Effects of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Farmers and Their Responses: A Study of Three Farming Systems in Kerala, South India
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is a very interesting and timely study that provides a detailed view of how COVID-19 is reshaping farming systems in Kerala. Some aspects of the article that need further clarification are listed. The article would also benefit from close and careful proofreading and it is hoped that the authors will take the time to do so.
-- In the description of agriculture in Kerala [p.2, lines 65-72], it would be useful to know what percent of the state's population is engaged in agriculture. Kerala's economy is viewed as being dependent on migrant remittances. There needs to be some mention therefore of why farming is an important issue to study here (maybe because it is neglected as an aspect of Kerala's economy)?
-- Consider the paragraph: 'Previous studies related to ..' [p.2, lines 80-90]. Two revisions could be made here. First, it would be useful to briefly mention what the various studies listed in the first sentence of the paragraph cover: do they all cover India as a whole? which states have been most studied? Second, after mentioning that there are no studies on Kerala, the paragraph then goes on to list some studies. Would it be more useful to say that this article extends these studies, rather than that there have been no studies?
-- What are the 'three categories of study'? [question 2, line 107]. Is this three farming systems?
-- The 3 steps [p.6] do not seem to cover the various sections of the article. Step 3 should include resilience capacities as well as transforming structures and processes, or is the latter Step 4? Or is Step 3 ability to secure livelihoods [Figure 2]?
-- Should also mention what each step draws from: sustainable livelihoods or resilience?
-- Levine is not sufficient as reference for Sustainable Livelihoods Approach [lines 212-215]. Might be useful to mention the work of Ian Scoones and others, and provide a broader overview of the development of the approach.
-- Consider the paragraph: 'The case studies chosen ...' [lines 305-308]. This could be moved to the first section of Materials and Methods, after the three farming systems are mentioned [lines 119-122] since it provides an overview. Also need some more detail on why homestead category is problematic.
-- In farmer characteristics [lines 320-324], also mention size of land owned/leased, and whether agriculture is sole occupation. This is mentioned in various places in Results, but it would be useful to also provide an overall summary at the beginning.
-- Delete Section 3.5 (environmental impacts) [p.13] since these are not discussed.
-- West Bengal is in northeastern India? [line 584]
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article presents a very deep and relevant research. Wish to the authors:
1. The materials and significance of the article can be increased by supplementing it with numerical statistical processing of the survey results.
2. The presented systematically performed study would be even more interesting if the authors presented expanded recommendations on the use of digital technologies to increase the sustainability of agricultural production in a pandemic.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The processed paper is interesting to read. Its topic is suitable for publishing, The problem of COVID19 impact on farmers and their business and social activities is very important and actual topic in nowadays. The proposed paper is hard to evaluate as its literature review is very limited. There is no relevant "research gap" identified and justified. The paper's objective is extremely general one. It is not possible to estimate any character of possible outputs. The proposed structure of the paper is not specified in detail. There are only general statements like "analyze the impact of COVID19" or "describe adaptation strategies" or "assess the resilience capacities". Individual statements should be specified more in deep. The character of expected outputs should be defined. Another problem of proposed paper is its methodology and especially collected data character. There is no relevant evidence whether the analyzed data could be considered as representative one. The character of individual interviews is not specified. The list of questions is not available. The character of interview is not discussed and introduced. Any overview related to collected data is not available both at the level of data for quantitative analysis and also for data related to qualitative analysis. The results part of the paper is interesting, but it is not possible to confirm whether individual findings could be possible to consider as really representative one or whether it is possible to generalize the results in relation to the whole region or population. There is no relevant discussion related to weaknesses or limits of processed research. The final conclusions are very limited and it is possible to consider them as disappointment. As there is no really relevant summary provided.
The processed paper should be revised and especially it is necessary to improve its methodology and data collection and data character discussion part.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
