Effect of Forced Eviction and Land Grabs on Household Economic Capital Security of Displaced Pre-Urban Farmers in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Response to Reviewer #1  Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you and well accepted

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

I will improve update it

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

The research design has been approved by my academic supervisors and accepted by my University. I leave it as it is.

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

The research methodology has been approved by my academic supervisors and accepted by my University. I leave it as it is.

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you and I appreciate your judgement.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you and I appreciate your judgement.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Reviewer #1 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

I will give my corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?             

Is the English used correct and readable?  

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

Economic capital and food security play an essential role in preserving the daily lives of residents, especially poor households. In this study, the authors discuss the relationship between urban expansion and the security of the economy and food, and they consider different situations and factors. The subject matter of the article is important. The specific comments are as follows：

Response 1: I appreciate your feedback and excellent observation. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, we do not have any change to this comment.

Comments 2: In section 2.3.2, you mentioned that more than 12000 households experienced displacement, but you focused on only 415 households that have government support. These samples only represent a tiny fraction of the actual number of households (less than 5%). Moreover, the number of households with government support was unclear.  We worry about fewer samples in your survey.

Response 2: The total sample of the study is 446 households, 12 FGDs, and more 95 Key informants.  The 12,000 households are political figures and no recorded data available from the relevant government offices.  But, out of that only 415 households are the most affected households due to urban expansion and forced eviction. They receive government support as a safety net nearly 2200 ETB per month. Only heads of households receive such government safety net in cash.  Due to this the researcher consider the 415 households as  a sampling frame (Sample Population). In line with the objective of our research, we gave special zooming into these most affected households and took 223 households as our sample. In addition, we draw another 223 households from non-displaced households in another neighboring villages for a comparison purpose (as a counterfactual). Therefore the total sample size is 446 households, which is adequately representing the study population.

Therefore, no action is taken.

Commment 3:

Moreover, you mentioned that non-title holding farmers, like children below the age of 18 years, women, and tenant laborers, receive no restitution, which appears to be not discussed in the discussion section. That is, the practical situations may be more severe than your conclusions.

Response 3:

Since our unit of analysis is “household”, we do not need to analyze the data by gender or by age. Our focus and objective of the study is whether there are differences between the displaced and non-displaced households in terms of economic capital security and household food security. In addition, the objective of the study is to analyze to what extent urbanization-induced eviction affected the economic capital security and household food security comparing the evicted households to the non-evicted households.

Therefore, no action is taken.

Comment 4:

In the survey, especially in table 1, some factors were surveyed using the ETB, but others were using binary classification. Why not try surveyed all the factors using the ETB, like income from crops, and from other jobs.

Response 4:

The household income data in ETB is separately analyzed and prepared for publication as a separate manuscript. In this manuscript, the binary responses have sufficiently explained the objectives of our study. The model we used for analysis, which is binary logistic regression model, is also well fitted and explained the results.

Therefore, no action has been taken.

Comment 5:

Please slightly condense your outcome description and analysis, and avoid getting too much repeat content in the results and discussions section.

Response 5:

Agreed and it has been condensed as per your recommendation.

Comment 6:

The study has many abbreviations. Please form an index of abbreviations and symbols.

Response 6:

Agreed and index of abbreviations and symbols are prepared in line with your comments.

Comment 7:

The conclusion section was a summary of the results section. Please shorten the conclusion section. Besides, provide suggestions for related institutions or future studies.

Response 7:

Agreed. I shortened and provided suggestions for future studies.

8. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1:

I recommend proofreading the entire paper to correct any grammatical errors.

Response 8

Accepted and I will send the manuscript for professional editors.

Response to Reviewer #2  Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Yes

Thank you and well accepted

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you and well accepted

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you and well accepted

Are the methods adequately described?

Yes

Thank you and well accepted

Are the results clearly presented?

Yes

Thank you and I appreciate your judgement.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Yes

Thank you and I appreciate your judgement.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Reviewer #2 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

I hope you will continue your scientific publications like this one. It is very didactic and understandable for the reader. Congratulations!

Response 1: I appreciate your feedback and excellent observation. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, we do not have any change to this comment.

For research article

Land (ISSN 2073-445X)

Manuscript ID : land-3528978

Type: Article

Title

Urban Expansion and Unjust Dispossession: How Land Grabbing, Forced Evictions, and Inadequate Compensation Undermine Economic Capital and Food Security in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Response to Reviewer #3  Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

I agreed to improve it

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Can be improved

I agreed to improve it

Is the research design appropriate?

Can be improved

I agreed to improve it

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

I agreed to improve it

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

I agreed to improve it

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

I agreed to improve it

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response to Reviewer #3 Comments

1. Summary

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

This paper examines an important process which has transformed the country of Ethiopia. It has not been analyzed sufficiently by scholars in the field. For this reason, this paper will be of great interest to the readership of this journal.

Overall, this paper is well-written, well-argued, and well-supported. Before moving towards publication, there are some minor revisions needed to improve this paper.

Response 1: I appreciate your feedback and excellent observation. Thank you for pointing this out. I/We agree with this comment. Therefore, we do not have any change to this comment.

Comments 2: To start, the introduction does a good job explaining why this research is important. However, there is an opportunity at the end of the introduction to more clearly articulate the research questions posed in this study.

Response 2: Agreed and I have articulated the research questions under the Introduction section of the manuscript

Commment 3:

The literature review could be more developed to both explore what has been written on land appropriation and urbanization & food insecurity in other contexts and expand on the political economic social context of Ethiopia: what does the institutional framework look like - who are the most important institutions at play in the city and how does this intersect with the various processes and variables discussed. A conceptual framework could help to explain these dynamics.

Response 3:

Accepted/agreed. I rewrote the literature review section and included your comments in this section.

Comment 4:

The methods section is quite detailed which is excellent, but the section could be improved by first explaining the big picture: what is the value of the method used and what are its strengths & weaknesses. This section is very long and could be condensed.

Response 4:

Agreed and I appreciated your comments. I modified it as per your recommendation.

Comment 5:

In the findings section, the data are described in great detail, but more could be said to analyze how and why the findings are important as pertaining to the hypotheses posed at the beginning of the study. The findings do not necessarily speak for themselves without discussion by the author. This section is also a bit sprawling and may want to be pared down a bit.

Response 5:

Agreed and I tried to improve it.  

Comment 6:

At the end of the paper, there is an opportunity to further explain the significance of the findings for current research, future research, and policy for Ethiopia and the other contexts more broadly. What is the value of this case study for other contexts? This is important as it has the potential expand the analytical implications of this research.

Response 6:

Agreed and I modified it.

Comment 7:

Other Items

-Paper needs to be reread for clarity to minimize typos and improve smoothness of language

-Some sections (such as methods and findings) are very long and may need to condensed.

-Title is long, can it be shortened?

Response 7:

Agreed. I sent the manuscript to professional language editors.

8. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

-Paper needs to be reread for clarity to minimize typos and improve smoothness of language

-Some sections (such as methods and findings) are very long and may need to condensed.

Response 8

Accepted and I will send the manuscript for professional editors.