Determinants of Small-Scale Farmers’ Participation in Social Capital Networks to Enhance Adoption of Climate Change Adaptation Strategies in OR Tambo District, South Africa

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General opinion: The topic is interesting and the research methodology is basically correct. However, the presentation of the results, and the language and format of the paper need serious improvement, as well as the literature review and discussion sections. See details below.

Format:

The format of the paper should follow the Agriculture template. This means that you should use in-text citations not in the form of (author, date), but by numbers, and the References section should give a numbered list of references in the order of their occurrence in the text. 

Introduction:

• The introduction properly explains the significance of the researched issue  - i.e. the importance of participating in social networks to be able to better cope with climate change.

• In lines 66-67 you refer t „a small number of research studies…” – please give a very brief indication of the main findings of the referred studies here.

• Lines 70-72: Though empirical results about participation in social networks may not exist for Eastern Cape, there may be such results about other regions of Africa. This literature should also be reviewed and included here.

Methodology:

• The conceptual framework is outlined in Figure 2, but there is no explanation of the Figure in the text, and the text does not mention Figure 2 at all. Please give a textual explanation of Figure 2 in the main text, explaining its contents. Also, the text does not mention Figure 1 either, this should be corrected. 

• Lines 139-141:  in equation 2 you give a formula for computing the sample size. Please add the actual result of the formula to the end of equation 2 ( it is = 391,4). Then in line 139 you mention that the sample size was 391, which is in line with the formula. However, in the next sentence you mention only 238 small farms. This is a contradiction, please explain what happened here with the original sample of 391 units.

• Lines 171-174: You briefly list the variables included in the analysis, but please give a justification for why these variables were chosen to be included in the model. If there is background literature, please add the relevant references, too.  Also add statistical references to the Ordered Logit Model (line 164) and the Binary Logistic Model (line 175).

• Line 171: the error term in equation 3 is noted by „pi”, but in line 171 the character used for it is different from the one used in the equation. Please use the same character in both places.

• Table 1: You list some of the variables that you are using in your models – but this list is not complete. There is no indication of land ownership, access to credit, to weather information, and of climate change awareness, though these are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Table 1 should contain ALL the variables that you use in your model, with their explanation, and should be in line with the variables in equations 3 and 4. Besides, the last column of Table 1 (Sign, +/-) should require some explanation; why is this relevant?

• Lines 187-198: The detailed explanation of VIF is unnecessary here. As you assume that your readers understand the Ordered Logit Model and the Binary Logistic Model, you should assume that they understand the concept of ViF, too. It should be enough here to say that multicollinearity of the variables may be a problem, and VIF (Variance Inflation Factor) was used for testing it, and VIF under 5  indicates that there is no issue of multicollinearity in your model – and add the relevant references.

Results and Discussion

• line 219: The reference made to BBC(2019) is not a scientific, academic source. Journalists oftem misinterpret the findings of scientific research. Could you please find some better reference for the information given in lines 217-224?

• Table 2: Is there a significant difference between the group of participants in social capital networks and the group of non-participants, according to the various categorical variables?

• Lines 248-249, the last sentence of the paragraph should be placed at the beginning of the following paragraph, according to its content.

• Table 3: The results in Table 3 should be discussed in comparison to similar empirical results for South Africa, or other African regions. Only 2 references are mentioned by way of comparison. It is important to know whether the results presented in Table 3 are  typical for the country or the region, or are unique and specific in some sense.

• Table 4: My comments here are the same as those made about Table 3. Are the results of Table 4 typical for South Africa, or could you compare your findings to other regions in South Africa, or Africa in general?

• Table 5: This table is not necessary. It should be enough to mention in a brief paragraph, that all the variables had VIF values less than 2, therefore multicollinearity did not occur in the model.

• The paragraph in lines 318-325: This paragraph deals with Table 6. Explain the meaning of the columns briefly before analysing the values of the columns. Also, give a brief explanation to the lines under the sub-heading „model summary”. What does the Nagelkerke value indicate?

• Table 7: This table is not necessary. It should be enough to mention in a brief paragraph, that all the variables had VIF values less than 2, therefore multicollinearity did not occur in the model.

• Paragraph from line 422 to 445: The text should not explain in detail the statistically not significant variables- as they are not significant, their coefficients are irrelevant (not different from zero). Findings should be compared to former empirical research findings, to see if the same variables were found significant or non-significant elsewhere, and then discuss why your results might be similar or different from these former studies. 

• Paragraph from 464-472: discussion should include comparison with previous studies.

Conclusions an Recommendations:

• line 467: formerly in line 140 you mentioned 238 farmers in your sample, here you mention only 200 farmers. Why? Please correct.

• Paragraph starting from line 487: Policy implications should be more detailed, and more closely linked to your findings. 

• At the end of the paper a brief paragraph shold be included about the limitations of the research, in view of other – not included – factors that may be significant in for your model. 

References:

• The format of the references, and the in-text citations should be fitted to the journal template format.

• The reference in line 521 and the one in line 522 are identical (repeated).

• The link mentioned in line 536-542 is not the actual link to the source, but the bing search path. Please find the actual link and included it here instead of the search path.

• The link mentioned in line 576-580 is not the actual link to the source, but the bing search path. Please find the actual link and included it here instead of the search path.

English usage should be improved. There are several grammatical problems, like using singular verb form with plural nouns or vice versa, and this is especially frequent in the Results and discussion section, though it occurs throughout the whole text. See e.g. the first line of the Abstract („…climate change remain…”) . There are other errors regarding spelling („farer” instead of „farmer, in l114,  or „economical” instead of „economic” in line 40 etc.). Please thoroughly revise the text from a language usage viewpoint.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is very topical and uses appropriate methodology. I recommend the paper for the final publication after following minor revisons:
1) Add Limits of Study, and Future Research Directions: Authors should acknowledge the limitations of their study to provide context for the findings, outline the scope for future research, and ensure the readers have a complete understanding of the research conditions and constraints.

Suggesting areas for future research based on the study's limitations or uncovered gaps could be beneficial. This could help in building a more comprehensive understanding of the role of social capital networks in climate change adaptation​​.

Beside that authors could also consider (optional) the implementation of following points:

1) Enhance Youth Engagement: The paper identifies low levels of youth participation in both farming and social capital networks. It could be beneficial to delve deeper into the reasons behind this trend and propose specific, targeted strategies to engage younger demographics. This could involve integrating modern technology, social media platforms, and youth-centric approaches to farming and climate change adaptation.

1. 2) Gender-Specific Approaches: Given the significant role of females in social capital networks, the paper could propose more gender-specific policies or programs that address the unique challenges and barriers faced by women in agriculture. Tailoring interventions to address gender disparities and enhance women's access to resources could be impactful.

2. 1. 3) Scalability and Replicability: The study is contextualized within the Port St Johns Local Municipality. It could be beneficial to discuss the scalability and replicability of the findings and recommendations to other regions or contexts. This would enhance the generalizability and applicability of the study's outcomes.

   2.  

   3. 4) Policy Implications and Implementation: While the paper suggests policy interventions, it could further elaborate on the practical steps for implementation, potential challenges, and strategies to overcome these challenges. Providing a clear roadmap for policymakers could increase the paper's practical relevance.

The English quality in the paper seems competent. The authors have adhered to academic writing standards, maintaining a clear structure and logical flow of ideas. The language used is formal and appropriate for a scientific paper, which is indicative of good English proficiency.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have made sufficient improvements regarding all my comments. The manuscript now is suitable for publication.