Review Reports

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provided detailed, point-by-point responses below. All relevant modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?

Can be improved

Response:

We have revised the Introduction to provide a clearer research background and highlight the knowledge gap addressed by this study.

Revision Made:
Revisions were made in Sec 3.2.1, Wufeng District, located in southern Taichung City in central Taiwan, serves as the case study site (see Figure 1, lines 304–319 for the location of the study area).

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

Yes

Thank you very much

Is the research design appropriate?

Yes

Thank you very much

Are the methods adequately described?

Can be improved

In the Methodology (Sections 3.1–3.2), we clarified participant selection criteria, interview design, and data collection sequence, providing greater transparency regarding the research process.

Are the results clearly presented?

Can be improved

In the Results (Sections 4–5), we reorganized findings to clearly reflect leadership dynamics, thematic structure, and the progression of eco-friendly transformation, supported by empirical evidence from interviews and field data.

Are the conclusions supported by the results?

Can be improved

In the Conclusion (Section 6), we strengthened the linkage between results and theoretical implications, ensuring that the conclusions are explicitly supported by the findings.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1: [Paste the full reviewer comment here.]

Summary of the manuscript and its contributions

The reviewed article examines the role of leadership in initiating and sustaining collective action aimed at promoting environmentally friendly farming practices. Using the case of Wufeng District in Taichung City (Taiwan), the authors explore how different forms of leadership, particularly transformational and transactional, interact in the process of transitioning from traditional to sustainable agricultural systems. The originality of the study lies in the conceptual integration of two well-established leadership theories into a coherent “transfor-sactional” model. This theoretical framework enables the authors to analyze how leaders combine a vision-oriented and a reward-based approach to build consensus, enhance cooperation, and maintain motivation among farmers engaged in ecological transformation. By applying Ostrom’s theory of collective action, the concept of social entrepreneurship, and the Satoyama Initiative framework, the study situates the examined case within a broader context of community-based environmental governance and rural sustainability. In my opinion, the article makes a valuable contribution to addressing a research gap, as previous studies on collective action in agriculture have focused mainly on large-scale, economically motivated systems rather than on bottom-up initiatives. However, the literature review should be significantly expanded. In its current form, it is too limited and should include more recent and internationally relevant studies on rural leadership and environmental management.

Response 1:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. In response, the literature review has been significantly expanded and reorganized into three sections:

1. Eco-Friendly Farming (Section 2.1): Provides definitions, historical context, international and Taiwan-specific examples, and policy support, incorporating recent literature on sustainable agricultural practices.
2. Leadership (Section 2.2): Discusses leadership theories, roles at multiple levels, and their relevance to rural development and collective action.
3. Collective Action and Adaptive Leadership (Section 2.3): Examines how leadership facilitates collective adoption of eco-friendly practices, integrating international case studies and recent research on environmental management.

These revisions ensure that the literature review is comprehensive, up-to-date, and internationally relevant, addressing the reviewer’s concern regarding scope and currency.

Comments 2:

Assessment of methodology and research approach

The methodological approach is well suited to the aims of the study. The authors employ a qualitative case study to gain an in-depth understanding of leadership dynamics underlying collective action in support of eco-friendly agriculture. Data were collected through field observations and semi-structured interviews with nine leaders and ten members of production and marketing groups, conducted in several stages between 2016 and 2025. Data analysis follows the hybrid thematic method of Fereday and Muir-Cochrane, combining inductive and deductive approaches. This analytical framework allows the authors to identify emergent themes while also testing them against established theoretical constructs. The triangulation of interview data with official reports, meeting minutes, and secondary documents enhances the reliability and validity of the findings. Overall, I assess the methodological design as coherent and rigorous. My only suggestion concerns clarifying the criteria used for participant selection, which would further improve methodological transparency.

Response 2:

Thank you for this valuable comment. We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful suggestion. In response, we have substantially revised Section 3 (Research Methodology) to provide a more transparent and structured explanation of the research design and data collection process. The revisions are summarized as follows:

1.           Clarified research design:

The section now explicitly states that a single case study approach was employed to obtain an in-depth understanding of the contextual and characteristic features of the Wufeng District case.

2.           Elaborated participant selection rationale:

A purposive sampling strategy was described in detail, emphasizing the inclusion of participants who were directly involved in promoting or implementing eco-friendly farming. The revised text also specifies the composition of the sixteen interviewees, categorized by organizational role and level of participation.

3.           Detailed interview process and sequence:

The revised Section 3.1.1 now explains the temporal sequence of interviews (from 2016 to 2025), the number of interview rounds per group, and the average interview duration (1.5–3 hours). We also note that some key informants were interviewed multiple times to capture evolving perspectives on leadership and institutional change.

4.           Specified guiding questions and themes:

To enhance methodological transparency, we added the main thematic areas (leadership characteristics, collective action triggers, strategies for overcoming obstacles, and external influences).

Representative guiding questions are now provided in Appendix A (Semi-Structured Interview Guide).

5.           Follow-up and ethical procedures:

The revision clarifies that probing questions were dynamically adjusted during interviews to encourage deeper reflection. We also emphasize that all participants provided informed consent, and anonymization procedures (FA1–FA7, FM1–FM6, GO1, AR1–AR2) are described in the text and summarized in Appendix B (Participant Overview).

6.           Enhanced data analysis transparency:

Section 3.1.2 now explains the use of hybrid thematic analysis (Fereday & Muir-Cochrane [39]), integrating inductive and deductive approaches. The coding process, theme categorization, and triangulation procedures are described in detail and further summarized in Appendix C (Analytical Framework and Data Triangulation).

Together, these modifications ensure a transparent, systematic, and replicable methodology that clearly demonstrates how the temporal evolution of leadership and collective action was empirically captured and analyzed.

Comments 3:

Analysis of results and interpretation

The empirical findings are rich and provide a coherent narrative linking leadership practices with the mobilization of collective action. The study identifies three key drivers of transformation: 1. Visionary leadership and incentive mechanisms introduced by the Wufeng Farmers’ Association; 2. Technical expertise and cultivation management provided by the Taiwan Agricultural Research Institute; 3. Grassroots mobilization and trust-building by production and marketing group leaders. These elements illustrate the practical functioning of the proposed “transfor-sactional” model, in which transformational leadership inspires engagement and a sense of purpose, while transactional leadership ensures operational stability and tangible benefits. In my view, the qualitative evidence convincingly demonstrates the relational and motivational aspects of leadership. The analysis also shows that the combination of leadership, institutional design, and incentive mechanisms led to measurable environmental and economic effects, such as the expansion of eco-friendly farmland. The discussion of results could be strengthened by linking the empirical findings more explicitly to existing theoretical frameworks. In particular, situating the results within the broader discourse on adaptive leadership and community-based resource management would enhance the analytical depth. A comparative perspective, including other cases of agricultural transformation in Asia or globally, could also increase the study’s international relevance. Finally, I strongly recommend that the authors clearly separate a Discussion section and explicitly relate their findings to the work of other scholars.

Response 3:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, Section 5 (Discussion) has been restructured into three subsections to enhance analytical depth and clarity:

1. Leadership mechanisms: Wufeng’s leadership practices are analyzed within the broader theoretical discourse on adaptive, transformational, and transactional leadership, and their role in community-based resource management is explicitly discussed.
2. Implementation challenges and strategies: Addresses obstacles in promoting eco-friendly farming, showing how leadership strategies resolved them, and includes comparisons with other agricultural transformation cases in Asia and globally, highlighting similarities and differences.
3. Economic and social outcomes: Explores the impacts of leadership on eco-friendly cultivation expansion, value-added products, and community well-being, explicitly relating the findings to prior studies.

These revisions ensure that the discussion is cohesive, theoretically grounded, and internationally contextualized, fully addressing the reviewer’s comments.

Comments 4:

Comments on presentation and structure

The article is well organized, and the narrative progresses logically from theoretical foundations to empirical data and policy implications. The integration of local context, leadership theory, and sustainable agriculture makes the study coherent and valuable. However, it is essential to add a Limitations and Future Research section, as this is expected in a scientific article and would demonstrate greater critical reflection. Finally, the manuscript requires formatting corrections: there are excessive spaces between paragraphs, and many passages are unnecessarily bolded these should be removed.

Response 4:

Thank you for the reviewer’s constructive suggestions. We have revised the manuscript structure to strengthen coherence between sections and improve the logical flow of the narrative.

In response to the reviewer’s recommendation, we have added a new subsection (6.3 “Limitations and Future Research”) to explicitly discuss the study’s methodological and contextual constraints and to outline directions for future investigation.

Additionally, the manuscript formatting has been thoroughly revised in accordance with MDPI Sustainability guidelines. Excessive paragraph spacing and unnecessary bold text have been removed, and consistency in headings, section numbering, and reference style has been ensured.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: 

Thank you for your positive assessment. We are glad that the English language and overall clarity of the manuscript meet your expectations.

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you for the reviewer’s insightful suggestions.

We would like to clarify that minor language and formatting edits have been applied throughout the manuscript to improve clarity and readability; these changes do not affect the results, interpretations, or conclusions of the study. All revisions requested by the reviewers, including the expansion of the literature review, clarification of participant selection criteria, addition of the Limitations and Future Research section, and adjustments to figures and tables, have been fully addressed. Any supplementary materials referenced in the manuscript are provided in the submission system to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

To enhance the transparency and completeness of the study, we have added three appendices (Appendix A–C).

• Appendix A presents the interview outline and key guiding questions.
• Appendix B provides a summary table of participant codes, roles, and interview dates.
• Appendix C includes additional excerpts and supporting evidence illustrating leadership evolution and project milestones.
  These additions aim to offer readers greater methodological detail and data transparency while maintaining anonymity.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provided detailed, point-by-point responses below. All relevant modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?     

Is the English used correct and readable?

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

The manuscript presents a case study on leadership-driven collective action for eco-friendly farming transitions in Taiwan’s Wufeng District. Below are detailed suggestions for revision:  

The literature review, while covering leadership and eco-friendly farming basics, lacks critical synthesis of region-specific research, especially post-2018 studies on Taiwanese farmer associations, collective action, or eco-friendly policies.

Response 1:

Thank you for this insightful comment. We fully agree that the literature review required a more critical synthesis and inclusion of recent Taiwan-based studies. Accordingly, we have substantially revised Sections 2.2 and 2.3 to strengthen both theoretical integration and regional relevance.

In Section 2.2, we expanded the review to include recent international studies (post-2018) on rural leadership, entrepreneurship, and collective action, highlighting how theoretical models inform sustainable agriculture transitions.
In Section 2.3, we incorporated Taiwan-focused research published after 2018, addressing farmer associations’ roles, eco-friendly policy implementation, and local leadership networks. This section now offers a comparative synthesis linking international and domestic findings, situating the Wufeng case within broader regional and global contexts.

These revisions provide stronger theoretical grounding and demonstrate how local leadership practices reflect both global frameworks (e.g., Ostrom’s collective action theory, Satoyama Initiative) and Taiwan-specific institutional dynamics.

Comments 2: The methodology section insufficiently details participant sampling and researcher bias mitigation. Adding these details is essential for methodological rigor and findings reproducibility.

Response 2:

Thank you for this valuable comment.

We have clarified the participant selection criteria in Section 3.1.1. A purposive sampling strategy was employed to include participants directly involved in promoting, coordinating, or implementing eco-friendly farming practices in Wufeng. The sample encompasses diverse organizational roles and decision-making levels, ensuring information-rich cases relevant to the study objectives. Additional details regarding participant roles, sample size, interview rounds, and ethical considerations have been included to enhance methodological transparency.

Comments 3: “Adaptive leadership” is neither clearly defined nor linked to the transformational/transactional/“transfor-sactional” frameworks in Section 2.2.

Response 3:

We have clarified the concept of adaptive leadership in Section 2.2, defining its key characteristics—flexibility, empathy, transparent communication, and commitment to innovation—and linking it explicitly to transformational, transactional, and transfor-sactional frameworks. The section also explains how adaptive leadership enables context-specific problem-solving and collective action in the Wufeng case, illustrating its practical application.

Comments 4:  

Policy implications (Section 6.2) are overly general: recommendations lack stakeholder specificityand case-based evidence. Refining recommendations with actor roles and case outcomes will boost practical relevance.

Response 4:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the previous version of the Policy Implications section lacked sufficient stakeholder-specific detail. Accordingly, we have thoroughly revised Section 6.2 (Policy Implications) to provide more concrete and differentiated recommendations for each stakeholder group, including farmers’ associations, research institutions, local governments, and community organizations. The revised version now emphasizes:
(1) institutionalizing the social-enterprise model through farmers’ associations;
(2) strengthening public–private–research collaboration for technological innovation;
(3) promoting diversified rural economies led by community organizations; and
(4) integrating ecological leadership incentives into agricultural policy frameworks.
These revisions offer targeted and actionable policy insights grounded in the Wufeng case.

Comments 5:

Ecological claims rely on anecdotes, with no quantitative data (e.g., pesticide use reductions, soil organic matter changes, biodiversity indices) to validate them.

Response 5

We appreciate this valuable comment. In Section 4.1, we have added supplementary quantitative evidence to strengthen the ecological claims. Although direct measurements of pesticide reduction, soil organic matter, or biodiversity were not collected in this study, Lee et al. (2026) reported that maintaining ecological corridors 50–500 m wide facilitates species movement, while reducing pesticide use by 30–50% improves ecological health and sustainable land management [29]. In addition, the life-cycle carbon footprint analysis provides further quantitative evidence of environmental impact reduction. The total carbon footprint of Wufeng Organic Aromatic Rice (5.10 kg CO₂e) was lower than that of CAS Wufeng Aromatic Rice (6.50 kg CO₂e), with emission distribution showing that organic cultivation significantly reduces reliance on chemical and energy-intensive inputs during the raw material stage (49.24% vs. 79.73%). These data have been incorporated into Section 4.1 to substantiate the ecological benefits observed in the field and to align with the biodiversity enhancement achieved through the black-winged kite conservation initiative.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: 

Thank you for your positive assessment. We are glad that the English language and overall clarity of the manuscript meet your expectations.

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you for the reviewer’s insightful suggestions.

We would like to clarify that minor language and formatting edits have been applied throughout the manuscript to improve clarity and readability; these changes do not affect the results, interpretations, or conclusions of the study. All revisions requested by the reviewers, including the expansion of the literature review, clarification of participant selection criteria, addition of the Limitations and Future Research section, and adjustments to figures and tables, have been fully addressed. Any supplementary materials referenced in the manuscript are provided in the submission system to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

To enhance the transparency and completeness of the study, we have added three appendices (Appendix A–C).

• Appendix A presents the interview outline and key guiding questions.
• Appendix B provides a summary table of participant codes, roles, and interview dates.

·         Appendix C includes additional excerpts and supporting evidence illustrating leadership evolution and project milestones.

These additions aim to offer readers greater methodological detail and data transparency while maintaining anonymity.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provided detailed, point-by-point responses below. All relevant modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Reviewer’s Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

[Please give your response if necessary. Or you can also give your corresponding response in the point-by-point response letter. The same as below]

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?     

Is the English used correct and readable?

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

I pointed out that I have a dissenting opinion, primarily because the authors repeatedly use specific personal names. Of course, I have become familiar with the statement that all persons involved are informed and have agreed to the publicity. However, in my opinion, such an approach should be avoided given that this is a scientific article, and not a popular one.

Response 1:

We appreciate the reviewer’s careful observation and fully agree with the importance of maintaining participant confidentiality in academic writing. Accordingly, all personal names have been replaced with anonymous identification codes (e.g., FA1–FA7 for Farmers’ Association staff, FM1–FM6 for farmer members, GO1 for the village head, and AR1–AR2 for researchers).

An explanatory paragraph has been added in Section 3.1 (Research Methodology) to clarify that the study strictly follows ethical research standards, including anonymity and informed consent procedures.

To further enhance transparency and clarity, Appendix B (Participant Overview) now summarizes the anonymized coding system and participant roles, while Appendix A (Interview Guide) and Appendix C (Analytical Framework and Data Triangulation) illustrate how these anonymized data were used in analysis and reporting.

These revisions ensure that the manuscript preserves scientific integrity, confidentiality, and transparency in data presentation.

Comments 2: I would like to recommend in this aspect to authors to highlight more clearly the evolution of the idea of leadership in the specifics of the studied community and association. And, I think that it would be good to refine the explanation of the methodology and the sequence of conducting the interview by describing them in detail.

Response 2:

We thank the reviewer for highlighting the long study period (November 2016–October 2025) and the suggestion to clarify the evolution of leadership.

In response, we have made the following revisions:

Ÿ   Enhanced the Results section (Sec 4.4) to clearly illustrate the temporal evolution of leadership practices and roles within the community and association. The leadership development is now presented in three phases—initial formation (2016–2018), consolidation and project implementation (2019–2021), and expansion with institutional integration (2022–2025). Each phase highlights how leaders adapted their roles in response to community needs and organizational dynamics.

Ÿ   Refined the Methodology section (Sec 3) to provide more detail on the semi-structured in-depth interviews, including the sequence of conducting interviews, guiding questions, follow-up procedures, and participant selection rationale. This ensures transparency in how the temporal evolution of leadership was captured.

Ÿ   Additionally, Appendix A now contains the full interview guide, and Appendix B summarizes participant codes and roles, which enhance methodological transparency and replicability.

These revisions aim to give readers a clearer understanding of both the data collection process and how leadership evolved over the studied period.

Comments 3:

Another recommendation that I want to point is to refine the purpose (aim) of the study, which is set in one way in the Abstract, and in another in the Introduction.

Response 3:

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation. In response, we have revised both the Abstract and Introduction to ensure that the study purpose is consistently stated throughout the manuscript.

Specifically:

• The Abstract now clearly emphasizes the study focus on how leadership facilitates collective adoption of eco-friendly farming in Wufeng District, including the three key drivers, leadership roles, and observed outcomes.
• The Introduction has been aligned to match this focus, presenting the background, case context, and the same core research aim.

These revisions ensure that the study purpose is coherent, precise, and consistently communicated, directly addressing the reviewer’s concern.

Comments 4:  Policy implications (Section 6.2) are overly general: recommendations lack stakeholder specificityand case-based evidence. Refining recommendations with actor roles and case outcomes will boost practical relevance.

Response 4:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this constructive suggestion. In response, we have revised Section 6.2 (Policy Implications) to provide more specific and actionable recommendations, explicitly linking stakeholder roles, case outcomes, and practical measures.

The key revisions include:

1. Stakeholder-specific recommendations: Each recommendation now clearly identifies the primary actors (e.g., Farmers’ Association, research institutions, local governments, community organizations) and their complementary roles in promoting sustainable agriculture.
2. Case-based evidence: Practical examples from the Wufeng District—such as the “Black-winged Kite Rice” brand, collaborative training programs, eco-tourism initiatives, and leadership incentives—are integrated into each policy recommendation to illustrate real-world effectiveness.
3. Actionable guidance: Recommendations highlight concrete mechanisms, including institutionalizing social-enterprise models, strengthening public–private–research collaboration, promoting diversified rural economies, and integrating ecological leadership incentives into agricultural policy.

These revisions ensure that the policy implications are grounded in empirical evidence, aligned with the Wufeng case, and actionable for practitioners and policymakers, directly addressing the reviewer’s concern regarding specificity and relevance.

Comments 5:

Supplement the literature review, especially in the first part dedicated to eco-farming. It is also good to refine the style and manner of presentation of the reviewed literary sources. They differ in the two subsections. For example, there is a definition presented for leadership, while there is no explanation or definition for eco-friendly agriculture. Therefore, this section should be supplemented.

Response 5

We sincerely thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have supplemented Section 2.1 (Eco-Friendly Farming) to provide a comprehensive overview of eco-friendly agriculture, including both international and local perspectives.

Key revisions include:

1. Historical and ecological context: We discuss the environmental challenges caused by intensive conventional farming since the Green Revolution, highlighting soil degradation, water pollution, and ecosystem impacts [6–8].
2. Definition and conceptual clarification: A clear definition of eco-friendly farming is provided, emphasizing environmental protection, biodiversity, reduced chemical inputs, and sustainable resource use [9–10].
3. Adoption drivers and policy support: We include literature on socio-economic incentives, government subsidies, and gradual transition strategies toward low-chemical or organic practices [4,11].
4. Local case illustration: The section now details how the Wufeng Farmers’ Association has guided farmers in adopting eco-friendly practices, linking ecological goals with social and economic outcomes [12].

These revisions ensure that the literature review balances conceptual explanation, empirical evidence, and case relevance, aligns the style with the leadership subsection, and clearly sets the foundation for the study’s research focus on leadership and collective action.

Comments 6:

I also think that the article would be much clearer if illustrative materials are added. Especially in the section, presenting the results and the discussion - more clarity is needed here regarding the specifics that the authors have reached. Once again, I have to point out that this is a 9-year study.

Response 6

We thank the reviewer for emphasizing the need for clearer presentation of results and discussion. In response, we have restructured and refined Sections 4.3, 5, and 6 to enhance clarity and coherence:

1. Section 4.3 and 4.4 (Results): The temporal evolution of leadership is now presented in three distinct phases—initial formation (2016–2018), consolidation and project implementation (2019–2021), and expansion with institutional integration (2022–2025). Each phase highlights specific leadership roles, strategies, and outcomes. Illustrative tables and figures have been added to visualize the 9-year process.
2. Chapter 5 (Analysis): Leadership mechanisms, challenges, and collective action processes are analyzed systematically, linking empirical findings with theoretical frameworks.
3. Chapter 6 (Conclusions, Policy Implications, Limitations & Future Directions): Content has been restructured and refined to clearly summarize key findings, actionable recommendations, and the scope for future research.

These revisions ensure that the article clearly conveys the specifics of the findings over the nine-year period, enhancing readability, logical flow, and the connection between empirical data and theoretical insights.

Comments 7:

The conclusion is very fragmented as a text, since the authors have chosen to list the main conclusions. I suggest that they think it over again.

Response 7:

We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. In response, we have restructured Section 6.1 (Conclusion) to improve textual coherence while retaining the key findings.

• The revised conclusion begins with a concise summary of the study background and rationale, highlighting the environmental and social challenges of conventional agriculture and the need for collective action in eco-friendly farming.
• The three main findings are now integrated into a coherent narrative:
1. Leadership functions as managers, intermediaries, and entrepreneurs, facilitating coordination, incentive alignment, and social entrepreneurship.
2. Leaders effectively address sustainable development challenges by motivating farmers, securing resources, and adapting mobilization strategies.
3. Leadership contributes to the expansion of eco-friendly cultivation and value-added products, linking ecological, economic, and social outcomes.
• Although the findings are structured into three thematic areas for clarity, the text now flows logically from context → leadership roles → practical challenges → outcomes, ensuring a cohesive discussion rather than disconnected bullet points.

These revisions ensure that the conclusion presents a unified narrative of the study’s contributions, clearly linking empirical findings with theoretical and practical implications, directly addressing the reviewer’s concern regarding fragmentation.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: Thank you for your positive assessment. We are glad that the English language and overall clarity of the manuscript meet your expectations.

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you for the reviewer’s insightful suggestions.

We would like to clarify that minor language and formatting edits have been applied throughout the manuscript to improve clarity and readability; these changes do not affect the results, interpretations, or conclusions of the study. All revisions requested by the reviewers, including the expansion of the literature review, clarification of participant selection criteria, addition of the Limitations and Future Research section, and adjustments to figures and tables, have been fully addressed. Any supplementary materials referenced in the manuscript are provided in the submission system to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

To enhance the transparency and completeness of the study, we have added three appendices (Appendix A–C).

• Appendix A presents the interview outline and key guiding questions.
• Appendix B provides a summary table of participant codes, roles, and interview dates.

·         Appendix C includes additional excerpts and supporting evidence illustrating leadership evolution and project milestones.

These additions aim to offer readers greater methodological detail and data transparency while maintaining anonymity.

Comments 1:

I thank the Authors for their detailed and carefully prepared responses to the reviewer’s comments and for implementing a wide range of revisions in the manuscript. The responses are substantive, and the changes introduced clearly strengthen the quality of the article. The expanded and reorganized literature review substantially improves the theoretical context of the study and situates it more firmly within the current body of research on leadership, eco-friendly agriculture, and collective action. The additions to the methodological section - particularly the clarification of participant selection, interview procedures, and data-coding methods - significantly enhance the transparency and credibility of the research design. I also appreciate the restructured discussion section and the more explicit linkage between the findings, relevant theoretical frameworks, and international examples. The inclusion of a section on limitations and future research is appropriate and consistent with expectations for scholarly articles of this type. Editorial corrections and the removal of unnecessary formatting improve the readability of the text. Based on the responses provided and the revisions made, I conclude that the reviewer’s comments have been fully and thoroughly addressed. In my assessment, the revised manuscript meets publication standards and can be accepted for publication.

Response 1:

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the thorough evaluation and positive assessment of our revised manuscript. We greatly appreciate your recognition of the improvements made to the literature review, methodology, discussion, and overall clarity of the manuscript. Your constructive guidance has been invaluable in strengthening the theoretical, empirical, and practical contributions of our study. We are pleased that the revisions meet the publication standards, and we look forward to the manuscript’s acceptance.

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provided detailed, point-by-point responses below. All relevant modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Yes. The study advances the theoretical integration of transformational, transactional, and adaptive leadership within eco-friendly agricultural transitions in Taiwan.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Yes. The manuscript has been reorganized to improve clarity, and additional figures/tables have been included to enhance conceptual and empirical coherence.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Yes. All concepts, methods, and interpretations have been clarified and are grounded in empirical data and established leadership theory

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?     

Revised. Section 2.3 now includes a comprehensive synthesis of post-2018 Taiwan research.

Is the English used correct and readable?

Yes. Minor edits have been applied throughout.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

While the updated literature review includes additional Taiwan-focused studies, it still lacks a critical synthesis of post-2018 research on farmer associations’ role in eco-friendly farming transitions in Taiwan. For instance, recent works on policy shifts or comparative analyses of collective action models across Taiwan’s rural regions (beyond Wufeng) are underrepresented. 

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, Section 2.3 has been substantially revised to incorporate a critical synthesis of post-2018 research on the roles of farmers’ associations in Taiwan’s eco-friendly agricultural transitions. The revisions include:

1. Integration of recent Taiwan-focused empirical studies
   Section 2.3 now incorporates post-2018 studies such as Chen (2020) on the Xingjian Organic Cooperative in Yilan and related comparative analyses [40, 41]. These studies are used to contrast leadership structures, incentive mechanisms, and cross-regional institutional arrangements with the Wufeng case.
2. Inclusion of policy-driven institutional changes after 2019
   Following the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act (2019), farmers’ associations may be certified as eco-friendly farming groups. The revised text now includes national accreditation data obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture’s official listing (2025 update) [37], covering Chiayi, Changhua, Hualien, Yunlin, and Taitung. This addition demonstrates how national policy reforms reshape institutional capacity and collective action.
3. Cross-regional comparative synthesis
   The revised subsection now explicates differences across regions—e.g., the network-based leadership model in Yilan versus the FA-centered model in Taichung—highlighting how variations in farmer networks, organizational capacity, and resource access affect institutional resilience, innovation performance, and ecological transition outcomes.
4. Strengthened theoretical synthesis of hybrid leadership
   Section 2.3 now explicitly synthesizes transformational, transactional, and adaptive leadership literature with Taiwan’s post-2018 empirical evidence. This revision highlights unresolved challenges such as cross-regional scalability, uneven institutional support, and long-term sustainability of farmer networks, thereby positioning the Wufeng case as a necessary extension of the existing literature.

These revisions provide a clearer, more systematic, and more critical synthesis of the recent Taiwan literature, directly addressing the reviewer’s concern.

Comments 2: The methodology section now provides basic sampling details, but the rationale for selecting 16 participants (e.g., how this sample size aligns with qualitative saturation criteria) and the specific process for ensuring diverse stakeholder representation (e.g., justification for excluding smallholder non-participants or local consumers) remain unclear. To improve reproducibility, add a brief explanation of sampling sufficiency.

Response 2:

Thank you for this valuable comment. To strengthen methodological transparency, Section 3.1.1 has been revised to clarify sampling sufficiency and stakeholder coverage:

1.         Sample size and saturation:

We employed a purposive sampling strategy targeting participants directly involved in the promotion, coordination, or implementation of eco-friendly farming initiatives in Wufeng District. Data saturation was achieved after approximately a dozen interviews, as later participants largely reiterated previously observed themes, no new themes emerged regarding leadership dynamics, coordination processes, or adoption challenges. Thus, a sample size of sixteen participants was sufficient for capturing the full spectrum of relevant perspectives in this context.

2.         Stakeholder representation and rationale for inclusion/exclusion:
Participants were selected across multiple institutional levels—leadership (Director General and department chiefs), coordination staff (section chiefs and eco-friendly coordinators), and production–marketing team leaders and members—to ensure diversity of roles. Certain groups, such as non-participating smallholders or local consumers, were not included because they are not involved in the decision-making, resource management, or collective action processes that the study seeks to analyze. Including them would not meaningfully contribute to understanding leadership mechanisms.

These revisions clearly justify the sample size, explain the logic of participant selection, and enhance the study’s transparency and reproducibility.

Comments 3:  

“Adaptive leadership” is still insufficiently defined and weakly integrated with the transformational/transactional/“transfor-sactional” frameworks in Section 2.2. Provide a precise, literature-grounded definition and explicitly map how adaptive leadership manifests in the Wufeng case.

Response 3:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the definition and integration of adaptive leadership. In response:

1. Theoretical grounding in Section 2.2: We have added a precise, literature-based definition of adaptive leadership, highlighting its key characteristics—flexibility, context awareness, stakeholder engagement, transparent communication, and commitment to innovation and learning—citing Heifetz (1994) and subsequent studies [25, 26].
2. Integration with leadership frameworks: Section 2.2 now explicitly maps how adaptive leadership interacts with transformational, transactional, and transfor-sactional leadership, clarifying the mechanisms through which leaders navigate complexity, reconcile competing interests, and maintain both long-term vision and operational accountability. A conceptual framework (Fig. 1) visually represents these interactions, linking theory to practice.
3. Empirical manifestation in the Wufeng case: In Section 5.3.2, we introduce a table that systematically maps adaptive leadership traits to concrete actions and outcomes in Wufeng. This shows how adaptive leadership complemented transformational and transactional approaches in real-world implementation, addressing operational, ecological, and social challenges.

Conclusion: By combining Fig. 1 in Section 2.2 with the table in Section 5.3.2, we provide both a theory-driven and empirically grounded account of adaptive leadership in the Wufeng District. We believe this fully addresses the reviewer’s request to define adaptive leadership and illustrate its practical role in context-specific collective action.

Comments 4:  

Section 6.2 remains overly general. Refine recommendations by assigning clear roles to specific stakeholders and anchoring them to case outcomes.

Response 4:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the previous version of Section 6.2 was overly general and did not sufficiently specify stakeholder roles or connect recommendations to the empirical outcomes of the Wufeng case. In the revised manuscript, Section 6.2 (Policy Implications) has been substantially rewritten to provide stakeholder-specific, actionable recommendations that are explicitly anchored to the case findings.

Specifically, the revised section now:

• Assigns clear responsibilities to individual stakeholder groups—including farmers’ associations, local governments, research institutions, and community organizations—reflecting the differentiated leadership patterns observed in the Wufeng case.
• Links each recommendation to demonstrated outcomes, such as strengthened farmers’ trust networks, successful hybrid leadership practices, and adaptive problem-solving during product innovation processes.
• Provides concrete policy actions, such as:
1. empowering farmers’ associations to institutionalize the social-enterprise model tested in Wufeng;
2. directing research institutions to co-develop monitoring tools based on Wufeng’s adaptive experimentation;
3. enabling local governments to consolidate multi-actor platforms modeled after Wufeng’s coordination structure; and
4. supporting community organizations in leading diversified rural-economy initiatives, building on the Wufeng experience with value-added local products.

These refinements transform Section 6.2 from general observations into clearly operationalized recommendations, directly grounded in the leadership dynamics and outcomes identified in the Wufeng case.

Together, these revisions ensure that each reviewer comment is addressed with explicit theory-practice linkage, methodological clarity, and actionable policy recommendations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: 

Thank you for your positive assessment. We are glad that the English language and overall clarity of the manuscript meet your expectations.

5. Additional clarifications

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

1. Summary

We sincerely appreciate the reviewers’ insightful feedback. We have revised the manuscript accordingly and provided detailed, point-by-point responses below. All relevant modifications have been clearly highlighted in the revised version.

2. Questions for General Evaluation

Response and Revisions

Is the work a significant contribution to the field?

Yes. The study advances the theoretical integration of transformational, transactional, and adaptive leadership within eco-friendly agricultural transitions in Taiwan.

Is the work well organized and comprehensively described?

Yes. The manuscript has been reorganized to improve clarity, and additional figures/tables have been included to enhance conceptual and empirical coherence.

Is the work scientifically sound and not misleading?

Yes. All concepts, methods, and interpretations have been clarified and are grounded in empirical data and established leadership theory

Are there appropriate and adequate references to related and previous work?     

Revised. Section 2.3 now includes a comprehensive synthesis of post-2018 Taiwan research.

Is the English used correct and readable?

Yes. Minor edits have been applied throughout.

3. Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments 1:

While the updated literature review includes additional Taiwan-focused studies, it still lacks a critical synthesis of post-2018 research on farmer associations’ role in eco-friendly farming transitions in Taiwan. For instance, recent works on policy shifts or comparative analyses of collective action models across Taiwan’s rural regions (beyond Wufeng) are underrepresented. 

We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. In response, Section 2.3 has been substantially revised to incorporate a critical synthesis of post-2018 research on the roles of farmers’ associations in Taiwan’s eco-friendly agricultural transitions. The revisions include:

1. Integration of recent Taiwan-focused empirical studies
   Section 2.3 now incorporates post-2018 studies such as Chen (2020) on the Xingjian Organic Cooperative in Yilan and related comparative analyses [40, 41]. These studies are used to contrast leadership structures, incentive mechanisms, and cross-regional institutional arrangements with the Wufeng case.
2. Inclusion of policy-driven institutional changes after 2019
   Following the Organic Agriculture Promotion Act (2019), farmers’ associations may be certified as eco-friendly farming groups. The revised text now includes national accreditation data obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture’s official listing (2025 update) [37], covering Chiayi, Changhua, Hualien, Yunlin, and Taitung. This addition demonstrates how national policy reforms reshape institutional capacity and collective action.
3. Cross-regional comparative synthesis
   The revised subsection now explicates differences across regions—e.g., the network-based leadership model in Yilan versus the FA-centered model in Taichung—highlighting how variations in farmer networks, organizational capacity, and resource access affect institutional resilience, innovation performance, and ecological transition outcomes.
4. Strengthened theoretical synthesis of hybrid leadership
   Section 2.3 now explicitly synthesizes transformational, transactional, and adaptive leadership literature with Taiwan’s post-2018 empirical evidence. This revision highlights unresolved challenges such as cross-regional scalability, uneven institutional support, and long-term sustainability of farmer networks, thereby positioning the Wufeng case as a necessary extension of the existing literature.

These revisions provide a clearer, more systematic, and more critical synthesis of the recent Taiwan literature, directly addressing the reviewer’s concern.

Comments 2: The methodology section now provides basic sampling details, but the rationale for selecting 16 participants (e.g., how this sample size aligns with qualitative saturation criteria) and the specific process for ensuring diverse stakeholder representation (e.g., justification for excluding smallholder non-participants or local consumers) remain unclear. To improve reproducibility, add a brief explanation of sampling sufficiency.

Response 2:

Thank you for this valuable comment. To strengthen methodological transparency, Section 3.1.1 has been revised to clarify sampling sufficiency and stakeholder coverage:

1.         Sample size and saturation:

We employed a purposive sampling strategy targeting participants directly involved in the promotion, coordination, or implementation of eco-friendly farming initiatives in Wufeng District. Data saturation was achieved after approximately a dozen interviews, as later participants largely reiterated previously observed themes, no new themes emerged regarding leadership dynamics, coordination processes, or adoption challenges. Thus, a sample size of sixteen participants was sufficient for capturing the full spectrum of relevant perspectives in this context.

2.         Stakeholder representation and rationale for inclusion/exclusion:
Participants were selected across multiple institutional levels—leadership (Director General and department chiefs), coordination staff (section chiefs and eco-friendly coordinators), and production–marketing team leaders and members—to ensure diversity of roles. Certain groups, such as non-participating smallholders or local consumers, were not included because they are not involved in the decision-making, resource management, or collective action processes that the study seeks to analyze. Including them would not meaningfully contribute to understanding leadership mechanisms.

These revisions clearly justify the sample size, explain the logic of participant selection, and enhance the study’s transparency and reproducibility.

Comments 3:  

“Adaptive leadership” is still insufficiently defined and weakly integrated with the transformational/transactional/“transfor-sactional” frameworks in Section 2.2. Provide a precise, literature-grounded definition and explicitly map how adaptive leadership manifests in the Wufeng case.

Response 3:

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the definition and integration of adaptive leadership. In response:

1. Theoretical grounding in Section 2.2: We have added a precise, literature-based definition of adaptive leadership, highlighting its key characteristics—flexibility, context awareness, stakeholder engagement, transparent communication, and commitment to innovation and learning—citing Heifetz (1994) and subsequent studies [25, 26].
2. Integration with leadership frameworks: Section 2.2 now explicitly maps how adaptive leadership interacts with transformational, transactional, and transfor-sactional leadership, clarifying the mechanisms through which leaders navigate complexity, reconcile competing interests, and maintain both long-term vision and operational accountability. A conceptual framework (Fig. 1) visually represents these interactions, linking theory to practice.
3. Empirical manifestation in the Wufeng case: In Section 5.3.2, we introduce a table that systematically maps adaptive leadership traits to concrete actions and outcomes in Wufeng. This shows how adaptive leadership complemented transformational and transactional approaches in real-world implementation, addressing operational, ecological, and social challenges.

Conclusion: By combining Fig. 1 in Section 2.2 with the table in Section 5.3.2, we provide both a theory-driven and empirically grounded account of adaptive leadership in the Wufeng District. We believe this fully addresses the reviewer’s request to define adaptive leadership and illustrate its practical role in context-specific collective action.

Comments 4:  

Section 6.2 remains overly general. Refine recommendations by assigning clear roles to specific stakeholders and anchoring them to case outcomes.

Response 4:

Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that the previous version of Section 6.2 was overly general and did not sufficiently specify stakeholder roles or connect recommendations to the empirical outcomes of the Wufeng case. In the revised manuscript, Section 6.2 (Policy Implications) has been substantially rewritten to provide stakeholder-specific, actionable recommendations that are explicitly anchored to the case findings.

Specifically, the revised section now:

• Assigns clear responsibilities to individual stakeholder groups—including farmers’ associations, local governments, research institutions, and community organizations—reflecting the differentiated leadership patterns observed in the Wufeng case.
• Links each recommendation to demonstrated outcomes, such as strengthened farmers’ trust networks, successful hybrid leadership practices, and adaptive problem-solving during product innovation processes.
• Provides concrete policy actions, such as:
1. empowering farmers’ associations to institutionalize the social-enterprise model tested in Wufeng;
2. directing research institutions to co-develop monitoring tools based on Wufeng’s adaptive experimentation;
3. enabling local governments to consolidate multi-actor platforms modeled after Wufeng’s coordination structure; and
4. supporting community organizations in leading diversified rural-economy initiatives, building on the Wufeng experience with value-added local products.

These refinements transform Section 6.2 from general observations into clearly operationalized recommendations, directly grounded in the leadership dynamics and outcomes identified in the Wufeng case.

Together, these revisions ensure that each reviewer comment is addressed with explicit theory-practice linkage, methodological clarity, and actionable policy recommendations.

4. Response to Comments on the Quality of English Language

Point 1: The English is fine and does not require any improvement.

Response 1: 

Thank you for your positive assessment. We are glad that the English language and overall clarity of the manuscript meet your expectations.

5. Additional clarifications

Thank you for the reviewer’s insightful suggestions.

We would like to clarify that minor language and formatting edits have been applied throughout the manuscript to improve clarity and readability; these changes do not affect the results, interpretations, or conclusions of the study. All revisions requested by the reviewers, including the expansion of the literature review, clarification of participant selection criteria, addition of the Limitations and Future Research section, and adjustments to figures and tables, have been fully addressed. Any supplementary materials referenced in the manuscript are provided in the submission system to ensure transparency and reproducibility.

To enhance the transparency and completeness of the study, we have added three appendices (Appendix A–C).

• Appendix A presents the interview outline and key guiding questions.
• Appendix B provides a summary table of participant codes, roles, and interview dates.

·        Appendix C includes additional excerpts and supporting evidence illustrating leadership evolution and project milestones.

These additions aim to offer readers greater methodological detail and data transparency while maintaining anonymity.