Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Infrastructure and Resources: Insights from Communal Land Farming Systems
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsManuscript: Climate Change Impacts on Agricultural Infrastructures and Resources: Insights from Communal Land Farming Systems.
Overview: The study is highly relevant, given the increasing concern over climate change and its effects on agriculture. This study examined the effects of climate change (extreme weather events) on different agricultural infrastructures like bridges, arable land, soil erosion control structures, dipping tanks, roads, and fences. This study used a multivariate ordered probit model (MVOP) to examine the impacts of various socio-demographic and environmental factors on different forms of agricultural infrastructure under the influence of climate change. The study findings reveal that socio-demographic factors, such as gender and type of farmer, as well as environmental stressors like frost, flooding, and drought, significantly influence the extent of damage to agricultural infrastructure. Roads, bridges, dipping tanks and soil erosion control structures emerged as the most impacted, with small-holder farmers and those with prolonged exposure to climate change reporting higher vulnerabilities.
The work is very interesting. The manuscript is well written. While going through the manuscript, following observations are made which needs to be given attention by the author as mentioned below:
* In the introduction section, add some recent works of literature where such a study was done with their quantitative results. How this work could be instrumental towards policy making in this regard?
* Discuss the limitations of the study, including potential sources of error or uncertainty.
* Write a few sentences in the discussion section about the mentioned topic with your findings. So that it will look better and clear. The discussion section tells the reader what your findings mean. Think of the results section as setting the stage for the discussion section by making all the necessary information known to the reader.
* Please mention a section regarding the trend of extreme events in the study area. I think this part bringing the readers' attention to any important, interesting, or significant findings.
* Details of the sampling methods are missing in the manuscript. Include a more detailed explanation of the methodology particularly the selection of the population.
* Latest research articles on the same field must be cited showing the gap in research and applied methodology.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsGeneral Comments:
The article addresses an important topic: the impact of climate change on agricultural infrastructure in vulnerable communal farming systems. The research question is relevant, and the study area is well-described. However, there are several areas where the manuscript needs significant improvement, including strengthening the methodological rigor, clarifying the presentation of results, and improving the overall coherence and flow of the text.
Specific Comments:
Abstract:
The abstract lacks specific numerical results or key findings (e.g., percentages, significant variables). Please add a sentence summarizing key quantitative findings. Additionally, the abstract ends abruptly without clearly stating the broader implications of the study. Add a concluding sentence linking the findings to global sustainability goals or policy recommendations.
Line 13-14: In the text: "A survey was conducted using structured questionnaires to collect data from communal farmers (n=60) in uKhahlamba Municipality, Bergville." The authors could specify the time frame of the survey.
Lines 17-19: In the text: "The findings show that bridges, soil erosion control structures, and dipping tanks are the most vulnerable, with cumulative impacts from repeated exposure to extreme weather." the authors could provide more specific details about the "cumulative impacts."
Lines 21-22: In the text: "These results underscore the need for climate-resilient infrastructure investments, gender-sensitive adaptation strategies, and targeted support for smallholder farmers." the Authors could be more specific. For instance, what kind of investments and support are envisioned within the scope of this study?
Introduction
The introduction lacks a clear statement about the novelty or gap addressed by this research. The authors could explicitly state how this study advances knowledge beyond existing literatura.
The authors should state the hypotheses tested in this research.
Lines 52-55: This reviewer considers that this text is redundant with previous statements. The authors could consider removing this.
Materials and Methods
The description of the multivariate ordered probit model is sound but could benefit from the inclusion of details on its underlying assumptions and inherent limitations.
Add a brief discussion of potential multicollinearity issues among independent variables and how they were addressed.
The sampling method (purposive sampling) needs justification. Why was purposive sampling chosen over random sampling? Include a rationale in the text.
Validation:
The authors could include a subsection on model validation, such as cross-validation or comparison with simpler models (e.g., logistic regression).
Line 129. The legend of Figure 2 needs improvement.
2.2 Questionnaire Design:
Line 140-142: "To ensure validity and reliability, the questionnaire was pre-tested with a small sample of respondents from the study area." Important. Specify the sample size used for the pre-test.
2.3.1 Data Collection:
Line 157-159: "The survey was conducted over a two-weeks period and targeted 60 respondents selected through purposive sampling." Justify the sample size (n=60). Why was purposive sampling used? What are its limitations in this context?
2.3.2 Data Analysis:
Line 173-174: "Percentages were calculated to provide an overview of the dataset." This is basic. More sophisticated descriptive statistics (e.g., standard deviations, ranges) would be beneficial.
2.3.3 Empirical Model Specification: Multivariate Ordered Probit Regression Model:
Why was the Multivariate Ordered Probit Regression Model chosen? What are its strengths and weaknesses in this context? Is it the most appropriate model given the nature of the data and the research questions?
What are the underlying assumptions of the MVOP model? Are these assumptions met by the data? How were these assumptions tested?
Were alternative models considered? If so, why was the MVOP model preferred?
The description of the model is too vague. A proper model specification is crucial for a high-impact journal. This should include:
The general form of the MVOP model equation.
Clear definitions of the dependent variables (the infrastructure impact categories). How were these categories defined and measured? What are the ordered categories?
A detailed list of the independent variables with clear definitions and units of measurement.
How the correlation between the error terms for different infrastructure types was handled in the MVOP framework. This is a key feature of the multivariate model and needs explicit explanation.
The model acknowledges the ordered nature of the dependent variables, representing the perceived impact of climate change on infrastructure, ranging from 'No Impact' to 'Severe Impact'." This needs expansion.
The authors should precisely define the categories of the dependent variable. For example:
0 = No Impact
1 = Slight Impact
2 = Moderate Impact
3 = Severe Impact
The authors must explain: How was "impact" measured? Was it based on farmer perceptions, objective measures of damage, or a combination of both? This needs clarification.
The error terms are assumed to be jointly normally distributed with a mean of zero and a variance-covariance matrix, which captures the correlation between the perceived impacts on different infrastructure types."
This is a fundamental point. The authors should explain the structure of the variance-covariance matrix. What does each element represent? Why is it important to model these correlations?
Results
This reviewer considers that the statistical significance of the findings needs greater emphasis. The authors should consistently highlight p-values and confidence intervals where applicable. Furthermore, the interpretation of coefficients within the econometric analysis requires more depth. For example, the discussion should include the practical implications of key variables, such as gender differences in perceived impacts on infrastructure.
Line 317: The text says "(Fig. 3 a and b)" but Figure 3 does not contain images a and b. This part should be corrected accordingly.
Section 3.1, Descriptive Statistics, should offer a clear overview of the data. Regarding Table 2:
Please include appropriate measures of central tendency, such as the mean and median, for continuous variables.
Also, provide measures of dispersion, like the standard deviation and range, for these continuous variables.
For categorical variables, present both frequencies and percentages.
Consider adding a column indicating the number of observations (n) for each variable.
Following the table, please provide a brief interpretation of the descriptive statistics within the text, highlighting any key patterns or trends observed.
Table 3 provides valuable information but is quite dense. This table is the core of the results section. The authors should consider splitting Table 3 into smaller, more focused tables to improve readability.
Clearly label the dependent variables (impact on each infrastructure type).
Report the estimated coefficients (βj) for each independent variable.
Provide standard errors or t-statistics for the coefficients.
Indicate the statistical significance of the coefficients using asterisks (e.g., * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001).
Consider reporting the marginal effects in a separate table or alongside the coefficients. Marginal effects are often easier to interpret than coefficients in ordered probit models.
Include the number of observations (n) and the model's goodness-of-fit statistics (e.g., likelihood ratio test, AIC, BIC) at the bottom of the table.
Use consistent formatting and decimal places throughout the table.
Interpretation of Results:
The interpretation of the regression results should be clear and focused.
For each significant variable, explain the direction and magnitude of its effect on the perceived impact of climate change on infrastructure.
Relate the findings to the existing literature. The authors should specify whether the results support or contradict previous studies.
Discuss the practical implications of the findings. What do the results mean for policy and practice?
Avoid simply stating 'the results show that...' Instead, provide a more in-depth analysis and discussion.
The results indicate that several factors significantly influence the perceived impact of climate change on infrastructure.
Be more specific. Which factors? On which types of infrastructure?
Socio-demographic factors, such as age, gender, farm size, and farming experience, also played a role in shaping farmers' perceptions of climate change impacts.
The authors should be more specific. Which socio-demographic factors were significant? What was the direction of their effects?
Older farmers with more farming experience tended to perceive higher impacts of climate change on infrastructure."
Refer to the specific coefficients and their statistical significance. Provide a possible explanation for this finding.
The authors found that access to extension services and credit mitigated the perceived negative impacts of climate change.
Refer to the coefficients and explain why access to extension services and credit might have this effect.
The correlation matrix of the error terms reveals significant correlations between the perceived impacts on different infrastructure types, highlighting the interconnectedness of infrastructure vulnerability.
This is an important finding. Discuss the implications of these correlations. Which infrastructure types are most strongly correlated in terms of climate change impact? What does this tell us about the vulnerability of the system as a whole?
The discussion section should be a critical analysis of the results. It should not simply restate the findings but should interpret them in the context of the existing literature and discuss their implications.
The discussion should address the main research questions and should highlight the key findings of the study.
The results should be compared with the findings of previous studies. Do the results support or contradict previous research? If there are discrepancies, provide possible explanations.
Implications: Discuss the practical and policy implications of the findings. How can the results be used to improve climate change adaptation and mitigation strategies?
The results confirm that extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, strong winds, and frost, are major drivers of infrastructure damage, particularly for vulnerable infrastructure components such as bridges, soil erosion control structures, and dipping tanks. The authors should include a discussion of whether other studies support this finding.
The study also reveals the importance of socio-demographic factors in shaping farmers' perceptions of climate change impacts.
Discuss the specific findings related to age, gender, farm size, and farming experience.
For example, the positive association between age and perceived impact suggests that older farmers with more experience may be more aware of the long-term effects of climate change on infrastructure. This is a good interpretation. Provide further possible explanations. Do older farmers have more historical knowledge of extreme weather events? Are they more dependent on existing infrastructure due to potentially lower access to newer technologies or resources?
Limitations:
Discuss potential biases introduced by purposive sampling or the reliance on self-reported data.
Future Work:
The suggestions for future research are relevant but vague. Propose concrete directions, such as exploring the role of digital technologies in monitoring infrastructure resilience.
Conclusion
The conclusion succinctly summarizes the study but repeats points already made in the discussion. Focus instead on synthesizing insights and emphasizing actionable steps for policymakers.
The conclusion flows logically but ends abruptly. Add a final sentence highlighting the broader significance of the study for sustainable agriculture and rural development.
Furthermore, the findings underscore the critical importance of integrating climate change adaptation strategies into agricultural development policies to enhance the resilience of communal farming systems. To elaborate, could you provide more specific details regarding the types of adaptation strategies that are needed?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors- line 2: at the title, because this study is relevant for regions specific problems, it will be good to add the name of target area to the title
- line 14: uKhahlamba: check the name of the study area, in some places it is uKhahlamba and sometimes is oKhahlamba, which one? unify the name throughout the manuscript
- line 31, at the introduction: Are there key differences in how climate impacts manifest in communal farms systems across regions such as arid vs. tropical climates?
- line 36, add country name (, South Africa) after -KwaZulu-Natal province,- to be clear to the reader where is your province locate?
- line 73: why you didn't select private farms to compare with communal farms?
- line 333: delete a dot
- at the discussion, Are certain types of infrastructure more vulnerable in communal farms compared to private farms?
- also, What happens when infrastructure fails due to climate impacts? How do these failures disproportionately affect vulnerable groups?
- is there any role or initiative do national or local governments play in supporting infrastructure upgrades for communal farming under climate change?
- from the conclusion: What emerging climate risks are most likely to disrupt communal farming infrastructure in the near future or next years?
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is written undoubtedly on a very relevant topic, related to a problem, the solution of which is even of global importance.
In my opinion, the content and structure of the abstract do not meet the requirements for what an abstract of a scientific article should be. In this version, the abstract is more like something similar to an article synopsis. In my opinion and experience, the abstract should clearly formulate the purpose of the research, the main tasks performed to achieve this goal, the scientific novelty of the results obtained and their practical significance - who and to what extent can use them, for what and how.
The purpose of the research is formulated in a certain way in the introduction to the article, but the first part of the purpose formulated in this way is clearly unfinished, because “to evaluate” is half the battle, and for what? The second part of the purpose formulated in this way in the introduction does not have the nature of a purpose, because “to investigate” cannot be the purpose of the research. That is, the wording of the article should be worked on so that it meets the level of a scientific article.
The same applies to the practical significance in the introduction: “this research offers valuable insights” is too general.
Some aspects of the research are somewhat strange. For example, the question arises whether it is necessary to find out through a survey whether floods affect the destruction of infrastructure elements - the answer to this type of question is known a priori, and it is not known what significance the quantitative characteristics of the answers obtained to such questions have, both in terms of scientific novelty and practical significance.
Similarly, it is unclear what significance the differences in the assessment of the degree of impact of climate change by women and men have - the results obtained are interesting for general development, but can this have any practical or scientific application? This was reflected rather vaguely in the conclusions. This also applies to other conclusions - the vast majority of them are a priori in nature.
The article does not present any scientific hypotheses, so it is understandable why the conclusions do not say anything about whether such hypotheses have been confirmed in the course of research.
It would also be good to note how the results obtained can be used (if they can be used in any way) by other regions, how representative the selected region is.
I do not believe that the comments made can pose a problem for the authors of the article. I do not claim to review the article again, but I would be grateful for the authors' response to my comments, because in the end, scientific truth is born in discussions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis Reviewer commends the authors for their dedicated and effective response to the comments and recommendations provided in the previous review round.
After a thorough examination of the revised manuscript, it is satisfying to confirm that all suggested modifications have been diligently implemented. Consequently, this Reviewer is pleased to recommend advancing with the publication process.
