Socioeconomic Determinants and Perceptions of Smallholder Farmers towards Agroforestry Adoption in Northern Irrigated Plain, Pakistan
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Land (ISSN 2073-445X)
Manuscript ID: land-2286033
Type: Article
Number of Pages: 30
Title: Socioeconomic determinants and perception of smallholder farmers’ towards agroforestry adoption in Northern Irrigated Plain, Pakistan.
Dear Authors,
It has been for me a great honour, as well as a pleasantly challenging activity, to review the article entitled “Socioeconomic determinants and perception of smallholder farmers’ towards agroforestry adoption in Northern Irrigated Plain, Pakistan.”
Overall, the article is interesting and easy to read. However, I suggest that the Authors introduce a few corrections (given below).
In my opinion, the Introduction chapter well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. The aim of the paper is clearly stated (lines 119-128), however, I would propose a more emphatic emphasis on what is the novelty of this research, what the new article brings to the literature. I will not insist on this remark, I leave it for the consideration of the Authors, although in my opinion it would be worth doing.
Theoretical Background
This chapter is clearly written. However, in my opinion, it could have been a bit more extensive. For example, the Authors mention some socioeconomic factors that influence the choices made by farmers. In my opinion, it would be worth referring in a few sentences how the distance from urban areas affects the life situation of inhabitants of rural areas and how it affects the choices they make. This is discussed e.g. in: MARCYSIAK, T., et al. Life strategies of rural inhabitants of unfixed economic function. In: Agrarian Perspectives XXVI. Competitiveness of European Agriculture and Food Sectors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference, 13-15 September 2017 Prague, Czech Republic. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, 2017. p. 212-218 (https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/r-12193-conference-proceedings). De Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2001). Income strategies among rural households in Mexico: The role of off-farm activities. World development, 29(3), 467-480.
Apata, T. G., Apata, O. M., Igbalajobi, O. A., & Awoniyi, S. M. O. (2010). Determinants of rural poverty in Nigeria: Evidence from small holder farmers in South-western, Nigeria. Journal of science and technology education research, 1(4), 85-91.
Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. (2005). Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World development, 33(9), 1383-1402.
Materials and Methods
This chapter is broken down into four logically consecutive subchapters and is clearly written. Figure 1 (Map of the research area) is a good illustration and allows for a better and easier visualization of the research area for potential international readers. In my opinion, an appropriate research methods were used to investigate the given issue. However, I would like to ask the Authors why and on what basis the size of the research sample was set at 400 households (from 20 villages) for data collection.
Results
In my opinion, this chapter is divided into two logically following sequential subchapters. The obtained results are presented in an understandable way, as well as well illustrated by one figure and two tables. Please, however, correct the numbering of table 2 and its title. The numbering of this chapter is also incorrect.
Discussion
The discussion is conducted in an interesting way and the results of the Authors' own research have been properly confronted with research conducted by other scholars.
The Conclusions are presented in an interesting way. I consider it valuable and worth emphasizing that the article also has an utilitarian purpose and may be useful for many stakeholders (e.g. as indicated by the Authors themselves: extension service, government) in order to make well-informed decisions. I would suggest that the Authors, at least in a few words, indicate what limitations they encountered during the research (and they probably could have occurred) and how they could have influenced the results and their interpretation. The numbering of this chapter is incorrect.
I don't feel competent to comment on linguistic correctness as English is not my mother tongue.
I wish the Authors good luck.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1 Comments
Dear Authors,
Overall, the article is interesting and easy to read. However, I suggest that the Authors introduce a few corrections (given below).
Comment 1. In my opinion, the Introduction chapter well introduces potential readers to the topics discussed by the Authors. The aim of the paper is clearly stated (lines 119-128), however, I would propose a more emphatic emphasis on what is the novelty of this research, what the new article brings to the literature. I will not insist on this remark, I leave it for the consideration of the Authors, although in my opinion it would be worth doing.
Response 1. Thank you for your valuable comment. Manuscript has been modified by highlighting the novelty of the research article. Please find in line number 127-141 in the "Introduction" section.
Theoretical Background
Comment 2. This chapter is clearly written. However, in my opinion, it could have been a bit more extensive. For example, the Authors mention some socioeconomic factors that influence the choices made by farmers. In my opinion, it would be worth referring in a few sentences how the distance from urban areas affects the life situation of inhabitants of rural areas and how it affects the choices they make. This is discussed e.g. in: MARCYSIAK, T., et al. Life strategies of rural inhabitants of unfixed economic function. In: Agrarian Perspectives XXVI. Competitiveness of European Agriculture and Food Sectors, Proceedings of the 26th International Conference, 13-15 September 2017 Prague, Czech Republic. Czech University of Life Sciences Prague, Faculty of Economics and Management, 2017. p. 212-218 (https://ap.pef.czu.cz/en/r-12193-conference-proceedings). De Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2001). Income strategies among rural households in Mexico: The role of off-farm activities. World development, 29(3), 467-480.
Apata, T. G., Apata, O. M., Igbalajobi, O. A., & Awoniyi, S. M. O. (2010). Determinants of rural poverty in Nigeria: Evidence from small holder farmers in South-western, Nigeria. Journal of science and technology education research, 1(4), 85-91.
Sunderlin, W. D., Angelsen, A., Belcher, B., Burgers, P., Nasi, R., Santoso, L., & Wunder, S. (2005). Livelihoods, forests, and conservation in developing countries: an overview. World development, 33(9), 1383-1402.
Response 2.
Thank you for the valuable comment. Manuscript has been modified by adding relevant literature suggested by reviewer. Please find in line number 150 and 169 in the "Theoretical background" section.
Materials and Methods
Comment 3. This chapter is broken down into four logically consecutive subchapters and is clearly written. Figure 1 (Map of the research area) is a good illustration and allows for a better and easier visualization of the research area for potential international readers. In my opinion, an appropriate research methods were used to investigate the given issue. However, I would like to ask the Authors why and on what basis the size of the research sample was set at 400 households (from 20 villages) for data collection.
Response 3. Thank you for your comment. Considering the Sampling ratio (sample size to population size) several literatures (Neuman 2007, Sukie 1996) highlighted that the larger populations, a comparatively small minimum ratio of 10 percent of individuals is required to ensure the representativeness of the sample. By comparing the total number of households in each village we selected a minimum of 10 households.
Neuman, W. L. (2007). Basics of social research: Qualitative and quantitative approaches (2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Suskie, L.A. (1996). Questionnaire survey research: What works (2nd ed.). Tallahassee, FL: Association for Institutional Research
Results
Comment 4. In my opinion, this chapter is divided into two logically following sequential subchapters. The obtained results are presented in an understandable way, as well as well illustrated by one figure and two tables. Please, however, correct the numbering of table 2 and its title. The numbering of this chapter is also incorrect.
Response 4. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by correcting the number of table 2, title and the numbering of chapter.
Discussion
Comment 5. The discussion is conducted in an interesting way and the results of the Authors' own research have been properly confronted with research conducted by other scholars.
Response 5. Thank you very much for your positive feedback on our manuscript.
Comment 6. The Conclusions are presented in an interesting way. I consider it valuable and worth emphasizing that the article also has an utilitarian purpose and may be useful for many stakeholders (e.g. as indicated by the Authors themselves: extension service, government) in order to make well-informed decisions. I would suggest that the Authors, at least in a few words, indicate what limitations they encountered during the research (and they probably could have occurred) and how they could have influenced the results and their interpretation. The numbering of this chapter is incorrect.
Response 6. Thank you very much for valuable comments. Manuscript has been modified by indicating limitation of the study and correcting chapter numbering.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I have made my comments in the attached manuscript
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 2 Comments
We are grateful for the reviewer beneficial comments. We have modified the revised version and have re-submitted a new version by following all of your comments.
Comment 1. In Abstract: Are these positively or negatively related – I suggest that you indicate the sign of the relationship.
Response 1. Thank you for your comment. Manuscript has been modified by indicating the sign of relationship. Please find in line number 25 in the "Abstract" section.
Comment 2. In Abstract part. Not clear how these (extension services and training programs for farmers could) are related to the findings
Response 2. Thank you for your comment. in our findings on two determinants of agroforestry namely education and participation in agri-based community development programs, we revealed that there is a limitation of the training programs on Agroforestry. We highlighted these issues in the discussion section and compared the result with other relevant literature. So. we included the sentence (extension services and training programs for farmers) in our abstract through our study results and observations.
Comment 3: This sentence is not clear, consider revising. (As a result of its increasing population and highest forest-cutting rate have positioned the 58 country as one of the most vulnerable to environmental damage)
Response 3. Thank you for this comment. During the revision of the manuscript, we have revised this sentence. Please find in line number 58-60 in the "Introduction" section.
Comment 4. At what rate is the population is growing?
Response 4. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by added information regarding the annual population growth rate of Pakistan. Please find in line number 65 in the "Introduction" section.
Comment 5. Please reference in the same way.
Response 5. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by cited the reference according to authors instructions. Please find in line number 108 in the "Introduction" section.
Comment 6. The last part of the sentence needs rephrasing.
Response 6. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by rephrasing the last part of the sentence, Please find in line number 114 in the "Introduction" section.
Comment 7. Cite the studies.
Response 7. We are very grateful for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by adding relevant references. Please find in line number 214 of the “Theoretical Background ".
Comment 8. Not sure this is appropriately placed under theoretical foundations. In an case there must be reference to it in the body of the text – at least explaining it in a para or so
Response 8. Thank you for your comment. The manuscript has been modified by adding the reference of figure one in the body of the text. Please find in line number 217 of the “Theoretical Background ".
Comment 9. I suppose that this should be Figure 2
Response 9. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by correcting the number of Figure.
Comment 10. This is not part of data collection, but rather the selection of the variables already collected
Response 10. Thank you very much for your valuable suggestion. Manuscript has been modified by making separate chapter namely “Selection of variables, Model development and adequacy”. Please find it in line number 285.
Comment 11. I suppose this is Appendix A
Response 11. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by correcting the name of Appendix. Please find it in line number 313.
Comment 12. I do not think that we need this sentence here, it appears to be misplaced.
Response 12. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by deleting the sentence from line number 442.
Comment 13. Do they like or have adopted
Response 13. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by clearly writing the sentence. Please find it in line number 446.
Comment 14. I suggest that in all the analysis start with the highest to the lowest for each variables.
Response 14. Thank you very much for this suggestion. The manuscript has been modified by rearranging the variables from highest to lowest. Please find it in line number 449.
Comment 15. What is the significance of this Figure, I have not seen anywhere where it was referred to.
Response 15. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by adding the information in the Figure 2. The adoption rate of agroforestry is 60.5% while non-adopters comprise 39.5% of the sample. This information is presented in Figure 2 and also referenced in Line 495. Please kindly review.
Comment 16. Could label the Table as: Descriptive analysis of…
Response 16. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by correcting the title of Table 1. Please find it in line number 510.
Comment 17. Please label the table accordingly – Table 2: The results of the logistic and probit regression
Response 17. Thank you very much for this comment. The manuscript has been modified by correcting the numbering of table 2 and its title. Please find it in line number 529.
Comment 18. What are these conclusion based on- did your model show that capacity building was a significant variable or what variable are using as a proxy for this – kindly mention it so that your conclusion are based on your results.
Response 18. Thank you for your comment. As mentioned in the response of the comment 2, in our findings on two determinants of agroforestry namely education and participation in agri-based community development programs, we revealed that even though these variables were not significant there is a limitation of the training programs on Agroforestry. We highlighted these issues in the discussion section and compared the result with other relevant literature. So, this sentences (Government policies should encourage farmer engagement in the agroforestry system and capacity building through extension programs in order to ensure that smallholder farmers adopt agroforestry more successfully. An effective extension service must offer farmers with a concrete platform to access agroforestry-based information) in our conclusion of this factors based on the results and observation of above two variables.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I would like to thank the Authors for the corrections made. I suggest accepting the manuscript for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for considering our paper for publication. It is indeed a thoughtful gesture on your part, and I'm sure the editor and peer reviewers will appreciate it.
