Inclusive Innovation for the Sustainable Strengthening of Prickly Pear Cultivation in Rural Areas of Colombia: A Case Study in Sonsón, Antioquia^†

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of the paper "INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE STRENGTHENING OF PRICKLY PEAR CULTIVATION IN RURAL AREAS OF COLOMBIA: A CASE STUDY IN SONSÓN, ANTIOQUIA" present a relevant topic, both from the point of view of innovations in the "field of sustainability of the Opuntia ficus-indica value chain", respectively "the mapping of actors frames the ecosystem around three pillars", which generates both applicative aspects from the point of view of research, but above all we can appreciate that it generates multiplication effects. However, we suggest to the authors of the paper both to highlight in terms of personal innovative scientific contributions, and to highlight the multiplication effects of the paper. Reduce the similarity index to below 10%.

The concepts, citations and bibliographical references are adequately mentioned in the paper, for example, [16] “approach to coherently and contextually articulate qualitative and quantitative designs in applied social research”.

The research methodology is adequately presented, for example, the authors use, “methods of direct observation, systematic analysis and inductive-deductive reasoning”, respectively scientific methods based on rational and empirical processes.

The results are presented both descriptively and graphically, through tables and graphs, for example, “the combination of the three pillars, local capacities and inclusive bottom-up intermediation reduces power asymmetries, strengthens associativity and commercialization, redistributes value towards origin and preserves ancestral knowledge”. At the same time, based on innovative financial instruments, we suggest that the authors of the paper highlight innovative scientific contributions that contribute to specialized scientific literature, respectively to endogenous development and that “offer adaptable paths for other agri-food chains based on native crops in Latin America”.

The conclusions are adequately stated, for example the authors highlight that “the model also includes inclusive intermediaries that link community knowledge and technical expertise, facilitating training and equitable marketing”, which is why I suggest the authors of the paper to highlight what the authors’ proposals are on sustainable development policies based on the proposed model. Furthermore, I suggest the authors of the paper to highlight what the limitations of the study are, as well as future research.

Author Response

Comment 1:
The authors of the article “INCLUSIVE INNOVATION FOR THE SUSTAINABLE STRENGTHENING OF PRICKLY PEAR CULTIVATION IN RURAL AREAS OF COLOMBIA: A CASE STUDY IN SONSÓN, ANTIOQUIA” present a relevant topic, both from the perspective of innovations in the sustainability of the Opuntia ficus-indica value chain and the mapping of actors that frame the ecosystem around three main pillars. This mapping provides practical insights from a research standpoint and, above all, demonstrates multiplier effects. However, we suggest that the authors highlight both their personal innovative scientific contributions and these multiplier effects. Please reduce the similarity index to below 10%.

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Accordingly, the sections on the Introduction (page 3), Conclusions (page 19), and the segments “History and Culture of the Crop” (page 5) and “Agroecological, Spatial, and Productive Concentration Conditions” (page 7) were rewritten and strengthened. These revisions highlight the theoretical, methodological, and territorial contributions of the study, as well as the multiplier effects of the proposed model, and are expected to significantly reduce the similarity percentage.

Comment 5:
The conclusions are well formulated; for example, the authors point out that “the model also includes inclusive intermediaries who connect community knowledge with technical expertise, facilitating training and equitable marketing.” Therefore, I suggest that the authors highlight their proposals regarding sustainable development policies based on the proposed model. I also recommend emphasizing the study’s limitations and suggesting avenues for future research.

Response 5:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, the conclusions were expanded to include policy recommendations and rural sustainable development strategies grounded in the proposed inclusive innovation model. Additionally, a new section titled “Limitations and Research Recommendations” (page 18) was added, detailing the main methodological constraints and suggesting future research directions to validate and extend the model in other territorial contexts.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• In the introduction, it should be more clearly emphasised what is missing in the existing literature. Is the novelty in the methodology (ABM + participatory tools) or in the territorial context (indigenous cultures of Latin America)?
• It would be useful to include recent literature on agroecological transitions, territorial innovation systems and the role of traditional knowledge.
• It is necessary to state possible limitations: representativeness of the sample, seasonal specificities, potential biases due to self-assessment of respondents or institutional influences.
• Lack of explanation of sampling (eg why 112 producers and how they were selected). It would also be useful to emphasize how qualitative and quantitative data are integrated.
• The authors mention women and young people, but more data would be useful (eg percentage of female participants, specific roles of young people).
• GIS maps and diagrams require clearer legends and explanations in the text. At the moment, they are informative, but not sufficiently connected to the analytical part of the work.
• In order to strengthen the generalisation, it would be good to insert a short comparison with other indigenous crops in Colombia (eg tamarillo, coffee), especially in terms of innovation models.
• The conclusions mention the possibilities of applying the model to other regions, but it would be worth recommending measures more clearly for local authorities, cooperatives and international donors.

Author Response

Comment 1:
In the introduction, the gaps in the existing literature should be emphasized more clearly. Does the novelty lie in the methodology (ABM + participatory tools) or in the territorial context (Indigenous cultures of Latin America)?

Response 1:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, the second and third paragraphs of the Introduction (page 3) were reformulated to clearly identify the gap in the literature and to highlight the dual novelty of the study:
(i) Methodological, by integrating participatory tools with Agent-Based Modeling (ABM) to map actors and relationships within inclusive innovation processes; and
(ii) Applied, by focusing on a Latin American rural territory characterized by a peasant identity and Andean cultural influence.
This clarification makes the study’s original contribution more explicit.

 

Comment 2:
It would be useful to include recent literature on agroecological transitions, territorial innovation systems, and the role of traditional knowledge.

Response 2:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Accordingly, recent and relevant literature was added in the corresponding section (page 7) to strengthen the theoretical and contextual framework.

[References added to the manuscript]:
Hernández, D. H., & Moreno, M. d. (2022). Resistencia a la transición agroecológica en México. Región y Sociedad, 34. https://doi.org/10.22198/rys2022/34/1581
Altieri, M. A., & Toledo, V. M. (2011). The agroecological revolution in Latin America: rescuing nature, ensuring food sovereignty and empowering peasants. The Journal of Peasant Studies, 38(3), 587–612. https://doi.org/10.1080/03066150.2011.582947
Giraldo, O. F., & Rosset, P. M. (2016). La agroecología en una encrucijada: entre la institucionalidad y los movimientos sociales. Revista Brasileira de Desenvolvimento Territorial Sustentável, 2(1), 14–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.5380/guaju.v2i1.48521
Gliessman, S. R. (2013). Agroecología: plantando las raíces de la resistencia. Agroecología, 8(2), 19–26.

 

 

Comment 3:

It is necessary to point out the possible limitations: representativeness of the sample, seasonal specificities, potential self-assessment bias from respondents, or institutional influences.

Response 3:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, in the methodological component (paragraph 2, page 4), the sampling procedure was described in greater detail, specifying the selection criteria and representativeness of the participants. Additionally, a new section titled “Limitations and Research Recommendations” (page 18) was added, addressing methodological and contextual constraints such as representativeness, seasonal variations, potential self-assessment biases, and institutional influences in data collection.

 

Comment 4:
Lack of explanation about the sampling (e.g., why 112 producers were selected and how). It would also be useful to highlight how qualitative and quantitative data are integrated.

Response 4:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, in the methodological component (paragraph 2, page 4), it was clarified that the study is not based on a sample but on a population approach, since the 112 producers correspond to the total number of productive units registered in the prickly pear value chain in Sonsón, according to official records from the Municipal Department of Agriculture and the Local Producers’ Association. This decision reflects the specific characteristics of the crop, its limited scale, and the geographic concentration of actors. Additionally, the integration of qualitative and quantitative data was briefly reinforced within the methodology section.

 

Comment 5:
The authors mention women and youth, but more data would be helpful (e.g., percentage of female participants, specific roles of young people).

Response 5:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, the sociodemographic characterization was expanded in the second paragraph of the methodological component (page 4, paragraph 2), providing exact figures on the population composition, including the percentage of female participation and the age distribution of youth.
This addition allows for a clearer understanding of gender and generational roles within the productive ecosystem and their relevance to inclusive innovation processes.

 

Comment 6:
Maps and GIS diagrams require clearer legends and explanations in the text. Currently, they are informative but not sufficiently linked to the analytical part of the work.

Response 6:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Therefore, in the section titled “Agroecological, Spatial, and Productive Concentration Conditions” (page 8, paragraphs 6 and 7), the explanation was expanded and the analysis was explicitly linked to the GIS diagram, providing a clearer description of the represented variables and their analytical interpretation.

 

Comment 7:
To strengthen generalization, it would be helpful to insert a brief comparison with other native Colombian crops (e.g., tree tomato, coffee), especially regarding innovation models.

Response 7:
Thank you for the suggestion. We appreciate the comment; however, no changes were made to the manuscript. After reviewing national and regional sources, no documented cases were found of other Colombian crops sharing similar productive, governance, and scale characteristics with prickly pear cultivation, particularly regarding the implementation of inclusive innovation models.
Therefore, no valid comparison could be established, ensuring analytical rigor and the internal coherence of the case study.

 

Comment 8:
The conclusions mention the potential for applying the model to other regions, but it would be valuable to recommend clearer measures for local authorities, cooperatives, and international donors.

Response 8:
Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with the comment. Consequently, the conclusions were substantially revised and expanded (page 19) to include specific recommendations for local authorities, cooperatives, and international cooperation agencies, emphasizing policy design, institutional strengthening, and sustainable financing mechanisms to support the scaling of the inclusive innovation model.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a relevant and original study on how inclusive innovation can contribute to strengthening the sustainability of prickly pear cultivation in rural Colombia. The mixed-methods approach, grounded in participatory techniques, cartography, and agent-based modeling, offers a strong methodological basis. However, improvements in theoretical framing, methodological clarity, and conciseness are needed. Here are some comments.

[1] Add a conceptual figure that summarizes the inclusive innovation model, clearly linking the five bases (innovation, entrepreneurship, cultural, governance, enabling environment) to the identified actors.

[2] Provide more empirical evidence (quantitative indicators) of how inclusive innovation pathways improve farmers’ outcomes (e.g., income, yield, market access).

[3] Expand the conclusions to emphasize how the model can be scaled and adapted for policy design at regional/national levels.

[4] Include a limitations section addressing potential biases in sampling (e.g., selection of interviewees, representativeness of producers).

[5] Revise the abstract for conciseness—focusing on methodology, key findings, and broader relevance.

[6] Summarize some results (e.g., commercialization bottlenecks, actor relationships) with simplified diagrams.

[7] The manuscript is wordy, particularly in history and culture sections). Streamline to improve readability and focus.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript is wordy, particularly in history and culture sections). Streamline to improve readability and focus.

Author Response

Comment 1:
Add a conceptual figure summarizing the inclusive innovation model, clearly linking the five foundations (innovation, entrepreneurship, culture, governance, enabling environment) with the identified actors.

Response 1:
We appreciate the valuable suggestion and the reviewer’s recognition of the model’s structure. However, no additional conceptual figure was included in this version, as the flowchart already presented in the manuscript comprehensively depicts the articulation of the inclusive innovation model. It was considered that adding another figure could generate visual redundancy; therefore, the flowchart was maintained as the central conceptual and operational synthesis of the model, ensuring clarity and coherence in presentation.

 

Comment 2:
Provide more empirical evidence (quantitative indicators) showing how the inclusive innovation pathways improve farmers’ outcomes (e.g., income, productivity, market access).

Response 2:
We sincerely appreciate the observation and fully acknowledge the importance of strengthening empirical evidence with quantitative indicators. However, this version of the manuscript does not include that extension, since collecting quantitative data to measure impacts—such as changes in income, productivity, or market access—requires a subsequent impact evaluation, involving a longer temporal horizon and systematic community follow-up.
This aspect is explicitly noted in the section “Limitations and Research Recommendations”, where the need for future longitudinal studies is emphasized to quantify the effects of the inclusive innovation model on the producers’ socioeconomic conditions.

 

Comment 3:
Expand the conclusions to emphasize how the model can be scaled up and adapted for policy design at the regional/national level.

Response 3:
Thank you for the observation. We agree with the comment. Consequently, the conclusions (page 19) were expanded to highlight more clearly the scalability and adaptability potential of the inclusive innovation model for regional and national policy design.
This addition underscores the model’s applicability as a territorial planning tool aimed at strengthening rural innovation ecosystems and promoting coordination among communities, governments, and development cooperation entities.

 

Comment 4:
Include a limitations section addressing possible sampling biases (e.g., interviewee selection, producer representativeness).

Response 4:
Thank you for the observation. We agree with the comment. Accordingly, a new section titled “Limitations and Research Recommendations” (page 18) was added, where potential biases related to interviewee selection, producer representativeness, and the specific characteristics of the methodological approach are discussed.
Furthermore, in the methodological component (page 4, paragraph 2), it is clarified that the study follows a population-based approach rather than a sampling design, since it includes all 112 registered prickly pear producers in Sonsón’s value chain.
This clarification strengthens methodological transparency and provides a clearer understanding of the study’s scope and limitations.

 

Comment 5:
Revise the abstract to make it more concise, focusing on the methodology, key findings, and broader relevance.

Response 5:
Thank you for the observation. We agree with the comment. The abstract (page 2) was revised and rewritten to make it more concise and focused on the essential elements of the study, emphasizing the methodology, main findings, and the relevance of the proposed model for inclusive innovation in rural contexts.
This revision improves clarity and coherence, aligning the text with international academic abstract standards.

 

Comment 6:
Summarize some results (e.g., bottlenecks in commercialization, relationships among actors) using simplified diagrams.

Response 6:
We appreciate the suggestion and understand the intent to make results easier to follow. However, no new diagrams were added in this version, as the existing flowchart already synthesizes the proposed model, representing actor relationships, inclusive innovation pathways, and the main bottlenecks identified in the value chain.
Additionally, the related sections were reviewed and the information reduced and streamlined for improved readability and analytical focus.

 

Comment 7:
The manuscript is lengthy, especially in the sections on history and culture. It is recommended to simplify them to improve readability and focus.

Response 7:
Thank you for the observation. We agree with the comment. Therefore, the sections “History and Culture of the Crop” (page 5) and “Agroecological, Spatial, and Productive Concentration Conditions” (page 7) were revised and condensed, reducing their length by approximately 30% of the original volume.
This simplification improved readability, eliminated redundancies, and focused the content on the most relevant aspects for analyzing the inclusive innovation model, while maintaining conceptual coherence and contextual depth.

 

Comment on English Language Quality:
The manuscript is lengthy, particularly in the sections on history and culture. It is recommended to simplify them to improve readability and focus.

Response:
Thank you for the observation. We agree with the comment. A comprehensive English-language review of the manuscript was conducted to enhance clarity, fluency, and technical accuracy, particularly in the history and culture sections (page 5).
Additionally, these sections were reduced by approximately 30%, prioritizing a more concise and natural writing style to facilitate comprehension for international readers without compromising academic rigor.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors incorporated the required suggestions.

Author Response

Comment 1: The authors incorporated the required suggestions.

Response 1:
We sincerely appreciate the reviewer’s positive feedback. All suggestions have been carefully addressed and are reflected in the revised version of the manuscript, enhancing its overall clarity and coherence

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study presents a comprehensive mixed-methods analysis of the prickly pear value chain in Sonson, Antioquia, Colombia. The proposed model offers practical insights for policymakers, researchers, and practitioners working with traditional agri-food systems in similar contexts. However, minor revisions are needed to improve clarity, completeness, and presentation. Here are some comments.

[1] Some sections (e.g., Methodology) are overly descriptive and could be condensed.

[2] Introduce the proposed inclusive innovation model earlier in the narrative, ideally following the diagnostic analysis of the value chain.

[3] Include more detail on how qualitative and quantitative data were integrated (e.g., triangulation procedures).

[4] Provide a brief overview of key findings or simulated scenarios of the agent-based modeling.

[5] Expand the limitations. For example, the reliance on self-reported data, potential biases in participant selection, and the challenges of generalizing from a single case study should be addressed.

[6] The policy recommendations could be more specific. For example, how can municipal governments operationalize the role of inclusive intermediaries? What specific financial instruments are needed?

[7] In Sections 6 and 7, replace bullet points with numbered subsections to improve formal structure and readability.

[8] Section 7 currently contains only one subsection (7.1). Review the intended structure of this section and ensure all relevant actor categories or model components are properly organized into subsections.

[9] The conclusion is currently presented as a bulleted list. Reformat it into coherent paragraphs.

Author Response

[1] Comment:

Some sections (e.g., Methodology) are overly descriptive and could be condensed.

Response:
We appreciate this insightful observation. We agree with the reviewer that certain parts of the Methodology section were overly descriptive. Accordingly, the section was revised and condensed to improve clarity, academic precision, and alignment with the journal’s standards, while retaining only essential contextual information.
This correction can be observed on page 4, paragraphs 1, 3, and 4 of the revised manuscript.

[2] Comment:

Introduce the proposed inclusive innovation model earlier in the narrative, ideally following the diagnostic analysis of the value chain.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. Following this recommendation, the figure corresponding to the inclusive innovation model was relocated earlier in the narrative.
This correction can be observed on page 12 of the revised manuscript.

[3] Comment:

Include more detail on how qualitative and quantitative data were integrated (e.g., triangulation procedures).

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion. The methodological description regarding the integration of qualitative and quantitative data was expanded, including a more detailed explanation of the triangulation procedures used.
This correction can be observed on page 4 of the revised manuscript.

[4] Comment:

Provide a brief overview of key findings or simulated scenarios of the agent-based modeling.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. After reviewing the corresponding section, we consider that the current description of the agent-based modeling is sufficient for the purposes of the article and to avoid unnecessary extension of the results section.

[5] Comment:

Expand the limitations. For example, the reliance on self-reported data, potential biases in participant selection, and the challenges of generalizing from a single case study should be addressed.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response to this recommendation, the Limitations section was expanded to include additional considerations on the subjectivity of self-reported data, the selection biases inherent to purposive sampling, the external validity constraints of a single-case study, and the potential observation bias associated with participatory fieldwork. Measures implemented to mitigate these risks, such as source triangulation and cross-validation of results, were also specified.
This correction can be observed on page 18 paragraph 2 of the revised manuscript.

[6] Comment:

The policy recommendations could be more specific. For example, how can municipal governments operationalize the role of inclusive intermediaries? What specific financial instruments are needed?

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. We acknowledge the importance of this point; however, the development of specific financial instruments is beyond the scope of this study, whose primary objective is to analyze the inclusive innovation model and its territorial applicability. Nevertheless, the Limitations section includes a reflection highlighting the need for future research aimed at identifying financial and policy tools to strengthen rural innovation ecosystems.
This adjustment can be observed on page 19 paragraph  4 of the revised manuscript. 

[7] Comment:

In Sections 6 and 7, replace bullet points with numbered subsections to improve formal structure and readability.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Following this recommendation, bullet points in Sections 6 and 7 were replaced with numbered subsections to enhance the formal structure and improve text clarity.
This correction can be observed on pages 11 to 17  of the revised manuscript.

[8] Comment:

Section 7 currently contains only one subsection (7.1). Review the intended structure of this section and ensure that all relevant actor categories or model components are properly organized into subsections.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. Section 7 was reorganized, adding the corresponding subsections for the actors and components of the inclusive innovation model to improve clarity and structure.
This correction can be observed on pages 13 and 17 of the revised manuscript.

[9] Comment:

The conclusion is currently presented as a bulleted list. Reformat it into coherent paragraphs.

Response:
We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. However, following the suggestion of another reviewer, the bulleted format was retained, as it improves readability, allows for clearer identification of the main findings, and maintains the visual coherence of the manuscript without affecting its academic content.