Agricultural Productivity of Solar Pump and Water Harvesting Irrigation Technologies and Their Impacts on Smallholder Farmers’ Income and Food Security: Evidence from Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 This article demonstrates high academic value and practical significance in terms of methodology, data analysis, and policy recommendations. However, there is still room for improvement in the interpretation of results, the specificity of policy suggestions, and the conciseness of language. By further optimizing these aspects, the article can better serve as a reference for both academia and policymakers.

1. Although the methodology section is detailed, the technical details could be further simplified, especially when describing the endogenous switching regression model, to make it more accessible to non-specialist readers. Additionally, the sample size is relatively small (161 households), so caution should be exercised when generalizing the results, or the representativeness of the sample should be explicitly addressed.

2. The interpretation of some results could be more in-depth. For example, while solar pump irrigation systems perform well for certain crops, their effectiveness is limited for others. It would be beneficial to explore the underlying reasons (e.g., crop characteristics, market conditions, technical suitability). Furthermore, the performance of water-harvesting pond irrigation systems is relatively poor. Could specific improvement measures or policy recommendations be proposed?

3. The implementation pathways for technology bundles could be further explored. For instance, how can smallholder farmers access these technologies? Are there cost or knowledge barriers? Additionally, could some successful case studies or pilot project experiences be provided to enhance persuasiveness?

4. When discussing challenges, it would be helpful to distinguish between short-term and long-term issues and propose more actionable solutions. For example, regarding financial challenges, could microfinance or government subsidies be explored as specific implementation strategies? Moreover, has the study considered the impact of climate change on the long-term sustainability of irrigation technologies?

5. Policy recommendations could be more specific and actionable. For instance, how can financial products tailored to smallholder farmers be designed? How can training or extension services improve farmers’ technical application capabilities? Additionally, could the specific roles and collaboration models of government, NGOs, and the private sector in promoting these technologies be explored?

6. The literature review could focus more on the specific context of Ethiopia, particularly the unique challenges and opportunities in the promotion of irrigation technologies in the country. Furthermore, the theoretical framework could be more explicit, especially in linking the research questions to existing theories or models.

7. Some paragraphs could be further streamlined to avoid repetition. For example, some descriptions in the methodology and results sections could be merged or simplified. Additionally, it is recommended to include a brief “research contribution” section at the beginning of the article to clearly articulate the unique contributions of this study to the existing literature and policy practice.

8. The labeling and interpretation of some charts could be clearer. For instance, the abbreviations for technology bundles in Figure 5 could be explained directly in the legend rather than relying on explanations in the main text. Furthermore, it is suggested to include more comparative analyses in the charts, such as differences between regions or crops.

Author Response

 

                                                                                                                               

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents an important study on the socio-economic impacts of solar pump and water-harvesting irrigation technologies on smallholder farmers in Ethiopia. While the topic is of significant relevance and the study is structured to address a clear gap in the literature, there are several methodological and reporting shortcomings that need to be addressed to enhance the clarity, validity, and applicability of the research findings. Below are specific comments aimed at refining the methodology and results sections of the manuscript:

The explanation of the sample size calculation lacks statistical details on the power analysis and effect size assumptions.

Criteria for selecting households are not detailed enough to ensure replicability in similar studies.

The manuscript does not discuss the assumptions of the endogenous switching regression model or the rationale for its selection over other models.

There is no mention of validation processes for the data collection instruments, which is crucial for establishing the reliability of the survey data.

The manuscript lacks a detailed demographic breakdown of the sample, which is essential for understanding the variability in the responses.

Economic indicators such as BCR and NWV are not compared with industry standards or discussed in the context of similar studies.

The treatment of multicollinearity among variables in the regression analysis is not addressed, which could affect the reliability of the findings.

The methodology section does not describe measures taken to mitigate non-response bias in the survey data collection.

Details on the construction and validation of counterfactuals in the analysis are missing, which is key for substantiating causal claims.

The implications of food security measurements are discussed superficially, without linking to broader policy implications.

Generalizability of the findings is not discussed, limiting the applicability of the results to other contexts.

The conclusions appear overly positive without acknowledging the methodological limitations discussed, which could lead to biased interpretations of the impact.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally good, with clear and comprehensible language used throughout. However, there are occasional grammatical errors and awkward phrasings that could be refined to enhance readability and professional presentation. A thorough proofreading by a native English speaker is recommended to correct these minor issues.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.docx