Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The history of mankind is a history of struggle against disasters. Based on first-hand survey data, the author explored the cognition of cocoa farmers to disasters and their adaptive behaviors. In general, the topic selection has certain significance, and the research design is a little rough and lacks in-depth theoretical analysis. Specific opinions are as follows:

       (1) The importance and urgency of research are not obvious enough. The author needs to introduce some basic information to convince the reader of the importance and urgency of carrying out the whole research, especially if the author's research is only a small regional survey. It is suggested that the author stand in an international perspective and focus step by step from large to small, highlighting the importance and urgency of the whole study.

       (2) The literature review needs to serve for the subsequent research design. At present, the literature review part of the author is scattered, and there is no correlation with the follow-up study design. It is suggested that the author conduct a systematic review on the characteristics of adaptive behavior, the driving mechanism, and the relationship between cognition and adaptive behavior. The review can be carried out from the aspects of research content, research perspective, and research methods, and finally propose the core marginal contribution of this study.

       (3) In the part of research design, can we find no logical correlation between farmers' cognition and adaptive behavior? What is the scientific question that the author addresses throughout the study? The Impact of farmers' disaster cognition on their adaptive behavior?

       (4) The research lacks in-depth theoretical analysis and rigorous research hypothesis, which makes the whole research like a technical report, lacking in scientific rationality.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

1.       Row 29. “Given that  among the adopted strategies, only one significantly improves the yield, the study recommends  innovation and the design of sustainable management approaches based on farm and owner characteristics and other factors like education and financial support mechanisms to improve the resilience of cocoa production to drought episodes of international transboundary regions with complex  governance issues.”

It is difficult to grasp logic of this sentence, especially that it includes several aspects. The focus should be on adaptation to drought – which strategies  are recommended? I imagine specific practices may be introduced to cope with a threat and consequences of drought. Education and financial support are important factors but each has a different impact. Education may help with identifying and implementing right strategies. Regarding financial support it may improve resilience only if again practices (technologies, investments) allowing to cope with drought were introduced.   

2.       I would expect some details regarding construction of questionnaire, in particular in what form the key question about adaptive strategies was asked. Was it an open question?

 

3.       Figure 4 presents “Drought Adaptation Strategies” but this is rather a set of practices. Moreover, it raises some doubts whether all of those might be considered adapting to drought. Such as pruning trees, capsid control and so on should be simply classified as Good Agricultural Practices – how they are connected with the drought issue (adaptation strategy)?  It should be discussed  in the paper.

 

General comment: Clear distinction between adaptation strategies and influencing factors (attributes) is required, the same between strategies to cope with droughts and good management practice, especially in the conclusions.

 

4.       I would expect a clearer indication of strategies (practices) identified through the literature review – they are “hidden” in the text. It seems that some of those strategies were not mentioned by surveyed farmers. Are farmers not aware?

 

5.       Table 1. Some variables are named not clearly enough:

“Use of labor” – is this about hired labor? Hard to imagine farming without labor, literally referring to answer “No”.

“Consumption water availability”  - is this about availability of water for human consumption or availability of water for irrigation. Answer “No” suggests there is no water  at all – is this really the case?

 “Farm age” or cocoa plantation age?

6.       Table 2 is present twice on pages 11 and 14. Numbering of all tables needs to be corrected.

7.       The sentence on page 11 "As shown in Table 2, only farm management (S1) has a significant positive relationship with the cocoa yield"  formulates questionable conclusion. First, in Table 2 there is no statistically significant relationship anywhere except the constant and AS in Ghana. In other cases, p-values ​​are greater than 0.05;  0.08 can still be “stretched”, but 0.4 not necessarily.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor correcttions needed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1- The abstract section is well written, however the analysis section is missing

2- I would suggest the author(s) add theoretical framwork after Adaptation Strategies of Cocoa Farmers to Climate Change

3- Sampling procedure section needs to be explained further-Also how multi-stage sampling approach is performed by the author(s) for the current research study

4-The equations used in this study are need to be written using equation editor

5-I would suggest the author(s) study limitation section right after the data analysis

6- As the author used a mixed-method approach. However, i hardly find any qualitative findings. I would suggest the author(s) write a detailed explanation, how the qualitative data was gathered and analyzed. Who were the respondents and how were they selected?

7-The results sections should be reorganized to align with the original order of research questions. This arrangement will provide clarity on how the study addresses its objectives. The current format of the results appears more like a direct quotation, and it would be beneficial to revise it accordingly

8-Additionally, the discussion part of the results is currently missing. To enhance the paper's coherence, I recommend that the authors logically incorporate the discussion section within the paper. This will allow for a comprehensive analysis and interpretation of the obtained results, providing valuable insights and implications derived from the data.

9-The Conclusion section should be restructured into three distinct parts for improved clarity and coherence. Firstly, a concise summary of this study should be provided. Secondly, present the key findings that succinctly answer each research question, serving as evidence of the study's successful accomplishment of its objectives. Lastly, offer managerial and policy implications based on the significant findings of this study. By dividing the Conclusion in this manner, readers will gain a comprehensive understanding of the research's outcomes and the potential implications for practical applications.

10-Ensure that all the references cited in the paper are included in the reference list at the end according to the journal format

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of the English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has not systematically revised my first round of opinions, especially regarding the correlation between theoretical analysis and empirical analysis.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) addressed all the comments carefully, therefore i accept the manuscript in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for accepting our revised version