Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Variability and Land-Use Changes in Semiarid Gwayi Catchment Agroecosystems

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Line 27 = climate one word

Line 31 -32 = mention the reduction and depletion percentages in each component.

Line 43 = mani-fests -; single word

Summation of the proportion of the figure 3,4,5 variables within the graphs are exceeding 100%. Better to present in the other format. (No. of farmers)

Line 250 – no dots

Variables of the table 2, 3 and 4 are not clear. Eg. What is the meaning of “Total”

Table 2 variables are not useful to predict the weather data, It is better to take the meteorology data as a primary data and other tables too.

Line 220- writing of the sentence is not correct

In Figure 6. Land use changes need to compare with the years and the graph description should be change

Discussion should be address the objectives of the research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

Comment

Line 27 = climate one word

Response

We thank the reviewer for the observation. We have addressed the word accordingly

Comment

Line 31 -32 = mention the reduction and depletion percentages in each component.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the valuable suggestion. In response, we have revised the sentence to include specific percentages reflecting the extent of reported reductions and challenges: 84.05% of farmers reported significant to very negative impacts on crop yields, 32.51% on livestock health, 43.3% noted drying of water sources, and 74.12% reported negative impacts on food security.

Comment

Line 43 = mani-fests -; single word

Response

We thank the reviewer for the observation. We have addressed the word accordingly

 

Comment

Summation of the proportion of the figure 3,4,5 variables within the graphs are exceeding 100%. Better to present in the other format. (No. of farmers)

Response

Thank you for this important observation. The figures represent multiple-response data, as farmers commonly grow or rear more than one type of crop or livestock. As a result, the aggregated percentages in Figures 3, 4, and 5 exceed 100%. To enhance clarity, we have updated the figure captions to explicitly note that multiple responses were allowed. For example, the revised caption now reads: “Proportion of farmers cultivating each major grain crop in the Gwayi catchment. Multiple responses were allowed; therefore, totals exceed 100%.”

 

Comment

Line 250 – no dots

Response

We thank you for the observation. Corrections have been made in that regard.

Comment

Variables of the table 2, 3 and 4 are not clear. Eg. What is the meaning of “Total”

Response

Thank you for highlighting this important point. We have revised the label “Total” to “Overall Proportion (%)” to clarify that these figures represent the percentage of all surveyed respondents who reported each category. Additionally, we added footnotes to each table to explain that multiple responses were allowed where applicable, and totals may exceed 100%.

Comment

Table 2 variables are not useful to predict the weather data, It is better to take the meteorology data as a primary data and other tables too.

Response

Thank you for this thoughtful comment. We acknowledge that farmer-reported perceptions, as presented in Table 2, are not intended for weather prediction. Rather, they provide insights into how smallholder farmers experience and interpret climate variability in their specific contexts information critical for designing locally appropriate adaptation strategies. To clarify this, we have updated the Methods section to emphasize the qualitative nature of these data and their purpose. Additionally, we have added a note in the Discussion section (Limitations of the study)  acknowledging the importance of triangulating perception-based data with meteorological records in future research.

Comment

Line 220- writing of the sentence is not correct

Response

Thank you for your observation. We agree that the original sentence lacked clarity and have revised it to read: “Approximately 28% of farmers reported observing land degradation, with Bubi district recording the highest proportion at 72%.” This version improves sentence structure and readability.

Comment

In Figure 6. Land use changes need to compare with the years and the graph description should be change

Response

Thank you for your valuable observation. We acknowledge that the current figure does not provide a year-by-year comparison of land use changes, as the data were based on farmers’ retrospective perceptions rather than specific annual records. To address this, we have revised the caption of Figure 6 to clarify that the data represent perceived changes observed over time, rather than quantitatively tracked shifts across defined years. The updated caption now reads: “Figure 6. Farmer-reported land use changes observed in recent years in the Gwayi catchment. Note: Data reflect perceptions of change rather than quantified temporal records.” We hope this clarification enhances the interpretability of the figure.

Comment

Discussion should be address the objectives of the research.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, we have revised the Discussion section to align explicitly with the study’s research objectives. The revised structure includes clearly defined sub-sections—namely: 4.1 Perceptions of Climate Variability, 4.2 Observed Land Use and Landscape Changes, 4.3 Impacts on Agriculture and Livelihoods, and 4.4 Farmer Adaptation Strategies and Resilience Gaps. Each sub-section directly interprets the findings in relation to a specific objective, thereby enhancing clarity, coherence, and alignment with the study’s aims.

Comment

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Response

Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have thoroughly revised the manuscript to improve the clarity, grammar, and overall readability of the text. Particular attention was given to refining sentence structure, ensuring consistent academic tone, and eliminating ambiguity.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Merits：

• While many studies focus on biophysical changes, fewer explore how smallholder farmers interpret and respond to these shifts. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the experiences and perceptions of smallholder farmers in the Gwayi Catchment regarding climate variability and LULCC.
• This study employed a multistage sampling scheme, with a focus on agricultural communities. The target sample size was set at 487 households, with sufficient sample quantity ensured. Randomization across five constituencies was strictly maintained, ultimately yielding data collected from 483 smallholder households. The results achieved a high response rate of 99.1%.
• The questionnaire design is reasonable, encompassing both closed-ended and open-ended questions, with no personal identifiers included in the survey instrument. Quantitative data were collected from smallholder farmers, while qualitative research was conducted through key informant interviews and focus group discussions to complement the quantitative data.

 

Weaknesses need to be addressed:

• The study primarily relies on self-reported questionnaire data, which may introduce bias. Although the authors suggest that future research should incorporate meteorological data for validation, this study could attempt to enhance its methodology by integrating additional objective data collection approaches, such as gathering local weather station data and satellite remote sensing data, to cross-validate farmers' self-reported information and improve the reliability of the findings.
• The article has shortcomings in the transformation of research results. Firstly, the policy recommendations proposed based on the findings lack detailed implementation pathways and feasibility analysis, resulting in limited practicality. Secondly, in the analysis of response strategies, the differences in implementation effects among different farmer groups (such as gender and income levels) were not fully considered. Further exploration of this information is needed to formulate more targeted policies.
• Line 126: Where is Cochran’s (1977) (Equation 2)？
• Line 197-202, Figure 3-5, and Line 242, Figure 8 should be clearly marked at the corresponding position in the article.
• 3.3 The chi-square test has limited significance, and it is recommended to add control variables for regression analysis.
• The reference format needs to be standardized.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

Merits

• While many studies focus on biophysical changes, fewer explore how smallholder farmers interpret and respond to these shifts. This study aims to bridge this gap by examining the experiences and perceptions of smallholder farmers in the Gwayi Catchment regarding climate variability and LULCC.
• This study employed a multistage sampling scheme, with a focus on agricultural communities. The target sample size was set at 487 households, with sufficient sample quantity ensured. Randomization across five constituencies was strictly maintained, ultimately yielding data collected from 483 smallholder households. The results achieved a high response rate of 99.1%.
• The questionnaire design is reasonable, encompassing both closed-ended and open-ended questions, with no personal identifiers included in the survey instrument. Quantitative data were collected from smallholder farmers, while qualitative research was conducted through key informant interviews and focus group discussions to complement the quantitative data.

Response

We thank the reviewer for acknowledging the merits of our research

Weaknesses need to be addressed:

Comment

• The study primarily relies on self-reported questionnaire data, which may introduce bias. Although the authors suggest that future research should incorporate meteorological data for validation, this study could attempt to enhance its methodology by integrating additional objective data collection approaches, such as gathering local weather station data and satellite remote sensing data, to cross-validate farmers' self-reported information and improve the reliability of the findings.

Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment. We acknowledge that the reliance on self-reported questionnaire data introduces potential biases and limitations in data reliability. Due to resource constraints and the scope of this exploratory study, it was not feasible to incorporate meteorological or remote sensing datasets for cross-validation. However, we fully agree with the importance of integrating objective data sources in future studies. In response, we have added a dedicated “Limitations and Future Directions” section following the Discussion, where we explicitly address this issue. The section outlines the need for future research to combine farmer perceptions with meteorological and satellite-based data to enhance the accuracy, robustness, and generalizability of findings.

Comment

• The article has shortcomings in the transformation of research results. Firstly, the policy recommendations proposed based on the findings lack detailed implementation pathways and feasibility analysis, resulting in limited practicality. Secondly, in the analysis of response strategies, the differences in implementation effects among different farmer groups (such as gender and income levels) were not fully considered. Further exploration of this information is needed to formulate more targeted policies.

Response

• We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful feedback. We acknowledge the need for more actionable and context-specific policy recommendations, including clearer implementation pathways and feasibility considerations. In response, we have added a statement in the conclusion and policy recommendation section highlighting this limitation and emphasizing the importance of incorporating detailed feasibility analysis in future research. Additionally, we recognize that the current study did not fully disaggregate adaptation responses across different farmer groups (e.g., by gender or income level). We have noted this as a critical area for future investigation to enable the development of more inclusive and targeted policies.

Comment

• Line 126: Where is Cochran’s (1977) (Equation 2)？

Response

We thank the reviewer for pointing out this oversight. This was an error in referencing; there is no Equation 2. The Cochran formula referred to is correctly presented as Equation 1, and we have corrected the labeling in the manuscript to accurately reflect this.

Comment

• Line 197-202, Figure 3-5, and Line 242, Figure 8 should be clearly marked at the corresponding position in the article.

Response

We thank the reviewer for this helpful observation. We have ensured that Figures 3, 4, 5, and 8 are now clearly referenced and integrated at their appropriate positions within the text, corresponding directly to the data being discussed. This revision enhances clarity and helps guide the reader through the presentation of results more effectively

Comment

• 3 The chi-square test has limited significance, and it is recommended to add control variables for regression analysis.

Response

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the limitations of the chi-square test. As this study was primarily descriptive and exploratory in nature, the analysis focused on identifying basic associations between key variables. We agree that future research should apply more advanced statistical techniques, such as regression analysis with appropriate control variables, to better understand causal relationships and interactions. This limitation has been explicitly acknowledged in the newly added “Limitations and Future Directions” section of the manuscript.

Comment

• The reference format needs to be standardized

Response

We thank you for the observation. References have been checked and corrected for standardization.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Comments:

The English language editing is minor.

1. The study “Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Variability and 2 Land-Use Changes in Semiarid Gwayi Catchment Agroecosystems” contributed to the body of knowledge in contemporary society.
2. The study requires a detailed conceptual framework to indicate the flow of knowledge relevant to the study.
3. Line 77, the sentence reads: while many studies (23). Here, insert two or more in-text references to justify the plural studies.
4. Line 128. Please, delete: to the larger sample.
5. Line 176-177. Please explain how you turned or converted your qualitative responses to quantitative data for presentation.
6. In the study, succinctly justify how perception was measured in the methodology section.
7. Line 129 (28%). Recast the sentence. It is not proper to start a sentence with 28%.....
8. Line 234. Same as above,
9. Line 527-544. I suggest you insert a table that illustrates your data analysis, indicating the dependent and independent variables, confidence interval, error term, P-values,
10. The discussion section is very comprehensive and worth commending.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is ok. However, minor punctuations should be attended to. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comments:

The English language editing is minor.

Comment

1. The study “Smallholder Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Variability and 2 Land-Use Changes in Semiarid Gwayi Catchment Agroecosystems” contributed to the body of knowledge in contemporary society.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the acknowledgement

Comment

2. The study requires a detailed conceptual framework to indicate the flow of knowledge relevant to the study.

Response

We thank you for the observation, the conceptual framework has been provided as follows: The conceptual framework guiding this study posits that smallholder farmers' perceptions of climate variability and land-use changes play a crucial role in shaping their land-use decisions and adaptation strategies within the Semiarid Gwayi catchment agroecosystems. Climate variability, characterized by changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, influences farmers' awareness and understanding of environmental shifts, which in turn affects their decisions on land use practices such as crop selection, irrigation, and conservation. Land-use changes, such as deforestation or agricultural expansion, can exacerbate climate variability, creating a feedback loop. Socio-economic factors, including income, education, and access to information, mediate the relationship between farmers' perceptions and their land-use decisions. Through examining the interplay between these variables, this study aims to understand how smallholder farmers in the Semiarid Gwayi catchment respond to climate variability and land-use changes, and how their perceptions and decisions impact the sustainability of their agroecosystems.

Comment

 Line 77, the sentence reads: while many studies (23). Here, insert two or more in-text references to justify the plural studies.

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have added additional references to support the plural form of "studies."

Comment

4. Line 128. Please, delete: to the larger sample.

Response

We acknowledge the reviewer observation and we have deleted the words

Comment

5. Line 176-177. Please explain how you turned or converted your qualitative responses to quantitative data for presentation.

Response

Thank you for your helpful comment. In response, we have clarified how qualitative responses were converted into quantitative data. Specifically, in addition to analyzing the closed-ended (quantitative) questions, we conducted a thematic analysis of the open-ended responses. This involved systematically coding the responses to identify recurring themes and sub-themes. These themes were then categorized and quantified by calculating their frequency of occurrence across participants. This process enabled us to transform narrative responses into quantifiable data, which were used to supplement and enrich the quantitative findings in the presentation of results.

Comment

6. In the study, succinctly justify how perception was measured in the methodology section.

Response

Thank you for your valuable comment. We have now clarified how farmers’ perceptions were measured in the methodology section. Specifically, we used a structured, self-administered questionnaire that included both closed-ended (e.g., Likert scales and frequency-based items) and open-ended questions to capture the respondents' perceptions of climate variability and land-use changes. This combination allowed us to collect both quantifiable trends and detailed qualitative insights. The structure was informed by Cox’s (1996) guidelines to ensure clarity, consistency, and validity in capturing perception-related data.

Comment

7. Line 129 (28%). Recast the sentence. It is not proper to start a sentence with 28%.....

Response

Thank you for your helpful observation. We have revised the sentence to avoid starting with a numeral and to improve clarity. The sentence now reads: “Approximately 28% of the surveyed farmers reported observing signs of land degradation, with the highest proportion of these observations (72%) recorded in Bubi district.”

Comment

8. Line 234. Same as above,

Response

Thank you for your helpful comment. We have revised the sentence to avoid starting with a percentage and to improve the overall structure of the paragraph. The revised paragraph now reads:

“Most respondents (76.19%) perceived that land use and land cover change had a negative impact on their farming activities, with 54.45% reporting a significant impact and 21.74% indicating a moderate impact. In contrast, 23.81% of farmers either perceived a lesser impact (13.66%) or were unsure about the effects (10.14%). Regarding the perceived causes of these changes (Figure 7), the most frequently cited factor was reduced or erratic rainfall patterns, mentioned by 39.1% of the respondents, followed by increased temperatures, noted by 30.2%.”

Comment

9. Line 527-544. I suggest you insert a table that illustrates your data analysis, indicating the dependent and independent variables, confidence interval, error term, P-values,

Response

Thank you for your comment and suggestion. We have revised the table to explicitly present the independent and dependent variables tested, alongside the test statistics, degrees of freedom, and p-values. Please note that confidence intervals and error terms are not applicable to Chi-Square tests, which assess associations between categorical variables rather than estimating parameters. The revised table has been included in the Results section for improved clarity and alignment with your recommendation.

Comment

10. The discussion section is very comprehensive and worth commending.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the comment

Comment

The quality of English is ok. However, minor punctuations should be attended to. 

Response

We thank the reviewer  for the comment. We revised the manuscript and attended to the minor punctuations in the manuscript as suggested.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This work raises a very important research problem not only at the level of a country like Zimbabwe, or a continent like Africa, but is an issue that affects the entire planet. It is therefore a topic that we must address, analyze, research, and publish to consider all the adversities that climate change and variability bring us. Consequently, it is an interesting and useful work for humanity.

In the spirit of improving this work, the following questions are posed:

• A preliminary question would be to briefly but precisely outline the concepts of climate variability and climate change, what the difference is between the two concepts, and which one is influenced by human activity, since after reading these terms, some confusion arises.
• The abbreviation LULCC has been used frequently, or is it LULC? (see section 3.3.1). Please review it in the text.
• Please indicate the date or date the data collection was conducted.
• What did the cross-sectional survey approach consist of? What unique characteristics does it present? What was its modus operandi? Were the key informants involved? Their information should be expanded.
• Although this study aims to analyze the perceptions of small farmers, it is helpful to have official data on temperatures, rainfall, crops, production, yields, etc. This information can be found in publications or databases of the UN, FAO, WORLD BANK, the national government, etc. This lack of official data may be the reason for the erratic information obtained from the farmers in Umguza, as noted in the Discussion section.
• The contributions from the focus groups should be included in a separate section; they are very interesting and therefore should be highlighted. Why were 10 focus group discussions held? Was the information obtained from the focus groups reflected in the conclusions?
• What are the differences between Sections B and C?
• In section 3.1.2, it refers to a decade. Which one?
• If the percentage expressed has two decimal places, it is advisable to maintain it, that is, not 28%, but 27.95%.
• In section 3.2.3, the text should be revised, as it indicates that "59% reported overgrazing (Table 4)," and this table does not reflect this value or the concept.
• In section 3.3.1, review this section and improve the wording. It is advisable that the tables or figures appear in the same sequence as the text. They should be presented in consecutive order. (First, analyze what is reflected in Figure 7, and then what is shown in Figure 8.)
• In section 3.3.2, it should be revised, as 17.6% of the very negative impact of livestock is not included. And the impacts on food security are included in which figure or table?
• Add the meaning of df and Sig to the bottom of Table 7.
• Due to the repetition of data and phrases in the text of section 3. Results and 4. Discussion, I would recommend integrating them into a single section: 3. Results and Discussion.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comment

This work raises a very important research problem not only at the level of a country like Zimbabwe, or a continent like Africa, but is an issue that affects the entire planet. It is therefore a topic that we must address, analyze, research, and publish to consider all the adversities that climate change and variability bring us. Consequently, it is an interesting and useful work for humanity.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the commendation

Comment

• A preliminary question would be to briefly but precisely outline the concepts of climate variability and climate change, what the difference is between the two concepts, and which one is influenced by human activity, since after reading these terms, some confusion arises.

Response

Thank you for the helpful observation. We agree that a clear distinction between climate variability and climate change was necessary to avoid confusion. Accordingly, we have revised the opening section of the introduction to include brief but precise definitions of both terms, clarifying that climate variability refers to natural short- to medium-term fluctuations, while climate change reflects long-term trends influenced primarily by human activities.

Comment

• The abbreviation LULCC has been used frequently, or is it LULC? (see section 3.3.1). Please review it in the text.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the observation we have corrected LULC to LULCC

Comment

• Please indicate the date or date the data collection was conducted.

Response

Thank you for the suggestion. We have updated the methodology section to indicate that data collection was conducted in March and April 2024, as recommended.

Comment

• What did the cross-sectional survey approach consist of? What unique characteristics does it present? What was its modus operandi? Were the key informants involved? Their information should be expanded.

Response

Thank you for your insightful comment. We have revised the methodology section to provide a detailed explanation of the cross-sectional survey approach, highlighting its unique characteristics and justification for use in this study. Additionally, we have clarified how the data collection was operationalized, including the integration of both quantitative and qualitative methods. We have elaborated on the role, selection criteria, and contributions of key informants, as well as the structure and purpose of the focus group discussions.

Comment

• Although this study aims to analyze the perceptions of small farmers, it is helpful to have official data on temperatures, rainfall, crops, production, yields, etc. This information can be found in publications or databases of the UN, FAO, WORLD BANK, the national government, etc. This lack of official data may be the reason for the erratic information obtained from the farmers in Umguza, as noted in the Discussion section.

Response

Thank you for this thoughtful and valuable comment. We fully acknowledge the importance of integrating official datasets—such as long-term meteorological records, agricultural production statistics, and yield trends from authoritative sources (e.g., FAO, World Bank, and national meteorological services)—to complement perception-based data. In the current study, our focus was primarily on capturing smallholder farmers’ perceptions to understand their lived experiences with climate variability and land-use/land-cover changes at the local level. These insights are critical for designing context-specific adaptation strategies. However, we recognize that relying solely on perception data may introduce limitations, including potential inconsistencies, as observed in Umguza district. In response to your suggestion, we have revised the Methods section to more clearly articulate the qualitative nature and intent of the perception data. Additionally, we have added a note in the Discussion section under “Limitations of the Study” explicitly acknowledging the absence of official climatic and agricultural datasets and the need for triangulation with such sources in future research to strengthen the robustness and validity of findings.

Comment

• The contributions from the focus groups should be included in a separate section; they are very interesting and therefore should be highlighted. Why were 10 focus group discussions held? Was the information obtained from the focus groups reflected in the conclusions?

Response

• Thank you for this insightful comment. We appreciate the value of highlighting focus group contributions more explicitly. However, we believe that integrating focus group findings alongside survey and key informant data in the results section provides a more cohesive and contextualized narrative. This approach allows for triangulation of perspectives, strengthening the overall interpretation and thematic coherence of the findings. We have now clarified in the Methods section the rationale for conducting 10 focus group discussions—specifically, to ensure representation across the selected districts and to capture diverse community perspectives, including gender and generational differences. Additionally, we have reviewed the Discussion and Conclusion sections to ensure that insights derived from the focus groups are more clearly reflected and attributed, reinforcing their relevance to the study’s key findings.
• Comment
• What are the differences between Sections B and C?
• Response

Thank you for this helpful observation. We have revised the Methods section to clarify the distinction between Sections B and C. Section B captured farmers' experiential observations of climate variability and land-use changes, while Section C focused on their perceptions of the resulting impacts on their agricultural productivity and livelihoods. This distinction helps in understanding how observed changes translate into perceived consequences, and this separation guided the structure of the questionnaire and subsequent analysis.

• Comment
• In section 3.1.2, it refers to a decade. Which one?
• Response

We thank the reviewer for the comment we have added the actual decade referred to ( 2014-2024)

Comment

• If the percentage expressed has two decimal places, it is advisable to maintain it, that is, not 28%, but 27.95%.

Response

Thank you so much, we take note of the correction. However, to avoid redundancy we approximated the figure to the nearest whole. We have made changes to that effect.

Comment

• In section 3.2.3, the text should be revised, as it indicates that "59% reported overgrazing (Table 4)," and this table does not reflect this value or the concept.

Response

Thank you for pointing out this inconsistency. We have revised the paragraph to ensure that only variables represented in Table 4 are discussed directly in relation to the table. The reference to overgrazing (59%) has been moved and correctly attributed to Figure 6, where that data is presented. This improves the accuracy and clarity of the results presentation.

Comment

• In section 3.3.1, review this section and improve the wording. It is advisable that the tables or figures appear in the same sequence as the text. They should be presented in consecutive order. (First, analyze what is reflected in Figure 7, and then what is shown in Figure 8.)

Response

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have revised the section accordingly

Comment

• In section 3.3.2, it should be revised, as 17.6% of the very negative impact of livestock is not included. And the impacts on food security are included in which figure or table?

Response

Thank you for this valuable comment. We have revised Section 3.3.2 to explicitly include the 17.6% of farmers who reported very negative impacts on livestock due to climate variability. Additionally, we clarify that while the impacts on food security are discussed in the narrative, they are derived from the survey responses and are not presented in a specific figure or table.

Comment

• Add the meaning of df and Sig to the bottom of Table 7.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have added notes for the referred abbreviations

Comment

Due to the repetition of data and phrases in the text of section 3. Results and 4. Discussion, I would recommend integrating them into a single section: 3. Results and Discussion.

Response

We thank the reviewer for the comment. We have  revised the discussion to reflect the objectives and also remove redundancy

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors gave the satisfied clarifications for the questions arose from the manuscript. However need to check the commas, full stops, etc. in the text. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The reviewer thanks the authors for having considered all the issues raised and given them due attention, whose contributions have improved the presentation of the work. This improvement is reflected in some tables, such as Table 7, and especially in the discussion section, which focuses on the main aspects of the research: 4.1. Perceptions of Climate Variability; 4.2. Observed Land Use and Landscape Changes; 4.3. Impacts on Agriculture and Livelihoods; and 4.4. Farmer Adaptation Strategies and Resilience Gaps.