Antecedents of Livelihood Development Using Cold Chains in the Horticultural Sector of the Emerging Markets: A Systematic Literature Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. This is an interesting study focussing the emerging economies in the domain of horticulture.

2. The contribution of the paper needs to be clearly mentioned.

3. it is necessary to mention the research limitations and recommendations in a separate section.

I hope this will help you to write your comments. Thanks so much for your help.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on this manuscript. I am grateful for the insightful comments on this paper. I have been able to incorporate changes and highlighted the changes made in the manuscript.

Comment1

1. This is an interesting study focussing the emerging economies in the domain of horticulture.

Response 1: Thank You.

Comment2

2. The contribution of the paper needs to be mentioned.

Response 2: The contribution of the paper has been rectified in the conclusion section, i.e., section 5, on lines no 465-486.

Comment3

3. it is necessary to mention the research limitations and recommendations in a separate section.

I hope this will help you to write your comments. Thanks so much for your help.

Response 3: A separate Limitation and Recommendation section has been added to the manuscript, i.e., section 4.2, on line no 400-410.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

 

 

Maidul et al systematically reviewed the Diversification of Livelihood Development using Cold Chains in 2 the Horticultural Sector of Emerging Markets. Using the TCCM framework, the paper offers a Systematic Literature Review of 67 scholarly 21 research papers with fifty or more citations published between 2000 and 2021 in EBSCO, Scopus, 22 Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. I appreciate the authors for collecting a large volume of literature for over a decade. I recommend the publication of their results after major revisions as suggested below.

1.     In the Introduction Section, the authors should define the purpose of their study bit more detail.

2.     In the Introduction Section, the authors should carefully review the current state of the research field.

3.     Authors have built four research questions, however, did not back up a few of their research questions with enough arguments. I would request to add a few more pieces of literature [ if possible] to strengthen their arguments.

4.     Authors have used Acronym TCCM in the abstract section, however, not explained or given the full form of TCCM. Authors should avoid using acronyms in the abstract section.

5.     Similar issue of the acronym has been found in line no 55, which is SLR, please mention the full form for the first time then keep using the acronym.

6.     The authors should underline the novelty of this study.

7.     There are a few formatting errors.  Line no. 40 has extra space “___According…..” an Image file of Figure 1. is not clearly visible [ blurry]

8.     “Table 3. A number of articles across journals, source: authors” -should be written at the top of the table, not at the bottom.

9.     Please remove the first bracket while denoting the figure.  Eg. Instead of “(figure 1…….)”  use “Figure 1. …..” Throughout the paper.

10.  There are also editing errors in the reference section. Please follow the guideline of the journal template. In the reference section, “year” should be written in “bold”

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

 

Dear Reviewer,

I really appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on this manuscript. I am grateful for the insightful comments on this paper. I have been able to incorporate changes and highlighted the changes made in the manuscript.

Comment1

Maidul et al systematically reviewed the Diversification of Livelihood Development using Cold Chains in 2 the Horticultural Sector of Emerging Markets. Using the TCCM framework, the paper offers a Systematic Literature Review of 67 scholarly 21 research papers with fifty or more citations published between 2000 and 2021 in EBSCO, Scopus, 22 Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases. I appreciate the authors for collecting a large volume of literature for over a decade. I recommend the publication of their results after major revisions as suggested below.

1. 1.     In the Introduction Section, the authors should define the purpose of their study bit more detail.

Response 1: In the Introduction section, the purpose of the study has been rectified. The details can be seen in the introduction section 1^st, paragraph line 49-64 “Food safety …………in emerging markets.”

Comment 2

2. In the Introduction Section, the authors should carefully review the current state of the research field.

Response 2: In the Introduction section, the purpose and current state of the research field have been rectified. The details can be seen in the introduction section 1^st, paragraph line 49-64  “Food safety …………in emerging markets.”

Comment 3

3. Authors have built four research questions, however, did not back up a few of their research questions with enough arguments. I would request to add a few more pieces of literature [ if possible] to strengthen their arguments.

Response 3: For every question, rectification has been made. The details may be seen in the manuscript sections 3.1, line no 149-156 (As part of confidence…….technological inputs), 3.2, line no 167-176 (The trends of publications …..one of them. ), 3.3, line no 205-210 (After manually reviewing …….of that field.), and 3.4 (An empirical study…. first-hand information, and so on. line no 216-224 , As mentioned in the prior …….reliable indicators, line no 231-237, Correlation has ……their environment, line no 249-253).

Comment 4

4. Authors have used Acronym TCCM in the abstract section, however, not explained or given the full form of TCCM. Authors should avoid using acronyms in the abstract section.

Response 4: In the abstract section the acronym has been rectified which stands for “Theory, Constructs, Characteristics, and Methodology (TCCM)”. The details can be seen in line no 21.

Comment 5

5. Similar issue of the acronym has been found in line no 55, which is SLR, please mention the full form for the first time then keep using the acronym.

Response 5: SLR has been rectified; Systematic Literature Review. The details can be seen in the Introduction section line no 65.

Comment 6

6. The authors should underline the novelty of this study.

Response 6: In the introduction section, the novelty of this study has been underlined. The details can be seen in the introduction line no 49-64.

Comment 7

7. There are a few formatting errors.  Line no. 40 has extra space “___According…..” an Image file of Figure 1. is not clearly visible [ blurry]

Response 7: Space has been removed from the line in the introduction section line no 41, and Figure 1 has been rectified, page no 3.

Comment 8

8. “Table 3. A number of articles across journals, source: authors” -should be written at the top of the table, not at the bottom.

Response 8: Table 3 has been modified, page number 7.

Comment 9

9. Please remove the first bracket while denoting the figure.  Eg. Instead of “(figure 1…….)”  use “Figure 1. …..” Throughout the paper.

Response 9: Modified all the figure captions with brackets: Figures 1, 2, & 3 on pages 3, 5 & 18, respectively.

Comment 10

10. There are also editing errors in the reference section. Please follow the guideline of the journal template. In the reference section, “year” should be written in “bold”

Response 10: In the reference section, Years have been rectified, page no 19-23.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors of the work Antecedents of Livelihood Development using Cold Chains in the Horticultural Sector of the Emerging Markets: A Systematic Literature Review present a relevant topic, namely "diversification in horticulture" and the support of solutions for the "cold chain" of food, the work to have a multiplying effect for food safety and security, by using scientific results especially in the context of the UN 2030 Agenda.

The concepts, bibliographic sources and citations are appropriate within the work, the authors trying to capture specialized publications, respectively: "... due to insufficient cold chain (CC) facility, food waste in developing countries such as India amounts to USD 12.33 billion, or about 40% of total production [5, 6].”.

The research methodology is presented by the authors simplistically, respectively the empirical studies in the field are presented, based on the systematic review process "by classifying the Theory, Constructions, Characteristics and Methodology (TCCM) from the existing literature [7, 8]".

The results of the paper are adequately presented, respectively the research results are presented according to the types of theories identified in the literature between 2000 and 2021. "We found that the contingency theory was given maximum prominence because it increases performance in efficiency and facilitates the identification of logistical risks of the supply chain cold whenever firms adapt their strategy to conditions or environment'. However, we suggest the authors of the paper to highlight their personal scientific contributions and results within the study, in the specialized scientific literature, given the fact that future research is emphasized and less the contributions from this paper.

The conclusions presented by the authors of the paper capture the basic elements of the paper's thesis, the authors present "findings based on reviews of existing literature, we examined the current literature and discussed different issues, or groups, associated with development in horticulture". However, we suggest the authors of the study to present what are the limitations of the study, and highlight personal scientific contributions in the specialized scientific field.

We congratulate the research team for the work done, and after reviewing the aspects mentioned above, especially the results and conclusions chapters, we propose the work for acceptance.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on this manuscript. I am grateful for the insightful comments on this paper. I have been able to incorporate changes and highlighted the changes made in the manuscript.

Comment 1

The authors of the work Antecedents of Livelihood Development using Cold Chains in the Horticultural Sector of the Emerging Markets: A Systematic Literature Review present a relevant topic, namely "diversification in horticulture" and the support of solutions for the "cold chain" of food, the work to have a multiplying effect for food safety and security, by using scientific results especially in the context of the UN 2030 Agenda.

Response 1: Thank You.

Comment 1

The concepts, bibliographic sources and citations are appropriate within the work, the authors trying to capture specialized publications, respectively: "... due to insufficient cold chain (CC) facility, food waste in developing countries such as India amounts to USD 12.33 billion, or about 40% of total production [5, 6].”.

Response 2: Thank You.

Comment 1

The research methodology is presented by the authors simplistically, respectively the empirical studies in the field are presented, based on the systematic review process "by classifying the Theory, Constructions, Characteristics and Methodology (TCCM) from the existing literature [7, 8]".

Response 3: Thank You.

Comment 4

The results of the paper are adequately presented, respectively the research results are presented according to the types of theories identified in the literature between 2000 and 2021. "We found that the contingency theory was given maximum prominence because it increases performance in efficiency and facilitates the identification of logistical risks of the supply chain cold whenever firms adapt their strategy to conditions or environment'. However, we suggest the authors of the paper to highlight their personal scientific contributions and results within the study, in the specialized scientific literature, given the fact that future research is emphasized and less the contributions from this paper.

Response 4:  Keynes's Confidence theory discusses the practical importance of private and government investment (as smallholders are not capable of huge investments) in CC for economic growth. As part of confidence theories, which may include RDT and contingency theories, resources (cold supply chain resources) have a substantial impact on adjusting to the environment, as well as maintaining an efficient flow of money and goods between producers and consumers (Hotelling's lemma theory), leading to sustainable practices (Green theory). On the other hand, investment (Confidence theory) may be beneficial and lead to contract and specialisation (theory of contract and specialisation) for the producer with easy access to advanced technology.  The details may be seen in manuscript section 3.1, line no 148-156 (As part of confidence…….technological inputs).

The conclusions presented by the authors of the paper capture the basic elements of the paper's thesis, the authors present "findings based on reviews of existing literature, we examined the current literature and discussed different issues, or groups, associated with development in horticulture". However, we suggest the authors of the study to present what are the limitations of the study, and highlight personal scientific contributions in the specialized scientific field.

Comment 5

Response 5: The limitations and conclusion sections have been rectified in the paper, line no 400-410 & 465-486, respectively.

Comment 6

We congratulate the research team for the work done, and after reviewing the aspects mentioned above, especially the results and conclusions chapters, we propose the work for acceptance.

 

Response 6: Thank You

Reviewer 4 Report

horticulturae-2025997: This manuscript can be reconsidered after the major revision.

1) Lines 77-78: Is there any significance reason for collecting the literature review only 2 years (2000 and 2021) because CC has been used since 1908s as you mentioned? Please explain the reasons.

2) Lines98-102: What kind of information and data were extracted from selected papers for your analysis? Please provide the details.

3) “(Figure 1 Distribution of Selected Articles between 2000 and 2021 (No article from 2021 was

selected), Source: The Authors)” must be “Figure 2”. Moreover, the figure caption should not in the bracket. Please revise all.

4) Please explain more details what we can learn from the distribution of selected articles between 2000 and 2021 (Figure 2)? It is not useful if you just explain the information.

5) Lines 215-216: The distance from farm gate to consumer gate or to inputs market can also influence to carbon footprint during transportation stage. Please also explain about it. Please see these papers. [Comparison of GHG emissions and farmers’ profit of large-scale and individual farming in rice production across four regions of Thailand.  Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 278, 123945.]   [Evolution of Logistics Industry Carbon Emissions in Heilongjiang Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9758.]

6) The style of writing in some sentences must be revised. For example, Line 219: “[18, 19, 4] noted that CC is essential…” The number of reference should not be the subject of sentence. Please revise throughout manuscript.

7) Conclusion must be rewritten. This is because you repeated the introduction, research gaps, method and objective. You must conclude the key findings based on the objectives and research questions. Some recommendations for further study can also be explained.

8) Funding, Acknowledgement and Conflicts of Interest must be mentioned.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on this manuscript. I am grateful for the insightful comments on this paper. I have been able to incorporate changes and highlighted the changes made in the manuscript.

Comment 1

horticulturae-2025997: This manuscript can be reconsidered after the major revision.

1) Lines 77-78: Is there any significance reason for collecting the literature review only 2 years (2000 and 2021) because CC has been used since 1908s as you mentioned? Please explain the reasons.

Response 1: For the purpose of the study, a span of twenty years, starting from 2000 to 2021, has been adopted. The reason behind selecting a span of twenty years is that studies in connection with the application of cold chain in horticulture were popularised with the advancement technology like Radio Frequency Identification (RFID), Internet of Things (IoT), Blockchain, etc. (2000-2021) in the horticultural sector during that period only, instead, CC used in other field started from 1908s. Prior to that limited number of research studies were available, which were discussing horticulture's impact on livelihood, but how the cold chain in horticulture impact livelihood was not widely studied. And has been rectified in section 3.1, line no 160-164 (  Only in the last two …… 1908s in other fields.).

Comment 2

2) Lines98-102: What kind of information and data were extracted from selected papers for your analysis? Please provide the details.

Response 2: The following information has been rectified in the methodology section 2^nd paragraph, line no 108-110. (those provide pertinent …….development of smallholders)

Comment 3

3) “(Figure 1 Distribution of Selected Articles between 2000 and 2021 (No article from 2021 was selected), Source: The Authors)” must be “Figure 2”. Moreover, the figure caption should not in the bracket. Please revise all.

Response 3: “(Figure 1 Distribution of Selected Articles between 2000 and 2021 (No article from 2021 was selected), Source: The Authors)” modified with “Figure 2” and all the figure (1,2 & 3) captions have been rectified by removing brackets on page 3, 5 & 18, respectively.

Comment 4

4) Please explain more details what we can learn from the distribution of selected articles between 2000 and 2021 (Figure 2)? It is not useful if you just explain the information.

Response 4:  The justification regarding figure 2 has been rectified in the paper. The details can be seen in section 3.2, line no 167-176 (., between 2000-2005 is 10, ……. any one of them.)

Comment 5

5) Lines 215-216: The distance from farm gate to consumer gate or to inputs market can also influence to carbon footprint during transportation stage. Please also explain about it. Please see these papers. [Comparison of GHG emissions and farmers’ profit of large-scale and individual farming in rice production across four regions of Thailand.  Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 278, 123945.]   [Evolution of Logistics Industry Carbon Emissions in Heilongjiang Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9758.]

Response 5: That text i.e., “The distance from farm gate to consumer gate or to inputs market can also influence to carbon footprint during transportation stage.” is not available in the document. Authors have not included any statement supporting the above one.

Comment 6

6) The style of writing in some sentences must be revised. For example, Line 219: “[18, 19, 4] noted that CC is essential…” The number of reference should not be the subject of sentence. Please revise throughout manuscript.

Response 6: Rectified all the in-text numbered citations as the subject, the details can be seen in the line no 132, 134, 141, 271, 305-308, 330, 333, 337, 339, 340, 343,354, 430 & 433.

Comment 7

7) Conclusion must be rewritten. This is because you repeated the introduction, research gaps, method and objective. You must conclude the key findings based on the objectives and research questions. Some recommendations for further study can also be explained.

Response 7: The Conclusion section has been rectified in the manuscript, line no 465-486.

Comment 8

8) Funding, Acknowledgement and Conflicts of Interest must be mentioned.

Response 8: Funding, Acknowledgement and Conflicts of Interest have been rectified in the manuscript, line no 490-494.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the reviewer's comments.  Therefore, I recommend the publication of the paper in the present form. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on this manuscript. I am grateful for the insightful comments on this paper. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the comments provided.

Please refer to the changes made using the “Track Changes” tab on the word processor.

 

The authors have satisfactorily addressed all the reviewer's comments.  Therefore, I recommend the publication of the paper in the present form.

Response 1: Thank You.

Reviewer 4 Report

horticulturae-2025997-v2: Although the manuscript has been revised, some points are remained and need to be improved.

1) Lines 267-268: The distance from farm gate to consumer gate or to inputs market can also influence to carbon footprint during transportation stage. Please also explain about it. Please see these papers. [Comparison of GHG emissions and farmers’ profit of large-scale and individual farming in rice production across four regions of Thailand.  Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 278, 123945.]   [Evolution of Logistics Industry Carbon Emissions in Heilongjiang Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9758.].

You should mention “This is consistent with the study of Arunrat et al (2021) who found that reducing external raw materials by producing from co-product and recirculating inside farm can reduce GHG emissions and increase farmers’ profits. Chen and Wu (2022) also recommended that low-carbon sustainable development of the logistics industry should be formulated to reduce GHG emissions.”

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I appreciate the time and effort that you have dedicated to providing your valuable feedback on this manuscript. I am grateful for the insightful comments on this paper. I have been able to incorporate changes to reflect most of the comments provided.

Please refer to the changes made using the “Track Changes” tab on the word processor.

horticulturae-2025997-v2: Although the manuscript has been revised, some points are remained and need to be improved.

1) Lines 267-268: The distance from farm gate to consumer gate or to inputs market can also influence to carbon footprint during transportation stage. Please also explain about it. Please see these papers. [Comparison of GHG emissions and farmers’ profit of large-scale and individual farming in rice production across four regions of Thailand.  Journal of Cleaner Production 2021, 278, 123945.]   [Evolution of Logistics Industry Carbon Emissions in Heilongjiang Province, China. Sustainability 2022, 14, 9758.].

You should mention “This is consistent with the study of Arunrat et al (2021) who found that reducing external raw materials by producing from co-product and recirculating inside farm can reduce GHG emissions and increase farmers’ profits. Chen and Wu (2022) also recommended that low-carbon sustainable development of the logistics industry should be formulated to reduce GHG emissions.”

Response 1: Thank You, the information has been rectified in the manuscript on lines 271-275 and the references in the reference section on lines 703-707.

Round 3

Reviewer 4 Report

Accept in present form. 

However, I will read it again when it is published online.