Sustainable Use of Soil and Water Conservation Technologies and Its Determinants: The Case of the Handosha Watershed, Omo-Gibe River Basin, Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have carefully reviewed the manuscript titled " Sustainable use of Soil and Water Conservation technologies and its Determinants: the case of the Omo-Gibe River Basin, Ethiopia" (earth-2292234). The study presents a valuable contribution to the understanding of sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia. The manuscript investigates the factors that influence farmers' decisions regarding the adoption and sustainable use of soil bund measures in the Handosha watershed.

However, there are some minor issues that should be addressed before the manuscript can be accepted for publication. I have detailed my comments and suggestions below:

1-                  Line 24: replace (SWC) with (Soil and Water Conservation (SWC))

2-                  Line 66: provide the full name of these abbreviations (SLMP, REED+, EFAD, CALM, GIZ, ISMF) or remove them.

3-                  Line 84: replace (SLM) with (Sustainable Land Management (SLM))

4-                  All figures in this article are highly relevant, but unfortunately, the resolution is quite poor, making it difficult to clearly discern the details. A higher resolution would greatly enhance their impact.

5-                  Figure 1 and 4. Adjust the figure and provide a label for each map and short description of each image. Remove the black arrows that or adjust them.

6-                  Figure 3. Replace label colour from red to black.

7-                  The abstract should provide a clearer indication of the study's main findings. It should be more specific and highlight the key results, such as the most significant factors influencing the adoption and sustainable use of soil bund measures.

8-                  The methodology section could benefit from more detailed information on the multistage sampling technique used to select the households. Additionally, it would be helpful to provide more information on the Heckman selection model, such as the assumptions and limitations of the model.

9-                  The manuscript would benefit from additional discussion on the policy implications of the study's findings. The authors should provide recommendations for policymakers and practitioners interested in promoting sustainable land management practices in Ethiopia.

I believe that addressing the above minor comments will improve the manuscript's clarity and impact.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for your motivation and commitment to reviewing this manuscript. we have edited and modified the manuscript according to your comments/suggestions and reporting line by line. If any additional comments and suggestions we are so happy to modify them for improving the manuscript. 

Regards!

Habtamu Dagne 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript evaluated the Soil and Water conservation technologies using mathematic model at Omo-Gibe River Basin located in Ethiopia.

- The abstract was well written.

- The objective of this study was clearly presented but, the introduction was lacked of mathematic model background that the author use in this work, Please add more information to help the reader easy to catch your work.

- The material and methods is well written in part of material and method and experimental proceed.

- The result was clearly presented but the more information in conclusion part is needed.

Please kindly check the mistake as list below:

- Line 102: Please check Figure 1, position of the arrow is wrong position.

- Line 172, 304, 412: Table 1, 3, 4  Please remove background color.

- Line 227: Figure 2. There are some text was hidden in the text box.

- Line 270: There are some bold text without logical.

- Line 293 and 321: please kindly check Caption of section 3.1, it might be duplicate.

- Line 319: Caption of Figure 3, Please check font size

- Line 440; The picture are difficult to understand, Please renew a picture that can lead the reader easy to handle about distructed soil bund. I recommend that the author must add some highlight to a picture. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for your interest and commitment to reviewing this manuscript. we have edited and modified the manuscript according to your comments/suggestions and reporting line by line. If any additional comments and suggestions we are so happy to modify them for improving the manuscript. 

Regards!

Habtamu Dagne 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments

Overall comment

The manuscript entitled “Sustainable use of Soil and Water Conservation technologies and its Determinants: the case of the Omo-Gibe River Basin, Ethiopia” is good to take emphasizes the use and adoption of soil bunds in the selected area. Hence, due to some gaps throughout the paper, I recommended the manuscript be returned to the authors for major revision. I hope, the authors will take their time to revise the manuscript based on the comments.

 General

1.      My general issue with this manuscript is with English and grammar. The authors have frequently used very long and confusing sentences, which makes it difficult to understand the study. Also, the use of punctuation should be improved.

Title:

2.      The study was at the sub-basin, not the entire basin, so the title should change accordingly.

Abstract

3.      Line 16-17: the sentence is not completed or has the fragment

4.      Line 24 The abbreviation must be defined at its first appearance (please do the same for all abbreviations used in the manuscript.

5.      Can you rewrite the abstract (current versions seem like an introduction instead of an abstract)? In the abstract, the authors should keep the flow of the idea. It's also a good idea to highlight the most noteworthy findings and novelties. Hence, the abstract is not clear, and shall be rewritten.

Introduction

6.      Line 31: the word ‘troubled’ shall be replaced with another word.

7.      At the end of the introduction section in addition to the objectives, describing the method used is recommended, hence missed.

Materials and Methods

8.      A sample questionary shall be included in the supplementary material.

9.      Fig. 1 the figure quality should be improved

10.  Fig. 2 the conceptual framework is not clear, which comes first and then what? Can you provide a high impactful schematic diagram to understand the proposed research framework where the big impact of the results can be presented?

Result and Discussion

11.  Line 260 … the farmer filled to maintain….. check the word ‘filled’

12.  Line 268-269: the family size shall be round to integer, and you should do the same in all bodies of the manuscript

13.  The discussion needs further elaboration. The author should discuss the outcomes of the previous study in this region.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer!

Thank you for your motivation and commitment to reviewing this manuscript. we have edited and modified the manuscript according to your comments/suggestions and reporting line by line. If any additional comments and suggestions we are so happy to modify them for improving the manuscript. 

Regards!

Habtamu Dagne 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript addressed most of the comments and improved in quality. Now it is better, however in my opinion not all aspects are discussed. The discussion needs further elaboration. Hence, it may be accepted after minor improvement.

Author Response

Thank you for your motivation and commitment to reviewing this manuscript. we have edited and modified the manuscript according to your comments/suggestions and reporting line by line. If any additional comments and suggestions we are so happy to modify them for improving the manuscript. 

Regards!

Habtamu Dagne