I have read the abovementioned paper. The analysis is executed well, and I am generally well satisfied with the paper. However, there are some small issues that should be solved before the paper is accepted. I list them in the order I encountered them in the paper.

1. line 66. Gravity model is a statistical, i.e. empirical model. Therefore, writing "statistical and gravity models are less suitable" is confusing for a reader. Authors should explain what other empirical models apart from gravity models are used and reformulate this part.
2. I find motivation for the use of ABM very brief and insufficient. Authors could for example refer to Savin et al. (2023) who argued that ABMs help to combine insights from different disciplines (in this case, behavioural economics/psychology, agriculture and climate adaptation) by seriously addresing the role of bounded rationality, social interaction and agent heterogeneity. You could also refer to a recent literature review on the use of ABM to climate issues like by Castro et al., 2020.

 Savin I. F. Creutzig, T. Filatova, J. Foramitti, T. Konc, L. Niamir, K. Safarzynska and J. van den Bergh, 2023 Agent-based modeling to                          integrate elements from different disciplines for ambitious climate policy, WIREs Climate Change 14(2):  e811  https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.811

Castro J., Drews S., Exadaktylos F., Foramitti J., Klein F., Konc T., Savin I. and van den Bergh J.,  2020 A Review of Agent-based Modelling of  Climate-Energy Policy, WIREs Climate Change 11(4):e647 https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.647

1. reference error on p. 6 lie 148
2. font size in figures like  4 and 5 is too small. Please make sure all figures are readable. Similarly, indices (a,b,c) in figures like 9 and 10 could be improved by putting them outside the plot. Currently they are too small and sometimes overlap with plot content
3. Finally, the text should be spell checked. e.g. on p. 22 "Third, The input" or "from Ton, Marijn, (2023)"

The paper presents a comprehensive and well-constructed model addressing a significant issue, showcasing both the quality of writing and the relevance of the problem tackled. However, to ensure its suitability for publication, it's essential to address several major concerns crucial for enhancing the paper's credibility and impact within the scientific community.

Major Comments:

• The paper introduces a model focused on adaptation strategies in rural Mozambique but does not convincingly justify its suitability for this specific environment. The application of expected utility theory seems incongruent with the decision-making realities of rural Mozambican farmers, especially considering insights from urban coastal households (Noll et al., 2022). These insights suggest that adaptation behaviors are heavily influenced by non-economic factors, which are presumably more pronounced in rural settings where traditional knowledge and heuristics play a larger role. Furthermore, the use of urban housing values to assess expected annual damages further questions the model's applicability, potentially leading to skewed results. Moreover, the model proposes structural adaptation strategies like elevation that may be impractical and unreflective of the actual measures farmers in rural Mozambique might undertake. This incongruity points to a critical need for the model to integrate a more nuanced understanding of the behavioral patterns and economic realities pertinent to the rural Mozambican context, raising the question of the reliability of the projections presented.
• Another significant point that makes me doubt the results presented in this study is the lack of any type of validation. Validation is crucial for establishing the reliability of model outputs, and the absence of any such exercise undermines the strength of the conclusions drawn. Although the challenge of obtaining empirical data for rural Mozambique is acknowledged, the paper would benefit from an attempt to validate the model, perhaps through comparisons with historical trends or alignment with known stylized facts about the region. Without this, the model's predictions remain hypothetical and their relevance to actual scenarios in Mozambique is uncertain.
• The sensitivity analysis presented in the study appears to be insufficient. A more robust analysis should consider a wider range of parameter values beyond a few discrete scenarios, which would allow for a better understanding of the model's behavior under different conditions (especially given the points raised before). For instance, the potential impact of soil salinization could be examined over a spectrum of possibilities, such as a 50% increase in salinity levels, to reflect possible variations in climate change outcomes.
• The he paper needs to clearly articulate the relationship between income dynamics and environmental factors such as crop salinization. It is important to determine whether farmers' incomes are fixed regardless of the salinization process. The change in crop yield would have a significant impact on farmers’ income, which would play a crucial role in their ability to undertake adaptation action or migrate. This is essential for realistically modeling farmers' capacity to adapt or migrate. Maintaining constant income despite climate changes risks underestimating the economic impact of salinization, potentially restricting farmers' options and leading to misleading results.

Minor Comments:

1. The justification for the choice of 50 repetitions within the model simulations is unclear. I am not saying it is wrong, but such methodological decisions should be supported by a metric that validates the number's adequacy to capture the variability in results.
2. The manuscript has omissions in referencing (reference not found), such as missing citations in figure captions and on page 6, line 145.
3. The consideration of demographic trends, such as the impact of young people's outmigration on fertility rates and population growth, is lacking. I'm not suggesting that the authors should include it explicitly, but they should reflect upon its implications (Hauer et al., 2024).
4. A reflective discussion on the broader implications of the study's results for the scientific literature and their practical significance would be beneficial. The paper should emphasize how its findings contribute new understanding in the field of climate adaptation.

In summary, the paper presents a valuable model but risks drawing conclusions that may not align with the complexities of the real-world situation in rural Mozambique. More robust and detailed analyses, along with an expanded discussion on the implications of the results, are necessary to ensure the paper's relevance and contribution to the scientific community.

References:

Hauer, M. E., Jacobs, S. A., & Kulp, S. A. (2024). Climate migration amplifies demographic change and population aging. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 121(3), e2206192119. https://doi.org/10.1073/PNAS.2206192119/SUPPL_FILE/PNAS.2206192119.SAPP.PDF

Noll, B., Filatova, T., Need, A., & Taberna, A. (2022). Contextualizing cross-national patterns in household climate change adaptation. Nature Climate Change, 12(1), 30–35. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01222-3