Supporting the capacities and knowledge of small-holder farmers in Kenya for sustainable agricultural futures: A Citizen Science pilot project

Authors’ response to Min J Cho:

Insight into monitoring smallholder farmers' ecological and socioeconomic change is often met with challenges due to difficulty in collecting data. This aspect, as authors assert, lead to difficulties in local and regional policy making in emergency situations and in long term decision making. Hence, this case study, using citizen science and mobile technology to gather information about local agricultural production proves to be a valuable and much needed approach in collecting and monitoring 'real time' data of crop yield, disease outbreaks, pest control, and area production accounting for differing environmental contexts. As with most mobile data collection approach, the access to mobile data and airtime would be critical to make citizen science approach successful. Despite such barriers, scaling up this approach has the potential to give agency to the farmers to make better informed decisions and share knowledge of best practices.

The paper could be strengthened by discussing the importance of co-designed tool especially on the value of local knowledge-practice and innovation and experimentation. This key aspect could be elaborated and discussed further. For instance, by exploring the specific practices involved in knowledge co-production, the process of conducting transdisciplinary and co-production of knowledge research projects, stakeholder needs, and research team capacities.

Authors’ response: We have extended the discussion of the importance of co-designed tools at the top of pg. 4, in the section on Engagement and Participatory Design. Here we emphasise the benefits of understanding stakeholder needs, both to the ultimate goals of the project and the design process itself. We also emphasise how this generates a more equitable partnership and sense of local ownership.

The practical implications could also be discussed, for instance, lessons learned during the process of assessing user needs, which is an essential element of co-producing knowledge.

Authors’ response: We have extended the discussion of user feedback at the top of pg. 12 and have highlighted lessons learned concerning knowledge sharing, data provision and data synchronisation.

Authors’ response to Annie Trevenen-Jones:

As the authors assert, there is a lack of knowledge and valuation of smallholder farmers agricultural production practices including their choices, innovation and experimentation. In Africa smallholder farmers are a key part of local food systems and need to be included in efforts to enhance resilience to climate change re: yields of diverse, nutritious foods. This case study, using citizen science and mobile technology to gather information about local agricultural production illustrates the agency of smallholder farmers - albeit with a small 'proof of concept' sample -  and offers interesting insights into the 'real time' reporting of a diversity of crops grown and challenges, like pests and diseases, as per production that is spread out over a sizeable area with differing environmental contexts. The authors argue that notwithstanding some barriers like airtime, scaling up this concept has the potential to more widely share knowledge between farmers, for farmers to receive timely technical inputs as well as provide data to better inform decisions, in 'real time', such as, disease break-outs, timings and duration as well as tracking climate linked emergencies.

This article could be enhanced by addressing a few gaps in the logic and flow of discussion - examples: it may be more relevant to speak of 'food insecurity' and 'malnutrition in all its forms' vs 'nutritional deficiencies' as linking it to the food system challenge of increasing urbanisation, growing population and climate change;

Authors’ response: The wording has been clarified, particularly in the first paragraph, second sentence.

more could also be made of the value of citizen science in this case e.g. ownership of ''data gathering'' and ''solutions'' and agency of smallholder farmers;

Authors’ response: We have extended this discussion to emphasise ‘opportunities for empowering farmers to collect, share, own and act on their own data’, see pg 1, second para.

a more definitive argument about diversity of crop production re: types of crops, timings of production and resilience to malnutrition in all its forms and food insecurity (insufficient access to preferred and sufficient food, at all times) - especially those most vulnerable as this illustrates the value of smallholder farmers in Africa and enhances the climate resilience value.

Authors’ response: We have strengthened the argument here to emphasise the value of Citizen science in extending the case for farmer-led resilience. See pg 2, third para, last sentence.

The reported data illustrates what farmers practiced and brings together a picture of actual, local production and by inference a reflection of choices made by smallholder farmers - across time and space. However, the paper also argues that this approach and the co-designed tool illustrates the value of local knowledge-practice and innovation and experimentation. This key aspect could be more richly discussed.

Author’s response: while innovation and experimentation is mentioned in the paper we do not here focus centrally on these aspects since the pilot study offers proof of concept only. We do argue tentatively that the diversity of crop combinations grown may be considered an index of innovation and experimentation but more spatial and longitudinal data would be required to demonstrate this. Such data does exist and we have published such elsewhere (Davies 2015; Davies et al. 2016) but these data do not come from the Citizen Science pilot project but from longer term ethnographic, historical and archaeological data. We briefly discuss this on pg. 2, para 3 but are hesitate to offer a more extended discussion here since the pilot data collected is currently limited on these points.

A final point to consider is reporting on a selection of socio-economic demographics of the initial and final pilot test sample (n=12; then n = 6) e.g. gender and age (and income, education if available). 

Author’s response: the demographics have been updated in text.

It is further suggested that the authors review the frequent use of ''often'' through-out the paper.

Author’s response: wording has been modified in several places.