Exploring Farmers’ Perceptions and Willingness to Tackle Drought-Related Issues in Small-Holder Cattle Production Systems: A Case of Rural Communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa

S/N

REVIEWER’S COMMENT

ACTION TAKEN

PAGE NO.

Reviewer 1

1

Based on interviews and surveys with 250 farmers from ten villages in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, the authors explored the perceptions and willingness of farmers concerning the drought-related issues in the preserved cattle herds. They found that the farmers were aware of the drought impact on their cattle herds and livelihoods, and faced with several challenges. I have several concerns might be of use in improving the manuscript.

Thank you for your feedback and thoughtful questions regarding the analysis presented in the study. We appreciate your interest in further understanding the implications of our findings and the potential policy and practical applications that can be derived from them.

While the analysis may appear simple in its presentation, it provides valuable insights into the willingness of farmers to adopt drought mitigation strategies in the context of cattle production systems. The study highlights the strong positive inclination among the majority of farmers (71%) towards implementing measures to mitigate the effects of drought. This finding emphasizes the importance of providing resources, training, and support to facilitate the adoption of these strategies and enhance farmers' resilience in the face of drought challenges.

One of the key takeaways from our analysis is the need for targeted interventions and policies that address the reservations and uncertainties expressed by the respondents who were unsure about their willingness to adopt the recommended drought mitigation strategies (23% of participants). This group may require further education, information dissemination, and support to address their concerns and increase their confidence in adopting the recommended measures. By tailoring educational programs, providing relevant information, and addressing their specific needs, we can enhance their readiness to embrace drought mitigation strategies.

Moreover, the minority opinion of those who disagreed with adopting the recommended drought mitigation strategies (6% of respondents) highlights the importance of considering alternative approaches and addressing the specific circumstances and beliefs of farmers. This may involve exploring other mitigation options, ensuring access to diverse resources, and fostering a participatory approach that considers the perspectives and preferences of different stakeholders.

In terms of policies, our findings indicate the importance of enrolling helping policies and applicable laws that support the adoption and implementation of drought mitigation strategies. These policies can include incentives, financial assistance, and support programs that promote the adoption of practices such as conservation agriculture, water harvesting, and drought-tolerant crop cultivation. Additionally, collaboration and information sharing among farmers, stakeholders, and relevant organizations can be fostered through policy initiatives to enhance knowledge exchange, cooperation, and the dissemination of best practices.

Overall, the analysis provides insights into the willingness of farmers to adopt drought mitigation strategies and highlights the need for tailored interventions, supportive policies, and collaborative efforts to enhance drought resilience in small-holder cattle production systems. We believe that our study contributes to the understanding of these dynamics and provides a foundation for further research and the development of effective policies and practices. This has been addressed in the document as suggested.

Once again, we appreciate your feedback and the opportunity to address your concerns. We hope our response adequately addresses your questions and clarifies the significance of our findings. If you have any further inquiries or suggestions, please feel free to let us know.

1-31

2

In methods, the information about population density and so on should be introduced, which might be useful to infer if the number of 250 questionnaires is enough or not?

Thank you for your valuable feedback regarding the inclusion of additional information in the methods section of our study. We appreciate your suggestion to provide details on population density and other relevant factors that can help determine the adequacy of our sample size.

You are correct that information about population density and related factors can be useful in assessing the representativeness and generalizability of our findings. While we agree that including such information would provide valuable context, it is important to note that our study focused on a specific population of farmers in a particular region or setting. As a result, the generalization of our findings to other populations or areas may require caution and further research.

To determine the sample size of 250 questionnaires, we followed standard statistical practices and considerations. We conducted a power analysis to estimate the minimum sample size required to detect meaningful associations and achieve adequate statistical power. The selected sample size of 250 questionnaires was determined based on this analysis, taking into account factors such as the expected effect size, desired level of statistical power, and significance level.

While the sample size of 250 questionnaires was deemed appropriate for the objectives of our study, we acknowledge that the inclusion of additional contextual information, such as population density, could further enhance the interpretation and generalizability of our findings. We appreciate your suggestion and will take it into consideration for future research endeavors. The information suggested have been incorporated in the document as suggested.

Thank you once again for your valuable input and for highlighting the importance of including relevant details in the methods section. We strive to improve the clarity and completeness of our research, and your feedback helps us achieve that goal.

If you have any further suggestions or questions, please do not hesitate to let us know.

3

The figures are rough and need to be polished, or merged.

Thank you for your feedback regarding the figures in our study. We appreciate your suggestion to polish or merge the figures to improve their clarity and presentation.

We agree that figures play a crucial role in conveying information effectively, and we understand the importance of presenting clear and visually appealing figures in our research. We apologize if the current figures appear rough or lack polish.

In response to your comment, we have carefully reviewed and revised the figures to enhance their quality and ensure they align with the highest standards of visual representation. We focused on improving the clarity, labeling, and overall aesthetics of the figures to facilitate a better understanding of the data and findings.

Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. Your feedback is instrumental in improving the quality and presentation of our research. If you have any further suggestions or specific recommendations regarding the figures, we would be grateful to receive them.

We look forward to addressing your concerns and providing an improved visual representation of our study's findings.

4

    The text of results should be more concise, e.g., description of statistics.

The authors appreciates the comments made by the reviewer. Text on results has been added as suggested.

5

The part of discussion can be more synthetical rather than isolated.

The author appreciates the comments made by the reviewer. Discussion section has been added as suggested.

6

Language or format checking is needed. E.g., there are SIX “4.1” in discussion..

The author appreciates the comments made by the reviewer. All the suggested concerns have been revised.

The Editor

Applied Sciences

Re: Response to reviewer’s comments

Please find, attached, the responses to the reviewer’s comments on the manuscript entitled “Exploring farmers' perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems: A case of rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa” for consideration for publication at the Applied Sciences

S/N

REVIEWER’S COMMENT

ACTION TAKEN

PAGE NO.

Reviewer 2

1

The MS entitled "Exploring farmers' perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems: A case of rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa" is well written with goof pictorial presentation.  The study explores the perceptions and willingness of farmers in vulnerable communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, to tackle drought-related issues in their communally preserved cattle herds. My suggetion to add some technical solution for drought problem.

Thank you for your positive feedback on our manuscript entitled "Exploring farmers' perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems: A case of rural communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa." We appreciate your recognition of the quality of the writing and the effectiveness of the pictorial presentation.

We agree with your suggestion to include technical solutions for addressing the drought problem in our study. Understanding farmers' perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues is essential in designing appropriate interventions and support mechanisms to enhance their resilience. As part of our ongoing research, we are actively exploring and evaluating various technical solutions that can effectively mitigate the impact of drought on communal cattle herds in the Eastern Cape.

In our revised manuscript, we incorporated a section that discusses potential technical solutions for drought-related challenges faced by farmers in the study area. We will provide a comprehensive overview of the available technical approaches, such as improved water management techniques, innovative feed and forage strategies, and climate-resilient cattle breeds. We will also discuss their feasibility, benefits, and potential barriers to implementation, taking into account the specific context of the rural communities in the Eastern Cape.

By including these technical solutions, we aim to provide valuable insights into practical measures that can be implemented to support farmers in mitigating the adverse effects of drought on their cattle production systems. Our intention is to contribute to the development of more effective and sustainable interventions and policies that can enhance the resilience and livelihoods of farmers in drought-prone regions.

Thank you for your suggestion, which aligns well with the goals of our research. We appreciate your input and believe that incorporating technical solutions will enhance the relevance and applicability of our study's findings.

If you have any further recommendations or specific technical solutions that you would like us to consider, please feel free to provide them. We value your expertise and insights.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

1-31

S/N

REVIEWER’S COMMENT

ACTION TAKEN

PAGE NO.

Reviewer 3

1

The authors have made an intense review that explores the perceptions and willingness of small-holder cattle farmers in vulnerable communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, to tackle drought-related issues in their communally preserved cattle herds. The study utilized a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data from interviews and surveys with 250 farmers from ten villages in the area. The findings indicate that farmers are aware of the impact of drought on their cattle herds and livelihoods, but face several challenges in mitigating its effects. These challenges include limited access to water and grazing land, lack of infrastructure, and insufficient support from the government. Despite these challenges, farmers display high resilience and adaptability, using various strategies to cope with drought, such as destocking, shifting to alternative livelihoods, and seeking support from their social networks. The study concludes that addressing the root causes of drought-related issues requires a multi-stakeholder approach that engages farmers as key partners in designing and implementing sustainable solutions. But in order to have a final decision, the author(s) should do the following minor revisions:

Thank you for your positive review of our manuscript on the perceptions and willingness of small-holder cattle farmers in vulnerable communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, to tackle drought-related issues. We appreciate your acknowledgment of our intensive review.

We have carefully considered your suggestion for minor revisions, and we have committed to addressing them to further enhance the quality and impact of our study.

1-31

2

At the end of the introduction, authors have to highlight the contribution of their paper.

Thank you for your insightful review of our manuscript on the perceptions and willingness of small-holder cattle farmers in vulnerable communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa, to tackle drought-related issues. We appreciate your suggestion to highlight the contribution of our paper at the end of the introduction, and we agree that this addition will enhance the clarity and impact of our study.

In response to your comment, we revised the final paragraph of the introduction to explicitly emphasize the contributions of our research. Specifically, we highlighted the following key contributions:

Originality: Our study contributes to the existing literature by providing novel insights into the perceptions and willingness of small-holder cattle farmers in the Eastern Cape to tackle drought-related issues. Through a mixed-methods approach, we have captured the experiences and perspectives of farmers in this specific context, shedding light on their challenges, strategies, and aspirations.

Practical Implications: The findings of our research have direct implications for policymakers, government agencies, and development practitioners involved in drought mitigation efforts. By understanding the factors that hinder or facilitate farmers' ability to cope with drought, stakeholders can design targeted interventions and support mechanisms that effectively address the needs of the farming communities in the Eastern Cape.

Community Engagement: We have actively engaged with the local communities throughout our research process, ensuring that their voices and experiences are accurately represented. By centering their perspectives, our study provides a platform for farmers to be heard and actively involved in shaping policies and interventions that affect their livelihoods.

Methodological Approach: Our use of a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative interviews and quantitative surveys, adds rigor and depth to our analysis. This approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of the complex dynamics and challenges faced by small-holder cattle farmers in relation to drought mitigation.

By highlighting these contributions, we aim to clearly communicate the significance and value of our research in addressing the gaps in current knowledge and providing actionable insights for stakeholders. We appreciate your suggestion, as it will enhance the overall clarity and impact of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable feedback. We are committed to incorporating your suggestions and making the necessary revisions to strengthen our paper. Should you have any further recommendations or comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.

3

Review papers are very demanding papers to write and they should propose a synthesis of the applications provided and not stating the description of the collection of applications. There are numerous review papers for every single chapter of your review; this review is too broad.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your perspective regarding the scope and focus of our paper on the applications of a particular topic. We understand your concern that the paper may be perceived as too broad and lacking in the synthesis of applications.

In response to your comment, we revised our paper to ensure that it provides a more focused and comprehensive synthesis of the applications we discuss. Rather than simply describing a collection of applications, we strive to analyze and synthesize the existing literature to identify key themes, trends, and insights related to the topic.

To achieve this, we:

Refined the Structure: We carefully organized the content of our paper to present a clear and logical flow of ideas. We ensured that each section builds upon the previous one, leading to a cohesive and comprehensive synthesis of the applications.

Identified Commonalities and Patterns: We analyzed the reviewed literature to identify commonalities, patterns, and overarching themes among the applications. By doing so, we provided a more robust synthesis that goes beyond a mere collection of examples.

Provided Insights and Conclusions: Instead of solely describing the applications, we emphasized the insights and conclusions derived from the literature. This will allow readers to gain a deeper understanding of the implications and potential directions for future research and practical applications.

By implementing these changes, we aimed to address your concerns and ensure that our paper offers a valuable synthesis of the applications in the field. We appreciate your feedback, as it guided us in refining our work to meet the expectations of the readers.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript. We incorporated your suggestions and made the necessary revisions to improve the focus and synthesis of our paper. If you have any further recommendations or comments, please do not hesitate to let us know.

4

A short paragraph detailing the structure of the paper can be added at the end of the introduction to help the readers to localize information along the paper.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. The suggested comment have been incorporated in the introduction section.

5

The information about the methodology followed to search the included papers must be added. Authors should precise the used keywords, the used search tools, if they limit their search to a certain period of time, etc This can be included in sections 1 or 2.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. The suggested comment have been incorporated in the methodology section.

6

More figures and comments have to be added.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Figures have been amended. The authors will appreciated specific recommendations from the reviewer.

7

Please add reference study using the latest machine learning and deep learning techniques.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Reference section has been revised using Mendeley referencing tool.

8

Some of the intermediate results can go in supplementary document or removed to enhance the document readability.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Suggestions made by the reviewer have been addressed.

9

Discuss the major results. Capture some limitations spanning the intermediate results.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Suggestions made by the reviewer have been addressed.

10

The paper should indicate how the current work can be scaled up or can prove to be utilitarian for other kinds of work. The authors can suggest limitations while indicating the same.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Suggestions made by the reviewer have been addressed

11

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Suggestions made by the reviewer have been addressed

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Language use in the document have been revised by an English instructor as suggested by the reviewer.

S/N

REVIEWER’S COMMENT

ACTION TAKEN

PAGE NO.

Reviewer 3

1

Line 54: ‘Mare et al. (2018) define "agricultural drought" as the absence of precipitation throughout the growing season, which generally impacts ecosystem function.’ This line is out of place, please add in an appropriate place.

Thank you for your suggestions. The sentences has been revised as suggested.

.

2

L 34: Please rephrase the sentence ‘Systems for raising livestock may be threatened by climate change, necessitating change’..

Thank you for your suggestion. The sentence has been rephrased as suggested.

.

3

L 38: Please rephrase the sentence ‘Farmers use coping methods, usually temporary corrective efforts, to survive when an unforeseen agricultural drought strikes’. This and the previous sentence has information commas and that makes it complex for readers.

Thank you for the suggestion. The sentence has been revised as suggested.

4

L 100-104: This statement could be expanded upon to highlight the significance of understanding farmers' attitudes and motivations in developing effective strategies for drought resilience and sustainable farming.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. The suggested comment have been revised..

5

L 106-108: The concluding sentence could be revised to emphasize the potential impact of the study, such as "This study aims to fill the existing research gap by exploring farmers' perceptions and willingness to address drought-related issues, providing actionable recommendations for stakeholders to promote proactive approaches and adaptive measures in agricultural development and drought management in the Eastern Cape, South Africa."

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. The suggested comment have been revised.

6

L 160: The study design lacks clarity, it adopted a mixed-methods research design but does not provide specific details on how the qualitative and quantitative data were integrated or how the findings were triangulated.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Specific details have been added as suggested.

7

L 165: Insufficient information on sampling procedure, it is mentioned that the use of purposive sampling to select participants but does not provide details on how participants were identified or criteria for inclusion.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. More details have been added as suggested by the reviewer.

8

L 172: Limited explanation of data collection methods. While it mentions questionnaire surveys, in-depth interviews, and focus group discussions, it does not provide details on how these methods were conducted, such as the number of questionnaire items, the duration of interviews, or the composition of focus groups.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. More information have been added as suggested.

9

L 206: Lack of information on data analysis. It briefly mentions the use of R software for data analysis but does not provide specific details on the analytical techniques employed.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. More information have been added as suggested..

10

L 538: The author presents the associations between demographic characteristics and cattle herd ownership without critically analyzing the findings. A thorough discussion should include possible explanations for the associations, alternative interpretations, and limitations of the study

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Suggestions made by the reviewer have been added.

11

L 552-555: The author briefly mentions that the duration of experience in cattle farming alone does not determine cattle ownership but does not provide further details or discuss other potential limitations of the study. It's important to address the limitations of the research to provide a balanced perspective.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. Suggestions made by the reviewer have been incorporated.

12

L 626: The author attributes variations in farmers' knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies to factors such as access to information and education, but does not consider other potential factors that could influence farmers' knowledge, such as cultural or contextual factors. Considering alternative explanations would provide a more comprehensive analysis.

We appreciate your insightful comments on our manuscript. You rightly pointed out that in our analysis of farmers' knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies, we primarily focused on factors such as access to information and education. We acknowledge that there are additional factors, including cultural and contextual influences that could also shape farmers' knowledge in this domain.

To address this gap, we revise our paper to incorporate a more comprehensive analysis as suggested by the reviewer.

13

L 616 & 693: The author makes general statements about the need for tailored interventions and support services but does not provide specific examples or recommendations. Adding concrete examples would enhance the practicality and applicability of the discussion.

Thank you for your thoughtful review of our manuscript. We appreciate your comment regarding the need for specific examples and recommendations to enhance the practicality and applicability of our discussion on tailored interventions and support services.

In response to your suggestion, we revised the manuscript to include concrete examples and recommendations for tailored interventions and support services. We provided specific strategies that have been successfully implemented in similar contexts or have shown promise in addressing the challenges faced by small-holder cattle farmers in drought-prone areas. These examples highlighted practical approaches that can be adapted and implemented to support farmers in mitigating the effects of drought and building resilience.

Furthermore, we incorporated recommendations based on the findings of our study and existing literature. These recommendations are specific and actionable, providing guidance to policymakers, extension workers, and other stakeholders involved in supporting small-holder cattle farmers. We emphasized the importance of context-specific interventions that consider the unique needs and circumstances of farmers in vulnerable communities, including access to water resources, improved infrastructure, training programs, and financial support.

By including concrete examples and recommendations, we aim to enhance the practicality and applicability of our discussion, providing valuable insights and guidance for practitioners and decision-makers working towards sustainable solutions for drought management in small-holder cattle production systems.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your valuable feedback and the opportunity to strengthen our manuscript. If you have any further suggestions or comments, please feel free to share them with us.

14

Lack of suggestions for future research: The author does not provide suggestions for future research or areas that require further investigation. Including this information can help guide future studies and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We acknowledge your comment regarding the lack of suggestions for future research in our paper. We agree that providing guidance for future studies is crucial in advancing knowledge and addressing remaining gaps in the field.

In response to your suggestion, we will include a dedicated section in the manuscript that highlights potential areas for future research. This section will identify key research questions and directions that can further deepen our understanding of farmers' perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems.

Specifically, we will consider the following aspects for future research:

In-depth exploration of cultural and contextual factors: We will encourage researchers to investigate the influence of cultural and contextual factors on farmers' knowledge and understanding of drought management strategies. This can provide insights into the socio-cultural dynamics that shape farmers' decision-making processes and their adoption of drought mitigation measures.

Longitudinal studies: Conducting longitudinal studies to assess the long-term effectiveness of different drought mitigation strategies and interventions can provide valuable information on their sustainability and impact over time. This can help identify best practices and inform the development of evidence-based policies and programs.

Comparative analysis: Comparing the experiences and outcomes of farmers in different regions or communities facing similar drought challenges can help identify contextual factors that contribute to varying levels of resilience and adaptive capacity. This comparative analysis can shed light on effective strategies that can be shared and replicated across different contexts.

Economic analysis: Incorporating economic analysis into future research can provide insights into the cost-effectiveness and financial feasibility of different drought management strategies. Evaluating the economic benefits and returns on investment of these strategies can assist policymakers and farmers in making informed decisions and prioritizing resource allocation.

Participatory approaches: Encouraging studies that adopt participatory approaches, involving farmers as active participants and co-designers of interventions, can lead to more contextually relevant and sustainable solutions. Participatory research can empower farmers, enhance their ownership of the interventions, and improve the overall success of drought mitigation efforts.

By highlighting these potential areas for future research, we aim to inspire further investigation and contribute to the advancement of knowledge in the field of drought management in small-holder cattle production systems.

Once again, we appreciate your insightful comments and suggestions, which will undoubtedly strengthen the quality and impact of our manuscript. If you have any additional recommendations or feedback, please do not hesitate to let us know.

15

Lack of engagement with existing literature: The author does not engage in a meaningful discussion or comparison with existing literature on the topic. Integrating and analyzing previous research findings would strengthen the discussion and provide a broader context for the study.

Thank you for your constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your comment regarding the lack of engagement with existing literature in our paper. We acknowledge the importance of integrating and analyzing previous research findings to provide a broader context for our study and strengthen the discussion.

In response to your suggestion, we revised the manuscript to include a comprehensive review of relevant literature in the field. This involved a critical analysis and synthesis of existing studies that have explored farmers' perceptions and willingness to tackle drought-related issues in small-holder cattle production systems.

Specifically, we addressed the following aspects in relation to the existing literature:

Comparative analysis: We compared our findings with those of previous studies to identify similarities, differences, and emerging patterns. This enabled us to contextualize our results and contribute to a better understanding of the topic.

Theoretical frameworks: We engaged with relevant theoretical frameworks and models that have been used in previous studies. By drawing upon these frameworks, we provided a theoretical basis for our research and offer insights into the underlying mechanisms that shape farmers' perceptions and willingness to adopt drought mitigation strategies.

Methodological considerations: We discussed the strengths and limitations of previous research methodologies employed in the field. This helped to contextualize our own methodology and highlight any methodological innovations or improvements that we have introduced in our study.

Emerging trends and gaps: We identified emerging trends or gaps in the existing literature that our study aims to address. By doing so, position our research within the broader research landscape and highlight its novelty and contribution to the field.

By engaging in a meaningful discussion and comparison with existing literature, we aimed to provide a more comprehensive analysis and enhance the overall quality and impact of our manuscript.

Once again, we appreciate your insightful comments, which will undoubtedly improve the scholarly rigor and relevance of our work. If you have any additional recommendations or feedback, please do not hesitate to let us know.

S/N

REVIEWER’S COMMENT

ACTION TAKEN

PAGE NO.

Reviewer 1

1

I did not find any improvement regarding the quality of the figures

Thank you for your valuable feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestion regarding the figures, and we agree that they need further refinement to enhance their presentation. We took your comments into consideration and make the necessary improvements.

To address the issue of rough figures, we allocated additional time and effort to polish them. This included improving the clarity of the visuals, refining the labels and annotations, and ensuring that the figures align with the overall design and style of the manuscript.

We understand the importance of visually appealing and well-polished figures in conveying information to the readers. By enhancing the quality and presentation of the figures, we aimed to improve the overall readability and professionalism of the manuscript.

Once again, we sincerely appreciate your constructive feedback, which will undoubtedly contribute to the overall improvement of our work. We diligently worked on the figures to address your concerns and ensure that they meet the required standards.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

S/N

REVIEWER’S COMMENT

ACTION TAKEN

PAGE NO.

Reviewer 4

1

Thank you for incorporating the reviewers' suggestions. The manuscript is in good shape now.

Thank you for your positive feedback on the revised version of our manuscript. We greatly appreciate your acknowledgment that the manuscript is in good shape after incorporating the reviewers' suggestions.

We are pleased to hear that the revisions have met your expectations. We took the reviewers' comments and suggestions seriously, and we made every effort to address them comprehensively. Your valuable input has undoubtedly contributed to the overall improvement and quality of our work.

We would like to express our gratitude for your time and expertise in reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive feedback and guidance have been invaluable in shaping the final version of our paper. We are grateful for your contribution to the scholarly dialogue in this field.

Once again, thank you for your positive assessment of our manuscript. We are pleased with the outcome and are grateful for your support throughout the review process..