Economic Implications for Farmers in Adopting Climate Adaptation Measures in Italian Agriculture

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Needs substantial improvement. It is difficult to follow and very abstract throughout. The English is poor, but that's not the main problem: it is simply not well articulated. There is no mention of real life agricultural practices - or adaptation measures, other than saying there are more than 100 identified. Table 2 is a mixture of the obvious with a legend that is very difficult to understand.  So how can it be (see abstract) useful to support farmers? You mean the ADA model? Then what steps do farmers or policy makers need to take to use it? I don't think they could follow this at all. In the introduction we need to be told more clearly of the difference between CCM and CCA. It's all a bit muddled. Line 128: C02? What of methane and N20?  Are you only addressing extreme events? What of gradual CC? I am left wondering if all they are saying is that they agree that the methodology "ADA" is useful!

Author Response

Report for the Review 1

We thank the reviewers for the time they spent revising the paper and for their comments. Their suggestions were very useful in revising the manuscript and have been incorporated into the revised version of the paper. Reviewers' comments helped us to understand the weak points of the paper and how to strengthen it. A native speaker proofread the manuscript.

 As a result, we believe the quality of the revised paper has been significantly improved. Reviewers’ original comments are reported below underscored, and in italics.

The answers to reviewers’ comments follow each comment directly and are prefaced by the word.

ANSWER

Review 1

Recommendation: Major Revision

Comments:

1. Needs substantial improvement. It is difficult to follow and very abstract throughout. The English is poor, but that's not the main problem: it is simply not well articulated.

ANSWER

We thank the review for the suggestions. The abstract has been completely revisited in the structure and rewritten both in terms of content. A native speaker proofread the manuscript.

2. There is no mention of real life agricultural practices - or adaptation measures, other than saying there are more than 100 identified.

ANSWER

We thank you for your comment and apologize if we were too superficial. To overcome this problem, we have inserted in the text a brief description of the eight groups that characterized the themes of the measures. In addition, we have included the link to the library we refer to for the 100 measures of climate adaptation.

3. Table 2 is a mixture of the obvious with a legend that is very difficult to understand

ANSWER

Thanks for the consideration. Table 2 was constructed with the intention of making the reader better understand the rationale of the methodological part of the manuscript. We are sorry that the legend of the table is confusing but we think it is the best way to express the result obtained

4. So how can it be (see abstract) useful to support farmers?

ANSWER

Thanks for the request for explanation. At this stage we have tried to be clearer. We believe that our contribution provides support to farmers in adopting the measure regarding the knowledge of the degree of economic convenience to adopt the measure with respect to the decision not to adopt it.

5. You mean the ADA model?

ANSWER

Thank you for your request for clarification. Maybe we didn't explain ourselves well but in the mnoscript we don't talk about ADA model When we mention ADA we refer exclusively to the project from which comes the rationale and the conceptualization of this article

6. Then what steps do farmers or policy makers need to take to use it? I don't think they could follow this at all.

ANSWER

We are sorry that the scope of the work was not understood. The ADA project of which we have provided the link for more information. Furthermore, one of the aims of the project is to support the development of a digital tool that contains the possible adaptation measures that farmers can adopt or not based on the needs and the risks to which they are exposed and the related investment to support. For this reason, we evaluated the cost-effectiveness of the adaptation

7. In the introduction we need to be told more clearly of the difference between CCM and CCA. It's all a bit muddled.

Thank you for your suggestion. The manuscript has as its objective the analysis of the economic convenience in adopting measures to combat climate change. For this reason, in the introduction we focused on the adaptation to better contextualize the topic under discussion. Therefore, the issues of mitigation seemed to us not relevant to the discussion of this paper

ANSWER

8. Line 128: C02? What of methane and N20? 

ANSWER

Thanks for the consideration. We have extended the concept to greenhouse emissions

9. Are you only addressing extreme events? What of gradual CC?

ANSWER

Thanks for the suggestion but the manuscript considers only extreme climatic events and does not refer to the gradual CC.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1.       The subject matter of the article is important. The authors are aware of the complexity of the issue under consideration. Nevertheless, most of the specific values assumed by the authors for various categories have not been sufficiently justified, giving the impression of arbitrariness. As a consequence, the cost-benefit analysis carried out is very "artificial" - the balance is a consequence of the adopted assumptions, and the relationship between the adopted assumptions and reality has not been properly demonstrated.

2.       It has not been indicated what adaptation measures with a given average cost per hectare in particular groups of farms would consist in. In order to give the study an application value, it would be worth e.g. to determine which adaptive measures will be taken by particular groups of farms even without public support and what minimum threshold of co-financing from public funds would ensure that further measures are taken.

3.       Consideration should be given to the issue of the representativeness of the Italian FAND, as this is important for making generalizations for the entire population of Italian farms.

4.       The title should indicate that the analysis concerns Italy.

5.       The goal should be clearly defined and repetition of the content should be avoided (the goal of the study is indicated in a slightly different way in many sections of the article).

6.       The content should be better organized and the division of the article into paragraphs should be improved. In particular, consideration should be given to including section 2 in section 1.

7.       A given section should not end with an enumeration.

8.       It is not justified to introduce an abbreviation if it is not used in the rest of the article.

9.       One-sentence paragraphs should be avoided.

10.   It would be advisable to edit the text in an impersonal form.

11.   The article is not fully adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal (including references to sources and bibliographic descriptions).

Author Response

Report for the Review 2

We thank the reviewers for the time they spent revising the paper and for their comments. Their suggestions were very useful in revising the manuscript and have been incorporated into the revised version of the paper. Reviewers' comments helped us to understand the weak points of the paper and how to strengthen it. As a result, we believe the quality of the revised paper has been significantly improved. Reviewers’ original comments are reported below underscored, and in italics.

The answers to reviewers’ comments follow each comment directly and are prefaced by the word ANSWER

Review 2

Recommendation: Major Revision

Comments:

1. The subject matter of the article is important. The authors are aware of the complexity of the issue under consideration. Nevertheless, most of the specific values assumed by the authors for various categories have not been sufficiently justified, giving the impression of arbitrariness. As a consequence, the cost-benefit analysis carried out is very "artificial" - the balance is a consequence of the adopted assumptions, and the relationship between the adopted assumptions and reality has not been properly demonstrated.

ANSWER

Based on reviewer’s suggestions we reviewed the manuscript thoroughly. We would like to thank the reviewer for their useful and constructive comments. We strongly believe that the paper is in a much better shape now.  We provided justifications of our choices based on existing literature.  Language. A native speaker proofread the manuscript.

2. It has not been indicated what adaptation measures with a given average cost per hectare in particular groups of farms would consist in order to give the study an application value, it would be worth e.g. to determine which adaptive measures will be taken by particular groups of farms even without public support and what minimum threshold of co-financing from public funds would ensure that further measures are taken.

ANSWER

We thank you for your comment and apologize if we were too superficial. To overcome this problem, we have inserted in the text a brief description of the eight groups that characterized the themes of the measures. In addition, we have included the link to the library we refer to for the 100 measures of climate adaptation.

3. Consideration should be given to the issue of the representativeness of the Italian FADN, as this is important for making generalizations for the entire population of Italian farms

ANSWER

Thank you for your suggestion. We have discussed the limitations of the FADN in the discussions section

4. The title should indicate that the analysis concerns Italy.

ANSWER

Thank you for your suggestion. We have integrated in the tile of article the reference to Italy country.

5. The goal should be clearly defined and repetition of the content should be avoided (the goal of the study is indicated in a slightly different way in many sections of the article)

Thanks for the remark. We realized the divergence of the objectives in the various sections and we proceeded to homogenize it.

6. The content should be better organized and the division of the article into paragraphs should be improved. In particular, consideration should be given to including section 2 in section 1.

ANSWER

Thanks for the suggestion but we thought it appropriate to deal with the introduction and the background in separate sections to emphasize the importance of the topic and its treatment in literature and in public debate

7. A given section should not end with an enumeration

ANSWER

Thanks for the remark. We have avoided the problem by adding closing sentences.

8. It is not justified to introduce an abbreviation if it is not used in the rest of the article

ANSWER

Thanks for the remark. We have avoided this problem by using acronyms instead of extended sentences.

9. One-sentence paragraphs should be avoided.

ANSWER

Thanks for the suggestion. We tried to avoid one-sentence paragraphs.

10. It would be advisable to edit the text in an impersonal form

ANSWER

Thanks for the suggestion. We tried to avoid impersonal form

11. The article is not fully adapted to the editorial requirements of the journal (including references to sources and bibliographic descriptions)

ANSWER

Thanks for the suggestion. We applied  the editorial requirements of the journal

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Topic of this paper is very much interesting and could be a knowledge addition provided if it was articulated well. I have studied the manuscript several times and found a number of major and minor shortcomings due to which this paper needs re-writing and re-submission, for which following are critical observations:

Although the authors have tried to draft a good background, the problem statement, aim / objective (as mentioned in Abstract as well as in Introduction part line 62-65), methodological design and results are neither upto the mark nor coherent to each other. For instance, contents of Aim / objective given in Abstract and Introduction parts are not coherent / or not articulated well while comparing with the purpose given in Section 3 Materials ans Method (line 150). Its needs to re-write the background rational duly supported with problem statement along with setting the correct tone of aim/objective in introduction section as a first and important step.

Secondly, authors need to revisit and re-write the methodology Section 3 which lacks clarity. Currently, the methodology is vague. Although authors talked about benefits independent of the occurrence of the adverse climatic event vide line # 214, the economic value estimation / quantification is not clear which needs to describe first the set of dependent and independent variables involved. Apparently, it seems that the scope of such type of study involves multi-variables / multi-criteria and from the contents of this manuscript it looks like on the pattern. If so the case, there is a further need to prepare set of all applicable econometric models by combining all possible pairs of dependent and independent variables, and re-produce results and their analysis accordingly. In addition, for better understanding, also include a Methodological flow diagram under Section 3 to describe your methodology in a well define and logical manner. Furthermore, add methodological limitations by creating a new sub-section under section 3.

Thirdly, the discussion and conclusions are totally underdeveloped and need to be enriched but with revised results with clear methodology. For the purpose, separate Discussion and Conclusions in two different sections. Support your discussion by incorporating at least 10-12 most relevant references.

Revise the Abstract accordingly. The present Abstract is not up to the mark.

Last but not least, provide strong justification how your paper is relevant under the scope of MDPI Land. From the contents of the paper, it is difficult to understand its relevance. Therefore, I refer the matter to Editorial/Academic Editor MDPI Land to determine its suitability accordingly.

Author Response

Report for the Review 3

We thank the reviewers for the time they spent revising the paper and for their comments. Their suggestions were very useful in revising the manuscript and have been incorporated into the revised version of the paper. Reviewers' comments helped us to understand the weak points of the paper and how to strengthen it. A native speaker proofread the manuscript.

 As a result, we believe the quality of the revised paper has been significantly improved. Reviewers’ original comments are reported below underscored, and in italics.

The answers to reviewers’ comments follow each comment directly and are prefaced by the word.

• Topic of this paper is very much interesting and could be a knowledge addition provided if it was articulated well. I have studied the manuscript several times and found a number of major and minor shortcomings due to which this paper needs re-writing and re-submission, for which following are critical observations. Although the authors have tried to draft a good background, the problem statement, aim / objective (as mentioned in Abstract as well as in Introduction part line 62-65), methodological design and results are neither upto the mark nor coherent to each other. For instance, contents of Aim / objective given in Abstract and Introduction parts are not coherent / or not articulated well while comparing with the purpose given in Section 3 Materials ans Method (line 150). Its needs to re-write the background rational duly supported with problem statement along with setting the correct tone of aim/objective in introduction section as a first and important step.

ANSWER

Based on reviewer’s suggestions 1 and 2 we reviewed the manuscript thoroughly. We would like to thank the reviewer for their useful and constructive comments. We strongly believe that the paper is in a much better shape now. 

The main changes in the manuscript are:

• Material and Methods section. Following also Reviewer 1-2 comment we dropped the model approach. We opted for a more direct analysis strategy based on assessing the cost-effectiveness of climate adaptation measures.
• The abstract section and discussion has been completely revisited in the structure and rewritten both in terms of content.
• Justification of the issue. We provided justifications of our choices based on existing literature.
• A native speaker proofread the manuscript.

1. Secondly, authors need to revisit and re-write the methodology Section 3 which lacks clarity. Currently, the methodology is vague. Although authors talked about benefits independent of the occurrence of the adverse climatic event vide line # 214, the economic value estimation / quantification is not clear which needs to describe first the set of dependent and independent variables involved. Apparently, it seems that the scope of such type of study involves multi-variables / multi-criteria and from the contents of this manuscript it looks like on the pattern. If so the case, there is a further need to prepare set of all applicable econometric models by combining all possible pairs of dependent and independent variables, and re-produce results and their analysis accordingly. In addition, for better understanding, also include a Methodological flow diagram under Section 3 to describe your methodology in a well define and logical manner. Furthermore, add methodological limitations by creating a new sub-section under section 3.

ANSWER

Thanks to the reviewer for his suggestions. Maybe the original version was confusing and we have tried to be clearer by explaining the methodology used. First, we rewrote the manuscript based on the reshaping of the paper's subject in order to adjust the methodology section. Our methodology does not present any econometric model but is limited to analyzing the cost-effectiveness of climate adaptation measures for farmers on the basis of the avoided damage. We have integrated the logical relationship method followed.

2. Thirdly, the discussion and conclusions are totally underdeveloped and need to be enriched but with revised results with clear methodology. For the purpose, separate Discussion and Conclusions in two different sections. Support your discussion by incorporating at least 10-12 most relevant references. Revise the Abstract accordingly. The present Abstract is not upto the mark.

ANSWER

 We thank the reviewer for his suggestions. The abstracts, discussions and conclusions sections have been completely modified in structure and content.

3. Last but not least, provide strong justification how your paper is relevant under the scope of MDPI Land. From the contents of the paper, it is difficult to understand its relevance. Therefore, I refer the matter to Editorial/Academic Editor MDPI Land to determine its.

We appreciate the observation that made us think a lot about the point discussed. But we checked (although the consultation took place before the submission) the topics covered by the Land, which are as follows:

• Land system science and social–ecological system research;
• Land/land-use/land-cover change;
• Land management including agriculture, forestry, the built environment and others;
• Landscapes, landscape design and landscape planning;
• Land–climate interactions, including climate–biosphere–biodiversity interactions;
• Soil–sediment–water systems—hydro-ecological processes at multiple scales;
• Urban contexts, urban–rural interactions and urban planning and development;
• Assessment and evaluation frameworks, indicators, indices, methods, tools and approaches (ecosystem services, multifunctionality and sustainability);
• The water, energy, land and food (WELF) nexus;
• Land, biodiversity and health nexus;
• Emerging technologies of data processing (deep learning/machine-based learning).

From the check, which I think was also carried out by the publisher in the initial screening, it emerges that our subject matter is more than consistent with the Land.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your responses to my points and I judge them to have been addressed satisfactorily. I don't think this is an outstanding article but it has some merit notwithstanding that.

Your native English speaker is perhaps a little out of practice? There are a number of mistakes throughout that need rectifying before this is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

It can be considered that the comments have been taken into account to a sufficient extent.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I appreciate the authors for changes done. However, it doesn't suffice to be published in this form vis-a-vis methodlogical design and results are concerned in the context of my comments and the current contents as a whole. Still, there is a lot of confusion exists pertaining scale and variables for economic implications.

Authors have clubbed Discussion and Conclusion which need to be separated.

There are English grammar issues at times and again in the paper. For instance, in title, it should be 'economic implication' instead 'economics implication'.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

I have considered it a lot. However, I have found a not-satisfactory response.

Author Response

          We thank the reviewers for the time they spent revising the paper and for their comments. Their suggestions were very useful in revising the manuscript and have been incorporated into the revised version of the paper. A native speaker proofread the manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx