Involving Rural Youth in Agroecological Nature-Positive Farming and Culinary Agri-Ecotourism for Sustainable Development: The Indian Scenario

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I believe that the revised version of the manuscript is an improvement on the previous one and meets the standards required for publication in the journal Sustainability.

Best regards.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript number: sustainability-3267339

 

Review comments

 

It is a resubmission manuscript. Then, the comments are the second-run comments. The paper addressed the important issue of the agro-ecotourism, a healthy food system, which consider the three main pillars: the economic feasibility, environmental sustainability, and health safety. The key suggestions from the reviewer are revised accordingly. I had no further comments. It seems to be ready to be published.

 

The following information is the comments made by the Reviewer previously on 07/26/2024 for the “Manuscript ID: sustainability-3130367”; with “Title: Involving rural youth in agroecological nature-positive farming and culinary agri-ecotourism for sustainable development: The Indian scenario”. Review Comments:

 

The paper investigates wide range of issues related to the aged agriculture sector. By involving rural youth in agroecological farming and gastronomic agri-ecotourism, the transition of traditional agriculture is achieved through the incentives provided by payments for ecosystem services (PES). The paper introduces the initiative programs by the UNEP programs and addressed four cases in India to demonstrate the issues. The risks the challenges are shown in the paper as in Table 3 and Table 4. The program looks sound and provide multiple benefits to the agriculture sector, the natural system, and rural economy. In a well-designed and implemented policy, it is usually included thoroughly practical policy actions, that is offered in Table 8.

Firstly, I would like to show my deep esteem to the potential contributions of the programs that devoting to the local community.

And then, several suggestions are made here, on the purpose to enhance the paper and/or to improve the practical achievements of the initiated programs in the four study sites in India. 

1.      The study sites might vary widely with different attributes. The local characteristics is the basis of the policy design. Please introduce the study sites in four subsections to clarify the local properties.

2.      The study method is not mentioned in the introduction. It is usually required to introduce the study the method in details with a separate section. To improve the parts of methodology can support the findings addressed in the section of results.        

3.      How the PES designed is not clear in practical applications in the study sites.

4.      A prudent community participatory policy in its design and implementation is the central parts of a successful policy. Please clarify by taking the four investigation sites with local specific attributes of the nature and the community.

5.      The incentive effects of the PES to the youth participatory involvement is another critical part that need to be incorporated in the paper. Please clarify these by taking the four investigation sites with local PES scheme design.

6.      The study sites shown in the first column in Table 5, and the first raw in Table 6 are inconsistent. Some parts might be wrong and missing.

 

The study designs and introduces a productive policy initiations that would greatly make contributions. The reviewers expressed deep appreciation.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

The issue addressed in the paper is of significant scientific and practical importance. The issue of transforming agricultural systems towards sustainable, environmentally friendly agricultural production is frequently addressed in the literature. The authors indicated that younger farmers may be more amenable to change. This approach is very interesting. My reservations pertain to the manner in which the research problem was addressed. The research methodology is not sufficiently detailed, as the authors do not provide sufficient information on how the research was conducted. It is unclear how many respondents were surveyed. Subsequently, the research provides the figure of 50 as the number of respondents. This information is provided in a footnote to Table 1. The population under consideration is very small. The analysis of the results obtained is insufficient and lacks depth. There is a dearth of analysis that would indicate differences in the opinions of young people. It is unclear which data set was used to populate Tables 3 and 4. It would be beneficial to understand the frequency with which young farmers responded to the issues raised in the tables in relation to the survey results. The discussion in the paper is also superficial and does not relate to the research results obtained. It seems to be more of a review of the literature and possible models for agricultural transformation than an analysis of the research conducted.

While the idea and potential of the work are considerable, the way of presenting the collected research material should be rethought. 

Best regards

Author Response

Comments (Rev#1)

The issue addressed in the paper is of significant scientific and practical importance. The issue of transforming agricultural systems towards sustainable, environmentally friendly agricultural production is frequently addressed in the literature. The authors indicated that younger farmers may be more amenable to change. This approach is very interesting. My reservations pertain to the manner in which the research problem was addressed. The research methodology is not sufficiently detailed, as the authors do not provide sufficient information on how the research was conducted. It is unclear how many respondents were surveyed. Subsequently, the research provides the figure of 50 as the number of respondents. This information is provided in a footnote to Table 1. The population under consideration is very small. The analysis of the results obtained is insufficient and lacks depth. There is a dearth of analysis that would indicate differences in the opinions of young people. It is unclear which data set was used to populate Tables 3 and 4. It would be beneficial to understand the frequency with which young farmers responded to the issues raised in the tables in relation to the survey results. The discussion in the paper is also superficial and does not relate to the research results obtained. It seems to be more of a review of the literature and possible models for agricultural transformation than an analysis of the research conducted.

While the idea and potential of the work are considerable, the way of presenting the collected research material should be rethought. 

Response:

 

While appreciating the concerns of the reviewer, our point-by-point response is as follows:

 

• A thorough revision of the manuscript has been done. The Introduction and Discussion section has been rewritten. More references have been added. More data has been included in the Results section, particularly in PES modalities.

 

• The introduction, results, and discussions have been further strengthened. The methodology section has also been improved. Being exploratory research, the input was mainly received from randomly selected 50 farmer households in FGD meetings of a core study village each, representing the four agroecosystems. Researchers’ personal observations and additional inputs from rural youths, tourists visiting the study sites, etc., were also obtained.

 

• As the research design of the present study was based on exploratory FGD meetings and informal surveys, all analysis and interpretations were based on researchers’ subjective judgments. For limited quantitative data, recorded as a percentage, particularly in Tables 1 and 2, original values without transformation and a normality test are presented.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript ID: sustainability-3130367

Title: Involving rural youth in agroecological nature-positive farming and culinary agri-ecotourism for sustainable development: The Indian scenario

 

Review Comments

 

The paper investigates wide range of issues related to the aged agriculture sector. By involving rural youth in agroecological farming and gastronomic agri-ecotourism, the transition of traditional agriculture is achieved through the incentives provided by payments for ecosystem services (PES). The paper introduces the initiative programs by the UNEP programs and addressed four cases in India to demonstrate the issues. The risks the challenges are shown in the paper as in Table 3 and Table 4. The program looks sound and provide multiple benefits to the agriculture sector, the natural system, and rural economy. In a well-designed and implemented policy, it is usually included thoroughly practical policy actions, that is offered in Table 8.

Firstly, I would like to show my deep esteem to the potential contributions of the programs that devoting to the local community.

And then, several suggestions are made here, on the purpose to enhance the paper and/or to improve the practical achievements of the initiated programs in the four study sites in India.  

1.      The study sites might vary widely with different attributes. The local characteristics is the basis of the policy design. Please introduce the study sites in four subsections to clarify the local properties.

2.      The study method is not mentioned in the introduction. It is usually required to introduce the study the method in details with a separate section. To improve the parts of methodology can support the findings addressed in the section of results.         

3.      How the PES designed is not clear in practical applications in the study sites.

4.      A prudent community participatory policy in its design and implementation is the central parts of a successful policy. Please clarify by taking the four investigation sites with local specific attributes of the nature and the community.

5.      The incentive effects of the PES to the youth participatory involvement is another critical part that need to be incorporated in the paper. Please clarify these by taking the four investigation sites with local PES scheme design.

6.      The study sites shown in the first column in Table 5, and the first raw in Table 6 are inconsistent. Some parts might be wrong and missing.

 

The study designs and introduces an productive policy initiations that would greatly make contributions. The reviewers expressed deep appreciation.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Rev#2

Comment 1. The study sites might vary widely with different attributes. The local characteristics is the basis of the policy design. Please introduce the study sites in four subsections to clarify the local properties.

Response: The Introduction section has been rewritten with some highlights on the four unique agroecosystems. The basic farming problems conceptually are the same. The crop, livestock species, and climatic conditions might vary; the carrying capacity of landscapes may vary, but farmers distress and challenges are the same.

Comment 2.      The study method is not mentioned in the introduction. It is usually required to introduce the study the method in details with a separate section. To improve the parts of methodology can support the findings addressed in the section of results.         

Response: The entire Introduction section has been rewritten. The methodology section has also been improved. It being exploratory research, the input was mainly received from randomly selected 50 farmer households in FGD meetings of a core study village. Researchers’ personal observations and additional inputs from rural youths, tourists visiting the study sites, etc. were obtained. Formal statistical analysis was not possible.

Comments 3. How the PES designed is not clear in practical applications in the study sites.

Response: A table (Table 6) highlighting some possible PES incentives for rural youth involved in farming and the food system transformation has been added in the Results section.

Comment 4.      A prudent community participatory policy in its design and implementation is the central parts of a successful policy. Please clarify by taking the four investigation sites with local specific attributes of the nature and the community.

Response: Possibilities of a nature-positive agroecological transition to farming and food systems in different agroecosystems have been deliberated. Agroecological transition is possible in all these agroecosystems regardless of the use of purchased inputs.

Comment 5.   The incentive effects of the PES to the youth participatory involvement is another critical part that need to be incorporated in the paper. Please clarify these by taking the four investigation sites with local PES scheme design.

Response: Youth-centric PES incentives have been shown in Table 6. Involvement of rural youth in management of community-level Common Property Resources (CPRs) has been envisaged, and the ecosystem services generated by better managed CPRs may be indirectly compensated, as indicated in Table 6.

 

CPR management, including the Joint Forest Management (JFM) program, is a potent source that can generate additional income and employment for rural youth; hence, it needs to be strengthened. The Joint Forest Management (JFM) program found to have more focus on short-term direct benefit to the people. Though empowerment of local people through income-generating activities is one of the main objectives of the JFM program, the creation of rural assets and their maintenance should be given importance for the sustainable and long-term benefit of the poor rural households. As community leadership and support organizations consider community forestry as an engine of local development, the research highlights the importance of engaging local youth to understand their interests and ideas and thus identify practical and meaningful ways to empower them as community and territorial actors. JFM, as a movement in all agroecosystems, has been highly successful. Madhya Pradesh is a pioneering state in JFM implementation, and all other states, Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, and Assam, have a lot of prospects.

 

Here we emphasize compensating youth involved in agroecological food system transitions in lieu of their engagement in CPR management and JFM interventions as PES incentive.

 

Comment 6.      The study sites shown in the first column in Table 5, and the first raw in Table 6 are inconsistent. Some parts might be wrong and missing.

 

Response: The missing text has been corrected now.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting paper addressing good and relevatn questions but there are some issues: 

- it is lengthy

- it need clear aim of research statement in the Intruduction 

- it is not clear what exactly comes as a result of research and how the focus group discussion were used in the results (Table 4 for instance...)

 

MY reccommendation: rewrite and resubmit.

Author Response

Rev#3

Comments 1.   It is lengthy

 

Response: The new version is still longer because other reviewers have advised us that more data needs to be integrated and that most sections has to be rewritten. It was difficult to cut the text at this point. However, if the paper is considered for publication, it might be condensed.

Comments 2.  It need clear aim of research statement in the Introduction 

 

Response:  The introduction section is rewritten.

 

Comments 3. It is not clear what exactly comes as a result of research and how the focus group discussion were used in the results (Table 4 for instance...)

 

Response: The introduction, results, and discussions have been further strengthened. The methodology section has also been improved. Being exploratory research, the input was mainly received from randomly selected 50 farmer households in FGD meetings of a core study village, each representing the four agroecosystems. Researchers’ personal observations and additional inputs from rural youths, tourists visiting the study sites, etc. were also obtained. As the research design of the present study was based on exploratory FGD meetings and informal surveys, all analysis and interpretations were based on researchers’ subjective judgments. For limited quantitative data, recorded as a percentage, particularly in Tables 1 and 2, original values without transformation and a normality test are presented.

 

Comment 4. MY recommendation: rewrite and resubmit.

 

Response: The manuscript was rewritten, particularly the Introduction and Discussion sections. Results section has also been further strengthened.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Author,

The research focused on the role of rural youth in developing agroecological nature-positive farming and culinary agri-ecotourism. It’s interesting and meaningful. There are a few minor issues here that need further work.

1. What is the definition of “food insecurity”? 3 indicators in Table 1, “food self-reliant (subsistence production), buying food from market, dependency on transfers from public programs (food subsidies and food aid)”. These three indicators simply show that farmers have different ways of accessing food and do not necessarily indicate the presence of food insecurity. Therefore, a clear definition of food insecurity is needed

2. With regard to the findings section, it is hoped that more data will be presented. For example, In Table 4, on the current level of education of rural youths, the size of farm land and the degree of land fragmentation, etc., it would be used to illustrate the challenges with these specific data.

3. In line 557, the numbering is wrong.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required

Author Response

Comment 1.

What is the definition of “food insecurity”? 3 indicators in Table 1, “food self-reliant (subsistence production), buying food from market, dependency on transfers from public programs (food subsidies and food aid)”. These three indicators simply show that farmers have different ways of accessing food and do not necessarily indicate the presence of food insecurity. Therefore, a clear definition of food insecurity is needed

Response: Farming in all four agroecosystems is subsistence, where the majority of the crops or livestock are used to meet the needs of the farming household, with little or no surplus for sale or trade. For the present research, we define the following terms and indicators as follows:

“Food insecure”: Food insecurity is a situation where household needs are not met from farming.

“Food self-reliant”: Ability of the household to produce enough food to meet its subsistence needs without purchasing additional food from outside.

“Buying food from market”: Food produced by the farmer household is partly meeting the household’s basic food needs, and the shortage is met by buying food from the open market.

“Dependency on transfers from public programs”: Farmer households’ dependency on food supplies under public programmes. Some of these programmes are Food-for-Work (FFW), Antodyaya Anna Yojana (AAY), Mid-Day School Meals, etc.  

 

Comment 2.

With regard to the findings section, it is hoped that more data will be presented. For example, In Table 4, on the current level of education of rural youths, the size of farm land and the degree of land fragmentation, etc., it would be used to illustrate the challenges with these specific data.

Response: Wherever possible, more information and data have been presented, particularly Table 6, about PES incentives. The Discussion section is rewritten, and a table on “Key policy initiatives for support of agroecological food system transition” has been added.

 

Comment 3.

In line 557, the numbering is wrong.

Response: The mistake is corrected.