PCLM-D-25-00149

Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers' relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Collier,

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 Oct 31 2025 11:59PM. 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,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. In the ethics statement in the Methods, you have specified that verbal consent was obtained. Please provide additional details regarding how this consent was documented and witnessed, and state whether this was approved by the IRB.

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Reviewer #1: The paper lacks statistical data to support the findings. Most of the results were in general terms (some, many, few etc.. ), not even in non-inferential stat. Try to improve in the result area; at least providing frequency will help understand the qualitative study.

Reviewer #2:Reviewer Comments on PCLM-D-25-00149

Title: Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation

Dear Giuseppina Migliore,

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

First, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation.” The paper addresses a timely issue and presents potentially valuable insights that could contribute meaningfully to ongoing discussions on climate change and smallholder agriculture. However, the manuscript requires substantial revision and enrichment before it can reach the standards necessary for publication. Below, I provide detailed comments for the authors’ consideration.

Abstract

The abstract is generally clear and well-structured. However, its final section does not adequately provide a concrete conclusion and recommendation based on the study’s key findings. Readers expect not only a statement of contribution but also actionable insights. These elements are currently missing.

1. Introduction

1.1. Avoid relying heavily on long quotations or large notes from a single source. For instance, in lines 52–56, the description of the program seems to be drawn from one source. This practice is evident throughout the manuscript and reduces the scholarly depth of the work.

1.2. The justification for the study begins with the statement (lines 58–61): “Despite the increasing attention to CSA, not all segments of agriculture are equally well-studied or well-supported…” This important claim requires support from multiple references, not a single source. Without sufficient evidence, the rationale appears weak.

1.3. Do not present facts without citation. For example, lines 62–64 describe the challenges of certain cropping systems without any supporting source.

1.4. Line 77–78: “The Pacific Northwest (PNW) is notably underrepresented in the current literature on this topic.” Such a statement must be supported by evidence comparing coverage of different regions. Avoid presenting assumptions as facts.

1.5. Line 82–84: Instead of “To our knowledge, no current research has explored the value of CC mitigation strategies…” consider rephrasing to “To our knowledge, no evidence has been found on the value of CC mitigation strategies…” This phrasing avoids subjective argumentation.

1.6. Lines 93–99 again present a long passage drawn from a single source. This creates the impression of limited engagement with the broader literature. Please synthesize findings from multiple sources.

1.7. The manuscript title highlights “confidence and uncertainty”, yet these concepts are not adequately introduced or justified in the introduction. Either integrate a discussion of these concepts or adjust the title accordingly.

2. Methods

2.1. Section 2.1 is titled “Eligibility.” A more accurate term would be “Sampling Frame.” Even for qualitative studies, a clear sampling frame is essential. Rephrase lines 142–146 accordingly and justify the appropriateness of the chosen methods with evidence.

2.2. Section 2.2 is titled “Recruitment.” A more precise label would be “Sampling Procedure.” Adjust the presentation to align with the revised subheading.

2.3. The use of only key informant interviews as the sole data collection method requires justification. Why were other methods or triangulation not employed?

2.4. Section 2.3 “Data Collection” combines both the method (interviews) and the type of data collected. It is clearer to separate these into:

• 2.3 Data Collection

• 2.4 Types of Data Collected

2.5. Under Types of Data Collected, I could not find variables related to “confidence and uncertainty.” If these are not central to the study, they should not appear in the title.

3. Results

3.1. Table 1 presents participant characteristics, but the table is not discussed in the text. Either integrate a narrative interpretation linked to the objectives or remove it.

3.2. Lines 217–221 present what appears to be direct first-hand respondent information. Such statements should be properly attributed (e.g., K2, K5, 2025).

3.3. When presenting differing respondent views, clearly show both sides and then synthesize:

• Some respondents were aware of CC (K1, K2, K4–K9, 2025).

• Others were not (K10–K13, KI1, 2025).

From these contradictions, provide a reasoned conclusion supported by additional evidence. Apply this approach consistently across all findings.

3.4. Similar to the introduction, avoid long narrations from a single source (e.g., lines 242–246). This weakens both originality and synthesis.

3.5. Long passages without source attribution, such as the list of irrigation sources, should be avoided. Ground all arguments in primary or secondary evidence.

3.6–3.8. Throughout the results, many claims (e.g., concerns about flooding, drought, water shortages, ecosystem changes, health risks) require attribution to primary sources (e.g., K1, K3–6, 2025). Apply consistently across sections.

3.9. Section 3.1 “General views on climate change” lacks proper synthesis. A more rigorous structure is:

• Primary data (respondent evidence)

• Supported by secondary literature

• Inference/implications drawn from both

Apply this structure across all result and discussion sections.

3.10. For example, line 277–278 (“Many mentioned unpredictable or unseasonable weather patterns…”) must be attributed to specific respondents. This adjustment should be made consistently throughout.

3.11. Sections 3.2.1 through 3.5.4 are too fragmented (15 subheadings). Consolidating them into 5–7 broader themes would improve coherence.

4. Discussion

The discussion is well-structured overall. However, as noted earlier, each sub-section (4.1–4.4) would benefit from closer integration of:

• Respondent perspectives (primary data)

• Supporting literature (secondary sources)

• Inferences drawn from both

5. Conclusion

The conclusion is well-articulated and concise. However, it would be strengthened by including:

• Practical recommendations for policymakers

• Clearer articulation of the study’s contribution in the global climate change context

• Acknowledgment of limitations

• Suggestions for future research

Final Remark

The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored area. With careful revision—particularly reducing overreliance on single sources, strengthening evidence-based claims, integrating confidence and uncertainty into introduction methods section, and restructuring the results section—the paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to climate change and agricultural research.

[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?>

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: I don't know

Reviewer #2: 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

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: I have tried to provide feedback and changes within the manuscript. The paper lacks statistical data to support the findings. Most of the results were in general terms (some, many, few etc.. ), not even in non-inferential stat. Try to improve in the result area; at least providing frequency will help understand the qualitative study.

Reviewer #2: Reviewer Comments on PCLM-D-25-00149

Title: Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation

Dear Giuseppina Migliore,

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

First, I sincerely thank you for the opportunity to review the manuscript entitled “Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers’ relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation.” The paper addresses a timely issue and presents potentially valuable insights that could contribute meaningfully to ongoing discussions on climate change and smallholder agriculture. However, the manuscript requires substantial revision and enrichment before it can reach the standards necessary for publication. Below, I provide detailed comments for the authors’ consideration.

Abstract

The abstract is generally clear and well-structured. However, its final section does not adequately provide a concrete conclusion and recommendation based on the study’s key findings. Readers expect not only a statement of contribution but also actionable insights. These elements are currently missing.

1. Introduction

1.1. Avoid relying heavily on long quotations or large notes from a single source. For instance, in lines 52–56, the description of the program seems to be drawn from one source. This practice is evident throughout the manuscript and reduces the scholarly depth of the work.

1.2. The justification for the study begins with the statement (lines 58–61): “Despite the increasing attention to CSA, not all segments of agriculture are equally well-studied or well-supported…” This important claim requires support from multiple references, not a single source. Without sufficient evidence, the rationale appears weak.

1.3. Do not present facts without citation. For example, lines 62–64 describe the challenges of certain cropping systems without any supporting source.

1.4. Line 77–78: “The Pacific Northwest (PNW) is notably underrepresented in the current literature on this topic.” Such a statement must be supported by evidence comparing coverage of different regions. Avoid presenting assumptions as facts.

1.5. Line 82–84: Instead of “To our knowledge, no current research has explored the value of CC mitigation strategies…” consider rephrasing to “To our knowledge, no evidence has been found on the value of CC mitigation strategies…” This phrasing avoids subjective argumentation.

1.6. Lines 93–99 again present a long passage drawn from a single source. This creates the impression of limited engagement with the broader literature. Please synthesize findings from multiple sources.

1.7. The manuscript title highlights “confidence and uncertainty”, yet these concepts are not adequately introduced or justified in the introduction. Either integrate a discussion of these concepts or adjust the title accordingly.

2. Methods

2.1. Section 2.1 is titled “Eligibility.” A more accurate term would be “Sampling Frame.” Even for qualitative studies, a clear sampling frame is essential. Rephrase lines 142–146 accordingly and justify the appropriateness of the chosen methods with evidence.

2.2. Section 2.2 is titled “Recruitment.” A more precise label would be “Sampling Procedure.” Adjust the presentation to align with the revised subheading.

2.3. The use of only key informant interviews as the sole data collection method requires justification. Why were other methods or triangulation not employed?

2.4. Section 2.3 “Data Collection” combines both the method (interviews) and the type of data collected. It is clearer to separate these into:

• 2.3 Data Collection

• 2.4 Types of Data Collected

2.5. Under Types of Data Collected, I could not find variables related to “confidence and uncertainty.” If these are not central to the study, they should not appear in the title.

3. Results

3.1. Table 1 presents participant characteristics, but the table is not discussed in the text. Either integrate a narrative interpretation linked to the objectives or remove it.

3.2. Lines 217–221 present what appears to be direct first-hand respondent information. Such statements should be properly attributed (e.g., K2, K5, 2025).

3.3. When presenting differing respondent views, clearly show both sides and then synthesize:

• Some respondents were aware of CC (K1, K2, K4–K9, 2025).

• Others were not (K10–K13, KI1, 2025).

From these contradictions, provide a reasoned conclusion supported by additional evidence. Apply this approach consistently across all findings.

3.4. Similar to the introduction, avoid long narrations from a single source (e.g., lines 242–246). This weakens both originality and synthesis.

3.5. Long passages without source attribution, such as the list of irrigation sources, should be avoided. Ground all arguments in primary or secondary evidence.

3.6–3.8. Throughout the results, many claims (e.g., concerns about flooding, drought, water shortages, ecosystem changes, health risks) require attribution to primary sources (e.g., K1, K3–6, 2025). Apply consistently across sections.

3.9. Section 3.1 “General views on climate change” lacks proper synthesis. A more rigorous structure is:

• Primary data (respondent evidence)

• Supported by secondary literature

• Inference/implications drawn from both

Apply this structure across all result and discussion sections.

3.10. For example, line 277–278 (“Many mentioned unpredictable or unseasonable weather patterns…”) must be attributed to specific respondents. This adjustment should be made consistently throughout.

3.11. Sections 3.2.1 through 3.5.4 are too fragmented (15 subheadings). Consolidating them into 5–7 broader themes would improve coherence.

4. Discussion

The discussion is well-structured overall. However, as noted earlier, each sub-section (4.1–4.4) would benefit from closer integration of:

• Respondent perspectives (primary data)

• Supporting literature (secondary sources)

• Inferences drawn from both

5. Conclusion

The conclusion is well-articulated and concise. However, it would be strengthened by including:

• Practical recommendations for policymakers

• Clearer articulation of the study’s contribution in the global climate change context

• Acknowledgment of limitations

• Suggestions for future research

Final Remark

The manuscript addresses an important and underexplored area. With careful revision—particularly reducing overreliance on single sources, strengthening evidence-based claims, integrating confidence and uncertainty into introduction methods section, and restructuring the results section—the paper has the potential to make a valuable contribution to climate change and agricultural research.

**********

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: Assefa A. Berhanu

**********

[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: Reviewer comment PCLM-D-25-00149.pdf

PCLM-D-25-00149R1

Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers' relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Collier,

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 Dec 24 2025 11:59PM. 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,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

The revised manuscript shows progress; however, the Results section still lacks sufficient integration with the existing literature and with the data presented. As previously noted, this leads to a Discussion section that makes claims not fully supported by the qualitative evidence. The manuscript appears to move from qualitative findings to quantitative-like conclusions without the analytical depth required to substantiate this shift. Consequently, key findings remain insufficiently supported or quantified, even within a qualitative methodological framework.

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

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

publication criteria?>

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?-->?>

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. 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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

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

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

Reviewer #1: Appreciate the progress made in the revised manuscript. Howvere,

As I mentioned in the first review the results section lacks sufficient integration with existing literature and data which results

Discussion makes claims not fully supported by the qualitative data presented where you made qualitative study and converging to quantitative without strong analysis. Thus, missing quantification of key findings despite qualitative methodology.

Reviewer #2: I have no comment

**********

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: Assefa Abelieneh Berhanu

**********

[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.]

Attachments

Attachment

Submitted filename: PCLM-D-25-00149_R1 (1).pdf

PCLM-D-25-00149R2

Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers' relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Collier,

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 Jan 22 2026 11:59PM. 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 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,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. In the online submission form, you indicated that your data will be submitted to the Dryad database upon acceptance. Should your submission be accepted, we will require the following information in your Data Availability Statement:

a) The DOI provided by Dryad

b) The citation for your data package in the reference section of your manuscript

c) The citation for your data package in the methods section

If you are unable to adhere to our open data policy, please kindly revise your statement to explain your reasoning and we will seek the editor's input on an exemption.

2. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

3. Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Although one reviewer recommends acceptance, another reviewer identifies remaining issues that merit minor revisions. Specifically, the Results section would benefit from stronger integration with the existing literature, and some claims in the Discussion are not fully supported by the qualitative evidence presented. Clarifying and more systematically articulating the key findings, including indicative quantification where appropriate, would strengthen the rigor and contribution of the manuscript.

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

Reviewers' comments:

[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.]

Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers' relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation

PCLM-D-25-00149R3

Dear Dr. Collier,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Confidence and uncertainty: Small-scale, direct-marketing vegetable farmers' relationship with climate change adaptation and mitigation' 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,

Giuseppina Migliore

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

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

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Dr. Webb,

thank you for your patience and for your thorough engagement with the review process.

Upon further evaluation of the revised manuscript and your detailed responses to the reviewer comments, I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has now been accepted for publication.

It appears that some of the confusion in our recent correspondence may have resulted from an overlap in dates between the reviewer reports and the editorial assessment of your revised submission. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):