Climate Crises and Agricultural Drought: Evolutions in Water Scarcity Context at the Farm Level

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The study is timely and policy-relevant, addressing climate-induced water scarcity and its implications for farm adaptation in Southern Italy. The manuscript is expected to provide a clearer distinction between its contributions and previous studies. Consider restructuring results to link more directly with hypotheses. Furthermore, improvements in methodological clarity, discussion depth, figure/map visualization, and specific findings-based recommendations will significantly enhance its impact and readability. These weaknesses need to be addressed to improve clarity, rigor, and impact. I suggest a major revision to make the manuscript publishable per the journal's requirements, considering the following key points as indicated in the attached report. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Several minor grammatical issues and long, awkward sentence constructions reduce readability. Grammatical clarity and flow improvements are needed for acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your very useful comments and for the suggestions you have given us in order to improve our manuscript entitled “Climate crises and agricultural drought: farms ‘evolutions in water scarcity context”. We are very pleased that you appreciated our article, and we sincerely hope that we have been able to answer your questions and satisfy all your suggestions. Please find below our answers point by point.

Best regards

The Authors

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 

Several minor grammatical issues and long, awkward sentence constructions reduce readability. Grammatical clarity and flow improvements are needed for acceptance.

Response: Thank you for highlighting this aspect in our paper. We have revised the entire manuscript trying to improve the clarity of the English.

 

Point 1: Abstract

o Needs refinement for clarity. Key results (e.g., percentage of farms that changed ToF, main determinants) should be highlighted more explicitly.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have modified the abstract by inserting more references to the results achieved, both in terms of the characteristics of the farms analyzed, as well as changes in Type of Farming and, finally, as results of the applied logit model.

 

o Consider a sharper focus on findings and implications by avoiding being too verbose.

Response: We have tried to rewrite the results achieved in a simpler and clearer way.

 

o Ensure that each acronym is written out in full the first time it appears, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses. Thus, revise( e.g., ToF, HL test, EU, ha) in the abstract and ensure that their full names are not given at first mention.

Response: We have revised all acronyms by inserting the extended version the first time they are mentioned in the text.

 

Point 2: Study Design and Replicability

o The methodology is generally well-documented, but more clarity on how farms were matched across datasets and the variables selection process for the logit model would support replicability.

Response: This is a very important point of our work, thank you for highlighting the unclear aspects of the methodology and for providing us with useful suggestions. Regarding database matching, more clarifications have been provided on how the different data sources have been put together and also more details on the characteristics of the sources used. With regard to the variables included in the model, selection was naturally based on the data available within the Italian Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) database. The criteria and methodology adopted for variable selection are detailed in the main text of the paper, and a comprehensive overview is provided in the accompanying summary table. We hope that these clarifications are sufficient to better clarify how we have operated.

 

o The model selection and statistical diagnostics are mentioned but not fully discussed. For example, model fit statistics like pseudo-R² are low (McFadden R² = 0.0559), suggesting limited explanatory power.

Response: Thank you for the observation. As clarified in the manuscript, although the McFadden R² value is relatively low, this does not compromise the validity of the model’s results. In logistic regression models, pseudo R² measures—such as McFadden’s—tend to be substantially lower than the R² values typically observed in linear models like OLS. This is particularly true when modeling complex decision-making processes, such as those underlying agricultural entrepreneurial behavior. Therefore, a low McFadden R² is not uncommon and should not be interpreted as a weakness. The strength of the model lies in the statistical significance and interpretability of the explanatory variables, both of which are largely achieved in this analysis. Please find it at lines 741-746 of the version of the manuscript with traces.

 

o The exclusion of irrigation from the final model raises concern. It’s a central hypothesis and thus deserves more discussion.

Response: Thank you for the insightful comment. We acknowledge that the lack of consideration for irrigation status in the construction of the FADN sample is a significant limitation, particularly for analyses related to water use. We have included an explicit reference to this issue in the discussion section, highlighting the need to integrate agro-climatic variables in future data collection schemes.

 

o The steps for merging and analyzing FADN and Census data are only partially explained. It’s not entirely clear how the sample of 455 farms was identified and validated.

Response: We have provided more details on the characteristics of the FADN sample. Since it is a small subsample of the Census and the farms collected do not remain in the sample for a long time, it was not possible to identify all the farms that we have in common between the two censuses analyzed and with the presence of irrigation. Therefore, 455 are the farms present in the 2020 FADN sample that were also present in the 2010 sample and for which we could identify the change in Type of Farming.

Please find this part from line 297 to line 309 of the manuscript version with traces.

 

o The variables used in the logit model are listed, but data transformation steps, missing data handling, or model diagnostics are not elaborated.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge the importance of detailing model construction and evaluation steps. As part of the model development process, we tested several logistic regression specifications, each incorporating different combinations of covariates and interaction terms. For each model, we conducted standard goodness-of-fit assessments, including tests such as the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, along with evaluations of classification accuracy, AIC, and pseudo-R² values.

These steps were essential in guiding the selection of the final model reported in the manuscript, which demonstrated the best overall performance across these diagnostic criteria. However, we consider these activities as part of the internal process of model selection and refinement, and therefore have not included the full set of intermediate model diagnostics in the manuscript, in line with standard scientific writing practices aimed at maintaining clarity and focus.

 

o There is no appendix or code repository, which may be required for full reproducibility.

Response: The manuscript clearly outlines both the methodological approach and the variables employed, along with their respective data sources. In our view, the information provided is sufficient to allow replication by other researchers. Moreover, no proprietary or custom code has been used that would constrain the reproducibility of the analysis.

 

Point 3: Figures and Tables

o Visual standards (figures) require attention. MDPI typically demands highquality, clearly labeled visuals. Thus, I suggest revising the text on the x-axis and y-axis, which are blurred.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment regarding the visual standards of the figures. We appreciate your observation and have revised the figures accordingly. Specifically, we have improved the quality of the visuals and enhanced the clarity of the labels on both the x-axis and y-axis, which were previously blurred.

 

o Basic cartographic elements (e.g., Figures 1–4) such as legends, grid references, north arrow, and scale bars are missing.

Response: Thank you for pointing out the absence of key cartographic elements in Figures 1–4. We have updated these figures to include the necessary components such as legends, grid references, north arrows, and scale bars. These additions aim to enhance the readability and geographic accuracy of the maps.

 

o Why are table formatting/styles inconsistent in Tables 1 and 2? You have two Table-2s. Revise the title of the tables and in-text citations.

Response: Thank you for your careful review and for highlighting the inconsistencies in table formatting and labeling. We have revised the formatting styles to ensure consistency between Tables 1 and 2. Additionally, the duplication of "Table 2" has been corrected.

 

Point 4: Interpretation of Results

o There’s a mismatch between the hypothesis (irrigation influencing ToF) and the findings (irrigation not significant). This should be clearly acknowledged and explored.

 

Response 4: Thank you for underlining this point, we added more discussion in the text to explain this point.

 

Point 5: Imitations of the study

o Can you add a clear limitations section (some of this exists but should be formalized)?

Response 5: Thank you for your suggestion, the limitation of the study have been included in the Future research paragraph of the Conclusion section.

 

Point 6: Data availability

o Why did you state that "Data will be made available on request," which raises concerns about transparency and accessibility? If publicly available data is used, the statement should specify the source and how readers can access it. If there are any restrictions, it should be clearly stated why.

Response: Thank you for pointing out this discrepancy. This was actually an error on our part, the data we used is data collected at the individual farms level and therefore subject to restrictions. We have therefore corrected the above statement to the following: “Data is unavailable due to privacy restrictions”.

 

 

Point 7: Writing and Grammar

o Several minor grammatical issues and long, awkward sentence constructions reduce readability.

o Grammatical clarity and flow improvements are needed for acceptance.

o Check the following and revise your manuscript through:

 Line 496: What did you mean “… we analyzed 145,712 irrigated farms..”

 Lin 497 “It occurred these farms are concentrated...”

 Line 284 “….Sardinia” or Sardegn?

 Table 2 in lines 453 & 390 with respective text-citation should be revised.

Response 7:

Thank you for your helpful comments regarding grammatical clarity, sentence structure, and consistency throughout the manuscript. We have thoroughly revised the text to improve readability, correct grammatical issues, and ensure a more concise and natural flow of language.

 

Point 8: References and in-text citations

o Ensure consistent use of figure/table numbering and reference style. Focus on MDPI style (e.g., inconsistent/missing journal names, DOI, and author name listing). These were expected to be fixed before submission.

Response: Thank you for highlighting the inconsistencies in figure/table numbering and reference formatting. We have carefully reviewed the entire manuscript.

 

o Some references are self-citations (e.g., Cardillo et al., 2023). Can you balance with more peer-reviewed literature from international journals?

Response: Thank you for your observation regarding the self-citations (e.g., Cardillo et al., 2023).  In response, we have reviewed and revised the bibliography to reduce reliance on self-citations and have integrated additional peer-reviewed literature from reputable international journals to strengthen the scientific foundation and global relevance of the manuscript.

 

o Missing references to regional Italian climate impact studies or case-specific economic assessments would strengthen the discussion.

Response: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge the importance of incorporating regional Italian climate impact studies and case-specific economic assessments to strengthen the discussion. However, upon reviewing the existing literature, we found that empirical studies focused specifically on these aspects at the regional level in Italy remain limited.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments: 
1.    Revised the title “Climate crises and agricultural drought: evolutions in water scarcity context at farms level” It will enhance the reader community at global levels. 
2.    The abstract is informative but needs improved clarity, flow, and grammar check. Break long sentences, simplify technical terms, and ensure consistent formatting. Strengthen the conclusion by highlighting broader implications for drought mitigation strategies. Proofread for minor errors like missing spaces.
3.    Abstract is lacking with the key results, must report your major findings of the research work. 
4.    Line 26 write full form of “ToF”. 
5.    Key words must not the same as used in the title add more like climate-smart practices; food security; drought risk etc. 
6.    How can precision agriculture and drought-resistant crop varieties mitigate the impacts of reduced soil moisture and rainfall deficits in EU regions under agricultural drought alert? Your text effectively highlights drought risks but could briefly mention adaptive farming technologies for a stronger link to farm "evolutions" in water-scarce contexts.
7.    Introduction effectively establishes the urgency of drought impacts in Southern Europe and Italy, but it could better directly link to your research question earlier.
8.    I suggest author to review farms production and drought related literature published by researchers at national, regional and global levels and review more articles to strengthen (your intro line 45-63) problem statement to research question, introduction, methodology (climate-induced drought) and discussion section to justify agricultural and met-drought. Also explore how water shortage effect on crops/plants phenology and growth stages at farm levels. Here some suggested articles: 

-     IPCC Sixth Assessment Report - https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-4/

- Agricultural drought-driven mechanism of coupled climate and human activities - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62027-w

- Assessing the sensitivity of alfalfa yield potential to climate impact under future scenarios in Iran DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20287-x   

- Securing a sustainable future: the climate change threat to agriculture, food security, and sustainable development goals - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43994-024-00177-3
-    Quantifying climate-induced drought risk to livelihood and mitigation actions in Balochistan: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04913-4  
-    Understanding Climate Change and Drought Perceptions, Impact and Responses -  https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050594 
9.    Line 46 add extreme weather events (EWEs)
10.    Fig1 and Fig 2 need to revised and improve the visual quality for readers. 
11.    Quality of the figures should me improved and write complete captions for all the figures. 
12.    How did you address potential biases in farm selection when matching ISTAT 2010–2020 census data with FADN samples, given differences in sampling frameworks (e.g., FADN’s 8,000€ SO threshold vs. census inclusivity)? 
13.    Were weighting or imputation methods applied to ensure representativeness?
14.    Figures 6,7,8,9, 10, 11 font and color are not visible. Use pure black and see the MDPI guidelines. 
15.    Robust multi-source integration (census + FADN + econometrics) and clear model validation (ROC/AUC). A minor reorganization could prioritize why methods suit the research question.
16.    Recheck data of figure 10 & 11 as it seems some error. 
17.     Technical question for the author, given that economic variables were excluded due to null influence (odds ratio = 1), did you explore potential interactions or nonlinear effects (e.g., threshold effects of income on ToF shifts) that might explain their apparent irrelevance? Alternatively, could this result stem from data limitations (e.g., FADN’s focus on commercial farms), and how might this affect policy implications?
18.    Ensure "Tables 2" is consistently formatted
19.    Conclusion section is too long and impractical, shorten the climate/water policy context (lines 472–487) into 1–2 sentences—prioritize your key findings. 
20.    Merge repetitive points into a single impactful statement.
21.    Replace generic policy suggestions (lines 514–515) with specific recommendations tied to your results e.g. targeted subsidies for drip irrigation in small farms could accelerate water-efficient ToF transitions.
22.    Separate policy takeouts 
23.    Cuts redundancy, keeps findings/policy links.
24.    Ends with actionable insight + research gap.
25.    In research articles, abbreviations improve readability but must be used carefully to avoid confusion. Here are the key rules: Define at First Use and spell out the full term the first time it appears, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.
26.    How you decide or fix the threshold level? explain 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Must improve

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

thank you for your very useful comments and for the suggestions you have given us in order to improve our manuscript entitled “Climate crises and agricultural drought: farms ‘evolutions in water scarcity context”. We are very pleased that you appreciated our article, and we sincerely hope that we have been able to answer your questions and satisfy all your suggestions. Please find below our answers point by point.

Best regards

The Authors

 

Point 1: Revised the title “Climate crises and agricultural drought: evolutions in water scarcity context at farms level” It will enhance the reader community at global levels.

Response: Thank you for your valuable suggestion, we have modified the title.

 

Point 2: The abstract is informative but needs improved clarity, flow, and grammar check. Break long sentences, simplify technical terms, and ensure consistent formatting. Strengthen the conclusion by highlighting broader implications for drought mitigation strategies. Proofread for minor errors like missing spaces.

Response: Thank you for your comments, we revised the entire abstract acconrdig to your suggestions

 

Point 3: Abstract is lacking with the key results, must report your major findings of the research work.

Response: We have revised the abstract by inserting more references to the results achieved, both in terms of the characteristics of the farms analyzed, as well as changes in Type of Farming and, finally, as results of the applied logit model.

 

Point 4: Line 26 write full form of “ToF”.

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 5: Key words must not the same as used in the title add more like climate-smart practices; food security; drought risk etc.

Response: Thanks for giving us this useful comment, we have changed all the key words.

Point 6: How can precision agriculture and drought-resistant crop varieties mitigate the impacts of reduced soil moisture and rainfall deficits in EU regions under agricultural drought alert? Your text effectively highlights drought risks but could briefly mention adaptive farming technologies for a stronger link to farm "evolutions" in water-scarce contexts.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. Precision agriculture and drought-resistant crop varieties can play a pivotal role in mitigating the impacts of reduced soil moisture and rainfall deficits in EU regions under agricultural drought alert. These adaptive farming technologies directly support the evolution of agricultural practices in increasingly water-scarce contexts. Some examples of precision agriculture are mentioned, but the text does not focus on this topic.

Point 7: Introduction effectively establishes the urgency of drought impacts in Southern Europe and Italy, but it could better directly link to your research question earlier.

Response: Thank you so much for your valuable suggestion, we clearly explained it in the Introduction.

 

Point 8: I suggest author to review farms production and drought related literature published by researchers at national, regional and global levels and review more articles to strengthen (your intro line 45-63) problem statement to research question, introduction, methodology (climate-induced drought) and discussion section to justify agricultural and met-drought. Also explore how water shortage effect on crops/plants phenology and growth stages at farm levels. Here some suggested articles:

- IPCC Sixth Assessment Report - https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/chapter/chapter-4/

- Agricultural drought-driven mechanism of coupled climate and human activities - https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-62027-w

- Assessing the sensitivity of alfalfa yield potential to climate impact under future scenarios in Iran DOI: 10.1007/s11356-022-20287-x  

- Securing a sustainable future: the climate change threat to agriculture, food security, and sustainable development goals - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s43994-024-00177-3

- Quantifying climate-induced drought risk to livelihood and mitigation actions in Balochistan: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-021-04913-4 

- Understanding Climate Change and Drought Perceptions, Impact and Responses -  https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos12050594

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions, we added your suggested literature in our text.

 

Point 9: Line 46 add extreme weather events (EWEs)

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 10: Fig1 and Fig 2 need to revised and improve the visual quality for readers.

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 11: Quality of the figures should me improved and write complete captions for all the figures.

Response: Thank you, we revised all the figures, we hope that now they are more readable.

 

Point 12: How did you address potential biases in farm selection when matching ISTAT 2010–2020 census data with FADN samples, given differences in sampling frameworks (e.g., FADN’s 8,000€ SO threshold vs. census inclusivity)?

Response: Thank you for pointing out this aspect, we provided more explaination regardin g this in the methodological part.

 

Point 13: Were weighting or imputation methods applied to ensure representativeness?

Response: Thank you for your valuable observation. As specified in the manuscript, no weighting or imputation methods were applied. The study relies on two data sources: the General Agricultural Census and the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN), the latter being a sample drawn from the farms identified in the census. The degree of representativeness of the FADN sample, as well as its limitations, have been explicitly defined and discussed in the manuscript.

 

Point 14: Figures 6,7,8,9, 10, 11 font and color are not visible. Use pure black and see the MDPI guidelines.

Response: Thank you for this valuable suggestion, we replaced all figures.

 

Point 15: Robust multi-source integration (census + FADN + econometrics) and clear model validation (ROC/AUC). A minor reorganization could prioritize why methods suit the research question.

Response: We provided more explaination regarding methodological aspects and partly reorganized the text, we hope that this satisfies your request.

 

Point 16: Recheck data of figure 10 & 11 as it seems some error.

Response: Thank you, actually we checked the data but we did not find any error.

 

Point 17: Technical question for the author, given that economic variables were excluded due to null influence (odds ratio = 1), did you explore potential interactions or nonlinear effects (e.g., threshold effects of income on ToF shifts) that might explain their apparent irrelevance? Alternatively, could this result stem from data limitations (e.g., FADN’s focus on commercial farms), and how might this affect policy implications?

Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful and technically relevant comment. As correctly noted, economic variables did not show a statistically significant influence in our current model (odds ratio ≈ 1), and potential interactions or non-linear effects—such as threshold dynamics of income on shifts in the Type of Farming—have not been explored in the present version of the study. We fully acknowledge the importance of such dynamics and consider this a valuable direction for future development of the research.

Regarding the data used, it is indeed true that the FADN dataset includes only commercial farms. While this could be perceived as a limitation in terms of general representativeness, it is important to note that FADN is the standard source used for evaluating the impact of agricultural policies at the EU level. In this respect, its focus on market-oriented farms aligns with the typical target group of such policies and thus remains appropriate for assessing policy-related effects.

However, we also acknowledge that different types of farms may respond differently to policy measures, and that considering broader farm typologies and policy dimensions could enrich the analysis. While this was not within the scope of the present paper, we plan to address these aspects—including the role of specific CAP measures and the potential influence of farm income thresholds—in future extensions of the study.

 

Point 18: Ensure "Tables 2" is consistently formatted

Response: We revised table 2, thank you for your comment.

 

Point 19: Conclusion section is too long and impractical, shorten the climate/water policy context (lines 472–487) into 1–2 sentences—prioritize your key findings.

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 20: Merge repetitive points into a single impactful statement.

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 21: Replace generic policy suggestions (lines 514–515) with specific recommendations tied to your results e.g. targeted subsidies for drip irrigation in small farms could accelerate water-efficient ToF transitions.

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 22: Separate policy takeouts

Response: Thanks for this helpful tip, we have separated the policy implications from the rest of the conclusions.

 

Point 23: Cuts redundancy, keeps findings/policy links.

Response: Thank you, done.

 

Point 24: Ends with actionable insight + research gap.

Response: We added in the conclusions more possible future works.

 

Point 25: In research articles, abbreviations improve readability but must be used carefully to avoid confusion. Here are the key rules: Define at First Use and spell out the full term the first time it appears, followed by the abbreviation in parentheses.

Response: Thanks for pointing this out, we apologize for any mistakes we made, now we have revised all abbreviations by inserting the extended version the first time they are mentioned in the text.

 

Point 26: How you decide or fix the threshold level? explain

Response: Thank you for this comment, we explained in the text that, according EU guidelines, the threshold level is fixed at country level depending on the coverage of total standard output of farms. It means that the threshold is fixed in terms of economic size based on the number of farms needed to cover at least 90% of the country's standard output. The explanation is in the text from row 293 to 296 in the version of the manuscript with traces. 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article appropriately addresses one of today’s most critical challenges: the relationship between the climate crisis, agricultural drought, and changes in farming practices in southern Italy. The use of two national agricultural censuses (2010 and 2020), combined with data from the Farm Accountancy Data Network (FADN) and a logit regression analysis to identify factors affecting changes in Type of Farming (ToF), is a major strength of the paper.

However, for publication in an international journal, the article requires improvements in causal interpretation, discussion of findings, and structural coherence.

 

Major Comments

1. Methodology and Logit Model Justification
• While the use of the logit model to assess factors influencing changes in ToF is appropriate, the paper lacks a strong theoretical justification for why this model was selected over others. A brief mention of alternative models such as probit or panel data models would be beneficial.
• Moreover, since the variable "irrigation" was excluded from the final model, a more detailed explanation of its statistical insignificance and reasoning for removal is needed in the methodology section.
2. Interpretation of Results – Especially on Profitability
• The results suggest that changes in ToF do not generally lead to improved economic performance. This is an important finding but is not sufficiently discussed. In particular, the reasons why these structural changes did not enhance income or productivity in a water-stressed region should be analyzed more deeply.
• Additionally, the exception observed in Campania, where farms that changed ToF performed better, deserves further local or structural explanation.
3. Role of Policies and Support Programs
• Given the paper’s focus on the relationship between climate crisis and agricultural change, it would strengthen the analysis to explicitly consider how national or EU-level policies (e.g., CAP or the European Climate Law) may have facilitated or hindered these transitions.
• A purely statistical approach, without linking findings to policy instruments, limits the paper’s broader impact.
4. Non-significance of Irrigation in ToF Change
• This counterintuitive result is noteworthy. It is recommended that the authors more clearly explore potential reasons for the lack of statistical significance such as data quality issues in the FADN, or insufficient consideration of irrigation system efficiency or quality.
5. Data Limitations and Sample Structure
• The article rightly points out the limitation of FADN not accounting for irrigation status when designing its sample. This limitation should also be emphasized in the discussion, with proposed strategies for overcoming it in future research.
6. Discussion
• While the manuscript includes references to relevant literature on climate change, irrigation, and agricultural transitions, it does not sufficiently compare its findings with those of previous empirical studies

 

Minor Comments

1. Figures and Visuals
• Most figures are informative, but some (e.g., Figure 6) would benefit from improved resolution and clearer titles.
• The performance-related charts (e.g., GP/AWU and NI/ha) should be more fully interpreted within the main text.
2. Terminology and Abbreviations
• Abbreviations such as ToF, GP, NI, and AWU should be defined upon their first use in each major section.
• Terms like “Gross Saleable Production” should be used consistently and always accompanied by their abbreviation.
3. Literature and References
• The introduction is generally well-written but could be strengthened by integrating more references on structural agricultural change in response to climate change in other Mediterranean countries.
• Although the present study primarily relies on census and farm-level economic data, integrating geospatial drought indicators, as proposed by Khosravi et al. (2024), can significantly enhance the interpretation of regional vulnerabilities. Their use of a geographically weighted regression-based dryness index highlights how spatial variability in drought intensity can inform adaptive agricultural strategies, particularly in Mediterranean regions prone to uneven water availability. Such tools could support policy efforts to target water-efficient farming in drought-prone areas like Southern Italy.

Khosravi, Y., Homayouni, S., & St-Hilaire, A. (2024). An integrated dryness index based on geographically weighted regression and satellite earth observations. Science of The Total Environment, 911, 168807.

 

1. Writing Structure and Coherence
• Some paragraphs are overly long and multi-topic (especially in the results section). Rewriting for clarity and improved flow is advised.
• There are 2 tables with the same names (Table 2)

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Some paragraphs are overly long and multi-topic (especially in the results section). Rewriting for clarity and improved flow is advised.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

thank you for your very useful comments and for the suggestions you have given us to improve our manuscript entitled “Climate crises and agricultural drought: farms ‘evolutions in water scarcity context”. We are very pleased that you appreciated our article, and we sincerely hope that we have been able to answer your questions and satisfy all your suggestions. Please find below our answers point by point. 

 

Best regards 

 

The Authors. 

 

 

Point 1)

Reviewer - Major Comments 

Methodology and Logit Model Justification

• While the use of the logit model to assess factors influencing changes in ToF is appropriate, the paper lacks a strong theoretical justification for why this model was selected over others. A brief mention of alternative models such as probit or panel data models would be beneficial.

 

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We appreciate your point regarding the choice of the logit model. We have updated the text to include a brief justification for selecting this model. The logit model was adopted because it is particularly suitable for the analysis of binary dependent variables, offering robust estimates, interpretability through odds ratios and greater computational stability compared to alternatives such as the probit model. This choice is consistent with the cross-section nature of the data and the objectives of the investigation.

Our integration can be find from line 318 to line 336.

 

• Moreover, since the variable "irrigation" was excluded from the final model, a more detailed explanation of its statistical insignificance and reasoning for removal is needed in the methodology section.

 

Authors: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have revised the methodology section to provide a more detailed explanation of why the "irrigation" variable was excluded from the final model. This can be find from line 666 to line 677.

 

Point 2)

Reviewer - Interpretation of Results – Especially on Profitability

• The results suggest that changes in ToF do not generally lead to improved economic performance. This is an important finding but is not sufficiently discussed. In particular, the reasons why these structural changes did not enhance income or productivity in a water-stressed region should be analyzed more deeply.

 

Authors: Thank you for your insightful feedback. We agree that the finding regarding the lack of improvement in economic performance following changes in ToF is significant and warrants further discussion. We have expanded the analysis in the Results (from line 650 to line 654) and Discussion sections.

 

• Additionally, the exception observed in Campania, where farms that changed ToF performed better, deserves further local or structural explanation.

 

Authors: Thank you for highlighting this important point. We have expanded the discussion to address the exception observed in Campania, where farms that changed their Type of Farm (ToF) showed improved performance, please find it from line 630 to line 641 of the track version of the manuscript.

 

Point 3)

Reviewer - Role of Policies and Support Programs

• Given the paper’s focus on the relationship between climate crisis and agricultural change, it would strengthen the analysis to explicitly consider how national or EU-level policies (e.g., CAP or the European Climate Law) may have facilitated or hindered these transitions.
• A purely statistical approach, without linking findings to policy instruments, limits the paper’s broader impact.

 

Authors: Thank you for this valuable observation. We fully agree that linking our empirical findings to relevant policy instruments—such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) or the European Climate Law—could significantly enhance the broader relevance and policy impact of the study. However, we would like to clarify that the main objective of our research is to identify the key factors driving changes in the type of farming (ToF) at the farm level, with a focus on structural, socio-economic, and territorial dynamics. While we acknowledge the importance of the policy dimension, incorporating a thorough policy analysis would extend beyond the current scope of the paper and require a different analytical framework. Nonetheless, we greatly appreciate the Reviewer’s suggestion, which we see as a valuable direction for future research.

 

Point 4)

Reviewer - Non-significance of Irrigation in ToF Change

• This counterintuitive result is noteworthy. It is recommended that the authors more clearly explore potential reasons for the lack of statistical significance such as data quality issues in the FADN, or insufficient consideration of irrigation system efficiency or quality. 

 

Authors: Thank you for the insightful comment. We acknowledge that the lack of consideration for irrigation status in the construction of the FADN sample is a significant limitation, particularly for analyses related to water use. We have included an explicit reference to this issue in the discussion section, highlighting the need to integrate agro-climatic variables in future data collection schemes.

 

Point 5)

Reviewer - Data Limitations and Sample Structure

• The article rightly points out the limitation of FADN not accounting for irrigation status when designing its sample. This limitation should also be emphasized in the discussion, with proposed strategies for overcoming it in future research.

 

Authors: Thank you for your insightful comment. We have strengthened the discussion by emphasizing the limitation of the FADN dataset, specifically its failure to account for irrigation status when designing the sample. Nonetheless, we greatly appreciate the Reviewer’s suggestion, which we see as a valuable direction for future research.

 

Point 6)

Reviewer - Discussion

• While the manuscript includes references to relevant literature on climate change, irrigation, and agricultural transitions, it does not sufficiently compare its findings with those of previous empirical studies 

 

Authors: Thank you for this valuable observation. We acknowledge the importance of comparing findings with existing empirical studies. However, to the best of our knowledge, there are currently no directly comparable studies that integrate FADN data with a focus on irrigation and climate-related agricultural transitions at this level of detail. For this reason, our study aims to offer an initial contribution in this direction. We agree that further empirical research will be essential to deepen comparisons and validate emerging patterns across different contexts.

 

 

Minor Comments

Point 1)

Reviewer - Figures and Visuals

• Most figures are informative, but some (e.g., Figure 6) would benefit from improved resolution and clearer titles.

Authors: Thank you for the helpful comment. We appreciate your feedback and have revised the figures accordingly. In particular, Figure 6 has been updated with higher resolution and a clearer, more descriptive title to improve readability and interpretability.

• The performance-related charts (e.g., GP/AWU and NI/ha) should be more fully interpreted within the main text.

Authors: Thank you for your comment.  We have revised the main text to provide a more detailed discussion of these indicators. Please find the addition from line 630 to line 641 and from line 650 to 654.

Point 2)

Reviewer - Terminology and Abbreviations

• Abbreviations such as ToF, GP, NI, and AWU should be defined upon their first use in each major section.
• Terms like “Gross Saleable Production” should be used consistently and always accompanied by their abbreviation.

Authors: Thank you for your observation. We have reviewed the manuscript to ensure that all abbreviations (e.g., ToF, GP, NI, AWU) are clearly defined upon their first use in each major section.

Point 3)

Reviewer - Literature and References

• The introduction is generally well-written but could be strengthened by integrating more references on structural agricultural change in response to climate change in other Mediterranean countries.

Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. We have revised the introduction accordingly and added a dedicated paragraph to expand the literature review, focusing on structural agricultural changes in response to climate change in other Mediterranean countries. Please find this from line 168 to line 215.

• Although the present study primarily relies on census and farm-level economic data, integrating geospatial drought indicators, as proposed by Khosravi et al. (2024), can significantly enhance the interpretation of regional vulnerabilities. Their use of a geographically weighted regression-based dryness index highlights how spatial variability in drought intensity can inform adaptive agricultural strategies, particularly in Mediterranean regions prone to uneven water availability. Such tools could support policy efforts to target water-efficient farming in drought-prone areas like Southern Italy.

Authors: Thank you for the insightful comment. We have reviewed the study by Khosravi et al. (2024) and agree on the value of integrating geospatial drought indicators to better understand regional vulnerabilities. In response, we have included a reference to this approach in the revised manuscript and expanded the discussion by highlighting recent initiatives undertaken in Italy to monitor drought risk and promote water-efficient farming, particularly in Southern regions.

Point 4)

Reviewer - Writing Structure and Coherence

• Some paragraphs are overly long and multi-topic (especially in the results section). Rewriting for clarity and improved flow is advised.
• There are 2 tables with the same names (Table 2).

 

Authors: Thank you for your comment. We have revised the results section to improve clarity and flow by breaking down overly long, multi-topic paragraphs. Additionally, we have corrected the duplication issue by renaming the tables appropriately and ensuring that each table has a unique and descriptive title. The conclusions have also been reformulated.

 

Point 5)

Reviewer - Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Some paragraphs are overly long and multi-topic (especially in the results section). Rewriting for clarity and improved flow is advised.

Authors: Thank you for your helpful feedback. We have carefully revised the results section by breaking down overly long and multi-topic paragraphs.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article assesses the determinants of changes in the type of farming in Italy. This is significant due to climate change and the issues the European Mediterranean region faces. I have the following recommendations for the article: 

• Abstract: Add what it means ToF.
• Methods:
  • I recommend that you explain the variables you use to calculate the dependent variable, and how you calculate that dependent variable (change of ToF) for the logistic regression.
  • I suggest you explain why you chose the independent variables for the logistic regression. It would help if you explained the hypotheses that you want to test. Also, explain those independent variables that are the independent (testing the hypotheses) and which ones are control variables. It would also help if you explained the rationale for choosing these variables (e.g., using data or empirical knowledge). 
• Results: I suggest you explain why the significant variables in the logistic regression are essential. You might want to cite literature here. In addition, I think that in Table 1 (showing the results of the logistic regression) you are missing the significance level (probability value). Having this value would help the reader to understand the results better. 
• Conclusions: here, whether your hypotheses were confirmed or not is missing. ¿Did you find similar or different results from the existing literature? In addition, I recommend that you explain the relevance of the results, either for public policy or the existing literature. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

thank you for your very useful comments and for the suggestions you have given us to improve our manuscript entitled “Climate crises and agricultural drought: farms ‘evolutions in water scarcity context”. We are very pleased that you appreciated our article, and we sincerely hope that we have been able to answer your questions and satisfy all your suggestions. Please find below our answers point by point. 

 

Best regards 

 

The Authors. 

 

 

Point 1)

Reviewer - Abstract: Add what it means ToF.

Authors: Thank you for your suggestion. We have made the requested changes to the abstract, including the explanation of the meaning of ToF (Type of Farming).

 

 

Point 2)

Reviewer - Methods: 

• I recommend that you explain the variables you use to calculate dependent variables, and how you calculate that dependent variable (change of ToF) for the logistic regression.

Authors: Thank you for your recommendation. We have updated the text, accordingly, providing an explanation of the variables used to calculate the dependent variable, as well as the method for calculating the change in ToF for the logistic regression. Kindly verify the lines in the text 369-384 of the version with traces.

 

Reviewer - Methods:

• I suggest you explain why you chose the independent variables for the logistic regression. It would help if you explained the hypotheses that you want to test. Also, explain those independent variables that are the independent (testing the hypotheses) and which ones are control variables. It would also help if you explained the rationale for choosing these variables (e.g., using data or empirical knowledge).  

Authors: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have revised the text (paragraph Methodology and data sources 2.1) to include an explanation of the rationale behind the selection of the independent variables for logistic regression. The revised section also clarifies the hypotheses being tested, distinguishes between the independent and control variables, and provides justification for their inclusion based on empirical knowledge and available data.

 

Point 3)

Reviewer – Results:

• I suggest you explain why the significant variables in the logistic regression are essential. You might want to cite literature here. In addition, I think that in Table 1 (showing the results of the logistic regression) you are missing the significance level (probability value). Having this value would help the reader to understand the results better. 

Authors: Thank you for your helpful suggestions. We have revised the Results section to explain the relevance of the significant variables identified in the logistic regression, and we have included references to relevant literature where appropriate.

 

Point 4)

Reviewer – Conclusion:

• Here, whether your hypotheses were confirmed or not is missing. Did you find similar or different results from the existing literature? In addition, I recommend that you explain the relevance of the results, either for public policy or the existing literature.

Authors: Thank you for your insightful comments. We would like to clarify that this study presents an initial hypothesis, and as such, it is one of the first attempts to examine the changes in the Type of Farm. Previous research has not specifically addressed this aspect of farm type transitions. Therefore, this study contributes to a new area of investigation, and the results offer a foundational understanding of this evolving phenomenon.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you to the authors for responding to the comments and suggestions.