Engaging Smallholders in Flower Agribusiness for Inclusive Rural Development: The Case of Yunnan, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article has been improved from the previous version. The grammar is still a bit wobbly and the article would benefit from a native tongue proofreading
Author Response
Point 1: The article has been improved from the previous version. The grammar is still a bit wobbly and the article would benefit from a native tongue proofreading
Response 1: We have checked up the grammar.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have reviewed this article before and was quite perplexed by the lack of a classic academic structure, with no clear methodological approach to tackle the research question. The authors have done only other types of revision to the article, but they still do not have a methods section where they clearly explain how they choose to do what they do. So, while I find it an engaging descriptive story with some analytical elements, and I see improvements from the previous edition, it is quite far from what I would define an academic article.
Author Response
Point 1: I have reviewed this article before and was quite perplexed by the lack of a classic academic structure, with no clear methodological approach to tackle the research question. The authors have done only other types of revision to the article, but they still do not have a methods section where they clearly explain how they choose to do what they do. So, while I find it an engaging descriptive story with some analytical elements, and I see improvements from the previous edition, it is quite far from what I would define an academic article.
Response 1: “We intend to identify the institution and mechanisms for engaging smallholders in rural development by presenting a case of flower-growing agribusiness in rural Yunnan, an underdeveloped province in China” (lines 57-59). This is our main research question. Figure 1 (p.4) sets up the framework of institutional change in history. “The research methodology adopted is of intensive case study that intends to dis-cover insights how institutional change has occurred in the development of flow-er-growing agriculture in Yunnan. During 2017 – 2019, we conducted several on-site investigations in Dounan and Tonghai, Yunnan to have interviews with smallholder farmers, smallholder associations and agribusiness firms engaged in flower agriculture (lines 71-75). “In Tonghai, we have interviewed 96 smallholder farmers, 13 smallholder associa-tions and 7 agribusiness firms that are engaged in flower growing agriculture” (lines 208-209). It is a qualitative case study based on interviews, not a quantitative research. The paper is not about simple description. There are insights that are not known in the academic community yet.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This paper needs to be carefully reorganized with a clearly stated argument spelled out in the opening pages. Many statements are expressed without explanation as to the data on which they are based. The conclusions drawn are not well justified in the data collected. There is very little critical analysis of the data. The manuscript does not provide sufficient justification for the described and explicated findings that appear to lack empirical consistency. The first section is a bit general and the reader cannot really see where the author(s) are and where they are going. Addressing research questions, hypotheses and research objectives would help the reader at this point. Some important concepts are discussed but the reader doesn’t know why they are relevant or the connection between them. Besides, it is advisable to state clearly the aim of this paper and justify the theoretical framework. Apart from compiling key studies, a critical approach to the literature is required. It is true that the authors address key concepts, but this is not good enough for a solid, serious research paper. If the authors rearrange and adopt a critical point of view when writing the theoretical framework, information will be then meaningful. The key to effective research is not just gathering a lot of information, but also evaluating the information and making sense of it. The author should work harder on the approach adopted, establish a clear theoretical background to contextualize the analysis and narrow the scope of the analysis to specific aspects.
Author Response
Point 1: This paper needs to be carefully reorganized with a clearly stated argument spelled out in the opening pages. Many statements are expressed without explanation as to the data on which they are based. The conclusions drawn are not well justified in the data collected. There is very little critical analysis of the data. The manuscript does not provide sufficient justification for the described and explicated findings that appear to lack empirical consistency. The first section is a bit general and the reader cannot really see where the author(s) are and where they are going. Addressing research questions, hypotheses and research objectives would help the reader at this point. Some important concepts are discussed but the reader doesn’t know why they are relevant or the connection between them. Besides, it is advisable to state clearly the aim of this paper and justify the theoretical framework. Apart from compiling key studies, a critical approach to the literature is required. It is true that the authors address key concepts, but this is not good enough for a solid, serious research paper. If the authors rearrange and adopt a critical point of view when writing the theoretical framework, information will be then meaningful. The key to effective research is not just gathering a lot of information, but also evaluating the information and making sense of it. The author should work harder on the approach adopted, establish a clear theoretical background to contextualize the analysis and narrow the scope of the analysis to specific aspects.
Response 1: “We intend to identify the institution and mechanisms for engaging smallholders in rural development by presenting a case of flower-growing agribusiness in rural Yunnan, an underdeveloped province in China” (lines 57-59). This is our main research question. Figure 1 (p.4) sets up the framework of institutional change in history. “The research methodology adopted is of intensive case study that intends to dis-cover insights how institutional change has occurred in the development of flow-er-growing agriculture in Yunnan. During 2017 – 2019, we conducted several on-site investigations in Dounan and Tonghai, Yunnan to have interviews with smallholder farmers, smallholder associations and agribusiness firms engaged in flower agriculture (lines 71-75). “In Tonghai, we have interviewed 96 smallholder farmers, 13 smallholder associa-tions and 7 agribusiness firms that are engaged in flower growing agriculture” (lines 208-209). It is a qualitative case study based on interviews, not a quantitative research that is often number-crunching. The paper is not about simple description. There are insights that are not known in the academic community yet.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article takes up an interesting topic and certainly important in the discussion on sustainable rural development. Unfortunately, in its current form, in my opinion it isn't suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal.
First of all, the article should be structurized. The lack of this logical orderly structure adopted for scientific articles most likely indicates that the article has low scientific value.
The article does not contain an explicitly defined goal, a temporal scope, an unambiguously defined spatial scope of research in one place. No discussion of the methodology. Actually, it is not known what study the authors conducted. It is only known that they based their article on some interviews, but it is not known when and how they were conducted. No statistical analysis was provided to lead to conclusions. There is no methodological chapter and no chapter for clear results.
In the last sentence of the Conclusion section there is a reference to the enrichment of the inclusive rural development theory, however there is no reference to this theory in the introduction of the paper.
The article is mainly a description of the history of agriculcure in China. The authors use many statements about what is agriculture in China, but not much references to this knowledge are given. The lack of systematization of the entire statement leads to the fact that the article is a constant repetition of the same statements and fragments of the history of agriculture at various secions in the article.
The link between research and this description with sustainable development has not been practically explained. Have the authors only dealt with the economic and social part of sustainable development, or does their research also concern the impact of flowers aglicurture manner on the environment and ecological agricurture as well? The authors should first define what they mean by "sustainable rural development", which they refer to in the Conclussion section, and what they understand by the concept of "inclusive rural developmentmnet", which they refer to in the title and introduction to the article.
I suggest that the authors consider proposing a flower business model that, in their opinion, would be desirable in China for underdeveloped regions, and then compare the actual situation to this model with an ordered description.
Additionally, I have a few technical notes:
- The abstract does not contain the purpose of the article, the basic method and the main research result.
- With many footnotes there are web pages, e.g. lines 30, 31, 197, 225, etc. This should all be included in the Reference list
- Figure 1 is hardly legible and it is not known what is going on - it is not very communicative
- The maps are of too poor quality. There is no legend on the maps. Figure 3 does not write "Note: the black dot is ..." on the map, but it should be made a legend, as in figure 4
- Table 1 is also not readable. The first result line is a total, which should be at the bottom and labeled as a total.
Author Response
Point 1: The article takes up an interesting topic and certainly important in the discussion on sustainable rural development. Unfortunately, in its current form, in my opinion it isn't suitable for publication in the Sustainability journal.
First of all, the article should be structurized. The lack of this logical orderly structure adopted for scientific articles most likely indicates that the article has low scientific value.
Response 1: It is an intensive case study intending to discover insights in relation to institutional change along with the background of severe shortage of farmland and thus pervasive smallholder farming. It is not a quantitative study. It is structured as most case studies are. It does not adopt a structure quantitative papers do. It does not mean qualitative papers do not have scientific value. Instead, simple number-crunching quantitation papers appear scientific, but actually do not have scientific value.
Point 2: The article does not contain an explicitly defined goal, a temporal scope, an unambiguously defined spatial scope of research in one place. No discussion of the methodology. Actually, it is not known what study the authors conducted. It is only known that they based their article on some interviews, but it is not known when and how they were conducted. No statistical analysis was provided to lead to conclusions. There is no methodological chapter and no chapter for clear results.
Response 2: “We intend to identify the institution and mechanisms for engaging smallholders in rural development by presenting a case of flower-growing agribusiness in rural Yunnan, an underdeveloped province in China” (lines 57-59). This is our main research question. Figure 1 (p.4) sets up the framework of institutional change in history. “The research methodology adopted is of intensive case study that intends to dis-cover insights how institutional change has occurred in the development of flow-er-growing agriculture in Yunnan. During 2017 – 2019, we conducted several on-site investigations in Dounan and Tonghai, Yunnan to have interviews with smallholder farmers, smallholder associations and agribusiness firms engaged in flower agriculture (lines 71-75). “In Tonghai, we have interviewed 96 smallholder farmers, 13 smallholder associa-tions and 7 agribusiness firms that are engaged in flower growing agriculture” (lines 208-209).
Point 3: In the last sentence of the Conclusion section there is a reference to the enrichment of the inclusive rural development theory, however there is no reference to this theory in the introduction of the paper.
Response 3: The paper is about institutional change (not inclusive rural development per se) and it results in an institution that is conducive to inclusive rural development that engages smallholder farmers. Inclusiveness means engaging smallholder farmers in rural development, rather than domination by agricultural firms.
Point 4: The article is mainly a description of the history of agriculcure in China. The authors use many statements about what is agriculture in China, but not much references to this knowledge are given. The lack of systematization of the entire statement leads to the fact that the article is a constant repetition of the same statements and fragments of the history of agriculture at various secions in the article.
Response 4: “We intend to identify the institution and mechanisms for engaging smallholders in rural development by presenting a case of flower-growing agribusiness in rural Yunnan, an underdeveloped province in China” (lines 57-59). This is our main research question. It is a qualitative case study based on interviews, not a quantitative research. The paper is not about simple description. There are insights that are not known in the academic community yet.
Point 5: The link between research and this description with sustainable development has not been practically explained. Have the authors only dealt with the economic and social part of sustainable development, or does their research also concern the impact of flowers aglicurture manner on the environment and ecological agricurture as well? The authors should first define what they mean by "sustainable rural development", which they refer to in the Conclussion section, and what they understand by the concept of "inclusive rural developmentmnet", which they refer to in the title and introduction to the article.
Response 5: The paper does not intend to deal with the ecology. Sustainable development in this paper refers to the socioeconomic aspect.
Point 6: I suggest that the authors consider proposing a flower business model that, in their opinion, would be desirable in China for underdeveloped regions, and then compare the actual situation to this model with an ordered description.
Response 6: The paper is not meant to be a quantitative one. Modelling is not what the authors intend to do.
Point 7: Additionally, I have a few technical notes:
- The abstract does not contain the purpose of the article, the basic method and the main research result.
- With many footnotes there are web pages, e.g. lines 30, 31, 197, 225, etc. This should all be included in the Reference list
- Figure 1 is hardly legible and it is not known what is going on - it is not very communicative
- The maps are of too poor quality. There is no legend on the maps. Figure 3 does not write "Note: the black dot is ..." on the map, but it should be made a legend, as in figure 4
- Table 1 is also not readable. The first result line is a total, which should be at the bottom and labeled as a total.
Response 7: “The organization for commercial flower-farming is, however, at issue” in the abstract is the research question. The following sentences in the abstract are the findings. “Grower associations nevertheless spontaneously emerge with flexibility of entry and exit of members without binding joint-assets and joint-ownership, facilitated by technological change to the transaction. Empirical investigation in Tonghai, Yunnan, unveils the institution of agribusiness-smallholder partnership for inclusive rural development. Smallholders have actively participated in the flower agriculture, which has contributed significantly to the development of rural economies. High-casualty of micro-smallholders suggests that farm size is an important and crucial factor for sustainable farming. Effective rural development has to be supported by endogenous non-agricultural jobs so that farm size can be increased.”
It seems the reviewer is not familiar with the style of this research, while other reviewers can understand the paper and flow of analysis pretty well. Figure 1 is about the path of institutional change and constraints in relation to the changes. As long as it is clear, presentation of maps is up to the authors. Table 1 has been changed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Taking Yunnan Province of China as an example, this manuscript studies the participation of smallholders in integrated flower agriculture to achieve inclusive rural development. This is a very interesting topic. Facing the common phenomenon of arable land scarcity in China, smallholders become the default mode of agricultural development in China. Based on empirical research data, this manuscript conducts a case study on the comprehensive management of flower agriculture in Yunnan, China. Although the analysis in this manuscript is simple enough to get to the point, there are a few minor issues that need to be addressed before publication:
1. The introduction section of problem rising is not sufficient, and it is suggested to strengthen and improve it.
2. The second part of the institutional change, the content is a little complicated, suggest a structured sorting. In addition, the evolution process of farming modes in Figure 1 needs to be further improved. The current evolution logic is not clear enough and does not correspond to the content of the text.
3. Figure 2 location map of study area, it is suggested to combine (a) and (b) into one map.
4. Figures 3 and 4 do not seem to be of much significance for this manuscript. And the title in figure 3 is not quite correct. "... 3. Results "? What does it mean? Figure 4 is a topographic map, but it lacks the corresponding topographic slope legend.
5. Table 1 is "surviving rates" according to the table caption, but a closer look at the content of the table shows that the "surviving number" is more accurate.
6. What exactly is the meaning of Table 2? In addition, the contents of the table do not seem to correspond to the contents of the text.
7. The references do not conform to the specification, and it is suggested to revise it.
8. The language expression in this manuscript is a little too Chinglish, so I suggest to invite some native speakers to revise and improve it.
Author Response
Taking Yunnan Province of China as an example, this manuscript studies the participation of smallholders in integrated flower agriculture to achieve inclusive rural development. This is a very interesting topic. Facing the common phenomenon of arable land scarcity in China, smallholders become the default mode of agricultural development in China. Based on empirical research data, this manuscript conducts a case study on the comprehensive management of flower agriculture in Yunnan, China. Although the analysis in this manuscript is simple enough to get to the point, there are a few minor issues that need to be addressed before publication:
Point 1: The introduction section of problem rising is not sufficient, and it is suggested to strengthen and improve it.
Response 1: The following sentences are added. “The research methodology adopted is of intensive case study that intends to dis-cover insights how institutional change has occurred in the development of flow-er-growing agriculture in Yunnan. During 2017 – 2019, we conducted several on-site investigations in Dounan and Tonghai, Yunnan to have interviews with smallholder farmers, smallholder associations and agribusiness firms engaged in flower agriculture (lines 71-75). “In Tonghai, we have interviewed 96 smallholder farmers, 13 smallholder associations and 7 agribusiness firms that are engaged in flower growing agriculture” (lines 208-209).
Point 2: The second part of the institutional change, the content is a little complicated, suggest a structured sorting. In addition, the evolution process of farming modes in Figure 1 needs to be further improved. The current evolution logic is not clear enough and does not correspond to the content of the text.
Response 2: “Figure 1 shows the historical path along which the farming modes have evolved. Farming institutional changes are driven by the problem-solving as well as socioeconomic changes. Smallholder farming creates the problems of farmland fragmentation and lack of economies of scale, while collective farming (People’s Commune and co-operatives) is either of low productivity or breeding the free rider problem. On the demand and supply sides, urbanization has created demand for commercial agricultural produce, and urbanization generates non-farm jobs to those peasants who leave farming and pass on their farmland to the fellow smallholders and thus increasing the economies of landholding scale” (lines 171-179). We wish this paragraph explains the logic clear enough.
Point 3: Figure 2 location map of study area, it is suggested to combine (a) and (b) into one map.
Response 3: It is clearer to have two, instead of one map where Tonghai would be invisible.
Point 4: Figures 3 and 4 do not seem to be of much significance for this manuscript. And the title in figure 3 is not quite correct. "... 3. Results "? What does it mean? Figure 4 is a topographic map, but it lacks the corresponding topographic slope legend.
Response 4: Figure 3 is meant to provide relevant information about flower growing in Yunnan, which is a big picture of flower growing in Yunnan. ‘3. Results’ is deleted. Figure 4 just wants to show the areas is hilly. It does not intend to show the heights, slopes etc.
Point 5: Table 1 is "surviving rates" according to the table caption, but a closer look at the content of the table shows that the "surviving number" is more accurate.
Response 5: Thanks for pointing out the error. It has been corrected.
Point 6: What exactly is the meaning of Table 2? In addition, the contents of the table do not seem to correspond to the contents of the text.
Response 6: It shows the usefulness of agricultural firms and associations in helping the smallholders.
Point 7: The references do not conform to the specification, and it is suggested to revise it.
Response 7: It is addressed.
Point 8: The language expression in this manuscript is a little too Chinglish, so I suggest to invite some native speakers to revise and improve it.
Response 8: It has been addressed.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The article has been improved from the previous version. The authors responded to the comments.
Author Response
Point 1: The article has been improved from the previous version. The authors responded to the comments.
Response 1: Many thanks for your valuable comments and recognition.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
Authors response: It seems the reviewer is not familiar with the style of this research, while other reviewers can understand the paper and flow of analysis pretty well. Figure 1 is about the path of institutional change and constraints in relation to the changes. As long as it is clear, presentation of maps is up to the authors. Table 1 has been changed.
Reviwer: I am not agree with the authors. I am very familiar with this kind of articles and in my opinion they have low meaning for science development. I do not expect the authors of a quantitative research. I accept qualitative research as well, however, qualitative research also requires discussing the method of conducting the research and the entire methodology. And even more than quantitative one. Understanding the research procedure is necessary to assess the quality of the research and the validity of the results obtained. For example, how the authors secured themselves against subjectively influencing the obtained information from the interviewed sample? How the authors secured themselves against the subjective assessment of the obtained results? - How authors avoided scientific bias? Qualitative research should also be conducted in accordance with the regime of scientific methodology. Case study as a method also has its own adopted procedure. An interview as a method also has its own procedure, i.e. setting a goal, selecting questions, selecting people for the interview, the way the interview was taken, interview report, conclusions. Authors can find a lot of literature discussing the principles of conducting scientific research, including qualitative methods. Besides, the purpose of the research and the article is not the same as the research question. I would like the authors to familiarize themselves with the principles / procedures of the correct research process in international literature. Whether it is a quantitative or qualitative research is just a kind of a group of methods, while the research process begins with research questions, research hypotheses / theses, and only then the method is selected.
I saw that the authors added a few sentences about the method used in the Introduction section, however, I believe that it is not enough.
Author Response
Point 1: I am not agree with the authors. I am very familiar with this kind of articles and in my opinion they have low meaning for science development. I do not expect the authors of a quantitative research. I accept qualitative research as well, however, qualitative research also requires discussing the method of conducting the research and the entire methodology. And even more than quantitative one. Understanding the research procedure is necessary to assess the quality of the research and the validity of the results obtained. For example, how the authors secured themselves against subjectively influencing the obtained information from the interviewed sample? How the authors secured themselves against the subjective assessment of the obtained results? - How authors avoided scientific bias? Qualitative research should also be conducted in accordance with the regime of scientific methodology. Case study as a method also has its own adopted procedure. An interview as a method also has its own procedure, i.e. setting a goal, selecting questions, selecting people for the interview, the way the interview was taken, interview report, conclusions. Authors can find a lot of literature discussing the principles of conducting scientific research, including qualitative methods. Besides, the purpose of the research and the article is not the same as the research question. I would like the authors to familiarize themselves with the principles / procedures of the correct research process in international literature. Whether it is a quantitative or qualitative research is just a kind of a group of methods, while the research process begins with research questions, research hypotheses / theses, and only then the method is selected.
I saw that the authors added a few sentences about the method used in the Introduction section, however, I believe that it is not enough.
Response 1: So it means that the reviewer does not agree with us. We have provided the survey methodology that is called intensive fieldwork based on snowball sampling interviews. The methodology part of the paper is revised a bit accordingly. In this case, we were under serious constraints of all those fieldworks in China faced. For instance, there was no overall information of population available about the numbers of agri-business firms and smallholder farmers in Tonghai. We did not even know where the subjects were. How could we do a proper sampling? The research is therefore exploratory in nature. Principles in the textbook sound good, but the real world does not allow us to follow desk-top ideals. We are not prohibited from doing exploration, are we?
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 5 Report
Thank you for the author's responses and modifications to my comments in the last round. Currently, the manuscript of this version has basically reached the level of publication. However, As for the Figures in the manuscript, I still think it is necessary to modify and improve them accordingly and suggest the authors to optimize them according to the suggestions of the last round.
Author Response
Point 1: Thank you for the author's responses and modifications to my comments in the last round. Currently, the manuscript of this version has basically reached the level of publication. However, As for the Figures in the manuscript, I still think it is necessary to modify and improve them accordingly and suggest the authors to optimize them according to the suggestions of the last round.
Response 1: Figures 2 and 4 have been revised.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 4 Report
Have no additional comments besides in my opinion the methodology of the research is still not explained properly.
Author Response
Point 1: Have no additional comments besides in my opinion the methodology of the research is still not explained properly.
Response 1: The research methodology adopted is of intensive case study that intends to discover insights how institutional change has occurred in the development of flower-growing agriculture in Yunnan. During 2017 – 2019, we conducted several on-site investigations in Dounan and Tonghai, Yunnan to conduct interviews with smallholder farmers, smallholder associations and agribusiness firms engaged in flower agriculture. As there was no overall information of population available about the numbers of agri-business firms and smallholder farmers in Tonghai, we used the snowball technique in the selection of samples.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
