Assessing the Impact of Youth-in-Agribusiness Program on Poverty and Vulnerability to Poverty in Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. Poverty is present in many developing countries and especially it influence the situation of youth on rural areas.
2. Poverty is a many faces phenomena and it is iportant not only to fight  but also to prevent it at an earlier stages before it appears.
3.  The study try to identify the youth poverty and vulnerability to poverty. This is an evident advantage of this study.
4. Participation of young rural people in agribusiness projects and programs influence different aspects of persons life on rural areas and activities of local societies. This enrich the economic, social and technical activities of rural societies and improve general welfare of countryside people.
5. The statistical methods used in the study and broad original data base used in the study confirm general knowledge on the factors influencing rural development in African countries and support policy actions in the erea of rural enterpreneurship.
6. Participation of many authors from different countries permits to think that YIAP program in Nigeria must be important and large. More information about this programme in the article would  increase the value of the paper.

Author Response

Thanks for for your valuable comment. We appreciate your efforts in reviewing our paper. We have included additional information on the YIAP in line 79-82.

Reviewer 2 Report

Agriculture (ISSN 2077-0472)

Manuscript ID: agriculture-1653869

Type: Article

Number of Pages: 13

Title: ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF YOUTH-IN-AGRIBUSINESS PROGRAM ON POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY TO POVERTY IN NIGERIA.

Dear Authors,

It has been for me a great honour, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled “ASSESSING THE IMPACT OF YOUTH-IN-AGRIBUSINESS PROGRAM ON POVERTY AND VULNERABILITY TO POVERTY IN NIGERIA.”

Overall, the article is interesting and easy to read. It has a good chance of attracting the attention of potential readers. However, I suggest that the Authors introduce a few corrections (given below).

In my opinion, the Introduction chapter well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. The contributions of the paper to the existing literature and policy-decisions are clearly stated (lines 102-111). This  chapter is based on well-chosen literature. However, I would suggest adding a few sentences how the distance from urban areas affects the life situation of inhabitants of rural areas. This is discussed e.g. in: MARCYSIAK, T., et al. Life strategies of rural inhabitants of unfixed economic function. In: Agrarian Perspectives XXVI. Competitiveness of European Agriculture and Food Sectors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference, 13-15 September 2017 Prague, Czech Republic. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, 2017. p. 212-218.

Materials and Methods

“The youth selected for this stuy are between 18-35 years” - I would suggest explaining here why the Authors selected for the research young people in this age range (18-35 years) and why they were defined as youth. Is it methodically correct? For example the United Nations for statistical purposes defines youth between the ages of 15 and 24.

I would also like to suggest adding a map showing where the research area was located.

The description of the methods and research procedure is sufficiently described. However, I would suggest adding more methodological literature that would justify the use of the research methods used.

In my opinion, the Results and discussion are presented in an understandable way. This chapter is logically divided into the following subchapters and is well illustrated by four tables. The discussion is sufficient and the Authors related the obtained research results with the results of other researchers.

The Conclusions are presented in an interesting way. But it would be worth mentioning the limitations encountered by the Authors while conducting the research, and indicate how they could have influenced the obtained results and, consequently, the conclusions drawn. I leave it for the Authors' consideration, but I will not insist on that suggestion.

I don't feel competent to comment on linguistic correctness as English is not my mother tongue. I can only add that the article is interesting, it reads well and I wish the Authors good luck.

Author Response

We  appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We believe your suggestions and valuable comments will add to the quality of this article. Below are response to your suggestions;

We have added a sentence on the Rural-urban areas. However, we are unable to download the paper you suggested.

The criteria for using the age group  has been elaborated in line 79-82.

We have included the map of the study area.

The limitation of the study has been included in line 536-539

Reviewer 3 Report

I find this paper has potential, but the authors fail to clearly present some of the foundations of scientific writting. 

In the introduciton they claim two elements that make their paper unique, however do not position it well (nor clearly) against other resarch. For example, they claim 

we apply an ESPR modelling technique to control for estimation issues which may arise 109 from both observed and unobserved heterogeneities in households’ characteristics, and 110 therefore providing consistent estimates that mimic the true impact of the YIAP. 

BUt never say why that is important! 
Because of that, the authors need to improve their introduction and theoretical background to serve as a relevant theoretical framework. 

The authors also fail to cover methodology as it should be done. THey provide detailed sample development description and modeling, but say nothing about measures, testing, data collection procedure and analysis. when that is improved together with the theoretical framework I will be able to review the results and the disccussion 

Author Response

We  appreciate your efforts in reviewing our manuscript. We believe your suggestions and valuable comments will add to the quality of this article. Below are response to your suggestions;

We have revised the importance of ESPR, thus linking the introduction to the theoretical background and theoretical framework in line 113-135.

The Methodology has been revised accordingly. 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I would like to thank the Authors for addressing most of my suggestions. In my opinion, the article gained in value. However, two more points remain:

The conference materials “Agrarian Perspectives XXVI” are available on-line https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/r-12193-conference-proceedings

As before, I would suggest supplementing the Materials and Methods chapter with methodological items justifying the application of the research methods used (concerning survey research and the method of selecting the research sample).

Thank you and good luck!

Author Response

We appreciate your time for adding the valuable suggestion to our article. Thanks for sending the conference papers link also. All your suggestions and comments has been addressed.

The introduction section has been improved based on insights from the suggested paper. see line 65-68

Literatures justifying the research methods has been included in line 144 -146 and 159-163.