Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors adequately addressed my comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The revisions that have been made improve the paper. Still, more changes are needed to make the paper appropriate for publication. First, there remains some English language problems. For instance, in the abstract, the sentence that begins with 'the key actors' perspective...' places the verb at the very end of the sentence. Also, the very first sentence of the paper is the entire first paragraph! As a general rule for the entire paper, make sure sentences do not exceed two lines. Too many sentences remain too long and unclear, besides those two examples on page 1. Second, more substantively, there is the introduction of agroecology with more conceptual backing early on in the paper. That is important and an improvement. What is needed now is proof of agroecology in the Yucatan. The authors mention the Mayan Milpa twice, but other than that, I dont see more discussion. The second half of the paper includes the adjective 'agroecological' at various points, but I still dont know if agroecological, or just organic production is being alluded to. To improve this, there must be some more detail on traditional practices in the area, and then either proof that the people in the study grow according to such methods, or some kind of reasoning presented that convinces the readers that the people who were interviewed farm agroecologically. Perhaps dedicate a section to the history and practice of agroecology in the state. Third, simplify the research question. On p 8, it is five lines long, and actually has two parts - what is the development of agroecology in the market, and what has been the effects of the state. Each question could be the focus on the paper, so, I would recommend picking, perhaps the effects of the state because that is the most researched. Fourth, the theoretical parts of the paper and the empirical sections need more integration. This idea of new institutionalism appears at two parts, the beginning and the end. The vast majority of the paper is the data from the interviews. Those comments are good, but need to be better integrated with the theoretical parts so as to guide the reader. As is, there's too many details and the reader gets lost easily.

Author Response

Regarding the comments and suggestions made by Reviewer 2:
1. a) Lines 16-18: In the summary: the sentence beginning with "the key
actors..." has been corrected.
b) Lines 37-41: The first paragraph of the article has been simplified into
shorter sentences according to the English writing style to better understand
what is being said.
2. a) Lines 549-739: In the theoretical framework of this article (2.
Entrepreneurship and agroecological production) we have introduced a
subsection: 2.4. Agroecological production and Slow Food market in Yucatan. This
section explains the origins and reasons for this type of production and the
Slow Food movement that supports it and when it began in the state of
Yucatan. It also explains how the capital (Mérida) becomes the daily setting
for entrepreneurs who are starting to produce and sell agroecological
products.
b) Between lines 130 and 136, the authors have tried to explain the main
differences between agroecological and organic production. Based on these
differences, it can be argued that agroecological production encompasses
both types of production, pointing out that organic production is so called
because, in addition to having the characteristics of agroecological
production (without chemical elements), it enjoys legal certification by
public institutions that qualify certain products as "organic", because they
have passed a series of controls established by the administration and that not all agricultural production companies have the capacity, fundamentally
economic, to subject their products to this type of costly process.
3. On pages 9-10, lines 834-844: According to the reviewer, the research
question has been simplified, emphasizing the focus of our research which
is to know what the effects of public policies have been in the sector of agroecological
production in Yucatan.
4. Lines 861-866; 871-875; 902-925; 511-512; 928-929; 980-984; 986-989; 1030-1031; 1078; 1102-1104; 1140-1142; 1177; 1217-1222: An in-depth review has
been carried out to try to integrate more notably the theoretical part with the
empirical part of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I have studied and have experience in land management, research practice, environmental sciences and business studies. The subject of this manuscript stands at the centre of my work, but the geographical focus (Mexico) of the work is outside my research area. Having read this manuscript, I got the impression that the authors of this manuscript has put big efforts in the manuscript. However, I consider its "publishability" status in a journal like “Land” difficult. The manuscript deals on a critical issue. The problem lies in style. This makes it challenging to difficult way. I provide some details below.

Title: The title, “Agroecological entrepreneurship, public support and sustainable development. The case of rural Yucatan (Mexico)” is acceptable, but it should have a colon (:) and not a full-stop (.).  

Abstract: needs to be broadened to provide specific details, especially on the findings.

The main reason I am not recommending this manuscript for publication.

1. Reporting is fraught with the following weaknesses:

• The reporting of percentages concerning qualitative opinions per se not wrong, but it does not weight the findings. The focus should be on the details or quality of the scenarios under investigation, rather than corroborations.
• Remarkably, the authors used the direct voices of the interviewees to relate their findings. However, it should be supported with analytical thoughts that give credence to the arguments being made.

My methodological concern with this manuscript is that it presents a rigorous qualitative work with a quantitative mindset. This makes the work challenging for both qualitative and quantitative audience to appreciate.  

2. The manuscript has a lot of language-related problems (this is the main weakness of the manuscript).

• Too many long and difficult-to-read sentences. See the following lines: 29-32; 39-46; 53-56; 59-65; 70-74; 86-90; 106-127 (several); 142-150; 157-169; 182-210; 101-104; 696-698; 708-711; 711-716; 727-731; 749-751 & 752-754. These are to mention a few. The sentences are not wrong, but they are tedious to read, and their flow (including meaning) gets interrupted by poor punctuation and wordiness. While the paper may appear good on the surface, it is not easy to grasp. The essence of publications is communication, but I am afraid that this manuscript fails the task (in its current form).
• The authors also use unsuitable words for a lot of sentences, e.g. depopulation when they mean decreasing population; discoveries when they mean findings or outcomes and too many of others scattered all over the manuscript. While these words may be synonymic, their use in the paper fails to relate “scientificness” in the paper.

I get the impression that the authors of this manuscript has done some really good work on the manuscript but writing style can kill a manuscript. This manuscript has substance that cannot be grasped because of poor writing style.

Author Response

Regarding the comments and suggestions made by Reviewer 3:
Some suggested details:
1. Lines 2-4: In the title: “Agroecological entrepreneurship, public support and
sustainable development. The case of rural Yucatan (Mexico)”, the point (.)
has been replaced by two points (:).
2. Lines 25-33: The abstract has been expanded, in particular to provide specific
details about the conclusions.
About the weaknesses of the paper:
1. Between lines 984-985 and lines 1222-1226: In order to preserve the focus on
the qualitative nature of the research and therefore focus attention on the
discourses of the key actors, we have removed graphs 1 and 2 which may
distract the reader from the real importance of this work, which is the
qualitative information provided by the entrepreneurs interviewed.
2. Lines 861-866; 871-875; 902-925; 511-512; 928-929; 980-984; 986-989; 1030-
1031; 1078; 1102-1104; 1140-1142; 1177; 1217-1222: An in-depth review has
been carried out to try to integrate more notably the theoretical part with the
empirical part of the article. In this way, we have supported the arguments
presented by the entrepreneurs with analytical reflections.
3. Lines 37-41; 110-117; 118-123; 124-127; 130-136; 141-145; 155-311; 320-327;
333-339; 405-409; 409-412; 444-455; 468-530; 531-537; 538-541; 542-547; 834-844; 1175-1181; 1250-1253; 1269-1272; 1300-1304; 1322-1325; 1343-1347; 1347-1350: All the too long sentences that the reviewer has pointed out and others
have been shortened for better understanding and not to hinder the flow of
communication.
4. Some inadequate words have been replaced: For example: Line 22
(discoveries by results); line 37 (depopulation by decreasing population); line
138 (undertaking by entrepreneurial projects); line 145 (low by scarce); line
824 (publicize by advertise), etc.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear all,

 

I believe this version is already a revised version of the manuscript; Even so, I recommend some improvements before the acceptance of this article:

• the figures have a low quality (figure 2 and 3 should be improved)
• There is no section regarding the study limitations and further research lines (in my opinion, this sub-section should be added)

Best regards,

Author Response

Regarding the comments and suggestions made by Reviewer 4:
1. Between lines 455-456 (Figure 2) and lines 750-764 (Figure 3): These figures
have been replaced by others of higher quality.
2. Lines 1412- 1421: In the "Conclusions" section, two paragraphs have been
added at the end where we mention the limitations of the research carried
out and the future lines of research that this work reveals.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is improved, I suppose it could be published

Author Response

A complete spell check has been performed on the manuscript

Reviewer 3 Report

In previous review, I indicated that most of my concerns are rather about the language/presentation rather than the science of the work. From my further reassessment of this manuscript, my impression is that the authors have tightly edited the work. However, I suggest that they improve some parts and particularly re-edit the methodological section more thoroughly to enable readers grasp it better.

Introduction

The introductory section could be strengthened by introducing a last (short) paragraph that explains the structure of the entire paper. This would enable readers to grasp the content of the succeeding sections of the manuscript by merely reading the introduction. It will also provide a guide on the content of individual contents.

Methodological section

It is still evident that some correct but yet confusing sentences litter the methodological section. For instance, the authors wrote:

“The study was executed in the state of Yucatan, one of the 32 federal entities that constitute the Mexican Republic, specifically in Merida, the state’s most populated city, its capital. While the commercial center is located in Merida, where entrepreneurs market and distribute much of their products, in large part, most of the agroecological enterprises (farms, especially agricultural and livestock) are located in small municipalities more or less close to the capital.”

A more understandable way would be to write:

“The study was executed in the state of Yucatan. Yucatan is one of the 32 federal entities that constitute the Mexican Republic. The specific case study area is Merida, the state’s most populated city, and its capital. While the commercial center is located in Merida, where entrepreneurs market and distribute much of their products, in large part, most of the agroecological enterprises (farms, especially agricultural and livestock) are located in small municipalities located around the capital.”

Note my use of shorter sentence where and when necessary in the earlier part. I think the authors need to re-edit the entire methodology to make it more understandable. Being a qualitative research, a lack of adequate description of the methodology will be a major weakness because off issues replicability.

Results or interviewee voices: The idea of using direct quotes from the interviewees is impressive. However, the problem here is that the authors throw out all the quotes rather than only craft in the only the necessary words from the interviewees for their argumentation. What we see are a group of wordy paragraphs which readers may find confusing. For instance, the authors present the following as direct interviewee quotes (lines 620-627):

“Laws facilitate conventional production more, obviously, but it's not the law, it's the government, it's the government's policy. It's not a law, the law doesn't say I'm going to provide agrochemicals for the farmers and transgenic seeds, that's not the law, that's politics, the government policy supports much more traditional production, where there's a lot, a lot of trouble's in certification; organic certification is very expensive and very complicated. I don't know why that is, I don't know if it is the case worldwide or only in Mexico; the Mexican certifiers are very expensive, in fact, there are no certified producers here. It isn't a regulation, it's a trend, it's policy, it's resource allocation. It isn't a law, you read the law and it doesn't say anything against an organic producer. It's government policies”.

A more understandable way would be to write:

According to this interviewee or as one interviewee put it, “the law doesn't say I'm going to provide agrochemicals for the farmers and transgenic seeds,” rather, “it's the government, it's the government's policy.”

These says it all. Then entire wordiness of that interviewee quotation makes the reading tough to grasp. The remaining words provide emotions but there already enough emotions in the small but meaningful quotation. Others merely distract.

Further tight editing: The manuscript still needs tighter editing.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment.

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

 

1. Introduction

The introductory section could be strengthened by introducing a last (short) paragraph that explains the structure of the entire paper. This would enable readers to grasp the content of the succeeding sections of the manuscript by merely reading the introduction. It will also provide a guide on the content of individual contents.

 

Response 1: Introduction: lines 104-114: the introductory section has been strengthened by introducing a final paragraph explaining the structure of the whole document, for better understanding by the reader.

 

2. Methodological section

It is still evident that some correct but yet confusing sentences litter the methodological section. For instance, the authors wrote:

“The study was executed in the state of Yucatan, one of the 32 federal entities that constitute the Mexican Republic, specifically in Merida, the state’s most populated city, its capital. While the commercial center is located in Merida, where entrepreneurs market and distribute much of their products, in large part, most of the agroecological enterprises (farms, especially agricultural and livestock) are located in small municipalities more or less close to the capital.”

A more understandable way would be to write:

“The study was executed in the state of Yucatan. Yucatan is one of the 32 federal entities that constitute the Mexican Republic. The specific case study area is Merida, the state’s most populated city, and its capital. While the commercial center is located in Merida, where entrepreneurs market and distribute much of their products, in large part, most of the agroecological enterprises (farms, especially agricultural and livestock) are located in small municipalities located around the capital.”

Note my use of shorter sentence where and when necessary in the earlier part. I think the authors need to re-edit the entire methodology to make it more understandable. Being a qualitative research, a lack of adequate description of the methodology will be a major weakness because off issues replicability.

Response 2: Methodological section: lines 300-306; 307-309; 318-321; 323-326; 328; 331-332; 336; 338; 342; 347-348; 350-353; 356-358; 367. The entire methodological section has been reissued to make it more comprehensible, using shorter sentences when necessary. However, we believe that the description of the methodology is adequate and of great clearness, since being a qualitative research we could not make use of the replicability in another different context, contrary to what happens in a quantitative research.

 

3. Results or interviewee voices:

The idea of using direct quotes from the interviewees is impressive. However, the problem here is that the authors throw out all the quotes rather than only craft in the only the necessary words from the interviewees for their argumentation. What we see are a group of wordy paragraphs which readers may find confusing. For instance, the authors present the following as direct interviewee quotes (lines 620-627):

“Laws facilitate conventional production more, obviously, but it's not the law, it's the government, it's the government's policy. It's not a law, the law doesn't say I'm going to provide agrochemicals for the farmers and transgenic seeds, that's not the law, that's politics, the government policy supports much more traditional production, where there's a lot, a lot of trouble's in certification; organic certification is very expensive and very complicated. I don't know why that is, I don't know if it is the case worldwide or only in Mexico; the Mexican certifiers are very expensive, in fact, there are no certified producers here. It isn't a regulation, it's a trend, it's policy, it's resource allocation. It isn't a law, you read the law and it doesn't say anything against an organic producer. It's government policies”.

A more understandable way would be to write:

According to this interviewee or as one interviewee put it, “the law doesn't say I'm going to provide agrochemicals for the farmers and transgenic seeds,” rather, “it's the government, it's the government's policy.”

These says it all. Then entire wordiness of that interviewee quotation makes the reading tough to grasp. The remaining words provide emotions but there already enough emotions in the small but meaningful quotation. Others merely distract.

Response 3: Results or interviewee voices: lines 379-385; 396-397; 418-419; 423-424; 432-433; 447-450; 457-460; 486-493; 518-522; 533-534; 537-538; 542-543; 561-571; 587-596; 639-646; 679-682; 689-692; 713-716; 717-721; 734-736; 737-738; 752-754; 765-766; 770-775; 803-805; 806; 816-819; 820-822; 837-841; 870-876; We have reduced the number of textual quotations from the interviewees, decreasing their wordiness so as not to confuse the reader.

 

4. Further tight editing:The manuscript still needs tighter editing.

 

Response 4: The entire manuscript has been edited: an extensive review of the English language and style has been carried out.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear all,

I believe the authors properly reviewed the manuscript according to the previous review suggestion.

Still, the quality of some images remains low (figures 2 and 3...)

Best regards,

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

1. Moderate English changes required

 

Response 1: The entire manuscript has been edited: an extensive review of the English language and style has been carried out.

2. I believe the authors properly reviewed the manuscript according to the previous review suggestion. Still, the quality of some images remains low (figures 2 and 3...)

Response 2: Between lines 194-196 (Figure 2): This figure has been replaced by a different figure from the same source but of higher quality. The authors have not been able to update Figure 3 with a higher quality.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper has potential, particularly in discussing how agroecological production, markets, and public policies intersect to alternative economies.  There are some issues, however, that need addressing before the paper can move forward.

First, the first few pages need significant English language editing.  The paper, concerning language, is also uneven - it seems that different people wrote different parts.  Not necessarily a problem, but as is, the first few pages use awkward language that is unclear, with many words need rephrasing and even capitalization (Mexico, not mexico; Yucatan, not yucatan).

On substance, you need more on agroecology.  For readers, most will not agree with the authors that agroecological is the same as organic production.  That point - what is agroecology - needs to be specified, somewhere.

More on a history of Mexican public policies would also help.  What's the state's influence, history in this regard?  Sub-national state has a unique history in this regard?  I mean, telling the story almost entirely from the perspective of the farmers is inherently partial.  More context required.

 

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper has potential. It would be improved by (i) stating a clear research gap (something like, "lack of research on institutional support to create a more favorable "ecosystem" for agroecology entrepreneurs...", (ii) a conceptual model detailing/justifying why the questions you ask and results fill that gap, and most importantly, (iii) Implications- how should these results be used? What do you recommend?

These edits will make the argument and contribution to the literature clearer

 

There are also many typos and places where more detail and/or references are needed- see attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf