural security, providing affordable protective measures, and strengthening extension services. In addition, the Conclusion has been streamlined and sharpened to highlight three key messages (page 23, lines 588-609).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely issue concerning farmer-herder conflicts in Nigeria, particularly within the context of climate change and food security. The study is empirically grounded, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into the coping strategies adopted by smallholder farmers. The findings have significant implications for policy and practice in conflict-prone agrarian communities. I recommend minor revisions prior to publication. Below are my specific comments and suggestions for improvement.

The theoretical framework presented in Figure 1 is useful but this framework was not explicitly echoed in the subsequent analysis. Please consider mapping the factors (economic loss, environmental displacement, health impacts) back to the “livelihood impact” and “resilience outcome” components in the discussion sectionin order to enhance the analytical logic of theoretical guidance for empirical evidence..
The sampling method (snowball + random) and sample size (n=80) should be clearly acknowledged as limitations.I suggest adding the content of "Limitations and Future Research" at the end of the article to explain the limitations of the sample, and suggest that future research expand the sample range or adopt more rigorous random sampling methods.
The literature review section cites a large number of studies, but lacks a systematic review of the classification and evaluation of "coping strategies" in existing research. I suggest that a small section be appropriately added in the introduction to specifically review the types and effectiveness of farmers' coping strategies in existing studies, providing a more sufficient theoretical basis for the strategy classification in this study.
Some table titles in the text do not align with the table content, and there are multiple similar issues (such as Table 2 on line 233, Table 3 on line 265, Table 4 on line 313, Table 5 on line 349, Table 6 on line 402, etc.). It is suggested to re-format the layout.
The suggestions and conclusions are too few, which can easily give people a visual impression that the article is "top-heavy". Although the proposal section mentions "strengthening security" and "providing subsidies", etc., it lacks specific implementation paths or priority rankings. I suggest that the content could be appropriately enriched and more operational suggestions could be put forward in combination with the most effective strategies in this study (such as collective farming, small-scale planting, etc.), for example, promoting the "farmers' joint defense team" model, the government providing small loans for collective fence construction, and introducing an early warning system for conflicts, etc.

This paper makes a valuable contribution to the literature on climate-related conflicts and rural resilience. With minor revisions to enhance theoretical integration, acknowledge limitations, and refine policy recommendations, it will be suitable for publication in Sustainability.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Title: Climate-Driven Conflicts in Nigeria: Farmers’ Strategies for Coping with Herders’ Incursion on Crop Lands

Review

Overview: This manuscript addresses a highly relevant and timely issue concerning farmer-herder conflicts in Nigeria, particularly within the context of climate change and food security. The study is empirically grounded, methodologically sound, and provides valuable insights into the coping strategies adopted by smallholder farmers. The findings have significant implications for policy and practice in conflict-prone agrarian communities. I recommend minor revisions prior to publication. Below are my specific comments and suggestions for improvement.

Question: The theoretical framework presented in Figure 1 is useful, but this framework was not explicitly echoed in the subsequent analysis. Please consider mapping the factors (economic loss, environmental displacement, health impacts) back to the “livelihood impact” and “resilience outcome” components in the discussion section in order to enhance the analytical logic of theoretical guidance for empirical evidence.

Response: Thank you very much for this suggestion. We have revised the discussion section to more explicitly link the empirical findings. This revision ensures that the theoretical model meaningfully guides the interpretation of empirical evidence and clarifies how each category of impact influences farmers’ adaptive capacity and resilience pathways (pages 4-5, lines 106-136).

Question: The sampling method (snowball + random) and sample size (n=80) should be clearly acknowledged as limitations. I suggest adding the content of "Limitations and Future Research" at the end of the article to explain the limitations of the sample, and suggest that future research expand the sample range or adopt more rigorous random sampling methods.

Response: Thank you for the observation regarding the sampling method and sample size. In response, we have added a "Limitations and Future Research" section at the end of the article that addresses the issue (pages 23-24, lines 610-622).

Question: The literature review section cites a large number of studies, but lacks a systematic review of the classification and evaluation of "coping strategies" in existing research. I suggest that a small section be appropriately added in the introduction to specifically review the types and effectiveness of farmers' coping strategies in existing studies, providing a more sufficient theoretical basis for the strategy classification in this study.

Response: Thank you for the helpful suggestion. The introduction has been restructured to capture the suggestions, corrections, and remove repetition. This addition can be found in the highlighted section of the revised manuscript (pages 2-3, lines 32-95).

Question: Some table titles in the text do not align with the table content, and there are multiple similar issues (such as Table 2 on line 233, Table 3 on line 265, Table 4 on line 313, Table 5 on line 349, Table 6 on line 402, etc.). It is suggested to reformat the layout.

Response: Thank you so much for drawing our attention to this issue. We have carefully reviewed all the tables and their titles, including Tables 2–6, as noted, and corrected any inconsistencies between the titles and the table content (page 10, line 290; page 11, line 294; page 13, line 364; page 17, line 475).

Question: The suggestions and conclusions are too few, which can easily give people a visual impression that the article is "top-heavy". Although the proposal section mentions "strengthening security" and "providing subsidies", etc., it lacks specific implementation paths or priority rankings. I suggest that the content could be appropriately enriched and more operational suggestions could be put forward in combination with the most effective strategies in this study (such as collective farming, small-scale planting, etc.), for example, promoting the "farmers' joint defense team" model, the government providing small loans for collective fence construction, and introducing an early warning system for conflicts, etc.

Response: We sincerely appreciate this valuable comment. The Recommendations and Conclusion sections have been expanded to include more detailed and actionable policy suggestions aligned with the most effective coping strategies identified in the study. Specifically, we now emphasize the promotion of farmers’ joint defense teams coordinated with local security agencies, the establishment of microcredit and small-loan schemes for collective farm fencing, and the introduction of community-based early warning systems for timely conflict response. Additionally, the revised section now provides clearer implementation pathways and priority areas to enhance practical relevance and policy guidance (page 23, lines 581-593).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a great improvement and the authors should be commended on their contributions. I am very pleased to see this closer to a publishable manuscript. I have smaller notes but the main thing I would like to see is the conclusion section being expanded upon to bring together the results in a more compelling manner. Right now the results are very siloed and a discussion/conclusion that ties these results together is needed. It just sort of ends. Linking the classifications of incursion impacts with the farmer characteristics, the effectiveness of the coping methods, the challenges they face, and farmer characteristics is what is missing now. There should be a compelling section that makes these connections and tells your story providing the full picture of what you have learned because this is great work.

Other notes: - Still missing some of the giants in the fields you reference (see Bebbington & Watts) and the article references a lot of gray literature (this is a chance to potentially condense some references even). The reference formatting makes it really hard to follow some of these too and needs improvement before submitting to reviewers in the future. Clear formatting and dot numbers when available make it easy for a reviewer to look these citations up and verify the claims or learn more about a stated reference, as is this is difficult to do.

-The terminology used to describe gender dynamics should be examined more closely (see: women folk or sexual harassment/rape of women (should use the term sexual violence)).

-The tables could be cleaned up a bit (especially the person's correlation matrix that can more efficiently display the info) and some of the longer names in table 3 can be shortened. Your analysis could be strengthened if supplemental materials were provided showing some of the variations used in factor analysis (and therefore demonstrating how the selected 3 classifications were the 'best' classification).

-Recommendations should include calls for research with herders and including them in the solution process (but this is much improved).

-I know you are limited by space (can be reduced with some reference trimming) but a map of the study area would be really useful.

Overall, you have done a lot of work in a short amount of time to improve this work. Great job. I am really glad to see this work nearing publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Question: This is a great improvement and the authors should be commended on their contributions. I am very pleased to see this closer to a publishable manuscript. I have smaller notes but the main thing I would like to see is the conclusion section being expanded upon to bring together the results in a more compelling manner. Right now the results are siloed and a discussion/conclusion that ties these results together is needed. It just sort of ends. Linking the classifications of incursion impacts with the farmer characteristics, the effectiveness of the coping methods, the challenges they face, and farmer characteristics is what is missing now. There should be a compelling section that makes these connections and tells your story providing the full picture of what you have learned, because this is great work.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive and constructive feedback. We are delighted that the improvements in the manuscript bring it closer to a publishable form. In response to your suggestion regarding the conclusion, we have expanded and revised this section to provide a more integrated discussion of the results. We believe these revisions address your concern by creating a compelling conclusion that ties together all dimensions of the study, provides a coherent story, and emphasizes the significance of our findings. This addition can be found in the highlighted section of the revised manuscript. (page 24; lines 603-623).

Question: Other notes: - Still missing some of the giants in the fields you reference (see Bebbington & Watts) and the article references a lot of gray literature (this is a chance to potentially condense some references even). The reference formatting makes it really hard to follow some of these too and needs improvement before submitting to reviewers in the future. Clear formatting and dot numbers when available make it easy for a reviewer to look these citations up and verify the claims or learn more about a stated reference, as is this is difficult to do.

Response: We once again thank the reviewer for this valuable observation. In response, we have carefully revised the literature review and incorporated seminal works by key scholars, including Bebbington (1999) and Watts (1983), to strengthen the theoretical grounding of the study and situate it more firmly within the broader discourse on rural livelihoods, peasant viability, and political ecology. We have condensed and replaced several gray literature sources with peer-reviewed journal articles where appropriate, ensuring that the references now reflect more authoritative and widely recognized sources. We hope these revisions have improved the scholarly rigor, readability, and credibility of the manuscript (page 2, line 44; page 3, line 71; page 4, line 10

116).

Question: The terminology used to describe gender dynamics should be examined more closely (see: women folk or sexual harassment/rape of women (should use the term sexual violence)).

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for this important and insightful comment. We have carefully reviewed the manuscript to ensure that the terminology used to describe gender dynamics aligns with current academic and ethical standards. These changes improve both the precision and professionalism of the manuscript’s language (page 11, line 293; page 11, line 303).

Question: The tables could be cleaned up a bit (especially the person's correlation matrix that can more efficiently display the info) and some of the longer names in table 3 can be shortened. Your analysis could be strengthened if supplemental materials were provided showing some of the variations used in factor analysis (and therefore demonstrating how the selected 3 classifications were the 'best' classification).

Response: We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback on the presentation of the tables and the analysis. We have cleaned and reformatted the tables to enhance readability. In particular, the Pearson’s correlation matrix has been reorganized for a more compact and efficient display of information, and the longer variable names in Table 3 have been shortened for clarity. We fully understand and appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to include supplemental materials showing variations in the factor analysis. However, these intermediate outputs were not archived during the initial analysis and therefore cannot be provided at this stage. Nevertheless, we have strengthened the explanation of the factor analysis process within the manuscript text (page 23, line 580)

Question: Recommendations should include calls for research with herders and including them in the solution process (but this is much improved).

Response: We thank the reviewer for this thoughtful and constructive suggestion. We fully agree that effective and sustainable solutions to farmer-herder conflicts require the active inclusion of herders in both research and policy processes. We have revised the recommendation section to explicitly highlight the need for further participatory research involving herders and for inclusive dialogue frameworks that integrate both farmers and herders in designing conflict management and adaptation strategies. This addition underscores the importance of shared understanding and collaborative approaches in addressing climate-driven conflicts. We appreciate the reviewer’s acknowledgment of the improvement and believe this enhancement further strengthens the policy relevance and inclusiveness of the manuscript (pages 24, lines 592-601).

Question: I know you are limited by space (can be reduced with some reference trimming) but a map of the study area would be really useful.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion. A map of the study area has now been included in the revised manuscript to enhance the reader’s understanding of the research context (page 6, line 152).

Reviewer’s Overview: Overall, you have done a lot of work in a short amount of time to improve this work. Great job. I am really glad to see this work nearing publication.

Response (appreciation): We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s encouraging words and recognition of our efforts to improve the manuscript. Your constructive feedback throughout the review process has been invaluable in strengthening the quality and clarity of this work. We are grateful for your time and support in helping bring it closer to publication.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Upon careful re-evaluation of the revised manuscript, I confirm that the authors have adequately addressed all previous review comments. The study is methodologically sound, contributes meaningfully to the field, and meets the journal's academic standards for publication.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Reviewer’s Comment: Upon careful re-evaluation of the revised manuscript, I confirm that the
authors have adequately addressed all previous review comments. The
study is methodologically sound, contributes meaningfully to the field,
and meets the journal's academic standards for publication.

Response: We sincerely thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and kind acknowledgment of our efforts. We are delighted that the revisions have satisfactorily addressed all previous comments and that the study is now considered methodologically sound and aligned with the journal’s academic standards. We deeply appreciate the reviewer’s constructive feedback throughout the review process, which has been invaluable in improving the quality and clarity of the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf