Perception of Climate Change and Adoption of Cottonseed Cake in Pastoral Systems in the Hauts-Bassins Region of Burkina Faso

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

‘Feed shortages during the dry season represent one of the most critical constraints affecting livestock productivity in Sub-Saharan Africa (Beigh et al., 2020; Duguma & Janssens, 2021; Koutou et al., 2016; Ousseini et al., 2017)’, ‘The literature identifies several key factors influencing the adoption of agro-industrial by-products, including price, herd size, the number of sedentary animals, livestock experience, the herder’s age and education level, access to information, geographic remoteness, and availability of storage infrastructure (Alkhtib et al., 2017; Baba et al., 2019; Mamine, 2020; Mullenix & Stewart, 2021; Warner et al., 2020)’, ‘‘A growing body of research emphasizes that climate perception significantly influences the adoption of agricultural technologies (Chen et al., 2024; Kassa & Abdi, 2022; Oli et al., 2025; Tiyo et al., 2015)’, ‘A substantial body of literature has examined the determinants of livestock feed adoption, particularly agricultural by-products (ABPs) and agro-industrial by-products (AIBPs), which are recognized for their potential to improve productivity in extensive and semi-intensive livestock systems (Baba et al., 2019; Deffo et al., 2009; Mamine, 2020; Mutwedu et al., 2022; Swidiq et al., 2012)’, ‘4). ‘Recent studies (Chen et al., 2024; Kassa & Abdi, 2022; Oli et al., 2025; Tiyo et al., 2015) confirm that awareness of climate change effects plays a key role in the adoption of agricultural technologies’ – develop and clarify the specific contribution of each cited source. ‘Feeding is not only the most decisive factor in zootechnical performance, but also the largest cost item, accounting for up to 65% of total production costs in most livestock operations (Admassu, 2008; Bach, 2012)’ – the most recent source is 13 years old and thus it ( related to 65%) may not reflect the current data. Thus check each time for the most recent data to reflect the current situation. Here are additional examples: ‘dairy imports continue to rise to meet national demand: in 2020, Burkina Faso imported the equivalent of 70 million liters of milk, valued at over 14 billion CFA francs (Bambio, 2022). This upward trend is confirmed by FAOSTAT (2023) data, which reports imports of 690 tons in 2018, 936 tons in 2019, and 1,932 tons in 2020’. ‘This constraint is particularly acute in pastoral and agro-pastoral systems, which hold a significant share of national livestock herds and play a key role in supplying livestock markets and sustaining rural socio-economic structures’ – need substantiation. ‘report that it reduces feed’ – replace it/they with the proper words to avoid confusion. ‘Section 2…systems’ – should be a single paragraph. ‘The study…s growing seasons (INSD, 2023)’ – avoid citing 4 sources in a row, and comprise the entire contents in a single paragraph. ‘with a range of "acts" whose outcomes’ – avoid such quotes, say directly, to avoid confusion. Too many short (3-4 lines) paragraphs leading to idea segmentation. Develop on your methodology’s upsides. ‘4. Results and Discussion’ – split this section in two, with the latter debating on comparisons with other research results. ‘5. Conclusion and Policy Implications’ should develop on limitations and further research.

Please revise the References according to the journal format. 

 Most cited sources are not from WoS SSCI/SCIE journals.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer Comments

We thank the reviewer for the valuable and constructive feedback provided on our manuscript. Below, we address each comment in detail, explaining how the suggested improvements were incorporated into the revised version of the paper.

1. “Develop and clarify the specific contribution of each cited source.”

Response:
We revised both the introduction and literature review sections to clarify the individual contributions of the cited studies. For example:

• In the literature review (Section 2), we now detail the scope, methodology, and key findings of each source (e.g., Mamine, 2020; Mutwedu et al., 2022; Deffo et al., 2009; Baba et al., 2019), allowing the reader to better appreciate their specific relevance.
• Similarly, studies on climate change perception (Chen et al., 2024; Kassa & Abdi, 2022; Oli et al., 2025; Tiyo et al., 2015) are now explicitly described in terms of how each one contributes to the understanding of perception as a determinant of technological adoption.

2. “Use the most recent sources where possible. The 65% cost figure is from old data.”

Response:
We updated the reference to the cost of livestock feeding by replacing the old estimates (Admassu, 2008; Bach, 2012) with a more recent study (Benamara and Chihaoui, 2023) reporting that feeding accounts for up to 79.1% of total production costs. This ensures the figure reflects the current reality in livestock operations.

3. “Substantiate general claims such as: ‘This constraint is particularly acute in pastoral and agro-pastoral systems.’”

Response:
We reinforced this assertion by adding quantitative and qualitative evidence from national reports and peer-reviewed sources to justify the key role of these systems in national livestock supply (e.g., Kiema et al., 2014; Bayala et al., 2023).

4. “Replace vague pronouns like ‘it’ or ‘they’ with clear referents.”

Response:
Ambiguous expressions such as “it reduces feed” were revised for clarity. For example, “Mullenix and Stewart (2021) report that the use of cottonseed cake reduces feed costs without compromising performance” now explicitly identifies the subject.

5. “Section 2… systems’ – should be a single paragraph.”

Response:
The paragraph on feed constraints and reliance on pasture and agro-industrial by-products in Section 2 was rewritten into a single coherent paragraph for better readability and flow.

6. “Avoid citing 4 sources in a row.”

Response:
We reduced excessive clustering of references and ensured that each source is integrated meaningfully into the argument. For example, in the paragraph discussing climate change perception, each citation is now followed by a brief explanation of its contribution.

7. “Avoid quotation marks like ‘acts’ – say directly.”

Response:
We revised expressions such as “acts” to more direct formulations to improve clarity and avoid unnecessary quotation marks.

8. “Too many short paragraphs – avoid idea fragmentation.”

Response:
The manuscript has been restructured to merge fragmented paragraphs into more coherent thematic blocks, particularly in the literature review and introduction sections.

9. “Develop on your methodology’s upsides.”

Response:
We expanded the methodology section to highlight the originality of the dataset (primary data collected for this study) and the relevance of the binary logit model for discrete adoption behavior. We emphasize that context-specific variables like climate perception and supply access were only possible thanks to our tailored survey.

10. “Split section ‘4. Results and Discussion’ into two.”

Response:
As requested, we separated Section 4 into two parts:

• Section 4: Results (presents the logit model findings),
• Section 5: Discussion (interprets findings and compares them with previous literature).
  This structure allows for clearer communication of empirical insights and their theoretical relevance.

11. “Conclusion should address limitations and future research.”

Response:
We revised the conclusion (Section 6) to explicitly discuss the study’s limitations, including the localized nature of the sample and the potential measurement errors in perception variables. We also added suggestions for future research, particularly around longitudinal data and alternative modeling approaches.

12. “Revise references according to the journal format.”

Response:
All references were reformatted to comply with the journal’s required citation style. We also verified each entry for accuracy, completeness, and consistency.

13. “Most cited sources are not from WoS SSCI/SCIE journals.”

Response:
Where possible, we replaced or complemented non-indexed references with more authoritative and recent sources from WoS-indexed journals. However, given the scarcity of high-quality data on pastoral systems in Burkina Faso, some grey literature and national reports were retained for contextual grounding.

 

All revisions made in response to reviewers’ comments are highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper presents a study on perception of climate change and adoption of cottonseed cake in pastoral systems in the Hauts-Bassins Region of Burkina Faso. The study is based on a theoretical framework of Subjective Expected Utility (SEU) theory. The authors applied a logit model for which data was collected using a survey with 366 livestock farms being respondents. 

Abstract: This section includes all the necessary elements fully describing the study presented in the paper. 

Introduction: This section presents the study background, including the current knowledge on the topic, as well as the study aims and the paper’s structure. 

Literature Review: It presents the literature review. 

Methodology: It includes 6 sub-sections: description of the study area, theoretical framework, definition of variables, empirical model specification, estimation method, and data sources used for the analysis. 

Sub-sections 3.3 and 3.4 are divided into sub-sub-sections. In my opinion there is no need to do so as these sections are short enough not to divide them further. 

The methodology is clearly presented and is correct. 

Results and Discussion: This section combines the results presentation with the discussion. The results are compelling and the discussion is based on the study findings. This section is divided into informal (no numbers) sub-sections. I appreciate this form of the section division. 

Conclusion and Policy Implications: This section presents both conclusions and policy implications of the study findings. 

I suggest adding a couple of paragraphs on the study’s contribution to the knowledge gaps identified, study limitations and future study needs. 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Reviewer 2 for their positive and constructive comments. We greatly appreciate the time and effort taken to evaluate our work and to provide suggestions that have helped improve the clarity and quality of the manuscript. Below, we address each point raised and summarize the corresponding revisions made.

Comment 1: Sub-sections 3.3 and 3.4 are divided into sub-sub-sections. In my opinion there is no need to do so as these sections are short enough not to divide them further.

Response:
We thank the reviewer for this observation. In the revised version of the manuscript, we removed all sub-sub-section headings under Sections 3.3 (Definition of variables) and 3.4 (Empirical model specification). The contents have been restructured into continuous, coherent paragraphs to ensure better narrative flow while maintaining clarity.

Comment 2: I suggest adding a couple of paragraphs on the study’s contribution to the knowledge gaps identified, study limitations and future study needs.

Response:
This insightful recommendation has been fully addressed in the revised version of Section 6 (Conclusion and Policy Implications).

• We explicitly highlight the study’s contribution to the literature, particularly by addressing the underexplored link between climate change perception and the adoption of agro-industrial by-products (AIBPs) in Sahelian pastoral systems.
• A dedicated paragraph now presents the study’s limitations, such as the cross-sectional nature of the data, the absence of information on adoption intensity, and the limited geographic scope.
• We also added suggestions for future research, including the use of longitudinal data, the study of productivity effects, and the replication of this framework in other agroecological regions of Sub-Saharan Africa.

We hope these amendments meet the reviewer’s expectations and contribute to the overall improvement of the manuscript. Once again, we thank Reviewer 2 for their encouraging feedback and valuable suggestions.

 

All revisions made in response to reviewers’ comments are highlighted in blue in the revised manuscript.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Idea fragmentation still persists, as a lot of paragraphs are 3-4 lines long only.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for pointing out the issue of idea fragmentation. In response, we have carefully revised the manuscript to merge short paragraphs and improve the logical flow of the text. All sections have been reviewed to ensure that each paragraph presents a fully developed idea, and we have ensured that no paragraph remains under five lines in the revised version . We hope that these adjustments improve the overall coherence and readability of the manuscript.