The Role of Climate Services in Supporting Climate Change Adaptation in Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review of Section 1:  Introduction

The introduction is very long , which makes it heavy for readers. It could be shortened and streamlined by condensing overlapping ideas (e.g., climate change impacts are repeated in several paragraphs).

While challenges of climate services are mentioned, the specific research gap could be stated more explicitly and concisely (e.g., “Despite national strategies, limited integration of climate services at the local level remains a critical barrier. This study addresses this gap by …”).

At the end, the text extends to “other African countries.” This dilutes the focus. It would be clearer to state: “While Ethiopia is the case study, the findings may have broader relevance across Africa.”

The objectives (i–iv) are stated, but they come quite late. Bringing them earlier (just after framing Ethiopia’s vulnerability) would improve reader orientation.

Suggestions for Intro.:

Streamline by merging similar points (e.g., climate change impacts, Ethiopia’s vulnerability, and agriculture dependence).

Explicitly highlight the novel contribution: Is this the first structured survey on climate services in Ethiopia? Is it offering new data or just a synthesis?

Move Ethiopia’s policy framework (CRGE, GTP, NAP) into a separate background section or literature review to avoid overloading the introduction.

Clarify the research gap and objectives earlier and more directly.

 

Review of Section 2: Description of the Study Area

The section is very long and textbook-like, reading more like a geography/climatology manual than a concise “study area” description. For journal readers, brevity is important.

While climate patterns are well-explained, the link to the study’s core theme (climate services for adaptation) is not explicit. Readers might lose sight of why this level of climatological detail matters for climate services.

Four figures in just one section may be excessive. Consider whether all maps/figures are essential, or if some can be moved to supplementary material.

The text mentions datasets (1991–2020 temperature and rainfall) but does not clarify sources (ERA5? CHIRP, WorldClim, CHELSA? Or interpolated national dataset?). This transparency is critical for reproducibility.

Some sentences are heavy and could be simplified for readability (e.g., “There are a number of factors influencing rainfall…” could be streamlined).

Keep the geographic context short (location, topography, climate regimes) and move detailed climatological discussion (Figures 2–4) to either the methods section (data description) or supplementary material.

 “Understanding Ethiopia’s diverse topography and rainfall regimes is crucial because these variations directly affect the demand for and application of climate services.” This keeps the section tied to the paper’s focus.

Clarify the data source for temperature and rainfall maps (1991–2020).

Consider merging maps: Instead of multiple figures, combine into a single multi-panel figure (location + rainfall + temperature).

Revise language for conciseness and avoid repeating points (e.g., uniqueness of Ethiopia’s climate is repeated several times).

 

Review of Section 3: Data sources

Redundancy in phrasing – Phrases like “products and services” are repeated too often. Consider rephrasing to avoid redundancy.

 

Clarity on survey design – While surveys are mentioned,  sampling method, or geographic spread. Adding these details (even briefly) would improve transparency.

 

Technical detail balance – The section is slightly heavy on data sources (e.g., description of EMI datasets) but lighter on how these were actually analyzed (statistical methods, trend detection, bias correction, etc.).

 

Structure – The flow could be improved by separating “policy/user surveys” and “climate data analysis” into clearly distinct subsections, rather than weaving them together.

 

Projections explanation – The CMIP6 model subset selection process is mentioned but not explained (criteria?). Clarifying this avoids questions about bias or cherry-picking.

 

Review of Section 4: Methodology

Overly verbose – Some sentences are long and repetitive (e.g., “survey was conducted for two different groups… first group is users…”). Conciseness would improve readability.

Lack of methodological rigor on projections – It’s stated that CMIP6 models were evaluated, but criteria for model evaluation or uncertainty treatment are vague. This may be questioned by reviewers.

Document review section is descriptive, not analytical – It lists policies but doesn’t explain the analytical framework (e.g., content analysis, thematic coding, criteria for document selection).

Survey design – While participants and channels are well described, details on the survey instrument (questionnaire structure, Likert scales, open vs. closed questions) are missing.

Potential bias – By surveying participants already engaged in climate forums, results might be skewed toward more climate-aware respondents. A note on limitations would strengthen credibility.

Streamline the text – Shorten and restructure sentences for clarity, especially in 3.2.4.

Climate projections – Add one or two sentences on:

Evaluation metrics (e.g., rainfall seasonality, temperature bias).

How uncertainty was addressed (ensemble means, percentiles, etc.).

Document review – Mention analytical lens (e.g., identifying adaptation priorities, coherence with IPCC frameworks, gaps in Survey methodology – Clarify:

1. Number of EMI staff surveyed.
2. Example of survey questions or themes.
3. Analytical approach (descriptive stats? coding of open responses?).

Add a limitations note – Briefly acknowledge biases (e.g., targeting policy-engaged stakeholders) and data gaps (e.g., uneven regional representation).

ntation).

 

Review of Section 5: Results and Discussions

 

Note on Figures: Figures 6 and 7, which present temperature Rainfall trends results, should be enhanced to improve readability and scientific clarity. Instead of standard Excel charts, it is recommended to employ advanced visualization tools (e.g., R ggplot2, Python matplotlib/seaborn, or GIS-based spatial representations) to ensure high-quality, publication-ready figures. Using these approaches will allow for better representation of uncertainty ranges, spatial variability, and sectoral comparisons.

 

Based on the comments across all sections—lengthy and repetitive introduction, overly descriptive study area, insufficient methodological rigor, unclear survey design, lack of clarity on projections and analytical framework, and figures that do not meet publication standards—the final decision would be:

Recommendation: Reject the manuscript in its current form, consistent with the previous round.

Rationale:

Major structural and clarity issues remain unresolved.

Methodological weaknesses, especially in projections and survey analysis, compromise scientific rigor.

Figures and data presentation are insufficient for publication quality.

Substantial revisions are needed in almost all sections; the manuscript is not ready for acceptance with minor or moderate revisions.

This aligns with the prior decision and reviewer concerns but here I provided a detailed review.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the detailed and thoughtful review of our manuscript. We have noted that this round of review is considerably more comprehensive and critical compared to the first one. We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s careful evaluation and constructive comments, as they have provided valuable insights that will help us further strengthen the quality, clarity, and overall coherence of the manuscript. However, it is unfortunate that the reviewer recommended rejection after all the contributions for improvement.

 

Review of Section 1:  Introduction

The introduction is very long , which makes it heavy for readers. It could be shortened and streamlined by condensing overlapping ideas (e.g., climate change impacts are repeated in several paragraphs).

The introduction section has sustainably been reduced over the last couple of iterations; however, we have made further reductions.

While challenges of climate services are mentioned, the specific research gap could be stated more explicitly and concisely (e.g., “Despite national strategies, limited integration of climate services at the local level remains a critical barrier. This study addresses this gap by …”).

Part of the suggested statement has been incorporated into the paragraph discussing the challenges of integrating climate services into decision-making. The specific issues addressed by the paper are presented in the subsequent paragraph.

At the end, the text extends to “other African countries.” This dilutes the focus. It would be clearer to state: “While Ethiopia is the case study, the findings may have broader relevance across Africa.”

We don’t see a substantial difference between the suggestion and the existing text.

 

The objectives (i–iv) are stated, but they come quite late. Bringing them earlier (just after framing Ethiopia’s vulnerability) would improve reader orientation.

Placing these statements at the end was actually suggested by one of the other reviewers, and we agreed with that recommendation. We believe their inclusion here improves the logical flow and clarity of the manuscript.

 

Suggestions for Intro.:

Streamline by merging similar points (e.g., climate change impacts, Ethiopia’s vulnerability, and agriculture dependence).

Explicitly highlight the novel contribution: Is this the first structured survey on climate services in Ethiopia? Is it offering new data or just a synthesis?

The above are covered in the methodology section

Move Ethiopia’s policy framework (CRGE, GTP, NAP) into a separate background section or literature review to avoid overloading the introduction.

This paragraph has been reduced substantially.

 

Clarify the research gap and objectives earlier and more directly.

This has been addressed above.

 

Review of Section 2: Description of the Study Area

The section is very long and textbook-like, reading more like a geography/climatology manual than a concise “study area” description. For journal readers, brevity is important.

This section was initially lengthy because it also included a detailed climate profile of the country, which we considered important for contextualizing the study. However, in response to the reviewer’s recommendation, we have shortened this section substantially to make it more concise.

 

While climate patterns are well-explained, the link to the study’s core theme (climate services for adaptation) is not explicit. Readers might lose sight of why this level of climatological detail matters for climate services.

The link to climate services is covered extensively in Section 5.

 

Four figures in just one section may be excessive. Consider whether all maps/figures are essential, or if some can be moved to supplementary material.

We have removed one of the figures as suggested; however, we have retained the others because they provide essential information for illustrating the climate profile.

 

The text mentions datasets (1991–2020 temperature and rainfall) but does not clarify sources (ERA5? CHIRP, WorldClim, CHELSA? Or interpolated national dataset?). This transparency is critical for reproducibility.

The data source is described in Section 3 and Table 1, including references.

 

Some sentences are heavy and could be simplified for readability (e.g., “There are a number of factors influencing rainfall…” could be streamlined).

This is addressed above.

 

Keep the geographic context short (location, topography, climate regimes) and move detailed climatological discussion (Figures 2–4) to either the methods section (data description) or supplementary material.

This is addressed in the revised manuscript (see above).

 

 “Understanding Ethiopia’s diverse topography and rainfall regimes is crucial because these variations directly affect the demand for and application of climate services.” This keeps the section tied to the paper’s focus.

This is a good suggestion and has been incorporated into the revised version.

 

Clarify the data source for temperature and rainfall maps (1991–2020).

The data source is described in Section 3 and Table 1, including references.

 

Consider merging maps: Instead of multiple figures, combine into a single multi-panel figure (location + rainfall + temperature).

The figures are already complex, and combining them will make them more complex. As indicated above, we have removed one of the figures.

Revise language for conciseness and avoid repeating points (e.g., uniqueness of Ethiopia’s climate is repeated several times).

 This is addressed above.

 

Review of Section 3: Data sources

Redundancy in phrasing – Phrases like “products and services” are repeated too often. Consider rephrasing to avoid redundancy.

We see only one repetition in the same paragraph used to avoid ambiguity.

 

Clarity on survey design – While surveys are mentioned, sampling method, or geographic spread. Adding these details (even briefly) would improve transparency.

 Details are presented in Section 3.2.4.

Technical detail balance – The section is slightly heavy on data sources (e.g., description of EMI datasets) but lighter on how these were actually analyzed (statistical methods, trend detection, bias correction, etc.).

 Details of the analytical methods were included in the initial submission but were later removed because some reviewers felt the section was too detailed. Therefore, we replaced it with references to the most relevant sources.

 

Structure – The flow could be improved by separating “policy/user surveys” and “climate data analysis” into clearly distinct subsections, rather than weaving them together.

 The current structure is exactly as suggested by the reviewer (Subsections 3.2.2, 3.2.3, and 3.2.4).

 

Projections explanation – The CMIP6 model subset selection process is mentioned but not explained (criteria?). Clarifying this avoids questions about bias or cherry-picking.

 Some text has been added to the revised manuscript to address the identified gap.

 

Review of Section 4: Methodology

Overly verbose – Some sentences are long and repetitive (e.g., “survey was conducted for two different groups… first group is users…”). Conciseness would improve readability.

The survey is a critical component of the paper, and therefore the methodology—both the rationale and the approach—needs to be clearly presented. In fact, the reviewer earlier requested additional details on this aspect.

 

Lack of methodological rigor on projections – It’s stated that CMIP6 models were evaluated, but criteria for model evaluation or uncertainty treatment are vague. This may be questioned by reviewers.

We kept this section brief because the manuscript is already quite long. However, we have included text in the revised manuscript to address the gap identified by the reviewer

 

 

Document review section is descriptive, not analytical – It lists policies but doesn’t explain the analytical framework (e.g., content analysis, thematic coding, criteria for document selection).

This is true, and some analysis was included in the first submission, but was removed subsequently to shorten the manuscript.

 

Survey design – While participants and channels are well described, details on the survey instrument (questionnaire structure, Likert scales, open vs. closed questions) are missing.

This information has been added to the revised manuscript.

 

Potential bias – By surveying participants already engaged in climate forums, results might be skewed toward more climate-aware respondents. A note on limitations would strengthen credibility.

This limitation is included in the conclusion.

Streamline the text – Shorten and restructure sentences for clarity, especially in 3.2.4.

This is addressed above.

 

Climate projections – Add one or two sentences on:

Evaluation metrics (e.g., rainfall seasonality, temperature bias).

How uncertainty was addressed (ensemble means, percentiles, etc.).

Some text has been added to the revised manuscript as recommended.

 

Document review – Mention analytical lens (e.g., identifying adaptation priorities, coherence with IPCC frameworks, gaps in Survey methodology – Clarify:

1. Number of EMI staff surveyed.
2. Example of survey questions or themes.
3. Analytical approach (descriptive stats? coding of open responses?).

The number of EMI staff is added, and others are addressed in the results section.

 

Add limitations note – Briefly acknowledge biases (e.g., targeting policy-engaged stakeholders) and data gaps (e.g., uneven regional representation).

This is addressed in the conclusion.

Review of Section 5: Results and Discussions

 =Note on Figures: Figures 6 and 7, which present temperature Rainfall trends results, should be enhanced to improve readability and scientific clarity. Instead of standard Excel charts, it is recommended to employ advanced visualization tools (e.g., R ggplot2, Python matplotlib/seaborn, or GIS-based spatial representations) to ensure high-quality, publication-ready figures. Using these approaches will allow for better representation of uncertainty ranges, spatial variability, and sectoral comparisons.

 This is a good recommendation, and we have tried to improve the figures. If needed, we will submit further improved figures during publication.

 Based on the comments across all sections—lengthy and repetitive introduction, overly descriptive study area, insufficient methodological rigor, unclear survey design, lack of clarity on projections and analytical framework, and figures that do not meet publication standards—the final decision would be:

Recommendation: Reject the manuscript in its current form, consistent with the previous round.

 

Rationale:

Major structural and clarity issues remain unresolved.

Methodological weaknesses, especially in projections and survey analysis, compromise scientific rigor.

Figures and data presentation are insufficient for publication quality.

Substantial revisions are needed in almost all sections; the manuscript is not ready for acceptance with minor or moderate revisions.

This aligns with the prior decision and reviewer concerns, but here I provided a detailed review.

We believe that we have thoroughly addressed most of the issues raised by the Reviewer. Therefore, it is unclear to us why the reviewer recommends rejection of the manuscript without first reviewing our detailed responses to the specific concerns he or she has raised. Our revisions and justifications should have been given due consideration before recommending rejection.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for taking all my points into consideration from my initial review. AS far as I am am concerned this is now good to go. Well done!

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable and constructive feedback, which has contributed significantly to improving the overall quality and clarity of the manuscript. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you dedicated to reviewing our work and are pleased to note that you are satisfied with our revisions and responses. Your insightful comments have been instrumental in refining both the structure and presentation of the paper, and we are confident that the manuscript is now much stronger as a result.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article titled “Value of Climate Services in Supporting Climate Change Adaptation in Ethiopia” examines the role of climate services in supporting climate change adaptation in Ethiopia. The authors analyze historical climate trends, future climate projections, national policy frameworks, and survey data from climate information users and providers. The study finds that while Ethiopia's climate services hold potential for adaptation support, they face challenges in technical capacity, infrastructure, and aligning user needs. The article maintains a coherent structure but exhibits the following shortcomings:
1. The research objective is broadly stated, such as “examining the role of climate services in supporting climate change adaptation in Ethiopia,” lacking refinement of specific research questions. It is recommended that the author further clarify the key issues the study aims to address. For instance, should the focus be on the role of climate services in specific sectors (e.g., agriculture or water resource management) or on evaluating the practical impact of different climate service products on adaptation measures? This would provide a clearer direction for the research.
2. The introduction mentions Ethiopia as one of Africa's most climate-vulnerable nations and outlines the broad impacts of climate change on ecosystems, economies, and societies. However, the explanation of the specific mechanisms and interactions underlying these impacts is insufficient and should be strengthened.
3. The introduction outlines the context for climate services supporting climate change adaptation. While analyzing historical climate trends, future projections, and national policy frameworks, it lacks systematic attention to critical contemporary climate issues such as global warming and thermal environments. I recommend referencing the following literature to enhance comprehensiveness:
A global perspective on urban thermal environment: From satellite data to sustainable development;
Quantitative analysis of differences in cooling effect and efficiency after changes in Green Infrastructure Types (GIT)
4. While the paper provides detailed analysis of Ethiopia's climate variability and trends, it lacks sufficient discussion on data limitations and uncertainties. For instance, the rainfall and temperature data cited are based on a high-resolution (4km×4km) gridded dataset, yet the spatial and temporal limitations of these data are not elaborated.
5. Regarding future climate projections, while CMIP6 model outputs are utilized, the paper fails to sufficiently address inter-model differences and uncertainties, as well as their potential implications for policy formulation and adaptation measures.
6. When presenting climate data and trend analysis results, the article fails to adequately compare its findings with existing research. For instance, numerous studies have provided differing analyses and conclusions regarding climate trends in Ethiopia, yet the article neither references these studies nor explains the consistency or discrepancies between its results and the existing literature.

Author Response

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript and for your encouraging feedback. We sincerely appreciate your willingness to review the manuscript and for the constructive feedback.  Below, we have addressed each of your points one by one.

1. 
   The research objective is broadly stated, such as “examining the role of climate services in supporting climate change adaptation in Ethiopia,” lacking refinement of specific research questions. It is recommended that the author further clarify the key issues the study aims to address. For instance, should the focus be on the role of climate services in specific sectors (e.g., agriculture or water resource management) or on evaluating the practical impact of different climate service products on adaptation measures? This would provide a clearer direction for the research.

 The overall objective of the study is to demonstrate the role of climate services in enhancing national resilience to climate variability and change and highlight the challenges limiting the effective use of climate services in Ethiopia. This general objective and associated specific objectives are provided at the end of the introduction

2. 
   The introduction mentions Ethiopia as one of Africa's most climate-vulnerable nations and outlines the broad impacts of climate change on ecosystems, economies, and societies. However, the explanation of the specific mechanisms and interactions underlying these impacts is insufficient and should be strengthened.

The climate component of the manuscript is intended only to provide an overview of historical climate conditions, variability, trends, and future projections as background information. A detailed analysis and discussion of climate issues are not the main objectives of the paper. While the manuscript primarily summarizes findings from existing literature, we included some original analyses because the authors have access to high-resolution climate data. The manuscript is already quite long, and adding further details on the climate component would make it excessively lengthy.

3. 
   The introduction outlines the context for climate services supporting climate change adaptation. While analyzing historical climate trends, future projections, and national policy frameworks, it lacks systematic attention to critical contemporary climate issues such as global warming and thermal environments. I recommend referencing the following literature to enhance comprehensiveness:
   A global perspective on urban thermal environment: From satellite data to sustainable development;
   Quantitative analysis of differences in cooling effect and efficiency after changes in Green Infrastructure Types (GIT)

Please refer to our response above.

4. 
   While the paper provides detailed analysis of Ethiopia's climate variability and trends, it lacks sufficient discussion on data limitations and uncertainties. For instance, the rainfall and temperature data cited are based on a high-resolution (4km×4km) gridded dataset, yet the spatial and temporal limitations of these data are not elaborated.

These datasets were generated by merging all available observations from the national meteorological network with satellite-based rainfall estimates and reanalysis-derived temperature products. This information was not clearly presented in the earlier version but has now been clarified in the revised manuscript. We do not consider the 4 km spatial resolution to be a limitation, and temporal resolution is not an issue in this context

5. 
   Regarding future climate projections, while CMIP6 model outputs are utilized, the paper fails to sufficiently address inter-model differences and uncertainties, as well as their potential implications for policy formulation and adaptation measures.

The manuscript does discuss the uncertainties associated with climate projections and their implications for the application of these products. We have also added some more explanation in the revised manuscript to address this gap.

6. 
   When presenting climate data and trend analysis results, the article fails to adequately compare its findings with existing research. For instance, numerous studies have provided differing analyses and conclusions regarding climate trends in Ethiopia, yet the article neither references these studies nor explains the consistency or discrepancies between its results and the existing literature.

Detailed analysis was not included for the reasons explained in our response to the second comment above.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided a much-improved version of their article. However, Figures 6 and 7 should be further refined, and some tables—particularly Tables 5, 7, and 9—require reformatting to ensure consistency in style.

Author Response

Thank you for  pointing out these issues. We have now reformatted those tables and we have also worked to enhance the quality of the two figures that were identified as needing improvement. 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study assesses the role of climate services in supporting climate adaptation in Ethiopia, a highly vulnerable country reliant on rain-fed agriculture and frequently affected by droughts, floods, and heatwaves. The manuscript is well written overall and the presented results provide a strategic roadmap for improving climate resilience in Ethiopia and offer transferable insights for other climate-vulnerable nations in Africa. However, few adjustments are needed before being considered for publication, and I would be ready to assess the revised version again after applying the following adjustments:

Writing style

• The abstract is somewhat uninformative. All sections of the manuscript should contribute equally to the abstract while making sure to include prominent findings and main conclusions.
• The part between “The next section describes the location of the study area and its climate profile. Section 3 covers the …. summary and conclusions.” Is unnecessary. Omit it.
• The final section of the introduction should summarize the motives behind the research “research gap” and state the aims of the research in light of these motives

Methodology:

• Add a table summerizing data sources.
• More information regarding the questionnaire inspiration, adjustments, data collection, ethics (consent and awareness),…etc should be added

Results and discussion:

• When you state that “Incorporating climate considerations into strategic planning has been recognized as essential for coordinating cross sectoral programs and enhancing climate resilience” you should add that “accounting for rainfall variability and its changing patterns is essential for environmental risk assessments and in designing management methods” support your statement with a relevant reference such as:
• Alkaddour, A., Shadoud, M. A., Hashemi, M., Mahmoud, F., Hammad, M., Youssef, Y. M., & Mucsi, L. (2026). Urban flood susceptibility mapping using the AHP model and geospatial tools in Quwaiq River Basin, Aleppo Governorate, Syria. DYSONA-Applied Science, 7(1), 1-19.
• Figures and Tables:

• 1: The location of Ethiopia within Africa (Africa map) is unnecessary. Simply keep Ethiopia map and make sure to keep original dimensions (do not stretch or press the map)
• Figs 8-11 can be produced in a more professional and modern manner.
• Enhance the captions of all figures and tables. A good caption should include enough information for readers to understand the general-purpose of a figure or table. Add a decent definition of abbreviations and define the main features.

Add a limitation section to your discussion and how you would suggest overcoming these challenges in future research.

Please provide a detailed response to each of these comments and how you tackled them in the following revised draft.

Author Response

This study assesses the role of climate services in supporting climate adaptation in Ethiopia, a highly vulnerable country reliant on rain-fed agriculture and frequently affected by droughts, floods, and heatwaves. The manuscript is well written overall and the presented results provide a strategic roadmap for improving climate resilience in Ethiopia and offer transferable insights for other climate-vulnerable nations in Africa.

 However, few adjustments are needed before being considered for publication, and I would be ready to assess the revised version again after applying the following adjustments:

Thank you very much for your highly positive assessment of our manuscript. We sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback and your willingness to review the revised version. Your input is invaluable and will greatly contribute to further strengthening and improving the quality of the manuscript. Below, we have addressed each of your points one by one.

Writing style

• The abstract is somewhat uninformative. All sections of the manuscript should contribute equally to the abstract while making sure to include prominent findings and main conclusions.

This is a valid point and we have revised the abstract so that it is more informative.

• The part between “The next section describes the location of the study area and its climate profile. Section 3 covers the …. summary and conclusions.” Is unnecessary. Omit it.

This is what is normally included at the end of the introduction, but we have removed it because it may not affect the paper.

The final section of the introduction should summarize the motives behind the research “research gap” and state the aims of the research in light of these motives.

We have added some text to address this concern.

Methodology:

• Add a table summerizing data sources.

A table summarizing the different data sources has been added.

• More information regarding the questionnaire inspiration, adjustments, data collection, ethics (consent and awareness),…etc should be added

The motivation for conducting these surveys is already presented in the text; however, the section has been revised to clarify this point, both at the beginning and the end. Information regarding consent and other human-subject considerations will be included at the end of the section, in line with the requirements of the journal.

 

Results and discussion:

• When you state that “Incorporating climate considerations into strategic planning has been recognized as essential for coordinating cross sectoral programs and enhancing climate resilience” you should add that “accounting for rainfall variability and its changing patterns is essential for environmental risk assessments and in designing management methods” support your statement with a relevant reference such as:

Alkaddour, A., Shadoud, M. A., Hashemi, M., Mahmoud, F., Hammad, M., Youssef, Y. M., & Mucsi, L. (2026). Urban flood susceptibility mapping using the AHP model and geospatial tools in Quwaiq River Basin, Aleppo Governorate, Syria. DYSONA-Applied Science, 7(1), 1-19.

Thank you very much for the thoughtful suggestion. We truly appreciate your input; however, after careful consideration, we feel that adding this material may not substantially enhance the section or the overall manuscript.

Figures and Tables:

• 1: The location of Ethiopia within Africa (Africa map) is unnecessary. Simply keep Ethiopia map and make sure to keep original dimensions (do not stretch or press the map)

This map is primarily included for readers who may not be familiar with the geographic location of Ethiopia within Africa. Its purpose is to provide a simple visual reference, and for that reason, we have chosen to leave it as it is.

Figs 8-11 can be produced in a more professional and modern manner.

These figures have been replaced by tables.

• Enhance the captions of all figures and tables. A good caption should include enough information for readers to understand the general-purpose of a figure or table. Add a decent definition of abbreviations and define the main features.

Some more relevant information has been added to the captions.

 

Add a limitation section to your discussion and how you would suggest overcoming these challenges in future research.

Thank you very much for the suggestion. We have now included additional text outlining the limitations of the current research, along with a discussion on how these limitations could be addressed in future studies.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a comprehensive and well-written overview of the role of climate services in Ethiopia. I like it a lot and believe it to be a valuable contribution not just to the academic world but specifically to Ethiopia's struggle against a changing climate. My comments are few but may help further polish this article. (1) I wonder if the word "value" in the title should be replaced by "The role of...."? (2) Rainfed is the correct spelling (line 16). (3) Yes, valuable for other African countries but low-income countries in general. (4) Climate services could be usefully explained by a table: what service? what info provided? useful to whom/  which sector/s? etc (5) why do EWS not appear in Figure 10? Perhaps you overlooked that question? (6) I really don't like the second section of 5.2 "Satisfaction with their work etc". It just doesn't seem to belong here and Fig 11 is especially out of place (and note you have written neural not neutral). (7) Under section 5.3.1. I think you miss "planting dates" which is a sub-service provided by various other African countries (8) What about impact assessment of climate services? You could propose it as a very necessary follow-up exercise and then reconvene your excellent team to carry out relevant research and produce another paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

It's good/ very good. Just a few typos/ spelling mistakes.

Author Response

This is a comprehensive and well-written overview of the role of climate services in Ethiopia. I like it a lot and believe it to be a valuable contribution not just to the academic world but specifically to Ethiopia's struggle against a changing climate. My comments are few but may help further polish this article.

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript and for your encouraging feedback. We greatly appreciate the time and effort you took to provide constructive comments. Below, we have addressed each of your points one by one, indicating the changes made to the manuscript in response to your suggestions

• I wonder if the word "value" in the title should be replaced by "The role of...."?

This is a good suggestion; we have modified the title accordingly.

(2) Rainfed is the correct spelling (line 16). Corrected.

 (3) Yes, valuable for other African countries but low-income countries in general.

(4) Climate services could be usefully explained by a table: what service? what info provided? useful to whom/  which sector/s? etc

Thank you for the suggestion. However, we do not believe that presenting the information in a table would add clarity or value beyond the explanation of climate services that is already provided in the manuscript. We feel that the current narrative offers a more comprehensive and nuanced description, which may be difficult to capture in tabular form.

(5) why do EWS not appear in Figure 10? Perhaps you overlooked that question?

Yes, we could have added EWS, but our focus was on the products directly generated by EMI.

(6) I really don't like the second section of 5.2 "Satisfaction with their work etc". It just doesn't seem to belong here and Fig 11 is especially out of place (and note you have written neural not neutral).

We included the section on employee satisfaction because we believe that the level of satisfaction among EMI staff with their work is a critical factor in ensuring the quality and effectiveness of the climate services provided by the Institute. When employees are motivated and find meaning in their roles, they are more likely to deliver accurate, timely, and user-focused climate information and services.

 We have corrected the spelling error.

(7) Under section 5.3.1. I think you miss "planting dates" which is a sub-service provided by various other African countries.

We are not sure where this belongs.

(8) What about impact assessment of climate services? You could propose it as a very necessary follow-up exercise and then reconvene your excellent team to carry out relevant research and produce another paper.

This is an excellent point, and we have incorporated it as one of the recommended areas for future research in the revised manuscript. We believe this addition strengthens the manuscript and provides clearer direction for future work.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General comment:
The manuscript presents an interesting and valuable analysis of the current state of climate services in Ethiopia, providing a global overview that is of relevance to both researchers and practitioners. However, the text is at times too repetitive, which can make the reader feel that the focus of the research is diluted. Streamlining the structure and reducing redundancies would significantly improve clarity and impact.

Specific comments:

Abstract

• Page 1, line 15: it seems that the word “Ethiopia” is missing.
• Overall, the abstract is well written and clearly presented.

Introduction

• Page 2, line 62: consider adding this reference: Barbier, E. B., & Hochard, J. P. (2018). The impacts of climate change on the poor in disadvantaged regions. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.
• Page 2, line 68: consider adding this reference: Franchi, F., Mustafa, S., Ariztegui, D., Chirindja, F. J., Di Capua, A., Hussey, S., ... & Comte, J. C. (2024). Prolonged drought periods over the last four decades increase flood intensity in southern Africa. Science of the Total Environment, 924, 171489.
• Page 3, line 129: consider adding the following references:
• Snow, S., Fielke, S., Fleming, A., Jakku, E., Malakar, Y., Turner, C., ... & Bonnett, G. (2024). Climate services for agriculture: steering towards inclusive innovation in Australian climate services design and delivery. Agricultural Systems, 217, 103938.
• Nyoni, R. S., Bruelle, G., Chikowo, R., & Andrieu, N. (2024). Targeting smallholder farmers for climate information services adoption in Africa: A systematic literature review. Climate Services, 34, 100450.
• Overall, the introduction is well presented.

Figures and formatting

• Figure 2: authors should state the period of the data.
• Page 7, line 266: note that the typeface is not uniform.
• Figure 3: authors should state the period of the data.
• Figure 4: the legend overlaps with the Tmax black line; authors should improve readability. They should also state the period of the data and specify which locations were used to compute the climogram.
• Figure 5: there is a typo in the annual rainfall projection. The figure is not fully appearing in the manuscript. The title should also indicate the period.
• Figure 6: the title should also include the period of the data.
• Throughout the manuscript, the font type is not always consistent—this should be corrected.

Methodology

• A workflow diagram should be included to improve clarity.
• Section 3.2: consider renaming as “Methodology: General overview.”

Structure and content

• The manuscript is too long; consider summarizing some sections when possible. It should remain concise, as a research article rather than an extended report.
• Page 28, lines 1006–1014: this section is very similar to the introduction; consider summarizing or removing it.
• Section 4.4 jumps directly to 5.1—section 5 is missing. Please revise the numbering.
• Consider changing the title “Summary and conclusions” to simply “Conclusions.”

Future research

• The authors reviewed the literature on climate impacts across sectors, but future research could also include co-creation workshops with stakeholders. For instance, they could adapt the methodology proposed by:
  Barnet, A., Boqué-Ciurana, A., Pozo, J. X. O., Russo, A., Coscarelli, R., Antronico, L., ... & Aguilar, E. (2021). Climate services for tourism: An applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in European destinations. Climate Services, 23, 100249.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

General comment:
The manuscript presents an interesting and valuable analysis of the current state of climate services in Ethiopia, providing a global overview that is of relevance to both researchers and practitioners. However, the text is at times too repetitive, which can make the reader feel that the focus of the research is diluted. Streamlining the structure and reducing redundancies would significantly improve clarity and impact.

Thank you for taking the time to review this manuscript and for your positive feedback on our manuscript. Below, we have made efforts to address each of your concerns, indicating the changes made to the manuscript in response to your suggestions.

 

 

Specific comments:

Abstract

• Page 1, line 15: it seems that the word “Ethiopia” is missing.

This has been fixed.

• Overall, the abstract is well written and clearly presented.

Thank you very much.

Introduction

• Page 2, line 62: consider adding this reference: Barbier, E. B., & Hochard, J. P. (2018). The impacts of climate change on the poor in disadvantaged regions. Review of Environmental Economics and Policy.
• Page 2, line 68: consider adding this reference: Franchi, F., Mustafa, S., Ariztegui, D., Chirindja, F. J., Di Capua, A., Hussey, S., ... & Comte, J. C. (2024). Prolonged drought periods over the last four decades increase flood intensity in southern Africa. Science of the Total Environment, 924, 171489.
• Page 3, line 129: consider adding the following references:
• Snow, S., Fielke, S., Fleming, A., Jakku, E., Malakar, Y., Turner, C., ... & Bonnett, G. (2024). Climate services for agriculture: steering towards inclusive innovation in Australian climate services design and delivery. Agricultural Systems, 217, 103938.
• Nyoni, R. S., Bruelle, G., Chikowo, R., & Andrieu, N. (2024). Targeting smallholder farmers for climate information services adoption in Africa: A systematic literature review. Climate Services, 34, 100450.
• Overall, the introduction is well presented.

Thank you for the suggestions; we have added the references.

Figures and formatting

• Figure 2: authors should state the period of the data.

Data period has been added.

 

• Page 7, line 266: note that the typeface is not uniform.:

This has been fixed.

 

• Figure 3: authors should state the period of the data.

• Data period has been added.

 

• Figure 4: the legend overlaps with the Tmax black line; authors should improve readability. They should also state the period of the data and specify which locations were used to compute the climogram.

Legend has been fixed and data period has been added.

 

• Figure 5: there is a typo in the annual rainfall projection. The figure is not fully appearing in the manuscript. The title should also indicate the period.

Typo fixed

 

• Figure 6: the title should also include the period of the data.

• Data period has been added.

 

• Throughout the manuscript, the font type is not always consistent—this should be corrected.

We have fixed the inconsistencies in the fonts.

 

Methodology

• A workflow diagram should be included to improve clarity.

We are not entirely certain that a workflow diagram is the most appropriate way to represent our approach, since the activities we describe are not sequential but rather proceed in parallel. A traditional workflow suggests a linear progression, which does not reflect the reality of how these components interact. Instead, we have attempted to illustrate the process by including a figure that highlights the parallel nature of the activities and how, taken together, they contribute toward achieving the overarching objective of the manuscript. This figure is intended to provide readers with a visual representation of the multiple strands of work and to clarify how these different but complementary efforts converge to support the overall goal.

 

• Section 3.2: consider renaming as “Methodology: General overview.”

Thank you for the suggestion, but we don’t know how this contributes to improving the section or the manuscript.

 

Structure and content

• The manuscript is too long; consider summarizing some sections when possible. It should remain concise, as a research article rather than an extended report.

This is a very valid point. We ourselves struggled with the decision of whether to reduce the length of the manuscript or divide it into two separate papers. The editors of the journal encouraged us to retain it as a full-length manuscript. Nevertheless, we recognized the importance of readability and flow, and have therefore made efforts to shorten and refine some sections of the paper to make it more concise without compromising the content.

• Page 28, lines 1006–1014: this section is very similar to the introduction; consider summarizing or removing it.

Thank you for the suggestion. That section has been shortened substantially

• Section 4.4 jumps directly to 5.1—section 5 is missing. Please revise the numbering.

Thank you for catching this. This was a mistake and has been fixed

• Consider changing the title “Summary and conclusions” to simply “Conclusions.”

This has been changed as suggested.

Future research

• The authors reviewed the literature on climate impacts across sectors, but future research could also include co-creation workshops with stakeholders. For instance, they could adapt the methodology proposed by:
  Barnet, A., Boqué-Ciurana, A., Pozo, J. X. O., Russo, A., Coscarelli, R., Antronico, L., ... & Aguilar, E. (2021). Climate services for tourism: An applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in European destinations. Climate Services, 23, 100249.

This is a valuable suggestion, and we have added some text to the summary section of the revised manuscript pointing out this as one of the recommended areas for future work.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my comments are either ignored or not handled as required. I asked for the figures to be reproduced, but the authors decided to change the figures into tables instead, which would not serve the manuscript's purpose or the overall quality of articles published in Land.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most of my comments are either ignored or not handled as required. I asked for the figures to be reproduced, but the authors decided to change the figures into tables instead, which would not serve the manuscript's purpose or the overall quality of articles published in Land.

We are truly sorry that the reviewer felt his/her comments and suggestions were not fully taken into account. That was certainly not our intention, and we greatly value the time and effort the reviewer invested in providing constructive feedback. We carefully considered the comments and tried to reflect most of them in the revised version—for example, we revised the abstract, strengthened the introduction by more clearly highlighting the research gap addressed by the manuscript, and added a discussion of the study’s limitations in the conclusion.

We recognize that a few points may not have been addressed exactly as the reviewer expected. These include the positioning of Ethiopia within the African context and the presentation of the survey results. On the latter, while we are not fully convinced that reconverting them into figures would add substantial value—particularly given the number of color-coded visuals this would require—we would be very happy to make this change if the editor feels it would enhance the manuscript.

We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s suggestions, which have already helped us improve the manuscript, and we remain open and flexible to further adjustments in line with the editor’s guidance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have satisfactorily addressed most of the comments raised in the first round of review, and the manuscript has improved considerably. However, two issues remain:

1. The methodology section is quite long, and for this reason it was suggested that the first subsection be entitled “Methodology: General Overview”, since it presents a summary of the entire methodological approach. This change has not yet been implemented.
2. With respect to co-creation, the authors briefly mention this aspect in the conclusions, but do not provide supporting references nor develop the idea in other relevant parts of the manuscript. To strengthen the contribution, it would be advisable to integrate co-creation not only in the conclusions but also in the Introduction and/or Discussion sections, highlighting its potential for future research. Including a reference such as the following would be highly relevant:

Barnet, A., Boqué-Ciurana, A., Pozo, J. X. O., Russo, A., Coscarelli, R., Antronico, L., ... & Aguilar, E. (2021). Climate services for tourism: An applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in European destinations. Climate Services, 23, 100249.

Vedeld, T., Mathur, M., & Bharti, N. (2019). How can co-creation improve the engagement of farmers in weather and climate services (WCS) in India. Climate Services, 15, 100103.

Suhari, M., Dressel, M., & Schuck-Zöller, S. (2022). Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: A qualitative interview study in the field of climate services. Climate Services, 25, 100282.

Once these two aspects are addressed, I consider the manuscript will be ready for acceptance.

Author Response

The authors have satisfactorily addressed most of the comments raised in the first round of review, and the manuscript has improved considerably.

We are very pleased to hear that the reviewer is satisfied with the way we incorporated his/her recommendations to strengthen the manuscript. We greatly value the constructive feedback provided, which has helped enhance the overall quality of the paper.

 

However, two issues remain:

1. The methodology section is quite long, and for this reason it was suggested that the first subsection be entitled “Methodology: General Overview”, since it presents a summary of the entire methodological approach. This change has not yet been implemented.

 

We sincerely apologize that this point was not addressed in the way the reviewer expected. This was due to a misunderstanding on our part, and we appreciate the reviewer’s careful attention in pointing it out. We have now corrected this issue in the latest revision to ensure that the manuscript fully reflects the reviewer’s recommendation.

1. With respect to co-creation, the authors briefly mention this aspect in the conclusions, but do not provide supporting references nor develop the idea in other relevant parts of the manuscript. To strengthen the contribution, it would be advisable to integrate co-creation not only in the conclusions but also in the Introduction and/or Discussion sections, highlighting its potential for future research. Including a reference such as the following would be highly relevant:

Barnet, A., Boqué-Ciurana, A., Pozo, J. X. O., Russo, A., Coscarelli, R., Antronico, L., ... & Aguilar, E. (2021). Climate services for tourism: An applied methodology for user engagement and co-creation in European destinations. Climate Services, 23, 100249.

Vedeld, T., Mathur, M., & Bharti, N. (2019). How can co-creation improve the engagement of farmers in weather and climate services (WCS) in India. Climate Services, 15, 100103.

Suhari, M., Dressel, M., & Schuck-Zöller, S. (2022). Challenges and best-practices of co-creation: A qualitative interview study in the field of climate services. Climate Services, 25, 100282.

In addition to being highlighted in the conclusion, the concept of co-creation (co-production) was also addressed at the beginning of Section 5, where we felt it was most appropriate to discuss its role and relevance in the context of our study. This placement allowed us to frame the discussion on how collaborative approaches enhance the usability and uptake of climate services. Furthermore, we have incorporated the references suggested by the reviewer to strengthen the section and ensure that it is well supported by existing literature.