Understanding the Normalization of Plantation Agriculture: The Case of Hass Avocado in Colombia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- The idea of ​​the article is innovative and interesting. But it is not easy to understand and appreciate it. Reading the article, it seems that the work is far from real economic and managerial solutions. It is more of a philosophical treatise than an economic work.

- I think that the article could be shortened, especially the theoretical part

- In abstract. What was the aim and main methods of the research? What are your essential proposals?

- L389. When you say "increased 500%, you need to write periods for comparison (in what period, from... to?)  You need to show the source of this information.

- L453. How to understand "inter-organizational complementarity promoting" You need to explain it. What it is? Who and how is promoting Hass  avocado cultivation?

- L669. Must be "conclusions and proposals" , not "final remarks";

-L689.The conclusions are very abstract. Wanted clearer suggestions from the study itself and more specific suggestions. What do you offer? Is it necessary to continue that "normalization" process or just abandon it? If you continue, specify who and what should be done?

-Economic and managerial proposals are necessary for the development of these businesses in the part of "Proposals";

- Did you really need so many literary sources? Are they all cited?

- Remarks are in the text of the article.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comment 1. I think that the article could be shortened, especially the theoretical part

Reponse 1. Thank you for this comment. While I agree that the paper is long, I think that, in particular, I need enough space to be able to develop the idea. This is mainly because I am consolidating a complex approach that is based on several theories. I ask for your understanding in this respect. 

Comment 2. In abstract. What was the aim and main methods of the research? What are your essential proposals?

Response 2. I re-wrote the abstract. Please check it again. Thanks for this remark.

COmment 3.  L389. When you say "increased 500%, you need to write periods for comparison (in what period, from... to?)  You need to show the source of this information.

Repsonse 3. I provided further information. Please see line 411 and the footnote: Suarez [57] reports that in 2019, Hass avocado covered less than 400 ha, in 2023 it reached more than 2,500 ha.

Comment 4. L453. How to understand "inter-organizational complementarity promoting" You need to explain it. What it is? Who and how is promoting Hass  avocado cultivation?

Response 4. I changed as: Two conflicting perspectives further complicate the situation. On the one hand, there is complementarity between development and environmental authorities in promoting Hass avocado cultivation[1]. On the other hand, there is institutional weakness in dealing with the wider impacts of these plantations.

[1] See Appendix in [69] for further information on the actors and agencies promoting Hass avocado in the area.

Comment 5. Must be "conclusions and proposals" , not "final remarks";

Response 5. Done as you suggested.

Comment 6. The conclusions are very abstract. Wanted clearer suggestions from the study itself and more specific suggestions. What do you offer? Is it necessary to continue that "normalization" process or just abandon it? If you continue, specify who and what should be done?

Response 6. I improved the conslusion. Please see again the section. 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study employs an interpretive qualitative research strategy in terms of research design, methodology, data and presentation of results. It attempts to construct a conceptual model of “normalization” to explain how industrial capitalism is integrated into a traditional agricultural landscape and accepted as the norm by local people, using the case of Colombian plantation. The proposed conceptual model has significant theoretical value for understanding how external capital leads to agrarian change.

Here are a few writing glitches to consider when revising：

Q1：Figure 4. Study Area. Corporate growers have long possessed and controlled regions with potential water resources for rural citizens (L328)

Why is there a sentence after the heading “Study Area” in Figure 4? and “Long” in the sentence, which is not visible in the Figure and not expressed in the text.

Q2：The interviews followed two approaches: a general overview of the broader implications of the plantations and a specific focus on local impacts. (L332-333)

Is this the approaches followed for the interviews? Or the themes on which the interviews focused?

Q3：Law 2^nd 1959 defines conservation strategies around Colombia. Permission from the national environmental authority is required to use these areas for purposes other than conservation. (L511)

Is the sentence attached to the bottom of Table 1 a comment on something in the Table?

Finally, due to the amount of jargon, it may be a bit difficult to read for readers who are not familiar with the topic, and enhanced readability is recommended.

Author Response

Comment 1：Figure 4. Study Area. Corporate growers have long possessed and controlled regions with potential water resources for rural citizens (L328)

Why is there a sentence after the heading “Study Area” in Figure 4? and “Long” in the sentence, which is not visible in the Figure and not expressed in the text.

Response 1. I deleted because it did not make sense according to the figure.

Comment 2：The interviews followed two approaches: a general overview of the broader implications of the plantations and a specific focus on local impacts. (L332-333)

Is this the approaches followed for the interviews? Or the themes on which the interviews focused?

Reponse 2. I deleted that part, when I read i again it made no sense for me either. 

Comment 3：Law 2^nd 1959 defines conservation strategies around Colombia. Permission from the national environmental authority is required to use these areas for purposes other than conservation. (L511)

Is the sentence attached to the bottom of Table 1 a comment on something in the Table?

Response 3. I connected with * a comment in the Table. Please see again.

Comment 4. Finally, due to the amount of jargon, it may be a bit difficult to read for readers who are not familiar with the topic, and enhanced readability is recommended.

Response 4. I agree with this comment, I know the paper is complex. But I used the best of my knowledge to express the ideas, and besides, as I am not a native English speaker, it is even more difficult to convey a clearer message. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

I valuate positively your research, but still some improvements are required:

-       First you must arrange the article according to the journal requirements: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussions, conclusion!!!

-       I did not find the limits of the study and how they were overcome, nor the future proposals that can be made based on the conclusions drawn

-       Starting from your remark: ”Structural elaboration provides a dual perspective on society. One lens focuses on preserving established interests, while the other emphasizes dynamic social transformations, representing shifts and evolution”...i don’t see these two directions analyzed...maybe in the discussion part would be appropriate

-       Regarding table Table 2. Implementation and embeddedness of Hass plantations in Salamina...it is not clear what is the source of this data? And how were this data obtained?

-       Final remarks/ conclusions I guess must be enlarged and improved!

 

Author Response

Comment 1. First you must arrange the article according to the journal requirements: introduction, literature review, methodology, results, discussions, conclusion!!!

Response 1. I folowed your suggestion and I did it that way.

Coment 2. I did not find the limits of the study and how they were overcome, nor the future proposals that can be made based on the conclusions drawn

Response 2. Section 5.3 lines 681-691 offer limitations of the study. 

Comment 3.  Starting from your remark: ”Structural elaboration provides a dual perspective on society. One lens focuses on preserving established interests, while the other emphasizes dynamic social transformations, representing shifts and evolution”...i don’t see these two directions analyzed...maybe in the discussion part would be appropriate

Response 3. Thank you for this comment. In fact, throughout the presentation of results, I show how the process of structural elaboration takes place. There, I show that structures are being reproduced, but that there is room for human agency to achieve this dual perspective, that of not only re-producing structures, but also the possibility of transforming them. Lines 609-617.

Comment 4.  Regarding table Table 2. Implementation and embeddedness of Hass plantations in Salamina...it is not clear what is the source of this data? And how were this data obtained?

Response 4. As I mentioned in methods, this is information from the interviews.

Comment 5. Final remarks/ conclusions I guess must be enlarged and improved!

Resp[onse 5. I really apreciate this comment. PLease see the new elements included in the conslusions ection. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled ‘’ Understanding the normalization of plantation agriculture: the case of Hass avocado in Colombia’’ investigated the socio-ecological implications of these plantations and to understand how they fit into larger patterns of agricultural development and sustainability. The idea of the paper is interesting, and the paper is well-written. The figures are good designed with high resolution. The Tables and Figures effectively present the significant data and help to enhance the clarity of the findings. Furthermore, the manuscript is well organized, with sufficient and updated references. Only there are two points about the abstract and introduction. Please see them as below:

 

·         The paper starts with an abstract that does not have a good structure, without clear concerns of study, novelty, and conclusion. I strongly suggest that rewrite the abstract and also add suggestions for future research at the end of the abstract section.

 

 

·         The introduction needs more extension, the authors have brought some results of previous research without a straight connection with the current work, I would suggest that the authors connect the results of previous research with the current study and highlight the gap of knowledge and novelty of the work, (please focus on avocado) also the research hypothesis is not present and needs to be highlighted in one or two sentences at the end of the introduction.

Author Response

Comment 1. 

The paper starts with an abstract that does not have a good structure, without clear concerns of study, novelty, and conclusion. I strongly suggest that rewrite the abstract and also add suggestions for future research at the end of the abstract section.

Response 1. I modified the abstract, please see it again.

  Comment 2. The introduction needs more extension, the authors have brought some results of previous research without a straight connection with the current work, I would suggest that the authors connect the results of previous research with the current study and highlight the gap of knowledge and novelty of the work, (please focus on avocado) also the research hypothesis is not present and needs to be highlighted in one or two sentences at the end of the introduction.

Response 2. Thanks for the valuable comment. I provided further information, mainly related to Hass avocado. Regarding the hypothesis, I did not use it because this is a qualitative study. What I used theoretical assumptions as follow: Following this context regarding the implications of Hass plantations, we assume that Normalization, influenced by structural factors and mobilized by human agency, explains the persistence and proliferation of these plantations. line 77-82.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

- What was the aim of this research?   It seems that you did not present the goal and did not achieve it. (Abstract)

- How to understand "global virtual water"? (Table 1)

- Why do you need tis text. Your product is "avocado" , not coffee. No need this text (L345-L357)

- What is the final title of Fig. 4? (L369)

- Difficult to understand that conclusion (L735-L736) 

- I can't understand what the authors wanted to say. The text provided is not clearly understandable (L730-L747)

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I am not qualified to evaluate English language.

 But the text of this article is difficult to understand.

Author Response

-Comment 1.  What was the aim of this research?   It seems that you did not present the goal and did not achieve it. (Abstract)

Repsonse: I improved the abstract by saying: .... the aim of this paper is to present a framework to elucidate why Hass avocado plantations succeed, using Salamina, Colombia as a case study. 

Therer in the abstract I express how is composed this framewirk by saying: Our theoretical framework regarding normalization unfolds in three stages: prescription, implementation-embeddedness, and integration. To reach this outcome, we first build a theoretical foundation based on realist social theory and subsequently conduct a primarily qualitative case study, focusing on neighboring respondents to plantations for understanding the process of introduction, development, and persistence of these plantations in the landscape.

Comment 2. How to understand "global virtual water"? (Table 1) 

Response: Thanks for this comment. I added a footnote explaining that: virtual water refers to the amount of water embedded in Hass avocados that is effectively traded from the producing regions to the consumer areas. 

Comment 3: Why do you need tis text. Your product is "avocado" , not coffee. No need this text (L345-L357)

REsponse. THanks for this valuable comment. I agree, and I improved the description. PLease see lines 334-346

Comment 4. What is the final title of Fig. 4? (L369)

Response: Study Area and selected cases for the interviews.

Comment 5. Difficult to understand that conclusion (L735-L736) 

- I can't understand what the authors wanted to say. The text provided is not clearly understandable (L730-L747)

Response. I re-wrote the paragraphs to make it more clear. See again please. 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your sincere revisions and clear explanations in response to the feedback. Your arguments and insights are compelling, and I believe your work is worthy of publication.

Author Response

Thanks for your review.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Good job

Author Response

Thanks for the review.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version is acceptable and there are no more comments. 

Author Response

Thanks for the review.