Tangible to Non-Tangible Factors: A Cross-Sectional Study on the Life Satisfaction of Farmers in Kerala, India
, Shilpa V. Yohannan 1,5, Lorane Scaria 1,2 and Sunirose Ishnassery Pathrose 1,5Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors26 July 2024
Tangible to non-tangible factors: A Cross-Sectional Study on Social Support, well-being and life satisfaction of Farmers in Kerala, India
Abstract:
The objectives of the research are not clearly defined. The references to methodology descend to questions specific to this heading and, at the same time, do not provide relevant information on, for example, the type of interview carried out. There is no reasoned presentation of the conclusions in line with the research objectives.
Introduction:
Lines 34-36: this statement needs to be reinforced with sources and data.
Lines 37-39: The relevance of agricultural activities may be declining in Kerala but I do not think it will reach the point of insignificance.
Line 50: What are these studies?
The writing of the scientific paper calls for caution and objectivity. This heading requires a thorough revision, articulating the ideas with adequate bibliographical support and a certain sense of meaning in an article that otherwise lacks a theoretical framework.
The research objectives are not well defined. I understand that the last paragraphs of this section attempt to outline them, but they do so in such an abstract way that they cannot be taken as valid.
Materials and Methods
The research is a case study. From a methodological point of view, the first thing to do is to justify why Kerala can be considered a case study area. How is it representative, why is it representative, what does a standardised questionnaire mean, what type of interview was conducted: closed, semi-open, what is the structure of the questionnaire, what is the focus?
What does a standardised questionnaire mean, what type of interview was conducted: closed, semi-open, what is the structure of this questionnaire, what aspects does it focus on?
In 20 minutes can an interview be conducted in a rigorous manner?
As an annex, it would be advisable to include a copy of the model questionnaire used for the interviews
Results
The methodology heading has been broken down into a large number of sub-headings. Presenting the research results as a uniform whole can be a good indication that the research objectives are not clear or defined. Interviews have been carried out, for what purpose, with what aim, what was the aim of the study? This needs to be matured and articulated. We are talking about scientific work that must also be backed up by a solid theoretical framework.
Discussion
This section should compare the results of the research with those of authors who have previously analysed the same issue. This is not achieved.
Conclusions
They reflect a series of opinions and/or assessments of the authors. They do not reflect the final ideas of a scientific work; the answer to well-defined research questions and objectives.
Final assessment:
A significant number of interviews have been carried out, which has undoubtedly entailed a considerable effort. However, the document submitted does not meet the conditions for publication and is at a very early stage. The objectives should be defined, the corresponding research questions adequately formulated, all in the context of an adequate theoretical framework. From there, results, discussion and conclusions (which should reflect how the research results answer the research questions). Cheer up!
Author Response
Response to reviewer comments
Tangible to non-tangible factors: A Cross-Sectional Study on Social Support, well-being and life satisfaction of Farmers in Kerala, India
Abstract:
The objectives of the research are not clearly defined. The references to methodology descend to questions specific to this heading and, at the same time, do not provide relevant information on, for example, the type of interview carried out. There is no reasoned presentation of the conclusions in line with the research objectives.
Author response: The Abstract has been modified according to the suggestions.
Introduction:
Lines 34-36: this statement needs to be reinforced with sources and data.
Author response: reference added.
Lines 37-39: The relevance of agricultural activities may be declining in Kerala but I do not think it will reach the point of insignificance.
Author response: sentence modified.
Line 50: What are these studies?
Author response: Agriculture-related evidence in India - have provided a few references.
The writing of the scientific paper calls for caution and objectivity. This heading requires a thorough revision, articulating the ideas with adequate bibliographical support and a certain sense of meaning in an article that otherwise lacks a theoretical framework.
Author response: Manuscript modified with references.
The research objectives are not well defined. I understand that the last paragraphs of this section attempt to outline them, but they do so in such an abstract way that they cannot be taken as valid.
Author response: Research questions have been added.
Materials and Methods
The research is a case study. From a methodological point of view, the first thing to do is to justify why Kerala can be considered a case study area. How is it representative, and why is it representative?
Author response: A few statistics on the agriculture sector in Kerala are added.
what does a standardised questionnaire mean, what type of interview was conducted: closed, semi-open, what is the structure of the questionnaire, what is the focus?What does a standardised questionnaire mean, what type of interview was conducted: closed, semi-open, what is the structure of this questionnaire, what aspects does it focus on?
Author response: By standardised questionnaire, the author meant a structured close-ended questionnaire with multiple validated measurement tools. The details of the measurement tools are given in section 2.4.
In 20 minutes can an interview be conducted in a rigorous manner?
Author response: In our study, while most interviews typically lasted 30 minutes to ensure comprehensive responses, a select few were conducted within 20 minutes. This variation was noted to accommodate participants' time constraints while striving to maintain the rigor of the data collection process. The flexibility in interview duration, as reflected in the 20-30 minute range, allowed us to balance the need for thoroughness with practical considerations, ensuring that even shorter interviews were conducted with methodological rigor.
As an annex, it would be advisable to include a copy of the model questionnaire used for the interviews
Author response: The questionnaire is attached as supplementary information.
Results
The methodology heading has been broken down into a large number of sub-headings. Presenting the research results as a uniform whole can be a good indication that the research objectives are not clear or defined. Interviews have been carried out, for what purpose, with what aim, what was the aim of the study? This needs to be matured and articulated. We are talking about scientific work that must also be backed up by a solid theoretical framework.
Author response: The result section has been modified to include a more comprehensive analysis.
Discussion
This section should compare the results of the research with those of authors who have previously analysed the same issue. This is not achieved.
Author response: The discussion section has been modified.
Conclusions
They reflect a series of opinions and/or assessments of the authors. They do not reflect the final ideas of a scientific work; the answer to well-defined research questions and objectives.
Author response: corrected.
Final assessment:
A significant number of interviews have been carried out, which has undoubtedly entailed a considerable effort. However, the document submitted does not meet the conditions for publication and is at a very early stage. The objectives should be defined, the corresponding research questions adequately formulated, all in the context of an adequate theoretical framework. From there, results, discussion and conclusions (which should reflect how the research results answer the research questions). Cheer up!
Author response: thank you for the suggestions. We have incorporated all the suggestions into our manuscript and we believe it has significantly improved the quality of our paper.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article is well-written and offers an interesting exploration of the lives of farmers in Kerala (India) with regard to social support, well-being, and life satisfaction. The survey conducted adheres to appropriate quality standards and provides the opportunity to make comparisons and test relationships between relevant variables. I believe the article can be accepted for publication with minor revisions.
Here are my suggestions for the authors:
In the introduction, it would be useful to provide a better contextualization of the agricultural profile of Kerala by comparing it to the agriculture of India as a whole. This could help better highlight the specific characteristics of the region.
Rows 35-36: „The number of people engaging in farm occupation has declined [1] in Kerala by (-) 0.52% between 2018 and 2019.” Please provide data about trends on a longer period (e.g. last 10 years)
Row 95: “Each survey lasted 20-30 minutes.” Should be changed with „The completion of each questionnaire lasted between 20 and 30 minutes.”
Please explain in a phrase what means seasonal farmers within your classification (rows 140-145).
In order to inform the journal’s international audience, please provide exchange currency into US dollars for the monthly income first time when income categories are mentioned (rows 140-145).
In the discussion section, alongside age differences, it might also be interesting to explore in more detail other gender differences or differences among types of farmers (this could enhance the paper's citation potential). The conclusion section could be slightly expanded and better anchored in the reality of agriculture in Kerala.
Author Response
The article is well-written and offers an interesting exploration of the lives of farmers in Kerala (India) with regard to social support, well-being, and life satisfaction. The survey conducted adheres to appropriate quality standards and provides the opportunity to make comparisons and test relationships between relevant variables. I believe the article can be accepted for publication with minor revisions.
Author response: Thank you so much
Here are my suggestions for the authors:
In the introduction, it would be useful to provide a better contextualization of the agricultural profile of Kerala by comparing it to the agriculture of India as a whole. This could help better highlight the specific characteristics of the region.
Author response: Introduction has been modified.
Rows 35-36: „The number of people engaging in farm occupation has declined [1] in Kerala by (-) 0.52% between 2018 and 2019.” Please provide data about trends on a longer period (e.g. last 10 years)
Author response: the sentence modifed
Row 95: “Each survey lasted 20-30 minutes.” Should be changed with „The completion of each questionnaire lasted between 20 and 30 minutes.”
Author response: sentence modified.
Please explain in a phrase what means seasonal farmers within your classification (rows 140-145).
Author response: added
In order to inform the journal’s international audience, please provide exchange currency into US dollars for the monthly income first time when income categories are mentioned (rows 140-145).
Author response: corrected
In the discussion section, alongside age differences, it might also be interesting to explore in more detail other gender differences or differences among types of farmers (this could enhance the paper's citation potential). The conclusion section could be slightly expanded and better anchored in the reality of agriculture in Kerala.
Author response: The conclusion has been modified. The authors couldn’t find significant differences in the gender for the observed variable, which is why gender was not mentioned in the discussions.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAssessment: Tangible to non-tangible factors: A Cross-Sectional Study on Social Support, well-being and life satisfaction of Farmers in Kerala, India
The article is relevant and potentially interesting for readers due to its innovative interdisciplinary approach, combining positive psychology, sociology, and sustainable development studies. However, the reviewer recommends several major changes for improvement:
The abstract covers all major aspects of the study, including the purpose, methodology, key findings, and implications. It is generally clear and easy to follow, with a logical flow from background to conclusions. There are grammatical errors (e.g., in Line 16) and inconsistencies in tense usage and subject-verb agreement. Simplify complex sentences to improve readability, such as the one in Line 20.
It would be beneficial to briefly mention the time frame over which Kerala transitioned from an agrarian to a service-sector economy for better context. It might be helpful for many readers. Simplify complex sentences in lines like 36-37 to enhance readability.
The introduction lacks a clear research question. It should be evident how the research will measure the motivators and well-being improvements. Clearly state what the study seeks to investigate and ensure these questions are answered in the conclusion chapter.
The statement claiming that the majority of existing studies emphasise economic dimensions should be refined. While economic aspects are a major focus, there is a growing body of literature on the social, environmental, and psychological dimensions of farming. The Literature review section must be updated and improved.
The reviewer agrees that smallholding poses substantial barriers to adopting modern inputs, value-addition strategies, and newer technologies due to financial constraints, lack of economies of scale, and limited access to information and markets. However, it is also important to recognise that these barriers can be mitigated through collective action, cooperatives and farmer associations, affordable tailored technologies, and support programmes.
The conclusion is not detailed enough and is too general. Because there is no clear research question, the conclusion cannot be more specific.
Additional remarks:
· Chapter 2.6 is unnecessary; the ethical statement should be placed at the end of the paper.
· Table 1 is too detailed. Consider breaking it into 2-3 smaller tables and add source information.
· Figure 1 is visually unpleasing. Remove the title from the image as it does not match the Figure caption below it. Ensure source information is included.
· In Line 254, "0.404 Hector" should be corrected to "0.404 hectares."
To sum up, the paper needs major restructuring. First, identify a clear research question or hypothesis. Explain what the study aims to investigate and provide a clear framework for the research methodology and analysis. Highlight the benefits for readers and the practical implications of the study. Discuss how other countries can benefit from your findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageThere are some language issues in the text, see the attached review report.
Author Response
Assessment: Tangible to non-tangible factors: A Cross-Sectional Study on Social Support, well-being and life satisfaction of Farmers in Kerala, India
The article is relevant and potentially interesting for readers due to its innovative interdisciplinary approach, combining positive psychology, sociology, and sustainable development studies. However, the reviewer recommends several major changes for improvement:
Author response: Thank you so much for the suggestions.
The abstract covers all major aspects of the study, including the purpose, methodology, key findings, and implications. It is generally clear and easy to follow, with a logical flow from background to conclusions. There are grammatical errors (e.g., in Line 16) and inconsistencies in tense usage and subject-verb agreement. Simplify complex sentences to improve readability, such as the one in Line 20.
Author response: Abstract modified.
It would be beneficial to briefly mention the time frame over which Kerala transitioned from an agrarian to a service-sector economy for better context. It might be helpful for many readers. Simplify complex sentences in lines like 36-37 to enhance readability.
Author response: Modified
The introduction lacks a clear research question. It should be evident how the research will measure the motivators and well-being improvements. Clearly state what the study seeks to investigate and ensure these questions are answered in the conclusion chapter.
Author response: Research questions are added.
The statement claiming that the majority of existing studies emphasise economic dimensions should be refined. While economic aspects are a major focus, there is a growing body of literature on the social, environmental, and psychological dimensions of farming. The Literature review section must be updated and improved.
Author response: Literature review section is modified
The reviewer agrees that smallholding poses substantial barriers to adopting modern inputs, value-addition strategies, and newer technologies due to financial constraints, lack of economies of scale, and limited access to information and markets. However, it is also important to recognise that these barriers can be mitigated through collective action, cooperatives and farmer associations, affordable tailored technologies, and support programmes.
Author response: the sentence has been modified
The conclusion is not detailed enough and is too general. Because there is no clear research question, the conclusion cannot be more specific.
Author response: the conclusion has been modified.
Additional remarks:
- Chapter 2.6 is unnecessary; the ethical statement should be placed at the end of the paper.
Author response: corrected.
- Table 1 is too detailed. Consider breaking it into 2-3 smaller tables and add source information.
Author response: Table is modified
- Figure 1 is visually unpleasing. Remove the title from the image as it does not match the Figure caption below it. Ensure source information is included.
Author response: Figure is modified to make it look good, data source is also added.
- In Line 254, "0.404 Hector" should be corrected to "0.404 hectares."
Author response: added
To sum up, the paper needs major restructuring. First, identify a clear research question or hypothesis. Explain what the study aims to investigate and provide a clear framework for the research methodology and analysis. Highlight the benefits for readers and the practical implications of the study. Discuss how other countries can benefit from your findings.
Author response: Thank you for the suggestions. We have modified the manuscript based on the suggestions.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for Authors1. It is commendable that the research perspectives and questions of this study focusing on non-tangible factors are relatively novel. However, one of the shortcomings is that the description of the research background and summary of existing research are extremely insufficient. In particular, the authors need to explain more in detail why these non-tangible factors are important and what is the current status of existing research in this realm and thereby forms the conceptual framework of this paper.
2. To be honest, the authors fail to present convincing results and the empirical analysis of this paper has much room for improvement. Although linear regression is the simplest and most practical econometric method, it cannot be used directly. Instead, it also requires assumption checking and evaluation of model fitting, which is lacking in this paper. In specific, multicollinearity between independent variables, normality of residuals, and heteroskedasticity all need to be tested.
3. There are some minor problems that I would like to point out. Figures and tables are not presented in a clear and aesthetically pleasing way. The font size in the table is too large. Figure 1 has a slightly rough design.
Author Response
- It is commendable that the research perspectives and questions of this study focusing on non-tangible factors are relatively novel. However, one of the shortcomings is that the description of the research background and summary of existing research are extremely insufficient. In particular, the authors need to explain more in detail why these non-tangible factors are important and what is the current status of existing research in this realm and thereby forms the conceptual framework of this paper.
Author response: Thank you so much for the suggestions. Introduction has been modified
- 2. To be honest, the authors fail to present convincing results and the empirical analysis of this paper has much room for improvement. Although linear regression is the simplest and most practical econometric method, it cannot be used directly. Instead, it also requires assumption checking and evaluation of model fitting, which is lacking in this paper. In specific, multicollinearity between independent variables, normality of residuals, and heteroskedasticity all need to be tested.
Author response: We appreciate the feedback and would like to clarify that we have conducted the necessary assumption checks to ensure the validity of our linear regression model. Specifically, the Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) for our independent variables is close to 1, indicating minimal multicollinearity. Additionally, the Shapiro-Wilk test yielded a p-value of 0.101, suggesting that the residuals do not significantly deviate from normality. Furthermore, the Q-Q plot of the residuals closely follows the 45-degree line, providing visual confirmation of the normality assumption. We have also provided the r-squared statistics in the result section. We believe these analyses support the robustness of our empirical findings.
Please find attached the statistics.
|
Durbin–Watson Test for Autocorrelation |
|||||
|
Autocorrelation |
DW Statistic |
p |
|||
|
0.0100 |
1.97 |
0.692 |
|||
|
Collinearity Statistics |
|||||
|
|
VIF |
Tolerance |
|||
|
Access to resources |
1.11 |
0.900 |
|||
|
significantothersupport_ss |
1.77 |
0.564 |
|||
|
family_ss |
1.71 |
0.585 |
|||
|
friends_ss |
1.22 |
0.817 |
|||
|
Age |
1.22 |
0.819 |
|||
|
Education |
1.07 |
0.934 |
|||
|
Economic status |
1.09 |
0.915 |
|||
|
marital status |
1.10 |
0.910 |
|||
|
ownership of house |
1.10 |
0.909 |
|||
|
farm_employment_status |
1.10 |
0.909 |
|||
|
monthlyincome_categorized |
1.05 |
0.955 |
|||
|
ownership of land |
1.10 |
0.909 |
|||
|
size of land owned |
1.06 |
0.942 |
|||
|
Normality Test (Shapiro-Wilk) |
|||
|
Statistic |
p |
||
|
0.996 |
0.101 |
||
- There are some minor problems that I would like to point out. Figures and tables are not presented in a clear and aesthetically pleasing way.The font size in the table is too large. Figure 1 has a slightly rough design.
Author response: The font size is 10, according to the article template given by the journal. Figure is modified to make it look good
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have not addressed the suggested changes in the recommended depth. Basically, the comments made in the first round of revision remain valid; with the added handicap that, in its current format with corrections, additions and deletions, the document is virtually unreadable.
The research objectives are still not well defined. The formulation of an abstract and general research question does not help to solve this problem.
There is still no justification as to why Kerala is a region that deserves to be considered as a case study object.
The observations made with regard to methodology are also not addressed. Contrary to the authors' claims, the interview model is also not included as an annex. If farmers' happiness or satisfaction has been measured on the basis of a number of parameters, these could form part of the research objectives and help to articulate the research. In the conclusions there is no trace of these parameters and only one question is referred to.
The conclusions are poor; there is no reference to the limitations of the research. The discussion section has tried to ‘artificially’ address the comments of the first review; it does not really provide a discussion between the results of this research and previous work.
Author Response
The authors have not addressed the suggested changes in the recommended depth. Basically, the comments made in the first round of revision remain valid; with the added handicap that, in its current format with corrections, additions and deletions, the document is virtually unreadable.
Response: We have revised the manuscript again to include more details and incorporate the suggestions given. We are thankful to the reviewer for the valuable suggestions that improved the quality of the manuscript.
The research objectives are still not well defined. The formulation of an abstract and general research question does not help to solve this problem.
Response: The research question is modified based on our understanding.
How do demographic factors (e.g., age, gender, income, education) influence life satisfaction among individuals?
- How do different forms of social support (from significant others, friends, and family) impact life satisfaction?
- Does social support moderate the relationship between demographic factors and life satisfaction?
There is still no justification as to why Kerala is a region that deserves to be considered as a case study object.
Justification already given –
Kerala’s agriculture sector stands different to other states in India because of its diverse topography, crop diversity, fragmented landholding leading to small scall farmings, and other socio-economic indicators like high literacy and education [3], which makes the state a unique case for identifying the life satisfaction of small scale farmers and its socio-demographic correlates.
The observations made with regard to methodology are also not addressed. Contrary to the authors' claims, the interview model is also not included as an annex. If farmers' happiness or satisfaction has been measured on the basis of a number of parameters, these could form part of the research objectives and help to articulate the research. In the conclusions there is no trace of these parameters and only one question is referred to.
Response: We have already attached the questionnaire as supplementary file in the first revision; attached again.
Satisfaction is assessed based on life satifaction tool, details of which is included in the method section.
The conclusions are poor; there is no reference to the limitations of the research. The discussion section has tried to ‘artificially’ address the comments of the first review; it does not really provide a discussion between the results of this research and previous work.
Response: Limitations are added just before the conclusions. Conclusion and discussion section modified again.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI would like to thank the authors for their efforts in addressing the reviewers' comments. The revisions have significantly enhanced the quality of the paper. Thank you for your work in refining the manuscript.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor edits might be necessary after having removed the comments (track changes function). Overall, language use is satisfactory.
Author Response
Thank you for suggestions and comments.
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt is worth affirming that the author has made meticulous revisions and improvements to the manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you
