Relative Importance of Barriers and Levers to Intercropping Systems Adoption: A Comparison of Farms and Co-Operatives
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
needs improvement in whole document
Check English
References in each section are old and not new
discussion is not critical
check file attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear referee,
We would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions that improved the version submitted for publication.
Please find below our replies to your comments and suggestions.
Kind Regards
M. Fares
Q1: needs improvement in whole document
R1: We greatly improved the whole paper in the revised version.
Q2: Check English
R2 : We checked for English
Q3 : References in each section are old and not new
R3: We provided new references in the Related literature section and in the whole paper
Q4: discussion is not critical
R3: We improved the result and discussion section
Q4: check file attached
R4 : we make the corrections suggested in the attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
1. The main question addressed by the research is relative importance of barriers and levers (negative and positive incentives) to intercropping system adoption, compared at two levels of the value chain (farm level and cooperative level).
2. The topic is original and relevant in the field since it raises the question of the type of policy that is relevant to support the development of intercropping systems. Intercropping system is interesting for farmers since it reduces the mineral nitrogen inputs and thus production costs and consequently less polluting production. This study gives some directions since there is a difference between the Belgian farmers and French cooperatives. Farmers are for continuous support from the Walloon region through its premium scheme for ecosystem service provision, and cooperatives on the other hand are fore a change in the CAP scheme to better compensate the intercropping systems.
3. Previous research highlights the dependence of the innovation process on the technology and define evolution as a process of change driven by internal and external organizational drivers. This study gives additional analysis of importance of internal and external incentives for farmers and cooperatives (two levels of value chain).
4. The methodology is clearly explained and there is no need for additional improvements the authors should consider regarding the methodology.
5. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed.
6. The references are appropriate.
7. The tables and figures are clear and understandable, connected to the text as additional explanatory source of data.
The part of bulleted text in Material and methods (line 227-236) is not connected with text nor market as some scheme. Maybe to delete it from text or better explain the role of it for the chapter 3 or paper.
Citation at line 110 is with wrong year (2013), since in Reference list there are only Corre-Hellou et al. 2007 and 2012.
Citation at line 419 is missing one letter (Ogundar, 2013), since in Reference list there is Ogundari, K. (2013).
Author Response
Dear referee,
We would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions that improved the version submitted for publication.
Please find below our replies to your comments and suggestions.
Kind Regards
- Fares
Q1: The part of bulleted text in Material and methods (line 227-236) is not connected with text nor market as some scheme. Maybe to delete it from text or better explain the role of it for the chapter 3 or paper.
R1: the part of bulleted text is deleted.
Q2: Citation at line 110 is with wrong year (2013), since in Reference list there are only Corre-Hellou et al. 2007 and 2012.
R2: We corrected the citation
Q3: Citation at line 419 is missing one letter (Ogundar, 2013), since in Reference list there is Ogundari, K. (2013).
R3: We corrected the citation.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
This is an unfinished draft of two-survey results: one on 71 Belgian farmers and the other on 19 French co-operatives. The authors ought to improve the rationale to conduct two surveys, designed to compare farm and cooperative levels. The methodology for RII equation and calculation must be better explained and discussed to make a better case of the value added of their research to the global community. Values in the only Table need also revision with statistical analysis to demonstrate the significance of the ranking. Citation format in the text must follow the Journal's requirement.
Here are specific points need clarifications as follows;
1. Line 25-57: Please provide context of the Belgian farmers and the French co-operatives with respect to existing intercropping systems as well as sustainability issue. More context of Intercropping systems 'value chain' will benefit the readers.
2. Line 39 and 42: ... must be defined.
3. Line 64 & 251: Footnote should be replace by the reference.
4. Line 64-73: Should be in the result section.
5. Line 82-186: What are the research gap leading to your research?
6. Line 187: 'et', typo.
7. Line 188-190: Delete.
8. Line 193-195: How did you identify/calculate the sample size, i.e., number of famers and co-operatives?
9. Line 227-236: Delete.
10. Line 238-239: Please provide reference to STATA software and code.
11. Line 242-263: Please provide calculation method for RII values as shown in Tables 1 & 2.
12. Line Intercropping systems 'value chain' = ?
13. Line 453-455: CAP rank 3rd in Table 2 not the top rank.
Thank you.
Author Response
Dear referee,
We would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions that improved the version submitted for publication.
Please find below our replies to your comments and suggestions.
Kind Regards
- Fares
General comments
Q1 : « improve the rationale to conduct two surveys, designed to compare farm and cooperative levels »
R1 : Understanding the adoption process at the two upstream levels of the value chain (farm and cooperative levels) is essential to ensure a wide diffusion of intercropping systems. Indeed, there is a double interdependence between these two levels: (i) a contracting interdependence, as these two levels are contractually linked in terms of the raw material provision and its quality; (ii) a technological interdependence, as the sorting and storage function performed by the cooperative is highly dependent on the management of the intercropping by the farmers.
Given this double interdependence between these two upstream levels, it seems important to compare the obstacles and levers that farmers and cooperatives consider important as well as their ranking.
Q2 : « the methodology for RII equation and calculation must be better explained and discussed to make a better case of the value added to the global community ».
R2 : We explain more clearly the methodology for RII equation (see R15, below) and the originality of our contribution.
To our best knowledge, we are the first to use this approach to analyse the barriers and levers for adopting innovative agricultural systems. Indeed, up to now, the literature on the adoption of these systems has mainly tried to identify the barriers and levers, without attempting to measure their importance for the stakeholders or to classify them. Our contribution therefore aims to fill this gap in the literature. Moreover, our analysis does not stop at the level generally considered, that of the farmer. We indeed compare the nature and the ranking of these barriers and levers at two levels: between farmers and cooperatives.
Q3 : « Values in the only table need also revision with statistical analysis to demonstrate the significance of the ranking »
R3 : There are two tables in the paper. Table 1 presents the RII of the barriers to adoption for farmers and co-operatives. Table 2 presents the RII of the levers to adoption for farmers and co-operatives.
The comparison of RII with the corresponding importance level is measured from the transformation matrix as proposed by [65]. This allows us defining three importance significant levels: High: 0.7 < RII <= 1.0; Medium: 0.4 < RII <= 0.7; Low (L): 0 < RII < =0.4. Therefore, there is no need to use parametric test of significance of the ranking.
But we made additional analysis with Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient Test to better identify if there is agreement or disagreement among the diverse groups on ranking factors. This test is generally used to understand agreement on the relative importance of the identified factors [66]. We find no significant disagreement between the two group of stakeholders.
Specific comments
Q4 : Line 25-27 : « Provide context of the Belgian Farmers and the French co-operatives with respect to existing inetrcropping systems and sustainability issue ».
R4 : As already mentioned in the text, we surveyed Belgian farmers in the Walloon region, mainly because the region offers eco-system services subsidies for farmers developing farming systems that are considered sustainable. For this reason, this farming system is blooming in Wallonia, whereas it is practically non-existent in the Flemish region. Farmers have also discovered that this crop has a number of advantages other than ecological ones. In particular, the land-ratio in intercropping is higher than in conventional system where the wheat and the legume are cropped separately. In addition, the Walagri co-operative, which manages the marketing of the intercropping, has succeeded in building a value chain through a tripartite contract between farmers, co-operatives and an industrial in order to increase the market value of the wheat and peas protein quality .
In France, no regional public incentives such as eco-systemic subsidies exist for the services that agroecological systems provide. On the other hand, intercropping is quite common in organic farming and peas and wheat are well valued. In contrast to Belgium, the market for organic farming is large enough for co-operatives to specialize some of their sorting, collection and storage facilities for these products. Conversely, this process of specialization leads to more "conventional" cooperatives refusing to collect, sort and store products from this type of system. This is why we decided to study both types of co-operatives in France.
We added this explanation in the revised version of the paper.
Q5 : Line 39-42 …. must be defined.
R5 : OK. The dots in the parentheses are deleted.
Q6 : Line 64 & 251 : Footnote should be replaced by the reference in the text.
R6 : Ok. Done.
Q7: Line 64-73 : should be in the result section
R7 : Ok. Done
Q8 : Line 82-186 : what are the research gap leading to your research ?
R9 : There are two research gaps in the literature leading to our research and our paper provides two contribution to fill in these gaps.
First research gap. While the literature has identified a large number of barriers and levers to adoption, no paper has suggested ranking these different barriers and levers according to their importance. Our paper uses the RII approach to highlight the most important barriers and levers to adoption. Moreover, research on barriers and levers to adoption mainly focuses on the farm level (see [1] for a counterexample). Our paper also aims to fill this gap by suggesting a comparative analysis of RII at the farm and cooperative levels.
Second research gap. The literature has also not characterized the organizational mechanisms behind the barriers/levers to adoption. Using the evolutionary approach to innovation, we propose to characterize the barriers/levers according to whether they are internal or external constraints/incentives to the organization (farm vs. cooperative).
We added this explanation in the revised version of the paper.
Q10 : Line 187 : « et ». Typo.
R10 : Ok. Done
Q11 : Line 88-190. Delete
R11 : Ok. Done.
Q12 : Line 193-195. How did you identify/calculate the sample size, i.e. the numbers of farmers and co-operatives ?
R12 : Sample size of farmers. Our sample of Belgian farmers was designed to be representative of adopters and non-adopters of intercropping systems. There is no significant bias in the response rates between the adopters and the non-adopters.
Sample size of cooperatives. As the sample size is smaller here, the bias of non-representativeness is not necessarily overweighted. Therefore, we did not look for representativeness between cooperatives that adopted or did not adopt intercropping products. Instead, we tried to achieve equal representation between cooperatives that potentially support these crops and those that reject them.
Q13 : Line 227-236. Delete.
R13 : OK. Done.
Q14 : Provide reference to Stata Software and Code.
R14. We used STATA 15.1 to manage and process our data. However, as explained above, we did not perform any statistical processing of our data stricto sensu. The only processing we did was to calculate the RIIs. In the future, we plan to use the survey data more extensively and therefore econometrically.
Q15 : Provide calculation methods for RII values.
R15 : In the revised version of the paper, we explained as follows of the the RII method.
Since we use the Likert scale (1 – not important up to 5 – extremely important) in the survey to measure the importance of each of the adoption barriers and levers, use of parametric methods is not practicable and applicable for assessing preferences of the respondents so, the mean and standard deviation of the variables were not considered suitable to determine the overall ranking [62]. Relative Importance Index (RII) is a non-parametric technique widely used by construction and facilities management researchers for analyzing structured questionnaire responses for data involving ordinal measurement of attitudes. For this type of analysis, a calculated weighted average for each factor, divided by the upper scale of measurement, was adopted to provide an importance index [18,63,64]. The RII is calculated using equation (1)
(1)
Where is the constant that shows the weighting of each response (1 – not important up to 5 – extremely important); is the frequency of the responses (i = 1 to 5 based on the Likert scale); A is the maximum value in the Likert scale (5); N is the total number of the responses
The RII value ranges from 0 to 1, with 0 not inclusive. The higher the value of RII, the more important the criteria. The comparison of RII with the corresponding importance level is measured from the transformation matrix as proposed by [65]. We defined three importance levels: High: 0.7 < RII <= 1.0; Medium: 0.4 < RII <= 0.7; Low (L): 0 < RII < =0.4.
Q16 : Line intercropping systems « value-chain = ? »
R16 : Sorry, we do not understand your question.
Q17 : Line 453-455 : CAP rank 3rd in Table 2 not the the top rank.
R17 : In lines 453-455 we do not write that the CAP is the most important lever and we do not compare it with other levers. We only compare public incentives in France (mainly CAP) and in Belgium (mainly regional PES in the Walloon region). For the French co-operatives, the modification of the CAP is the most important public lever for change (even if it is only of medium importance and therefore ranked third).
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
The article is interesting and deals with an important topic in agriculture. The authors compared negative (barriers) and positive (levers) incentives to adopt the selected production system at two levels of the value chain, i.e. at the level of the farmer and the cooperative. The method of relative importance index (RII) and the size of the research sample seem to be sufficient. The conclusions drawn on the basis of the conducted research are correct. Literature could be enriched by several items after 2020, even in the field of general agriculture. Graphic elements are properly prepared. In further works, the authors could repeat the research in other countries, e.g. in Central Europe (for example in Poland), where wheat and peas are also grown and this crop rotation system is used (see: https://www.tygodnik-rolniczy.pl/articles/uprawa/groch-w-plodozmianie-zapewnil-lepszy-plon-pszenicy-podczas-suszy/). Lines 64-72 - should be removed as this is the summary of the article
Best regards
Author Response
Dear referee,
We would like to thank you for your comments and suggestions that improved the version submitted for publication.
Please find below our reply to your comments and suggestions.
Kind Regards
- Fares
Q1: Literature could be enriched by several items after 2020, even in the field of general agriculture;
R1: We updated the literature by adding references after 2020.
Q1: Lines 64-72 - should be removed as this is the summary of the article;
R2: Ok. Done.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Recommended for publication
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 1
Q1: English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
R1: the typo are fixed in this second version.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Congratulation and thank you very much for your efforts on the draft. I've learned from the new revision.
Some specific suggestions are as follows;
Line 243: Please provide the reference to STATA version 15? software.
Line 272: please add reference# for 'Nelson and Winter'.
Line 290: please provide reasons or advantages for multivariate analyses, if with precise socio-demographics variables are available.
Line 402: Caption should read 'Levers to wheat-pea intercropping system adoption'.
Author Response
Reply to Reviewer 3
Q0: Congratulation and thank you very much for your efforts on the draft. I've learned from the new revision.
R0: It was a pleasure. Thanks again for your insightful comments.
Some specific suggestions are as follows;
Q1: Line 243: Please provide the reference to STATA version 15? software.
R1: Ok done.
Q2: Line 272: please add reference# for 'Nelson and Winter'.
R2: OK. Done.
Q3: Line 290: please provide reasons or advantages for multivariate analyses, if with precise socio-demographics variables are available.
R3 : Multivariate analysis allows us to test some of the predictions of the theoretical model, such as the impact of specific organizational factors (e.g. financial constraints, debt capacity, human capital, age, ...) on the RII of a particular barrier or lever to adoption. In other words, econometric estimates can be used to identify causal relationships between independent and dependent variables, rather than just correlations.
Q4: Line 402: Caption should read 'Levers to wheat-pea intercropping system adoption'.
R4: OK done.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
