Review Reports - Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Enterprise Brands in Guangxi

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Enterprise Brands in Guangxi" presents a quantitative analysis of the distribution of 164 agricultural enterprise brands in the Guangxi region of China. The authors identify spatial clustering trends and emphasize the critical role of economic development levels, the distribution of natural resources, and transport infrastructure.

In my opinion, this article exemplifies scholarly work where the authors demonstrate proficiency in using advanced quantitative methods but lack a deeper reflection on the implications of their findings for knowledge development. Below are arguments supporting this view:

1. Excessive Focus on Methods

The authors thoroughly describe the applied spatial analysis methods (ArcGIS, Nearest Neighbor Index, Kernel Density Estimation, and Geographical Detectors). Yet, there is a lack of critical analysis of what these results imply beyond confirming obvious relationships (e.g., brands concentrating around major cities and transport infrastructure).
The results are presented technically without in-depth interpretation within the context of existing theories and prior research.

2. Lack of Theoretical Contribution

The article does not significantly contribute to theories on agricultural brand building, strategic management in agriculture, or regional development.
Instead of expanding existing concepts or challenging prior assumptions, the authors limit themselves to stating positive or negative correlations among studied variables.

3. Superficial Conclusions

The conclusions are rather general and predictable, such as the dependency of agricultural brand development on the region's economic level or road infrastructure availability. These conclusions seem intuitive and fail to provide new knowledge or original perspectives.
There is no reflection on the mechanisms underlying these relationships and how they could be leveraged in regional development strategies or public policy.

4. Lack of Critical Analysis of Limitations

The authors did not deeply reflect on the limitations of the applied methods and the resulting conclusions. For example, do the analyzed quantitative variables fully capture the complexity of brand-building processes? Were other subtle cultural, social, or institutional factors that were not considered influencing brand distribution?

Recommendations for Improvement

To meet the standards of rigorous scientific work and avoid being merely a demonstration of "art for art's sake," the paper requires the following improvements:

1. Deeper Theoretical Analysis

The authors should relate their findings to existing theories on regional development, branding, and agricultural marketing. For instance, how do the results correspond with brand equity theory, cluster theory, or comparative advantage theory?
It would be valuable to consider whether the results confirm existing models of agricultural brand development or indicate a need for modification. How does this study fill a gap in current knowledge (which should be clearly defined)?

2. Critical Analysis of Results

A more critical interpretation of the results is necessary. For example, why do agricultural brands not develop in some regions despite favorable economic conditions? What barriers might exist?

3. Analysis of Practical Implications

The authors should expand on what specific actions and mechanisms regional authorities or entrepreneurs could undertake based on the results. What marketing strategies would be effective in regions with low brand concentration?
Should public policies focus more on infrastructure support or education and marketing innovation?

Summary

The paper is methodologically solid in its quantitative approach but lacks in-depth reflection on the significance of the results for scientific knowledge development and economic practice. The study appears more as a demonstration of analytical skills than a real contribution to scientific discussion. The authors should focus more on interpreting results and their implications to ensure the paper adds real value to academic knowledge.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Enterprise Brands in Guangxi. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. In the following, the responses to all the comments are provided one by one. All authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and for taking the time to carefully review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have provided us with important insights to enhance the content and presentation of our research. Where we put the black line in the manuscript means to delete it. The places we mark red represent new content.

We have tried our best to make all the revisions clear, and we hope that the revised manuscript can satisfy the requirements for publication. Thank you for your valuable comments, we have completed the modification according to your comments.We appreciate the attention and time of the editors and reviewers and look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

January 30, 2025

Point 1: Excessive Focus on Methods

The authors thoroughly describe the applied spatial analysis methods (ArcGIS, Nearest Neighbor Index, Kernel Density Estimation, and Geographical Detectors). Yet, there is a lack of critical analysis of what these results imply beyond confirming obvious relationships (e.g., brands concentrating around major cities and transport infrastructure).

The results are presented technically without in-depth interpretation within the context of existing theories and prior research.

Response 1: Based on expert opinions, we conducted a critical analysis of the implications of the results presented in the manuscript. Furthermore, we provided explanations within the context of existing theories and previous research.

For instance, the concentration of agricultural enterprise brands in major cities such as Guilin, Nanning, and Liuzhou aligns with the core-periphery theory in economic geography, which suggests that economic activities tend to cluster around central cities due to agglomeration economies. These cities offer better infrastructure, access to markets, and a more favorable business environment, which are conducive to brand development.

The results of the geographic detector show that the number of agricultural innovation parks, regional brands, and agriculture - focused influencers are strong predictors of the spatial distribution of agricultural enterprise brands. In the context of innovation diffusion theory, agricultural innovation parks act as hubs for the development and dissemination of new technologies and business models. The high explanatory power of the number of innovation parks implies that areas with more such parks are likely to have a more vibrant innovation ecosystem, which can accelerate the growth of agricultural enterprise brands. Regional brands, on the other hand, can be seen as collective assets. According to brand equity theories, a strong regional brand can enhance the perceived value of individual enterprise brands within the region, attracting more customers and resources.

Our analysis from the agricultural fundamentals perspective reveals a significant positive correlation between regional brands and corporate brands. This relationship can be further understood through the lens of the brand - community theory. Regional brands create a sense of community among local agricultural enterprises. They provide a shared identity and a platform for cooperation. For instance, a well-known regional brand can attract tourists and buyers to the area, which benefits individual enterprise brands. In return, successful enterprise brands can contribute to the overall reputation of the regional brand by producing high-quality products and engaging in effective marketing, thus creating a virtuous cycle of brand development.

Point 2: Lack of Theoretical Contribution

The article does not significantly contribute to theories on agricultural brand building, strategic management in agriculture, or regional development.

Instead of expanding existing concepts or challenging prior assumptions, the authors limit themselves to stating positive or negative correlations among studied variables.

Response 2: After the revision, this paper focuses on the important theoretical contributions to agricultural brand building, agricultural strategic management and regional development. Propose new content to expand existing concepts and enhance the depth and contribution of the theory.

Point 3: Superficial Conclusions

The conclusions are rather general and predictable, such as the dependency of agricultural brand development on the region's economic level or road infrastructure availability. These conclusions seem intuitive and fail to provide new knowledge or original perspectives.

There is no reflection on the mechanisms underlying these relationships and how they could be leveraged in regional development strategies or public policy.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comments. We have revised the conclusions of the manuscript by incorporating original viewpoints and conducting a thorough reflection.

For instance, the analysis of influencing factors reveals that the number of regional brands, agricultural output, and the proportion of agricultural output in the agricultural base indicators are positively correlated with the number of agricultural enterprise brands. This correlation underscores the importance of regional branding as a catalyst for enterprise brand development. Additionally, the study finds that technological innovation, as measured by the number of agricultural patents and innovation parks, and marketing innovation, as indicated by the number of agriculture-focused influencers, significantly contribute to brand development. These findings suggest that regional development strategies should focus on enhancing innovation capacity and leveraging digital marketing platforms to foster brand growth.

Point 4: Lack of Critical Analysis of Limitations

The authors did not deeply reflect on the limitations of the applied methods and the resulting conclusions. For example, do the analyzed quantitative variables fully capture the complexity of brand-building processes? Were other subtle cultural, social, or institutional factors that were not considered influencing brand distribution?

Response 4: In the revision, a critical analysis of the limitations has been added, along with a reflection on the limitations of the methods employed and the conclusions drawn.

For instance, this study acknowledges limitations that may affect the comprehensiveness of its findings. The reliance on 2023 data restricts the capture of dynamic changes and emerging trends in agricultural branding. Brand development is influenced by evolving market conditions, policy shifts, and technological advancements, which may not be fully represented in a cross-sectional dataset. Future research should consider longitudinal datasets to better understand temporal dynamics and long-term trends.

Additionally, the study's focus on quantitative methods may overlook cultural, social, and institutional factors that significantly influence brand-building processes. Qualitative factors such as local cultural values, social networks, and institutional support systems can profoundly affect the success and sustainability of agricultural brands. Future research should incorporate mixed-method approaches, including qualitative case studies and interviews, to provide a more holistic understanding.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an interesting study on the spatial distribution and influencing factors of agricultural enterprise brands in Guangxi; however, several areas require significant improvement.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English in the manuscript is generally acceptable, but there are areas that require improvement for better readability and precision. Some sentences are overly complex, with awkward phrasing or unclear structure, particularly in the abstract and discussion sections.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Enterprise Brands in Guangxi. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. In the following, the responses to all the comments are provided one by one. All authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and for taking the time to carefully review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have provided us with important insights to enhance the content and presentation of our research. Where we put the black line means to delete it and the places we mark red represent new content in the manuscript.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

January 30, 2025

Point 1.1: The abstract outlines the study but fails to clearly highlight the specific research problem, such as detailed challenges in the spatial distribution of agribusiness brands in Guangxi.

Response 1.1: Our findings reveal a significant concentration of brands in the northern region, particularly in Nanning, Liuzhou, and Guilin, with a dense northeast, sparse southwest' distribution pattern. We identify a positive correlation between the number of regional brands and GDP, and a negative correlation with distance from major highways. This suggests that regional economic development and transportation infrastructure significantly impact brand distribution. To enhance brand development, we recommend focusing on regional brand cultivation, innovation, and leveraging digital marketing strategies. This study provides actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners aiming to promote agricultural brand growth and rural revitalization in Guangxi.

Point 1.2: While the abstract mentions key results, such as patterns of distribution and geographical associations, it lacks a practical interpretation of these findings or their broader implications.

Response 1.2: This pattern suggests that regions with abundant natural resources and higher economic development levels are more conducive to the formation and growth of agricultural enterprise brands, highlighting the importance of regional economic foundations and resource endowments in agricultural branding.

Point 1.3: Tools such as ArcGIS and Geographic Detectors are mentioned, but their uniqueness or relevance to similar studies is not emphasized.

Response 1.3: This study leverages advanced analytical tools such as ArcGIS spatial analysis and Geographical Detectors to conduct a comprehensive analysis of the spatial distribution characteristics, equilibrium, hotspot areas, and geographic associations of 164 district-level agribusiness brands in Guangxi, highlighting the unique insights these tools provide into the spatial heterogeneity of agricultural enterprise brands.

Point 1.4: The abstract ends abruptly without a strong conclusion or discussion of the paper’s unique contribution to agribusiness branding or rural revitalization.

Response 1.4: According to the opinion, we expand the summary： Therefore, this study highlights the importance of cultivating regional brands, enhancing innovation capabilities, and advancing new marketing methods to promote the spatial equilibrium and sustainable development of agricultural enterprise brands, contributing to rural revitalization in Guangxi.

Point 2.1: While the introduction provides extensive background information, it fails to clearly identify the research gap that this study aims to address.

Response 2.1: We have provided background information in the introduction, with the aim of clearly indicating the research gap that this study intends to fill： Despite extensive research on brand building, management, and marketing strategies, a significant gap remains in understanding the spatial distribution and influencing factors of agricultural enterprise brands. This study aims to address this gap by analyzing the spatial distribution characteristics and the factors influencing the distribution of agricultural enterprise brands in Guangxi, providing insights into geographical concentration and regional development disparities.

Point 2.2: The linkage between agribusiness branding and rural revitalization is discussed broadly, without supporting data or specific challenges that warrant further investigation.

Response 2.2: In the revision, a discussion on the aforementioned content has been added.

Point 2.3: The introduction lacks any mention of how the study’s findings could be relevant in a global context, despite agribusiness branding being a widespread issue.

Response 2.3: We have added these sentences: Currently, agricultural development has entered the era of branding, a trend observed globally. Agricultural brands not only play a significant role in driving the supply of innovative products, improving product quality, and stimulating consumer demand within the domestic market but also enhance the international competitiveness of agricultural products, making them crucial for global market engagement.

Point 2.4: The transition between different topics—agribusiness, local economy, and system theory—is abrupt and lacks cohesion.

Response 2.4: We have revised the relevant phrasing. Research on agricultural enterprise brands primarily focuses on brand building, brand management, and brand marketing strategies, with a particular emphasis on how these elements interact with local economic conditions and system theory.

Point 3.1: While data sources are mentioned, critical details regarding data collection methods, validity, and reliability are not adequately addressed.

Response 3.1: We have added some details in the Data Sources and Research Methodology section, elaborating on the data collection methods, among others.

Point 3.2: The manuscript fails to explain the statistical tests used to validate methods like the Nearest Neighbor Index or Geographic Detector.

Response 3.2: To ensure the robustness of the analysis, statistical tests such as the Nearest Neighbor Index and Geographic Detector were validated using appropriate methods to account for potential outliers and ensure data validity.

Point 3.3: The variables used in the Geographic Detector method are briefly mentioned but lack comprehensive explanations of their causal relationships with brand distribution.

Response 3.3: We deleted these sentences. Talent resources, for instance, contribute to brand development through providing professional knowledge and skills for brand building and management. A rich cultural endowment can endow agricultural enterprise brands with unique cultural connotations, attracting consumers. Creative ability enables the innovation of brand products and marketing strategies. Socio-economic factors, such as income levels and market consumption capacity, directly affect the market demand for agricultural enterprise brands. A solid agricultural foundation provides a stable source of high- quality agricultural products for brand building. The tourism market, with its large flow of people and high - demand for local specialties, offers opportunities for the promotion and sales of agricultural enterprise brands, all of which play an important role in influencing the spatial differentiation of agricultural enterprise brands.

Point 3.4: The choice of analytical tools, such as Kernel Density Estimation and Geographic Concentration Index, is not sufficiently justified when compared to alternative methods.

Response 3.4: The spatial distribution characteristics of agricultural enterprise brands in Guangxi are analyzed using the kernel density analysis method in ArcGIS 10.8, which is chosen for its ability to effectively visualize and quantify the spatial clustering of data points. The analysis incorporates the unevenness index and spatial cluster analysis methods to describe the spatial distribution features of agricultural enterprise brands and to evaluate the current status and characteristics of agricultural enterprise brand development in Guangxi. Furthermore, the geographic detector method is used to quantitatively analyze the influencing factors and the explanatory power of indicators affecting the spatial distribution of agricultural enterprise brands in Guangxi, providing a robust statistical framework for understanding spatial heterogeneity.

Point 4.1: The graphs and tables provided in the manuscript are not thoroughly discussed in the text, making it difficult for readers to grasp their relevance.

Response 4.1: We have included an enhanced discussion of the results.

Point 4.2: The results primarily describe patterns, such as brand distribution across regions, without delving into the underlying reasons or implications of these findings.

Response 4.2: We have added the sentences. These factors are not only the main determinants of the spatial differentiation of agricultural enterprise brands but also reflect the underlying economic and social dynamics of the regions. For instance, a higher number of regional brands suggests a more developed local economy and a stronger market orientation, which in turn attracts more investment and resources, further enhancing the brand's market presence and competitiveness.

Point 4.3: While factors such as proximity to highways are noted, there is little exploration of their statistical significance or deeper socioeconomic implications.

Response 4.3: We have added the sentences. This not only indicates that the spatial distribution of agricultural brand enterprises follows a distance-decay pattern centered around major highways but also implies that for every unit increase in the distance from major highways, there is a significant decrease in the likelihood of an agricultural enterprise brand being present in that area. From a socioeconomic perspective, better highway accessibility reduces transportation costs for agricultural products, making it easier for enterprises to access markets, obtain necessary resources, and distribute their products efficiently. This leads to higher market competitiveness and greater potential for brand growth. Conversely, areas farther from highways face higher transportation costs, which can limit market access, increase product prices, and ultimately impede the development and distribution of agricultural enterprise brands.

Point 4.4: Statements like brands are more concentrated in economically developed regions are repeated without offering specific insights into what constitutes economic development in this context.

Response 4.4: Regions with higher agricultural output, which is often accompanied by better - developed agricultural infrastructure such as irrigation systems, storage facilities, and access to quality seeds and fertilizers, tend to host more agricultural enterprise brands. Agricultural output, along with factors like the level of agricultural mechanization, the scale of agricultural production, and the degree of integration with other sectors of the economy, reflects the economic foundation of regional agriculture to some extent; a stronger agricultural economic base, characterized by efficient production processes, a large-scale and diverse agricultural product supply, and well - connected market channels, provides a favorable platform and environment for the growth of agricultural enterprise brands.

Point 5.1: The discussion does not sufficiently connect findings to actionable policy recommendations for improving agribusiness branding.

Response 5.1: Policymakers need to consider the multi-faceted influencing factors identified in this study to formulate targeted policies that can effectively enhance the competitiveness and spatial distribution of agricultural enterprise brands, which can also serve as a reference for global agricultural branding initiatives.

Point 5.2: There is little comparison with other similar studies, making it difficult to assess the study's contribution to the broader literature.

Response 5.2: We have added the sentence: The findings suggest that policymakers should focus on enhancing regional brand development, supporting agricultural innovation parks, and leveraging internet influencers to boost agricultural enterprise brands. These strategies can be replicated globally by adapting to local conditions. For instance, regions with strong agricultural outputs can establish innovation parks to foster brand development, while leveraging digital marketing to expand market reach. This approach not only supports local economic growth but also aligns with global trends in agricultural branding and innovation. The study emphasizes the importance of innovation in brand development. The significant positive correlation between the number of patents, innovation parks, and agricultural enterprise brands highlights the need for continuous innovation. This innovation can be replicated in other regions by establishing similar innovation ecosystems, supported by policy incentives and technological advancements. The use of digital marketing and e-commerce, as shown in the study, can be universally applied to enhance brand visibility and market access, making the findings globally relevant and replicable.

Point 5.3: The discussion offers broad conclusions without critically analyzing how the findings can be applied to other contexts or addressing limitations in detail.

Response 5.3: We have added the sentence: The relationship between the number of regional brands and agricultural enterprise brands is one of connection and mutual promotion in the context of Guangxi. However, when applying this finding to other regions, factors such as differences in regional brand development models, local market structures, and policy environments need to be considered. For example, in regions with a more fragmented market or less-developed infrastructure, the mutual - promotion mechanism may operate differently.

Point 5.4: While technological and marketing innovation is mentioned, the discussion does not adequately explore how these factors can be optimized or scaled.

Response 5.4: From the perspective of innovation elements, the establishment and development of brands require innovation. To illustrate this point, the number of patents and innovation parks show a significant positive correlation with the number of agricultural enterprise brands. To optimize and scale these innovation - related factors, regional governments could increase investment in agricultural research and development, encourage universities and research institutions to collaborate with agricultural enterprises, and expand the scale of existing innovation parks while establishing more of them to create a broader innovation ecosystem.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction: The research aims to conduct an in-depth analysis of the spatial differentiation patterns and the factors influencing agricultural enterprise brands. In China, with the introduction of the concept of green revolution, every sector including the farming sector is also looking for innovative ideas and methods to lean towards green practices. In this aspect, the agricultural brand formation trend is significant since it enhances the scope of agricultural product development, increases quality and promotes green development. However, the creation of agricultural brands is associated with various challenges and thus various research is conducted for brand building, brand management and brand marketing.

Methodology: The research followed a quantitative analysis and was conducted in the Guangxi region of China which is located in the southern part of China along the sea. It is based on 164 district-level agricultural business brands’ samples in the region and spatial distribution, hotspot areas in the year 2023 and other geographical factors are taken into account through the use of tools such as ArcGIS 10.8 spatial analysis, Nearest Neighbor Index, Geographic Concentration Index, Imbalance Index, Kernel Density Estimation, and Near Analysis. The research also used Geographical Detectors as well to understand the influence of various factors that have a direct effect on the heterogeneity of agricultural enterprise brands.

Result and Discussion: The research methodology indicated that while concentrating on the availability of resources and economic development, the northern region of Guangxi that is Nanning, Liuzhou, and Guilin has the highest number of agricultural brands while the northwestern region has the lowest agricultural brand enterprise density. The result of the research also indicated that there is a positive correlation between the number of brand enterprises with Gross Domestic Product and a negative relation with the distance from highways. The research also mentioned that from the perspective of innovation elements, it is observed that there is a positive correlation between positive correlation with the number of agricultural enterprise brands and innovation capacity. On the other hand, from the perspective of marketing, it is observed that the penetration of the Internet acts as a positive factor for the growth of agricultural brand enterprises.

Conclusion and Recommendation: The research concluded that the growth of agricultural brands is associated with stronger economic scale, innovation capability and marketing power. These factors along with the penetration of the internet increase the visibility and networking of brands thereby increasing their comprehensive strength and fostering the growth of corporate brands. The recommendations that could help in the growth of agricultural brands mentioned in the research include increased support of agricultural development, establishing a public service platform, improving product quality and also inclusion of trademark and quality standards. Increased investment in technology and innovation along with the introduction of modern marketing strategies could be of great help in this aspect to improve brand formation.

Review of Article: The article described in detail various factors of the research and this helped in easy understanding of the whole concept. This research could also lead the path for future research on the improvement of brand formation in agricultural areas of the world. The language of the paper being English, it is easier to reach a large customer base without the need for translation. However, one of the major limitations of the research was that it was conducted in a region of China and thus could not be said to have a similar relationship between the factors with the growth of agricultural brands. In addition, the research is fully based on quantitative data which often overlooks factors such as cultural differences, beliefs and trends which change with geographical and demographical differences.

Reviewer Comments (Decision: Minor Revision)

Overall Assessment: The manuscript explores the spatial distribution and influencing factors of agricultural enterprise brands in Guangxi using a combination of spatial analysis (ArcGIS, kernel density, nearest neighbor index) and the Geographic Detector method. The paper is well-organized, and the topic is both timely and relevant for regional agricultural branding and rural revitalization. The methodology is sound and provides valuable insights for policymakers and agricultural stakeholders.

However, there are a few minor issues regarding the clarity of certain statements, reference formatting, and some technical inconsistencies that need to be addressed before publication. After these points are resolved, the paper will be suitable for publication.

Strengths

Comprehensive Methodology: The study employs multiple spatial analysis tools (Kernel Density Estimation, Nearest Neighbor Index, Geographic Concentration Index, Geographic Detectors), offering a robust approach to understanding spatial heterogeneity.

Clear Policy Relevance: The findings on how GDP, distance to highways, and innovation factors affect the distribution of agricultural enterprise brands provide meaningful guidance for rural development and brand-building strategies.

Well-Structured Discussion: The discussion and conclusion effectively connect empirical results with practical recommendations for stakeholders in regional branding and agricultural modernization.

Key Points for Minor Revision

1.Reference Inconsistencies & Formatting

There are instances of “Error! Reference source not found” (e.g., in lines 37–38) that appear to be remnants from a reference manager. Please remove or correct these references to ensure proper in-text citation.

Ensure uniformity in the reference list (e.g., spacing, punctuation, journal abbreviations). Some references (e.g., #5 vs. #36) appear to describe the same source; please check for duplication or clarify if they are indeed separate citations.

2. Clarification of “Shake Shack” Indicator

In Table 1 (line 229) and related text, “Number of Shake Shack platforms with three agricultural anchors” is mentioned. It is unclear whether this refers to a specific social media or streaming platform in China. Please clarify or revise this term to avoid confusion, possibly referencing the well-known “Douyin” (TikTok) or other local e-commerce/live-streaming platforms if that was the intended meaning.

3. Minor Language and Typographical Edits

A careful proofreading is advised to refine minor typographical or grammatical issues. For instance, check instances where “southwestern and southeastern regions” might be conflated or repeated in the text (e.g., lines 273–275).

Confirm consistent usage of place names (e.g., “Fangchenggang” vs. “Fang Cheng Gang”).

4. Further Explanation of Data Timeframe

The manuscript relies on data from 2023 (line 121, and elsewhere). Since the paper projects broad conclusions, consider briefly discussing how these findings might hold or change over time (longitudinal perspective). A short statement clarifying whether the dataset is representative for ongoing trends would be beneficial.

5. Strengthening the Limitations Section

The limitations (lines 522–531) are clearly stated but could use a brief mention of how future research might incorporate qualitative methods (e.g., stakeholder interviews) to capture cultural or sociopolitical nuances in brand development. This will help position the paper for subsequent research directions.

Conclusion: In summary, the paper offers significant contributions to understanding how spatial and socioeconomic factors shape agricultural enterprise brands in Guangxi. With the minor revisions and clarifications suggested above—particularly the corrections to references, the clarification of terminology, and a final check for typographical consistency—the manuscript will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Enterprise Brands in Guangxi. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. In the following, the responses to all the comments are provided one by one. All authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and for taking the time to carefully review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have provided us with important insights to enhance the content and presentation of our research. Where we put the black line means to delete it and the places we mark red represent new content in the manuscript.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

January 30, 2025

Point 1: Reference Inconsistencies & Formatting

There are instances of “Error! Reference source not found” (e.g., in lines 37–38) that appear to be remnants from a reference manager. Please remove or correct these references to ensure proper in-text citation.

Response 1: We have reviewed and revised the references to ensure their accuracy.

Point 2: Clarification of “Shake Shack” Indicator

Response 2: The content in Table 1 (line 229) has been revised to "TikTok".

Point 3: Minor Language and Typographical Edits

Confirm consistent usage of place names (e.g., “Fangchenggang” vs. “Fang Cheng Gang”).

Response 3: The corresponding content has been revised accordingly.

Point 4: Further Explanation of Data Timeframe

Response 4: We have explored the relevant content in the revision.

Point 5: Strengthening the Limitations Section

Response 5: We have added relevant content in the suggestions section.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for your detailed revisions and thoughtful responses to the review comments. Your improvements have significantly enhanced the manuscript’s clarity and depth.
However, I would like to suggest minor revisions in the conclusion section to strengthen the study’s contributions. Specifically, the conclusion should more explicitly highlight the key contributions of the research, provide clearer practical implications for stakeholders, acknowledge study limitations, and suggest directions for future research. Addressing these points will further refine the manuscript and enhance its overall impact. I appreciate your efforts and look forward to the final version.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer

Dear reviewer,

We are very grateful for your constructive comments and suggestions for our manuscript entitled Spatial Distribution and Influencing Factors of Agricultural Enterprise Brands in Guangxi. Your comments are very valuable and helpful for improving our manuscript. In the following, the responses to all the comments are provided one by one. All authors would like to sincerely thank the reviewers for their constructive suggestions and for taking the time to carefully review this manuscript. Your valuable feedback has significantly contributed to improving the quality and clarity of our work. We greatly appreciate your expertise and thoughtful comments, which have provided us with important insights to enhance the content and presentation of our research. The places marked with black lines indicate deletion, the places marked with red indicate the contents added in the first revision of the manuscript, and the places marked with yellow indicate the contents added in the second revision of the manuscript.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions！

February 5, 2025

Point 1: Specifically, the conclusion should more explicitly highlight the key contributions of the research, provide clearer practical implications for stakeholders, acknowledge study limitations, and suggest directions for future research.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your suggestions.

1.1 We have refined the conclusions to more prominently emphasize the key contributions of this study. According to the revised suggestions, we add the following contents:

In summary, this study quantifies the spatial heterogeneity of agricultural enterprise brands, offering a novel perspective on the distribution patterns across Guangxi.

(1)The findings provide actionable insights for policymakers, emphasizing the role of infrastructure, economic incentives, and innovation hubs in brand development in terms of economic and policy implications.

(2)The research identifies the increasing significance of AI-driven analytics, digital branding strategies, and e-commerce in agricultural brand expansion in terms of technological and digital innovation.

(3)The study proposes targeted interventions for governments, industries, and local enterprises to optimize agricultural brand distribution and market competitiveness in terms of practical recommendations for stakeholders.

1.2 This paper provides stakeholders with greater clarity on the practical implications. According to the revised suggestions, we add the following contents:

The findings of this study provide actionable insights for various stakeholders, including policymakers, agricultural enterprises, and regional development planners. By implementing the suggested strategies, policymakers can foster a more balanced and competitive agricultural branding landscape, while enterprises can leverage regional branding advantages to enhance their market competitiveness. These recommendations also align with national rural revitalization policies, ensuring sustainable and long-term agricultural development.

（1）Governments should implement financial incentives, such as subsidies and tax breaks, to encourage enterprises to invest in brand building. Industry associations should collaborate with research institutions to establish regional brand certification programs, ensuring standardized quality and consumer trust.

（2）Researchers should explore the integration of artificial intelligence and big data analytics to predict market trends and optimize branding strategies.

（3）Public-private partnerships should be encouraged to finance transportation and logistics infrastructure. Governments can provide grants for agribusinesses in remote areas to access digital supply chains and distribution networks.

（4）Regional governments should establish multi-stakeholder working groups, including businesses, research institutions, and community representatives, to co-develop agricultural brand strategies. Industry associations can also launch co-branded campaigns with national food retailers to boost agricultural product visibility.

Future research should focus on integrating AI-driven bibliometric analysis to detect emerging agricultural branding trends. Additionally, longitudinal studies should be conducted to track the long-term effects of regional branding policies on economic growth. Another promising avenue is the application of blockchain technology in brand authentication, which could enhance consumer trust and traceability in agricultural supply chains.

1.3 This paper acknowledges the limitations of the study and and propose directions for future research. According to the revised suggestions, we add the following contents:

(1)Governments should implement financial incentives, such as subsidies and tax breaks, to encourage enterprises to invest in brand building. Industry associations should collaborate with research institutions to establish regional brand certification programs, ensuring standardized quality and consumer trust.

(2) Researchers should explore the integration of artificial intelligence and big data analytics to predict market trends and optimize branding strategies.

(3) Public-private partnerships should be encouraged to finance transportation and logistics infrastructure. Governments can provide grants for agribusinesses in remote areas to access digital supply chains and distribution networks.

(4) Regional governments should establish multi-stakeholder working groups, including businesses, research institutions, and community representatives, to co-develop agricultural brand strategies. Industry associations can also launch co-branded campaigns with national food retailers to boost agricultural product visibility.

Thanks for your constructive comments and suggestions! We have completed the modification according to your comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf