Aboriginal Community Views about a Native Plant-Based Enterprise Development in Northern Australia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article, entitled “Aboriginal community views about a native plant-based enterprise development in northern Australia”, is interesting but has the following problems exist:

1. The abstract is rather voluminous, and it is suggested that it be rewritten and organized. Keywords do not summarize the main idea of the manuscript well.

2. It is recommended that images of the interactions between enterprise and community and inter-enterprise coordination, enhance the visualization of the manuscript and facilitate the reader's understanding.

3. The author should be more explicit about the contribution of the article.

4. Line 246 It used an "embedded" approach. Please make the author's presentation clearer.

5. Line 274 In total, there were ten Clan interviews with a total of 42 participants. 42 participants are representatives?

6. In the Results analysis, it is suggested that the authors add some data analysis. A quantitative analysis of the data is recommended for the observed empirical data, as well as for the new qualitative interview data (groups and individuals) reported here. The article should be made more readable by adding figures and tables as appropriate.

7. The section on the results requires further discussion of the reasons behind the findings, in addition to the analysis of the research data.

8. Conclusion and recommendations, suggesting that the authors make policy recommendations in response to the conclusions.

9. Note the formatting of the manuscript. The 3.1.3 and 3.1.4 are inconsistently formatted. It is recommended that the questionnaire's questions and answers be presented in an appendix rather than stacked in the body of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

many thanks for taking the time to review our submission to Land - your comments and suggested changes are much appreciated.

I have attached a file listing your suggested changes and how we have addressed them.

Kind regards, Julian

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting and well-written. Methodology appropriate and explained detailed enough. I would like to recommend this paper to be published. 

Author Response

Many thanks for taking the time to review our paper and for you kind comments listed below. I have not attached a file as you did not list any recommended changes.

Kind regards, Julian

Reviewer 3 Report

Review report

This study examines the future aspirations and intentions of the Aboriginal community for the economic, social and cultural utilisation of the Kakadu plum in their territory. In fact, the study is a case study of a social, cultural and natural resource utilization enterprise that could play an important role in improving the well-being and prosperity of the Aboriginal communities studied. The paper presents the history of the development and evolution of a wild plant-based enterprise, using semi-structured interviews to explore aspects of the enterprise's operation and its potential for development and future prospects from the perspective of the Aboriginal community. The study reveals valuable insights into the future of the enterprise. The study rightly points out the context, as for the enterprise to be successful, it is necessary for the Aboriginal community to take responsibility for improving its own destiny and for the supporting and development organisations to fulfil their mission of being effective supporters and facilitators of local community development, which requires capacity building and empowerment of the community. The study is a faithful representation of the concept of the culture economy, whereby local communities can recreate their potential according to their own culture, such as their norms, values and behaviour, in which the identification and valorisation of local resources play a key role.

The topic of the study is timely, relevant and important. It provides valuable information to the Aboriginal communities, supporters, facilitators and policymakers and other interested parties about the context of runing and developing a succesful native plant based enterprise.

The title is consistent with the content, so the title is clear and appropriate to the content of the article. The literature review, methodology, presentation and evaluation of results are excellent. The study is clear, concise, understandable and well structured. It puts the topic well in context, points out the links, the recommendations are in sync with the results, they are forward-looking and certainly worthy of consideration.

The authors have done a very good and useful job.

Some comments:

Lines 46-48 and the sentence in lines 69-71 are repetitions.

The last item in the list in lines 99-103 is "v", but that would be "iv", the fourth.

In connection with the map (Figure 1), several settlements are marked, but Wadeye, for example, which appears in several contexts in the text, is missing.

In several places there is a full stop at the end of subheadings (e.g. 2.3.3., 2.3.4., etc.)

Which organisation is designated by the CDP (line 394)?

Line 425: 'Nine of the ten Clans wanted to be paid cash. Two Clans preferred" - that's 11 in total.

A similar problem appears in lines 498-499: 'Nine of the ten Clans agreed that the Women's Centre was the appropriate host organisation and venue for the Enterprise. Two Clans thought the Wildlife Enterprise Centre would be better, one because it is a larger space." - This totals 11.

Recommendation: Accept after minor revision

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

many thanks for taking the time to review our submission to Land - your comments and suggested changes are much appreciated.

I have attached a file listing your suggested changes and how we have addressed them.

Kind regards, Julian

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised manuscript has been significantly improved compared to the first manuscript, especially in the abstract section. It meets the requirements for publication. In addition, I would recommend that the authors summarise the findings referred to in "Management Program for Kakadu Plum 2019-2023".

Secondly, some of the third-level headings have punctuation and some do not, so please refer to the journal format for corrections. Finally, authors are advised to carefully check the expressions in the third section (3. Results).

Author Response

Many thanks to Reviewer 1 for additional comments - please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx