PCLM-D-24-00116

The effect of heterogeneous adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices on household food and nutrition security of small-scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Melusi Sibanda,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 20 October 2024. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Benjamin Sultan

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Your current Financial Disclosure does not have Grant Recipient. However, your funding information on the submission form indicates Grant Recipient "Ms Nolwazi Zanele Khumalo". Please indicate by return email the full and correct funding information for your study and confirm the order in which funding contributions should appear. Please be sure to indicate whether the funders played any role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

2. For studies involving third-party data, we encourage authors to share any data specific to their analyses that they can legally distribute. PLOS recognizes, however, that authors may be using third-party data they do not have the rights to share. When third-party data cannot be publicly shared, authors must provide all information necessary for interested researchers to apply to gain access to the data. (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-acceptable-data-access-restrictions) 

For any third-party data that the authors cannot legally distribute, they should include the following information in their Data Availability Statement upon submission:

 1) A description of the data set and the third-party source

 2) If applicable, verification of permission to use the data set

 3) Confirmation of whether the authors received any special privileges in accessing the data that other researchers would not have

 4) All necessary contact information others would need to apply to gain access to the data

3. We notice the citation "Supporting information" listed in the manuscript after the references list. Kindly remove it as there are already a figure citations within the manuscript.

4. Figure 1: please (a) provide a direct link to the base layer of the map (i.e., the country or region border shape) and ensure this is also included in the figure legend; and (b) provide a link to the terms of use / license information for the base layer image or shapefile. We cannot publish proprietary or copyrighted maps (e.g. Google Maps, Mapquest) and the terms of use for your map base layer must be compatible with our CC-BY 4.0 license. 

Note: if you created the map in a software program like R or ArcGIS, please locate and indicate the source of the basemap shapefile onto which data has been plotted.

If your map was obtained from a copyrighted source please amend the figure so that the base map used is from an openly available source. Alternatively, please provide explicit written permission from the copyright holder granting you the right to publish the material under our CC-BY 4.0 license.

Please note that the following CC BY licenses are compatible with PLOS license: CC BY 4.0, CC BY 2.0 and CC BY 3.0, meanwhile such licenses as CC BY-ND 3.0 and others are not compatible due to additional restrictions. 

If you are unsure whether you can use a map or not, please do reach out and we will be able to help you. The following websites are good examples of where you can source open access or public domain maps: 

* U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) - All maps are in the public domain. (http://www.usgs.gov) 

* PlaniGlobe - All maps are published under a Creative Commons license so please cite “PlaniGlobe, http://www.planiglobe.com, CC BY 2.0” in the image credit after the caption. (http://www.planiglobe.com/?lang=enl) 

* Natural Earth - All maps are public domain. (http://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/)

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr Melusi Sibanda,

Thank you for your submission and sorry for the delays to come back to you. As you will see from the reviewers' comments, there are strengths in your study but also some weaknesses which need to be addresses in a revised version of your manuscript. Looking forward your revisions and a point-by-point response to each reviewer.

Best regards

Benjamin Sultan

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The effect of heterogeneous adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices on household food and nutrition security of small-scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality

PCLM-D-24-00116

The issue of food insecurity has garnered significant global attention due to its prevalence in numerous nations worldwide. Natural disasters, climate change, COVID52 19 aftermath, economic shocks, conflict, and sharp price increases have substantially impacted global food security and nutrition, disproportionately harming the world's poorest populations. This paper is founded on a clearly presented background, a strong research problem and objective, and the authors justified why undertaking such research is important. However, there are still some challenges to be addressed before it could be accepted for publication.

I still feel the authors can synergize convincingly, the problem statement. This will present the novelty of the study and bring to the fore, justification for the study.

Sampling techniques and sample are very important in this type of study. I will suggest a well detailed and sequential flow of sampling approach. How the used sample was determined.

Equation 3 should be checked for corrections of NSP and CSA mix-up.

In Table 1. Summary of demographic description of small-scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality, survey data collected in 2023. It will be expedient to decompose the variables to adopters and non-adopters of CSA and show the differences and significant levels.

The descriptive analyses and discussion of the food and nutrition securities must be presented to have an overview of the distribution.

The conclusion and recommendations must align with the findings. The authors actually did well but an improvement could be made to drive home the policy recommendations.

The authors also need to consider some editorials

Reviewer #2: The paper is well-written with very minimal grammatical and conceptual errors (very negligible). The few comments and remarks have been presented in Track Changes in the downloaded word version of the manuscript.

The comments include:

1. some editorial issues

2. referencing style where some inconsistencies were observed - the Vancouver style has not been properly used in some places

3. spellings errors and

4. one or two omitted words or terms (see annotation in manuscript).

5. The one other point is that models were not sufficiently specified in the methodology section where the models are described. I think that should be addressed in the section on Materials and Methods.

Otherwise, the manuscript is technically sound and the identification of the problem, treatment of the data and interpretation of results have all been done at the highest level of proficiency appropriate for journal publication.

Reviewer #3: The authors need to attend to all comments made on the annotated manuscript returned with this report. There are many language and technical error in reporting the results of the study and as such the manuscript will benefit from professional language editing, to bring it to an acceptable standard for publication.

Reviewer #4: "The Effect of Heterogeneous Adoption of Climate-Smart Agriculture Practices on Household Food and Nutrition Security of Small-Scale Urban Crop Farmers in eThekwini Municipality"

This paper presents a timely investigation into the role of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices in improving food and nutrition security among small-scale urban crop (SSUC) farmers in the eThekwini Municipality of South Africa. The study’s relevance is underscored by the growing global concerns about climate change, urbanization, and their combined effects on food security. By focusing on urban farmers, this research contributes to the broader understanding of how CSA can be utilized to build resilient agricultural systems and support food security in urban settings. The findings are significant not only for policymakers in South Africa but also for global stakeholders interested in sustainable urban agriculture and climate adaptation strategies.

A major strength of the paper lies in its methodological rigor. The authors use advanced econometric techniques, including probit and endogenous switching regression models, alongside marginal treatment effects (MTEs). These methods are well-suited for capturing the complexity and variability of CSA adoption. The use of probit models helps analyze the factors influencing CSA adoption decisions, while the endogenous switching regression addresses potential endogeneity issues arising from unobserved heterogeneity. The inclusion of MTEs further enhances the robustness of the analysis. Data from 412 small-scale urban crop farmers provide a solid empirical basis, enhancing the reliability and generalizability of the findings.The study considers diverse socio-demographic factors (e.g., age, education, gender, household size, income) influencing CSA adoption, offering nuanced insights into the impacts of CSA on different farmer groups.Recommendations for targeted CSA interventions and collaboration among stakeholders provide actionable insights for enhancing food security in urban areas.

Weaknesses

• Although the study recognizes gender as a factor in the adoption of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) practices, it does not explore in depth how gender-specific challenges and opportunities impact CSA adoption. Future research could benefit from a more detailed analysis of how gender roles, responsibilities, and access to resources influence CSA adoption among male and female farmers.

• The study finds a negative correlation between higher education levels and the adoption of CSA practices, which is surprising and contradicts existing research that usually links higher education with greater adoption of innovative practices. This unexpected result needs a clearer explanation or further investigation to understand why more educated farmers might be less inclined to adopt CSA practices.

• The study is focused solely on the eThekwini Municipality, which limits how widely the findings can be applied. To strengthen the applicability of the results, future studies could expand to include multiple urban areas with different socio-economic and environmental conditions. This would help in comparing CSA adoption patterns and outcomes across various settings, providing a more comprehensive view.

• The study relies on self-reported survey data, which can be prone to biases such as recall bias (errors in remembering past events accurately) and social desirability bias (respondents giving answers they think are more socially acceptable). Acknowledging these potential biases and implementing measures to minimize them, such as cross-referencing with actual records or using mixed-method approaches, would improve the reliability of the data.

Conclusion

The paper makes valuable contributions to understanding the impact of CSA on urban food security. Its methodological rigor, comprehensive data, and practical recommendations provide a strong foundation for policy and future research. Addressing the identified weaknesses and exploring suggested research directions will further enhance the understanding and effectiveness of CSA in promoting sustainable urban agriculture and food security.

To enhance the understanding and effectiveness of climate-smart agriculture (CSA) adoption, future research could benefit from several strategies. First, expanding the study to include other regions would allow comparisons of CSA adoption patterns across different urban settings, helping to validate the findings in a broader context. Second, conducting longitudinal studies that track CSA adoption and its impact on food security over time would provide insights into the long-term benefits and sustainability of these practices. Third, incorporating qualitative methods, such as in-depth interviews or focus groups, would offer deeper insights into farmers' motivations, perceptions, and barriers to adopting CSA. Lastly, developing gender-specific strategies that support female farmers could explore how CSA practices influence women's empowerment and household food security, ensuring that interventions are inclusive and effective for all farmers.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Ajuruchukwu Obi

Reviewer #3: No

Reviewer #4: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCLM-D-24-00116_reviewer.pdf

The effect of heterogeneous adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices on household food and nutrition security of small-scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality

PCLM-D-24-00116R1

Dear Prof Sibanda,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'The effect of heterogeneous adoption of climate-smart agriculture practices on household food and nutrition security of small-scale urban crop farmers in eThekwini Municipality' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Jamie Males

Staff Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):