Key Drivers of the Engagement of Farmers in Social Innovation for Marginalised Rural Areas

#1 Reviewer

The paper explores a very interesting theme and methodology for the study of social innovation in rural areas. However, I would encourage the authors to review some points before proceeding with the publication.

Recommendations

Author’s responses

First, as stated now, the aims are confusing, and the authors should consider reformulating the wording. As expressed in the abstract and introduction (lines 78-79), the aim is not the same as in the methods section (lines 197-198). Thus, I would recommend the authors to rewrite the aim of the paper consistently in the three sections, and probably to align it more to the current aim in 197-198 as one could argue that the verification of an initiative as social innovation (included in the first aim) is actually not achieved/discussed further in the paper.

Thank you very much for this useful indication.

We have revised the abstract and the introduction aims in order to align them to what have been reported in the methods section.

The changes have been reported in red colour - see pdf file - as follows:

Abstract: (see lines 16-21 of the manuscript)

The European Union promotes social innovation (SI) initiatives for supporting marginalised rural areas through rural and sustainable development policies. These are based on the engagement of local actors and strengthening of their mutual relationships to boost the fostering of professional collaborations. In this context, the Horizon 2020 Social Innovation in Marginalised Areas (SIMRA) project elaborated a conceptual framework for characterising the engagement in an SI initiative. Accordingly, this paper aims to demonstrate that engagement relies on specific key drivers, such as the existence of unmet social needs and the role of agency. To this end, a two-step Heckman model was applied to an SI initiative’s case study called Vàzapp’, a rural hub (agency) located in Southern Italy. It promotes relationships amongst farmers to valorise the marginalised rural areas. The results appear consistent with the theoretical framework, demonstrating that the farmers’ engagement was motivated by the existence of the aforementioned determinants. The implications are relevant for policymakers, consultants, and social innovators who may incorporate these elements in designing specific SI projects in different contexts.

Introduction (see lines 73 - 82 of the manuscript)

This paper aims to demonstrate that farmers’ engagement in the SI relies on unmet social needs and agency. The analysis is performed in two steps: i) by investigating the mechanisms involved in actors’ mobilization and ii) by exploring the establishment of new collaboration. For this purpose, we adopted a two-step Heckman model to analyse a case study located in Southern Italy (Apulia region).

Specifically, this initiative refers to the creation of a rural hub aimed at fostering farmer collaboration to tackle some common problems (e.g. adoption of innovations and marketing of products). Thus, it stimulates cooperation and the creation of knowledge flows, favouring a different strategy model of economic development in marginalised rural areas.

Methodology see lines 260-270 of the manuscript

This work presents a quantitative analysis to demonstrate if the key drivers, the existence of unmet needs and the role of agency, may favourably affect the willingness of farmers to be involved in the activities promoted by a rural hub conceived to foster their mutual collaboration in solving common problems. In practical terms, farmers demonstrate their involvement in two ways: the attendance in activities promoted by the rural hub, and the formal agreements signed to prove their commitment in some sort of joint actions (e.g. participation to publicly call for financial support for innovation adoption, or marketing actions to promote their products). The analytical tool adopted for this purpose is the two-stage analysis model: the first stage identifies the key factors favouring the farmers’ attendance in social activities, while the second stage analyses the key determinants to explain the willingness to stipulate a formal agreement.

Second. The paper is sometimes too focused on the SIMRA approach to social innovation in rural areas, sometimes making the wording too ‘projecty’ (for example, mentions to the consortium in the paragraphs between lines 60-68). Efforts to include literature on social innovation from other researchers is appreciated at some points in the article, but it is limited, and there is no in-depth liaison. Regarding this, I would recommend to:
a) Refer to literature inputs and discussions on social innovation in rural areas beyond SIMRA.
b)To include a critical reflection on the SIMRA framework/conceptualization and what it means in terms of limitations/ opportunities for your paper, stating clearly why the authors are following this conceptualization and not others.
c) A mix of both.

We added a few lines of introduction in Section 2, reporting some basic literature references on SI.

In addition, we mentioned the main weakness of the approach we adopted. Basically, the definition of Social Innovation is still object of some debate. This will undermine the consistency of the methodological approach we adopted.

Background and literature review - see lines 93-101

The conceptualization of SI dates back to the 1980s, aiming at the understanding of societal changes through which the community may act as a producer and consumer of new services and products [19–21]. The scientific literature published over time has explored several features of SI, such as co-decision making and collective creation [21], the role of non-profit organizations in stimulating public–private partnerships [22], the identification of organizational models in promoting institutional changes [23], and the identification of business models required to identify viable solutions to social problems [24]. An extensive review of the evolution of SI is provided by Lombardi (2017) and Polman et al. (2017).

See lines 110-121

The conceptual framework adopted in this paper is the one proposed by Kluvánková et al. (2017), Secco et al. (2017), Kluvánková et al. (2018), Secco et al. (2019), and Dalla Torre (2020) [16; 17; 26–28]. It provides a dynamic approach to the evolution of the SI process, from its beginning to the appearance of tangible outputs and impacts. The advantages of this approach include the possibility of grasping the role of the specific context in the development of the SI process and also correctly identifying its level of maturity. The framework has been applied in different studies and appears quite robust [29–31]. Certainly, some weaknesses still emerge from the foundation of the framework, i.e. the still developing definition of SI [32].

Therefore, this contribution still represents an attempt to explore the key dimensions of SI, as identified and explained. Among them, the most important in SI in the early stages of development are the following: ….

Third. The contributions announced on page 2 (lines 89-90) are missing from the discussion or concluding sections. For the reader, it is unclear how the proposed methodology allows. differentiating between SI and other social actions. The article will gain if this question is explicitly addressed.

Thank you very much for this suggestion.

The changes have been reported in red colour as follows:

Introduction (see lines 83 -86 of the manuscript)

This paper’s contribution includes the validation of the SIMRA framework in explaining the role of unmet needs and agency for civil society engagement. This may be useful to provide insights to social innovators and policymakers willing to replicate a successful case study based on a bottom-up approach.

Fourth. Structure of section 3. The current section 3.3 on data collection is felt a bit out of place. I think the readability of the paper would gain if the order of sections 3.2. and 3.3 are exchanged. That also would give more continuity in the understanding of the analysis. In any case, regarding data collection, more information should be provided about the interviews with experts mentioned in lines 271-273. I would recommend the authors to start the sub-section explaining clearly that there were two sources of data -a survey and interviews with experts- and then move to describe both of them (details of the survey are ok but more details from the interviews are needed -the type of interview, questions, guidelines, etc.).

Thank you for this comment. We agree with this change and we improved the understanding of the section 3. We exchanged the order of sections 3.2 and 3.3 and provided more information both on the questionnaire and the interview approach.

3.2. Data collection

To explore the farmers’ willingness to be involved in the rural hub activities, we employed two sources of data i) a survey based on an ad-hoc-designed questionnaire directed at the participants in the farmers’ dinners, and ii) semi-structured interviews with experts from the rural hub staff.

The survey was conducted during the project activities (i.e. 20 farmers’ dinner events), from February 2016 to June 2018. The questionnaire was administered throughout the social events at the end of the warming-up conversations and before the dinner. About 373 farmers were surveyed, employing around 30 open and closed questions, divided into three sections: (a) human capital, (b) effectiveness of the agency, and (c) marginality.

Section a) included socio-demographic information such as age, gender, education, and farm location. This section also investigated the respondent’s motivation for working in agriculture, distinguishing three reasons: i) passion, ii) familial tradition, and iii) business.

Section b) explored the perceptions of the participants towards the event and their previous knowledge of the existence of the rural hub. The former aspect was addressed, surveying the satisfaction level of the participant with the different characteristics of the event (format, organisation, atmosphere, people, food, and interaction) expressed along a 5-point Likert scale. To explore the previous knowledge of Vàzapp’, the question asked if the respondent already knew the initiative before being invited to the farmers’ dinner. This section included also a crucial question used to operationalise one of the dependent variables used in the statistical analysis (see section 3.3) related to their willingness to keep following Vàzapp’ activities beyond the farmers’ dinner, both by means of social media and by live interaction (participation in other Vàzapp’ activities, spending time with Vàzapp’ members, or becoming a member of the hub).

Section c) explored the needs of the participants, who were asked to indicate the relevance of the following difficulties for their farm per a 5-point Likert scale: receiving technical information and solutions, developing cooperative projects for innovation, searching for new sales channels, improving technical and design skills, and promoting quality products.

Finally, to further investigate the willingness of participants to be more deeply involved in the activities stemming from Vàzapp’, we interviewed two experts from the rural hub staff, who personally invited and supported the farmers in the social activities. The interview was based on the following guiding questions:

• Which participants have activated professional agreements with rural hub staff members?

• Which participants have formed a cooperative with other participants?

• Which participants have established project relations with other participants?

All the statuses investigated were referred at a specific moment, i.e. “… after participating in the farmer-dinner”

Fifth. Regarding the results, something that is a bit confusing is the variable “Ded”… It isn’t supposed that if one is a farmer, then he/she dedicates to agriculture. From a set configuration perspective, I understand that everyone dedicated to agriculture might not be a farmer but that all farmers are dedicated to agriculture. If this interpretation is correct, and then the initiative was open to anyone related to agriculture and not only farmers, the authors might like to review the text and change the wording when describing Vazzap and the data collection and analysis (including figure 4) and change farmers for participants. 
If not, the authors might like to review the text to clarify the composition of the sample and what the variable ‘Ded’ means in terms of the participants (maybe including an example).

Thanks again.

We would like to remark that all participants are farmers and all of them are dedicated to agriculture.

Therefore, we changed all terms "dedicated" with "passionate", to avoid any possible misunderstanding.

We also changed all labels "Ded" with "Pas , in the whole paper.

Finally, although the article is well-written and the English is understandable, it might gain from a native editing/proofreading review. Some paragraphs and sentences are too long, the use of connectors is sometimes inadequate or unnecessary (e.g. “On the contrary” in line 420), and some expressions might need correction (e.g. in line 85 it should say ‘case study’ instead of ‘study case’; the sentence in lines 203-204 includes a “sort of as a provider” that probably should reed “sort of” or “as a”…).

Thank you very much. We sent it to a proofreading review as reported in the attachment of the cover letter.

In addition, references should be checked to confirm the spelling of names (e.g. on page 3, lines 107 and 108 the spelling of Kluwankova is different to the one included in the reference list – Kluvánková).

Thank you very much. We have done.

#2 Reviewer

Thank you for submitting this paper. The paper has the potential to contribute to the literature on social innovation and rural development. However, as it currently stands, it needs major revisions as described in the attached file, as well as a major English revision.

Recommendations

Author’s responses

As a first step it needs a major English revision. Currently, it is very difficult to read and the message gets lost especially in the first sections where the connections are not always clear.

Thank you very much. We sent it to a proofreading review as reported in the attachment of the cover letter.

Sections 1-2: The paper requires a clearer introduction, as the passages between one argument and the next are not well presented. In addition, it requires a much more substantiated theoretical context and a cleared thesis statement. Social innovation is brought in without a substantiated identification of why it is relevant to rural development, and why a specific definition is chosen over others. For example, the framework is presented without clearly addressing which parts of the model are to be analyzed and discussed and why and what the connections to social capital are.

Thank you very much for this useful indication.

We revised the introduction to make it clearer. Additionally, we also better clarify our thesis statement.

The changes have been reported in red colour - see pdf file - as follows:

Introduction (see lines 73-77)

This paper aims to demonstrate that farmers’ engagement in the SI relies on unmet social needs and agency. The analysis is performed in two steps: i) by investigating the mechanisms involved in actors’ mobilization and ii) by exploring the establishment of new collaboration. For this purpose, we adopted a two-step Heckman model to analyse a case study located in Southern Italy (Apulia region).

About the role of social innovation for the rural development, we integrated this part as follows:  

(see lines 51-55)

Therefore, rural areas typically affected by aging, depopulation, brain drain, etc., which further cause marginalization, may benefit from SI, which fosters actors’ mobilisation, new relationship creation, and knowledge and resource sharing. All these aspects contribute to the recovery of the social fabric and facilitate long-term development paths [8–11].

About “why a specific definition is chosen over others”, we specified, as follows:

(see lines 60-61)

This more recent and extensively studied definition has been derived by investigating 27 different case studies. 

Finally, about your last observation: “the framework is presented without clearly addressing which parts of the model are to be analysed and discussed and why and what the connections to social capital are…”, we have clarified this point automatically as we formulated better out thesis statement.

In addition, in the introduction the authors state the objectives to be twofold: 1. one theoretical, dealing with the difference between social innovation and social action; and 2. one policy related [rows 89-93]. Instead, in the second section, the authors state a different objective: “to evaluate the role played by certain elements contained in the key dimensions listed above (especially unmet needs and agency) in generating outputs [136-137].

Thank you very much for this suggestion.

Introduction (see lines 83 -86 of the manuscript)

This paper’s contribution includes the validation of the SIMRA framework in explaining the role of unmet needs and agency for civil society engagement. This may be useful to provide insights to social innovators and policymakers willing to replicate a successful case study based on a bottom-up approach.

What are the objectives of the paper? Which contribution does the paper hope to make to theory? This is not clearly identified and addressed in the first sections. The difference with social action, for example, is brought in the conclusions section.

Thank you very much for this useful indication.

We have revised the abstract and the introduction aims in order to align them to what have been reported in the methodology section.

The changes have been reported in red colour as follows:

(see lines 16-22 of the manuscript)

Abstract:  The European Union promotes social innovation (SI) initiatives for supporting marginalised rural areas through rural and sustainable development policies. These are based on the engagement of local actors and strengthening of their mutual relationships to boost the fostering of professional collaborations. In this context, the Horizon 2020 Social Innovation in Marginalised Areas (SIMRA) project elaborated a conceptual framework for characterising the engagement in an SI initiative. Accordingly, this paper aims to demonstrate that engagement relies on specific key drivers, such as the existence of unmet social needs and the role of agency. To this end, a two-step Heckman model was applied to an SI initiative’s case study called Vàzapp’, a rural hub (agency) located in Southern Italy. It promotes relationships amongst farmers to valorise the marginalised rural areas. The results appear consistent with the theoretical framework, demonstrating that the farmers’ engagement was motivated by the existence of the aforementioned determinants. The implications are relevant for policymakers, consultants, and social innovators who may incorporate these elements in designing specific SI projects in different contexts..

Introduction (see lines 73 -82 of the manuscript)

This paper aims to demonstrate that farmers’ engagement in the SI relies on unmet social needs and agency. The analysis is performed in two steps: i) by investigating the mechanisms involved in actors’ mobilization and ii) by exploring the establishment of new collaboration. For this purpose, we adopted a two-step Heckman model to analyse a case study located in Southern Italy (Apulia region).

Specifically, this initiative refers to the creation of a rural hub aimed at fostering farmer collaboration to tackle some common problems (e.g. adoption of innovations and marketing of products). Thus, it stimulates cooperation and the creation of knowledge flows, favouring a different strategy model of economic development in marginalised rural areas.

Methodology (see lines 260 -270 of the manuscript)

This work presents a quantitative analysis to demonstrate if the key drivers, the existence of unmet needs and the role of agency, may favourably affect the willingness of farmers to be involved in the activities promoted by a rural hub conceived to foster their mutual collaboration in solving common problems. In practical terms, farmers demonstrate their involvement in two ways: the attendance in activities promoted by the rural hub, and the formal agreements signed to prove their commitment in some sort of joint actions (e.g. participation to publicly call for financial support for innovation adoption, or marketing actions to promote their products). The analytical tool adopted for this purpose is the two-stage analysis model: the first stage identifies the key factors favouring the farmers’ attendance in social activities, while the second stage analyses the key determinants to explain the willingness to stipulate a formal agreement.

Finally, the two-step model is presented but the authors do not specify how they will address the weaknesses in its adoption [144-145].

We returned on this in the conclusions, better specifying the extent of this issue and addressing it in the suggestion for further research. We added the following piece at the end of the conclusion section:

Conclusions (see lines  549 – 553)

The major limitation of the paper is represented by the fact that the model employed explained only the adopter behaviour, leaving unexplored the rest of the sample. This means that the model analysed the choices of only 50% and 8% of the respondents, respectively, for the first and the second step. To address this drawback, future studies should focus on the drivers of unresponsive participants

Section 3: The case study needs to be better contextualized – who founded it, how it evolved, how it is funded and how it expects to develop. There should be better information on how people were recruited to join. Finally, why is the initiative already identified as a social innovation? These questions are important as they inform the results of the study (presence of people with a specific need, age for collaboration) and also provide indications for other, similar initiatives. Finally, as it currently stands, figure 3 shows how a general action develops and then how it leads to social capital. However, this connection is not explained clearly in the paper and seems out of context.

Thank you very much for this suggestion. We integrated the section with further information.

The changes have been reported in red colour as follows:

3.1 Case study (see lines 166 – 176)

The brainchild of a Salesian priest and a local young farmer, it was developed in 2014 and aimed to create a rural community to deal with the actual issues of farmers, listening to them and restoring their dignity. All members voluntarily became a part of the associations by paying a small fee motivated by common interests and by establishing mutual relations. The motivations for participation were diversified: "doing" something for their territory: living new experiences, meeting new people, learning more about agriculture, and nurturing professional skills and personal capacities. In 2016, after the remarkable expansion of its membership, Vàzapp’ evolved into a social cooperative, a legal form enabling participation in public tenders enacted by different institutions. Thus, relevant financial resources have been acquired and used to fund specific SI actions.

(see lines 182-188)

Among its first SI actions, Vàzapp’ organised a cycle of social events called “farmers’ dinners”, just to stimulate a SI pathway in the agriculture sector with a bottom-up approach and to catalyse the establishment of relations within the rural context (i.e. the engagement of farmers). In this way, Vàzapp’ can surely be identified as an SI initiative thanks to its capability to facilitate relationships amongst farmers, favouring formal or informal collaboration, listening to their unmet needs, and bringing them to the attention of institutions.

Concerning the relation between social innovation and social capital we added the following sentence:

(see lines 211 – 213)

The figure shows that a specific agency mobilises actors, activates participation processes, and favours the convergence of expectations. Resultantly, this determines an accumulation of social capital [49].

In the method sections, it would help to show a summary of the questions in the questionnaire, as a way for connecting the results of the analysis to the initial objective(s).

Thanks for this recommendation.

We provided in the text more details on the questions used in the survey, linking theme to the variables used in the statistical models. As also suggested by the other reviewer, we exchanged the order of sections 3.2 and 3.3 to improve the legibility of this section. We further elaborated on the data collection in section 3.2.

3.2. Data collection (see lines 216 – 253)

To explore the farmers’ willingness to be involved in the rural hub activities, we employed two sources of data i) a survey based on an ad-hoc-designed questionnaire directed at the participants in the farmers’ dinners, and ii) semi-structured interviews with experts from the rural hub staff.

The survey was conducted during the project activities (i.e. 20 farmers’ dinner events), from February 2016 to June 2018. The questionnaire was administered throughout the social events at the end of the warming-up conversations and before the dinner. About 373 farmers were surveyed, employing around 30 open and closed questions, divided into three sections: (a) human capital, (b) effectiveness of the agency, and (c) marginality.

Section a) included socio-demographic information such as age, gender, education, and farm location. This section also investigated the respondent’s motivation for working in agriculture, distinguishing three reasons: i) passion, ii) familial tradition, and iii) business.

Section b) explored the perceptions of the participants towards the event and their previous knowledge of the existence of the rural hub. The former aspect was addressed, surveying the satisfaction level of the participant with the different characteristics of the event (format, organisation, atmosphere, people, food, and interaction) expressed along a 5-point Likert scale. To explore the previous knowledge of Vàzapp’, the question asked if the respondent already knew the initiative before being invited to the farmers’ dinner. This section included also a crucial question used to operationalise one of the dependent variables used in the statistical analysis (see section 3.3) related to their willingness to keep following Vàzapp’ activities beyond the farmers’ dinner, both by means of social media and by live interaction (participation in other Vàzapp’ activities, spending time with Vàzapp’ members, or becoming a member of the hub).

Section c) explored the needs of the participants, who were asked to indicate the relevance of the following difficulties for their farm per a 5-point Likert scale: receiving technical information and solutions, developing cooperative projects for innovation, searching for new sales channels, improving technical and design skills, and promoting quality products.

Finally, to further investigate the willingness of participants to be more deeply involved in the activities stemming from Vàzapp’, we interviewed two experts from the rural hub staff, who personally invited and supported the farmers in the social activities. The interview was based on the following guiding questions:

• Which participants have activated professional agreements with rural hub staff members?

• Which participants have formed a cooperative with other participants?

• Which participants have established project relations with other participants?

All the statuses investigated were referred at a specific moment, i.e. “… after participating in the farmer-dinner”.

Discussion: More attention should be paid to the variables that are not significant – and whether instead they are considered important in other contexts/papers – and to the meaning of the results obtained. For example, how did the results of the study inform the development of the initiative? Also, the paper can reflect, based on the results, on whether these initiatives are sustainable, replicable or scalable to other contexts, under what conditions and for which objectives.

Thanks again.

According to our thesis statement (which has been revised and clarified, according to your first suggestion), we highlight that the aim of our research was to prove the validity of the SIMRA theoretical framework, claiming that unmet needs and agency are the basic pre-requisites for the engagement of participants to SI.

Therefore, we considered that the discussion of all determinants which were not significant and were not part or the theoretical framework, are not essential for the purpose of our paper.

About “how did the results of the study inform the development of the initiative?”

We reported this integration, as follows:

(see lines 508-513)

Finally, the findings have been disseminated to the members of the project coordinators. They received evidence about their perception regarding the intangible outputs achieved by the project, and this increased their confidence in the progress of the SI initiative. The members of the rural hub became more aware of the potential impact of the initiatives proposed, enabling them to participate in more ambitious projects, at national and international levels.

About “Also, the paper can reflect, based on the results, on whether these initiatives are sustainable, replicable or scalable to other contexts, under what conditions and for which objectives”.

We reported this integration, as follows:

(see lines 513-514)

Currently, the SI initiative is still in progress (despite the limitations of COVID): the intention is to replicate the farmers’ dinners in other regions.

This paper is much improved with respect to the first draft. Thank you. I suggest one final review to make sure there are no typos or minor errors. Also check font/ paragraphs as they vary from one to the next. There are a couple of points that should be addressed in order to clarify the text:

Recommendations

Author’s responses

Line 55: Citations 8-11: Given the general statement, I suggest citations different than the author’s networks are used so as to avoid self-referencing and increase access to diverse pools of knowledge.

Thank you for this further suggestion.

We have substituted 2 out of 4 self-citations. We replaced the number 8 and 9 with:

8. Lukesch, R., Ludvig, A., Slee, B., Weiss, G., Živojinović, I.; Social innovation, societal change, and the role of policies (2020) Sustainability (Switzerland), 12 (18)

9. Slee, B., Polman, N.; An exploration of potential growth pathways of social innovations in rural Europe (2021) Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 34 (2), 251-271.

Lines 60-64: explain more clearly that these two points are why you choose this conceptual framework. As it stands, it is unclear why you state that it analysed 27 different cases and why you state two main points. Was your team a part of the 27 cases? This should be made clearer.

Thanks for suggestion.

We changed the sentence, adding also a new reference. You can find modifications in red colour.

Introduction

The definition paved the way to an innovative conceptual framework addressing two main issues: (a) the accurate identification of the existing SI initiatives and (b) the characterization of their distinctive elements, functions, and dynamics. This is very useful to conduct empirical investigation in rural areas; in fact, during the SIMRA project, it has been applied to 27 different case studies, all across Europe [18], including the one here presented.

18.  Ravazzoli, E., Dalla Torre, C., Da Re, R., Marini Govigli, V., Secco, L., Górriz-Mifsud, E., ... & Nijnik, M. Can social innovation make a change in European and Mediterranean marginalized areas? Social innovation impact assessment in agriculture, fisheries, forestry, and rural development. Sustainability 2021, 13(4), 1823.

Lines 167-168: rephrase; unclear what “actual issues and dignity” means or what it refers to.

Thanks again.

We changed the phrase, as follows:

3.1 Case study

The brainchild of a Salesian priest and a local young farmer was developed in 2014 and aimed to create a rural community to deal with the actual needs of farmers (e.g. valorization of quality products; finding new market channel, simplification of bureaucracy, etc.), listening to them and restoring their dignity (i.e. adequate level of income and quality of life).

Line 192: is there a type? For instead of fora?

We used this new term to identity better what we wanted to say:

… a show-case for the local food produced by the farmers…

Line 194: close brackets

Done, thanks.

Line 197: is it possible to cite the source also in the text instead of including just a number? Also apply to figure 3 and explain how the latter figure was adapted to the current context from the study referenced.

Thanks.

We eliminated the source number 48 and reporting it as follows both for Figure 2 and Figure 3.

Note: Photos released by Vàzapp’ (Rural Hub Vazapp®, Foggia, Italy).

About the figure 3, we integrated this part in the text, as follows:

Figure 3 is based on the general framework for SI, as presented by Dalla Torre et al., 2020. The authors summarised the main elements characterizing the case study, as follows. The needs perceived by farmers are related to lack of extension services to support farm and business development. In addition, there is a lack of interest by young generation towards the succession to farm business, which prefer to move to other regions (i.e. brain drain). Finally, farmers feel excluded from the current civil society, as media and public debate do not show interest towards their living conditions. Regarding the trigger, the SI process started when the initial group of young people, forming the core group of the initiative (i.e. the clique) became aware of the actual marginalization status of local farmers community. The actors promoting the SI process were the young people belonging to the non-profit organization named “Promised Land”, acting as the innovators, who activated the preparatory actions aimed at farmers involvement. To this purpose, the original event of farmers’ dinner was planned in collaboration with other relevant local actors (agents), represented by young farmers, researchers, agronomists, expert of communication. Their support was crucial in achieving an effective setting up of the events and in favoring the participation of farmers. The outcome of the farmers’ dinner was the establishment of new interactions among people who had previously never met, leading to the formation and strengthening of networks among heterogenous people: young farmers, professionals, and researchers. Finally, the networks reconfiguration has produced some outputs in terms of creating new collaborations for introducing innovation in agriculture, such as the introduction of new crops, testing new cultivation techniques, challenging new markets.

Line 276: Typo, two fullstops

Done, thanks.

Lines 502-507: It is not clear how you can infer that the initiative led to “risky, costly, or controversial” behaviour thanks to complex contagion. Do you have any specific examples about this? Can you provide examples on the types of agreements that were developed/signed and that can testify to this? Otherwise, it seems to contradict with other statements in the text, i.e., conservative attitude in line 416.

Thanks again for this recommendation.

We clarified better what we wanted to intend, as follows:

Discussion

Therefore, it is likely that during the farmers’ dinners, many behaviours spread through social contact, even though they were initially perceived as risky, costly, or controversial. In other words, the acquaintanceship with the Vàzapp’ initiative, together with the positive impression regarding the shared experience, will favour complex contagion (i.e. the spreading of novel and costly behaviours favourable to mutual and active cooperation). For instance, in our experience, we found that some farmers overcame the initial distrust and started to collaborate in common innovative farming, such as the introduction of new crops.