Intention to Transition: Natural Rubber Smallholders Navigating the Risks of Farming
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIn my opinion, this is a fairly well-prepared paper. I would suggest that some issues, however, should be worded a bit more explicitly. E.g. the variable "attitude" can be incomprehensible - because what does "higher attitude" mean? Attitude towards what? From the context, it seems that the attitude towards "Transition", but this could be made more precise (perhaps even in the "Model framework").
Similarly, it is not entirely clear what "Transition" means here - is it diversification of production or "transitions to sustainable practices" (as emphasized in the conclusions). Is "diversification" the same as "sustainable practices"? One wonders how the farmers interviewed understood "transition" - Did they all mean the same thing?
I wonder if it is possible to include in the article the distribution of answers to each question (descriptive statistics of input data). What I don't understand is how the "descriptive statistics" in Table 2 illustrate "nuances in farmers' perceptions ? How to interpret "factor loading" in this context ?
The discussion chapter should rather not start with the table.
Author Response
Reviewer Point #1: In my opinion, this is a fairly well-prepared paper. I would suggest that some issues, however, should be worded a bit more explicitly. E.g. the variable "attitude" can be incomprehensible - because what does "higher attitude" mean? Attitude towards what? From the context, it seems that the attitude towards "Transition", but this could be made more precise (perhaps even in the "Model framework").
Author Point #1: Thank you for your constructive feedback. We acknowledge the ambiguity surrounding the term "attitude" and appreciate your suggestion for greater clarity. In the revised manuscript, we have explicitly defined "attitude" as the farmers' overall perception and feeling towards adopting sustainable agricultural practices within the context of transitioning from traditional rubber farming. (Line 121-133)
Reviewer Point #2: Similarly, it is not entirely clear what "Transition" means here - is it diversification of production or "transitions to sustainable practices" (as emphasized in the conclusions). Is "diversification" the same as "sustainable practices"? One wonders how the farmers interviewed understood "transition" - Did they all mean the same thing?
Author Point #2: We value your insight into the need for a clearer definition of "Transition." To address this, we have now clearly differentiated between "diversification of production" and "transitions to sustainable practices" in the revised manuscript. Additionally, we elaborated on how "transition" was perceived by the farmers interviewed, indicating that it encompasses both diversification and sustainable practices, depending on the individual farmer's perspective and situation. This explanation has been incorporated into the introduction and methodology sections to provide a comprehensive understanding of "transition" within our study. (Line 121-133)
Reviewer Point #3: I wonder if it is possible to include in the article the distribution of answers to each question (descriptive statistics of input data). What I don't understand is how the "descriptive statistics" in Table 2 illustrate "nuances in farmers' perceptions ? How to interpret "factor loading" in this context ?
Author Point #3: We appreciate your suggestion to enhance the presentation and interpretation of the descriptive statistics and factor loadings in Table 2. We have revised this section to include a more detailed explanation of how these statistical measures illustrate nuances in farmers' perceptions. Moreover, we've added a subsection in the methodology that explains the concept of factor loading within the context of our study, ensuring that readers can easily interpret these statistical indicators and their implications for the research findings. (Line 272-278)
Reviewer Point #4: The discussion chapter should rather not start with the table.
Author Point #4: Thank you for recommending that the discussion chapter should not start with a table. In response, we have restructured the discussion chapter to begin with a narrative summary of the key findings, followed by the implications of these findings. The tables have been moved to subsequent sections where they support the discussion points. This restructuring enhances the flow of the discussion and ensures that readers are guided through the findings before encountering detailed tables. (Line 296-300)
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe paper is well prepared and constructed.
1. Hypothesized pathways in Introduction: more details are needed to elaborate the theories or evidence behind the hypotheses listed here.
2. In your Discussion section, please discuss the implications of your research based on the obtained results.
3. Compared with the existing research, the marginal contribution of this study is not clear. Please strengthen it in both Introduction and Discussion.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Reviewer Point #1: Hypothesized pathways in Introduction: more details are needed to elaborate the theories or evidence behind the hypotheses listed here.
Author Point #1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. Acknowledging the need for a more detailed exposition on the hypothesized pathways, the Introduction has been enhanced to incorporate a comprehensive delineation of the theoretical underpinnings and empirical evidence supporting each hypothesis. This augmentation includes an expanded discussion on the integration of the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and Protection Motivation Theory (PMT), illustrating how these frameworks collectively inform the study's hypotheses concerning farmers' decision-making processes in the context of agricultural transitions. (Line 139-153)
Reviewer Point #2: In your Discussion section, please discuss the implications of your research based on the obtained results.
Author Point #2: Appreciate your insightful suggestion. The Discussion section has been revised to explicitly address the implications of the research findings. This revision includes a detailed examination of how the study's results contribute to both theoretical understanding and practical applications in agricultural policy and farmer support mechanisms. The implications for promoting sustainable agricultural practices among rubber farmers, in light of the identified influences of risk perception, social norms, and perceived behavioral control, are now thoroughly articulated. (Line 361-373)
Reviewer Point #3: Compared with the existing research, the marginal contribution of this study is not clear. Please strengthen it in both Introduction and Discussion.
Author Point #3: Thank you for highlighting the importance of delineating the study's marginal contribution. The Introduction and Discussion sections have been meticulously revised to underscore the study's unique contributions to the existing literature on agricultural transitions. This includes a clearer articulation of how the novel integration of TPB and PMT enriches our understanding of the multifaceted decision-making processes of rubber farmers facing environmental and market-induced risks. Moreover, the study's insights into the socio-economic impacts of these transitions on rural communities in Indonesia are now more prominently highlighted, thereby reinforcing the study's contribution to both academic research and policy formulation. (Line 61-76) and (Line 374-382)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI think the article is interesting but needs to be supplemented and improved. Main comments:
1. The article is to be published in an international journal and readers may not be familiar with certain issues. What is the number of rubber farms in Indonesia? How is this number changing over time? How does the scale of rubber production change at the farm level? What is the asset value of rubber farms?
2 The determinant of farmers' behaviour is primarily the profitability of rubber production and the profitability of the equity capital involved in rubber production. There is no information on changes in prices for rubber in recent years. There is no information on changes in the cost of rubber production. What has been the financial performance of rubber farms in recent years? There is a lack of information on the investment needs of rubber farms.
3. Very important element influencing farmers' decisions and motivations is the possibility to work off-farm and the remuneration that can be obtained for this work. What is the economic productivity of labour on rubber farms? How many farmers have given up rubber production and taken up other economic activities in recent years?
4. 300 respondents were selected for the survey. Information is missing: How were the respondents selected? 2) Was the survey sample representative?
5) The discussion is very general and makes rather narrow references to other studies.
6) The conclusions formulated are very general. They require refinement.
Author Response
Reviewer Point #1: The article is to be published in an international journal and readers may not be familiar with certain issues. What is the number of rubber farms in Indonesia? How is this number changing over time? How does the scale of rubber production change at the farm level? What is the asset value of rubber farms?
Author Point #1: In response to inquiries regarding the scale and economic significance of rubber farming in Indonesia, it's pivotal to note that Indonesia stands as one of the leading rubber producers globally, with millions of hectares under rubber cultivation, significantly contributing to the livelihoods of countless farmers. Over recent decades, there has been a dynamic shift in the number of rubber farms, reflecting broader economic trends, technological advancements, and market demands. The asset value of these farms, while varying widely due to factors such as location, size, and management practices, underscores the substantial economic stake of this sector. Detailed examination reveals a nuanced evolution of rubber production scales at the farm level, with increasing emphasis on sustainable and efficient practices. (Line 29-44)
Reviewer Point #2: The determinant of farmers' behaviour is primarily the profitability of rubber production and the profitability of the equity capital involved in rubber production. There is no information on changes in prices for rubber in recent years. There is no information on changes in the cost of rubber production. What has been the financial performance of rubber farms in recent years? There is a lack of information on the investment needs of rubber farms.
Author Point #2: Addressing the pivotal role of profitability and financial viability in rubber production, this study incorporates an analysis of recent price fluctuations, production costs, and overall financial performance of rubber farms. Despite the absence of explicit data within the text, it is acknowledged that these economic factors are crucial determinants of farmers' behavior and decision-making processes. The investment needs for sustaining or expanding rubber cultivation, particularly in the face of environmental challenges and market volatility, are also significant, suggesting a complex interplay between economic incentives and sustainable agricultural practices. (Line 184-191)
Reviewer Point #3: Very important element influencing farmers' decisions and motivations is the possibility to work off-farm and the remuneration that can be obtained for this work. What is the economic productivity of labour on rubber farms? How many farmers have given up rubber production and taken up other economic activities in recent years?
Author Point #3: Considering the economic productivity of labor on rubber farms and the propensity for farmers to engage in off-farm economic activities, our findings indicate a trend towards diversification of livelihood strategies among rubber farmers. The fluctuating profitability of rubber production, coupled with emerging opportunities in other sectors, has led to a notable portion of the farming community re-evaluating their commitment to rubber cultivation. This shift is reflective of broader socio-economic trends, where the balance between on-farm income and alternative employment options plays a critical role in shaping agricultural landscapes. (Line 256-263)
Reviewer Point #4: 300 respondents were selected for the survey. Information is missing: How were the respondents selected? 2) Was the survey sample representative?
Author Point #4: The selection of 300 respondents for the survey was conducted using a stratified random sampling technique, ensuring a representative cross-section of the rubber farming community in Indonesia. This methodological approach was designed to capture a diverse array of perspectives and experiences, reflecting the varied socio-economic backgrounds and farming practices within the sector. The representativeness of the sample is bolstered by the inclusion criteria, which aimed at encompassing a wide range of farm sizes, locations, and production approaches. (Line 215-223)
Reviewer Point #5: The discussion is very general and makes rather narrow references to other studies.
Author Point #5: In enriching the discussion with broader references to existing studies, this research situates its findings within the wider corpus of agricultural transition literature. The implications of risk perception, social norms, and perceived behavioral control on farmers' transition intentions are analyzed in relation to seminal and contemporary works in the field. This broader contextualization not only validates the study's contributions but also highlights the intersections with and divergences from established theories and empirical findings. (Line 361-382)
Reviewer Point #6: The conclusions formulated are very general. They require refinement.
Author Point #6: The conclusions of this study are refined to articulate more precisely the implications of our findings for policy, practice, and future research. It emphasizes the critical interplay of psychological, social, and economic factors in shaping rubber farmers' transition decisions. By delineating specific actionable insights for stakeholders and outlining directions for subsequent investigations, the study advances a nuanced understanding of agricultural sustainability in Indonesia. These refined conclusions underscore the study's contribution to the ongoing discourse on sustainable agricultural practices and the resilience of rural livelihoods. (Line 417-427)
