Collaborative Action, Policy Support and Rural Sustainability Transitions in Advanced Western Economies: The Case of Scotland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.The whole article consists of pure text, which is a little monotonous. Therefore, it is suggested that the author can use some diagrams to show the relationship between the components of the paper.

2.As a review, only 46 references are cited in this paper, so it is suggested that the author increase the number of references.

3.There are formatting errors in the references section, such as italics and journal names. It is recommended that the author check and modify.

4.A format error exists on line 553. Please modify it

5.In 4.conclusion, The author should explain in detail the countermeasures for human wellbeing, biodiversity gain, enhanced water quality and greenhouse gas emissions reductionIn.

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.  I agree it is a bit text heavy but have done a heavy edit and added more references as asked.  I have endeavoured to offer more detail of where and how the sustainability  gains arise and under what circumstances communitarian and collaborative actions have succeeded.  I think the paper is now better structured and proceeds more logically.

I am a native English speaker and have never previously been challenged with regarded to my use of English though I admit that using a numerical referencing system sometimes makes for a "clunky" read.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is relatively new, interesting and informative, and is recommended for acceptance with minor revisions. Specific comments are given below.

Line 9: It is not appropriate to cite references in the abstract.

Line 254, 341, 445, 482, 553 and 607: Recommendations for the use of formats: Dax et al. [34]. This problem seems to be prevalent throughout the text and needs to be checked over. 

Author Response

Thank you for your positive comments.  This time I have done a heavy edit but written everything into the the template which should have overcome the issues of formatting.  I have used a Harvard style for references.

I hope that you agree that the structure is now much improved.

Reviewer 3 Report

I would like to thank the authors for the opportunity to read something interesting related to the area mentioned in the manuscript, and for the very interesting issue and approach to writing the manuscript.

I would like to point out that there are certain manuscript corrections that could increase the quality of the manuscript itself. The abstract is completely well structured.

The manuscript contains a lot of text in the literature review, which describes very clearly and comprehensively the conceptual definitions. The suggestion is to present some of the data through figures or pictures, to make it a little more interesting for the readers. It is obvious that the manuscript belongs to review manuscripts, without research, so either a map, or figures or graphs should be added. The issues dealt with by the authors are transparent and very clearly described. No need to add more text. Although it is a review manuscript, perhaps the concept or methodology of the manuscript should be described. Also, the conclusion and discussion are very broadly structured, I suggest adding more text in the conclusion about the importance of this type of manuscript. Add more references, as a small number of references are listed considering the amount of text in the manuscript.

​I suggest a reference:

Pandemic Boosts Prospects for Recovery of Rural Tourism in Serbia. Land, 12(3), 624. DOI: 10.3390/land12030624

Author Response

Thank you for your broadly positive comments. In response to other reviewers' comments I have given the article a major restructuring and am now much happier with it.

I have added one small table, but having added more references (and inevitably text) to respond to other reviewers, I don't want to over-lengthen the article.

I am afraid I struggled to get in the reference to Serbian rural tourism.  As someone who has previously led an EU project on rural tourism I will follow that article up at some time.

Reviewer 4 Report

In my opinion this is a very important paper that would be widely cited by numerous researchers and rural stakeholders. It presents a clearly written analysis of the rural policies in the recent decades and the evaluation of the commonly advocated solutions for rural development.

The paper shows a great knowledge of rural issues of the author. The paper is a great food for thought and a starting point for serious policy debate.

There is no need to make any in-depth modifications. But some careful editing would improve the readibility of the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I welcome your positive comments.  I think it is an important area to explore further. In response to other reviewer's comments I have substantially restructured the paper which I hope is an improvement.

Reviewer 5 Report

Below are my comments on the content of the article:
1) In my opinion, the title of the article is too long and too complicated. The author does not explain why he used the phrases: Communitarianism, complexity and confusion? What do they really mean? Moreover, in my opinion, the title does not precisely present the research problem undertaken by the author.

2) The article lacks a clearly formulated research problem and research goal. The author only writes what he will focus on and what he will write about. Does the article have any diagnostic and application purpose?

3) The article contains many phrases and theses that are unclear or not explained well enough by the author. Below are some selected examples:

- socio-technical landscape

- just transition towards sustainability

-policy silos

-who can command and manipulate others at local community level to deliver enhanced community wellbeing?

- regenerative practices

4) What specific policies (actions) does the author mean when writing about communitarian policies?

5) What does the author mean by writing:
There is now compelling evidence that land system changes are a major causal force on compromised planetary boundaries?

6) Generally, the argument in the Introduction is too long and too complicated. The reader doesn't really know what the real research problem is? What specific changes are we talking about and why is "communitarian policy" an alternative (can it be) to sectoral policies?

7) Is there evidence that community policies and actions like the LEADER program can meet the real challenges of agriculture and rural areas?

8) Who are: regenerative farmers and relict subsistence units?

9) "The silo of mainstream policy institutions have been breached by place based local actors, with hugely beneficial" (line 518). Where's the evidence? Isn't this an exaggeration?

10) The conclusions are largely a repetition of previously formulated theses. What specific conclusions can be drawn from the historical analysis of the problem of "sectoral versus territorial policy" on the example of Scotland?

Author Response

Your comments were fair and I have made every effort to respond.  The title is modified and I hope improved.  I have restructured the article and made it much clearer that it is reviewing individualistic vs collaborative/collectivistic policies that support sustainability transitions, focusing on Scotland but drawing on wider examples.

I was however surprises at your unfamiliarity with some of the core concepts and ideas such as just transition or regenerative agriculture or policy silos.  I would see these as common parlance both within the academic and policy communities.  A simple google search of the terms would yield a great deal of information.  A search in Google Scholar will reveal many articles about policy silos, but in this version I have made an effort to explain these terms in simple language.

Your ref 5.  I refer to the works of Rockstrom and others about planetary boundaries and the contribution of agriculture to their exceedance.  The whole architecture and tenor of the European Green Deal is premised on similar concerns.

your ref 7.  Leader is not the answer to everything, but it is thoroughly endorsed by the EU  and at its best is exemplary.  I think it is context specific and not every LAG has the ability and capacity to deliver positive outcomes; and it has proved vulnerable to capture by powerful groups (e.g. Irish farmers.; UK municiplaities).

 your ref 9.  I dont think this is hyperbole.  I refer you to Patsy Healey's recent book.  She is a profoundly influential academic who in semi-retirement has dipped into village politics and seen that place based actions can lead to profound improvements.  I would also refer to the evidence coming from community land ownership in the western islands of Scotland, where the degree of change for the better is quite remarkable.  I do however conclude that it is hard to repeat such successes everywhere and that is one of my main concluding points.

I have tried to be much more balanced in my conclusions and refer primarily to the evidence presented.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to congratulate the authors for their involvement in considering the reviewers suggestions and recommendations.

The manuscript is now improved and can be published in its actual form.