Nexus between Coping Strategies and Households’ Agricultural Drought Resilience to Food Insecurity in South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This study examined smallholder livestock farmers' coping strategies in the event of food insecurity shock and the relationship between the types of coping strategies and their agricultural drought resilience to food insecurity in South Africa's Northern Cape provinces. The findings of this study showed that the most common strategy for dealing with drought was selling livestock, and the majority of smallholder livestock farmers are not drought resilient. Overall, this study addresses a topic of high relevance for research and also for practice. However, I believe some issues need revision and clarification.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1
Please find a response to the reviewer's comments as well as proof of language editing below. Changes in the manuscript were also highlighted in yellow
With regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting study on food insecurity in South Africa and the coping strategies of local farmers. The paper definitely contributes much to understanding contemporary food insecurity issues in the region. Nevertheless, I think that it needs the following revisions:
First, the author's approach to defining food security should be clarified. That is critical for a proper understanding of the author's reasonings, findings, and discussions. In lines 139-140, the author says that "food insecurity is defined as a household's inability to meet its target consumption levels in the face of shocks such as agricultural drought". To my mind, that is an extremely narrow interpretation of food insecurity. When using it, the author must explain why such a narrow interpretation matters for the purpose of this particular study. In addition, however, the author should reflect that the food security concept captures several dimensions, such as affordability of food, access to food, utilization, etc. The author should refer to the FAO's four-pillar definition of food security and explain why this approach is not used in the paper. I think that using that approach would benefit the paper and substantially improve its contribution.
My second critical concern is that the manuscript in no way explores land-related issues. I think it is out of the Land's scope, and I strongly suggest the author reconsider the journal. In case the author insists on submitting to Land, land-related components much be radically improved. The entire food insecurity problem and the related coping strategies must be discussed from the angle of land use and farming practices.
Figure 1: Please consider redrawing it. A framework is a kind of an algorithm - it must start from a certain point, go through certain stages, and end somewhere. Currently, it is unclear, where we start and where we finish.
Line 37: FAO et. al, not FOA
Line 61: Also, it would be good to refer to studies that specifically focus on South Africa. In case the author refers to other countries, similarities and dissimilarities with food insecurity in South Africa should be discussed
Lines 88-93: Repetition of lines 56-61. Please check
Line 93: "This study" - which of the mentioned above?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
Please find a response to the reviewer's comments as well as proof of language editing below. Changes in the manuscript were also highlighted in yellow.
With regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the topic is interesting, author need to revise methodology section to make it clear. Please find the reviewed manuscript for other comments.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3
Please find a response to the reviewer's comments as well as proof of language editing below. Changes in the manuscript were also highlighted in yellow.
With regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author have addressed my comments carefully
and my major remarks from the previous version are addressed sufficiently.
However, there are some minor points that need to be addressed.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer -1-
Thank you for your valuable input. Please find attached the response to your comments (points 1 to 8).
With regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I thank the author for addressing my recommendations, responding to my comments, and making the revisions. I consider the changes adequate and sufficient. As long as the editor thinks the paper fits the scope of the journal, I shall not object
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2
You are much appreciated for your valuable
input.
With regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
