Willingness to Pay to Adopt Conservation Agriculture in Northern Namibia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis paper aims to explore the willingness of farmers in northern Namibia to adopt conservation agriculture (CA), employing the Conditional Logit Model to estimate the probability of farmers choosing to adopt CA in different villages relative to all other alternatives, and examining the effects of omitted variance and correlations on coefficient estimates, willingness to pay (WTP), and decision predictions. The topic of this paper holds significant practical importance, as agriculture plays a crucial role in the economic development and livelihood of Namibia, especially for those farmers who rely on small-scale farming as a means of subsistence.
In terms of methodology, the paper adopts the Conditional Logit Model to estimate the probability of farmers choosing to adopt CA in different villages, which is an appropriate choice as the model is capable of handling multi-option decision problems. The paper further enhances its rigor and reliability by simulating discrete choice experiments to investigate the impact of omitted variables and correlations on estimation results.
The research findings indicate that crop rotation and permanent soil cover are the main factors positively influencing farmers' WTP for adopting CA, while intercropping, the time spent on soil preparation in the first season, and the frequency and rate of weeding consistently negatively influence WTP for adopting CA. These discoveries provide valuable insights for formulating policy measures to promote the adoption of CA.
In terms of policy recommendations, the paper puts forward targeted suggestions, including the appointment of specialized extension technicians by the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Land Reform to disseminate information, coordinate, promote, and personally implement CA activities across all regions. Additionally, to expedite the adoption of CA, stakeholders should ensure the availability and affordability of appropriate farming equipment, such as rippers and direct seeders, in local markets.
Overall, the structure of the paper is not clear enough, and the data analysis and policy recommendations sections do not reflect a high level of professional expertise. Therefore, the author needs to make significant revisions and suggests the following points to improve the paper:
1.In the abstract section, the author needs to explain the data used. In the main text, it is also necessary to explain the data sources.
2. The author needs to consider whether Figure 1 is suitable for presentation in academic journals.
3.Most of the literature cited in the manuscript is outdated and needs to include references from the past 5 years, especially the past 3 years.
4. In the literature review section, the author did not divide it into sections and the hierarchy was not clear enough, which increased the difficulty for readers to read. Similar situations also occurred in other sections.
5. In the results section, a more in-depth analysis can be conducted on the reasons why crop rotation and permanent soil cover have a positive impact on willingness to pay, as well as the specific mechanisms by which intercropping, soil preparation time, and weed frequency have a negative impact on willingness to pay.
6. It is recommended to make the discussion a separate part, which should include at least the marginal contribution of the research, research limitations, and next research directions.
7. The paper could include more background information on Namibian agricultural policies, market conditions, and farmers' perceptions to enrich the research content and enhance its depth and breadth.
8. In the policy recommendation section, more specific implementation plans and evaluation mechanisms could be proposed to better guide practice and monitor policy effectiveness.
In summary, I believe that this paper has high academic value and practical significance, but the overall level has not yet met the requirements for publication. I suggest that the author make significant revisions and re-examine it.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThe English could be improved to more clearly express the research.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see in the attached file.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. The introduction is lengthy and could benefit from better structuring. For instance group related topics, such as the challenges of conventional tillage and the benefits of CA, into distinct paragraphs. Some parts, like rainfall statistics or yield gaps, delve into excessive specifics that could be summarized or shifted to the methods or background sections.
2. Concepts such as the negative impacts of conventional tillage and the advantages of CA are repeated multiple times. Consolidating these points can improve readability.
3. Clarity: Certain sentences are overly complex or grammatically unclear, such as: "Conventional farming refers to mono-cropping and ploughing with 20-30 cm deep, inversion tillage and residue removal, which is often, although not always, associated with contributing to adverse effects on soil functions." Simplifying such sentences will make the introduction more accessible.
4. Related Literature: The section lacks a clear structure, with ideas presented in a somewhat fragmented manner. For example, discussions on soil quality, population growth, and CA principles are interspersed without clear transitions. A more logical flow—e.g., starting with challenges (soil degradation, climate change), moving to solutions (CA), and concluding with implementation challenges—would improve readability.
5. The Literature is largely descriptive, summarizing findings from various studies without critically analyzing them. For instance, while the benefits of CA are highlighted, potential limitations or barriers to its adoption are not sufficiently explored.
6. Some grammatical errors, such as subject-verb agreement issues ("Crop residues is..." should be "Crop residues are..."), detract from the professionalism of the text.
7. While the data collection period (July–October 2019) is mentioned, it is unclear whether this period aligns with the agricultural cycle in the regions studied. Explaining the timing relative to agricultural activities would contextualize the responses and potential biases.
8. Although translation into local languages is a strength, the accuracy and consistency of translations could significantly impact the data quality. Briefly describe measures taken to ensure translation reliability and to validate data entry.
9. While the methodology for estimating Willingness to Pay (WTP) is well-documented, it is unclear whether the study accounts for potential biases, such as hypothetical bias or strategic misrepresentation in respondents' choices. Address how these issues were mitigated.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Better use of English is required.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSee attached.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
- Merging the introduction and the literature review is acceptable in some contexts, but I would recommend to separate the two.
= The first draft had the introduction separated from the literature review; however, it was recommended that the format of the journal have only “Introduction, Materials and Methods
- Please add some clear justification for the changes in the WTP results for crop rotation What are the fluctuating values?
= Given the inconsistencies of farmers willing to pay N$2.62 and N$2.75 less in the 5th and 6th round respectively, may be associated to the challenges of small-scale farmers decision making or the accessibility of suitable seeds, including crop selection, seed acquisition, and financial risks associated with deviating from conventional practices [98]. When one of the crops involved in the rotation are not a leguminous crop or have limitation in fixing nitrogen, farmers will not realise the benefit of practising crop rotation. In this study, farmers used Bira (cowpeas variety) that form a good canopy cover, however the denser the canopy covers the less pods they bear. This became a disincentive to farmers because they did not receive a tangible and immediate benefit in terms of yield. Hence, the positive coefficient of the estimate indicates that farmers are in favour of crop rotation, however the WTP is less because they are likely to obtain less yield of cowpeas that particular growing season. This explains that farmers are aware of the benefits the next crop will get from the spot where there was a vigorous canopy cover but are not satisfied with the yield of pods they received in a particular season.
- The discussion section could be improved. Consider making it a separate section, which would allow for deeper analysis and better integration with existing literature. I.e. separate what the results are (in the results section) and what they mean (in the discussion section). It should be more than just a sub-chapter of the results.
= The initial draft had results and discussion as one section and the recommendations from the reviewers was to separate them into different section as it appears now.
- Consider adding some visuals (graphs, etc.) to improve the readability of this section.
= A graph was added to display the study area, the authors are not sure what visual apart from the provided analysis output results could be added in this section.
- Consider rewriting the recommendations. The national campaigns and training are discussed but it could be condensed. They are mentioned in the text, but they are a bit too broad or general. Add specific actions, timelines, target groups for campaigns to make the actionable.
= The recommendation has been improved as per the reviewer suggestion. The recommendations are given based on the status quo situation of the study area. Conservation Agriculture is a new tillage system to the small-scale farmers in Namibia. This article was drafted based on the results of the pilot study; the tillage method needs to be introduced to many more farmers first for them to understand it before they start to practise it. Adding specific actions and timelines or target groups might not be the best recommendations to these types of farmers who needs to understand and familiarise themselves with the conservation agriculture tillage system. The few farmers that participated in responding to this study only amongst the farmers who were trained, and participated in the project that introduced the CA. Therefore, the rest of the farmers in other villages or regions that did receive training needs to be introduced to the concept first through national campaigns and trainings.
- The conclusion should acknowledge limitations (e.g., sample size, conditional logit model assumptions), and suggest improvements or directions for future research.
= Conclusion has been altered to acknowledge limitation and suggestion on the direction of future research provided intext.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsFollowing the review and incorporation of the suggested revisions, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been significantly improved. The updates have enhanced the clarity, coherence, and overall quality of the work.
I believe that the manuscript is now in excellent shape and ready for publication in its current form. Thank you for your diligent efforts in addressing the feedback and refining the content.
Author Response
Thank you for your constructive comment that you provided in shaping this article and making it a potential paper for publication.
