Co-Creation Approach in Designing a Sustainable Coffee Supply Chain (a Case in Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
A very interesting paper. I do believe that you would benefit from further development in relation to a couple of areas:
Being able to link some of the outputs of the workshops to underlying Rochdale Co-operative Principles.
Being able to summarise the research outputs as a framework / process to allow farmers to gain / retain greater value from the cherry onwards: what can be done, where it can be done, how it can be done etc.
An acknowledgemnt that this previous point can be aided by very simply applications and data sets available on smartphones which have been developed for coffee farmers (and others) such as accurate weather forecasts to ensure cherry picking occurs under optimum conditions etc. Even this would allow for a stronger hand in negotiation as these apps drive better, more repeatable process control, which in turn drives the continuous improvment cycles referred to in the research itself.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really are grateful that you are willing to take some of your busy time in reviewing our paper, and giving us with invaluable feedbacks. Our response to your comments are:
1. Being able to link some of the outputs of the workshops to underlying Rochdale Co-operative Principles.
Response: At the current stage, the initiative has just started. Our study only highlights the process for the actors to reach this level of arrangements. We plan to evaluate the performance of the cooperative in our future research.
2. Being able to summarise the research outputs as a framework / process to allow farmers to gain / retain greater value from the cherry onwards: what can be done, where it can be done, how it can be done etc.
Response: We have added the information in the results of the paper
3. An acknowledgemnt that this previous point can be aided by very simply applications and data sets available on smartphones which have been developed for coffee farmers (and others) such as accurate weather forecasts to ensure cherry picking occurs under optimum conditions etc. Even this would allow for a stronger hand in negotiation as these apps drive better, more repeatable process control, which in turn drives the continuous improvment cycles referred to in the research itself.
Response: Thank you for the suggestion, but currently, most of areas in our study site are not yet technological savvy. However, we will work on this in the near future.
For more detailed revisions, we uploaded the revised version of the article with track change on.
We also improved the English by using the MDPI English editing service and attached the certificate.
Thank you very much and Merry Christmas!
Regards,
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The topic of your study is clearly of interest.
Interesting piece of work: (i) the literature review is well done, (ii) there is a lot of potential for further research.
Please check the references requirements!
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really are grateful that you are willing to take some of your busy time in reviewing our paper, and giving us with invaluable feedbacks. Our response to your comments are:
1 Interesting piece of work: (i) the literature review is well done, (ii) there is a lot of potential for further research.
Response: Thank you very much, we have added possible future research in the end of the paper.
- Please check the references requirements!
Response: We edited the references based on the requirements.
For more detailed revisions, we uploaded the revised version of the article with track change on.
We also improved the English by using the MDPI English editing service and attached the certificate.
Thank you very much and Merry Christmas!
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I am happy you wrote the paper entitled "Co-creation Approach in Designing a Sustainable Coffee Supply Chain (a Case in Bandung Regency, West Java, Indonesia)." The article presents and discusses the essential issue of elaborating the agricultural policy model with farmers' participation. I strongly support this way of making decisions in any economic sector or industry. This article can be a great example of how to do it in practice and what results can be achieved using the co-creation approach. At the same time, the manuscript still needs attention and improvement.
First of all, the paper needs extensive English language editing as many grammatical issues, strange words, etc.
Second, the goal "This study aims to generate a public policy which enables the coffee supply chain in Bandung Regency to be more sustainable." Sustainability is mentioned in the manuscript title as well "Co-creation Approach in Designing a Sustainable Coffee Supply Chain…" but in the theoretical framework, there is no explanation of the Sustainable supply chain" and how you understand it defined in this article. Therefore, a paragraph concerning this issue is essential for readers to understand the survey and its potential benefits.
The literature review focuses on the short food supply chain and neglects other dimensions of food chain sustainability. More literature review in this Section should be added because other papers are available and relevant to the study (e.g., Brunori, Gianluca & Galli, Francesca. (2016). Sustainability of Local and Global Food Chains: Introduction to the Special Issue. Sustainability. 2016. 765. 10.3390/su808076, Okanović, Đorđe & Mastilović, Jasna & M., Ristić. (2009). SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION CHAIN. Tehnologija mesa. 50. 140-147 or Yuna Chiffoleau and Tara Dourian 2020 Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda, Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 9831). The literature review must be strengthened.
Additionally, the Material and Methods part can be improved.
Lines 118-119: Can you provide a map for locating the regions chosen?
Lines 130 -133: There is only the statement that 40 farmers groups consist of 2830 members included in this study. You randomly selected a total of 280 farmers from members as respondents of the survey phase of this study". I suggest providing more information on conducting the survey – are those farmers from every 40 groups or only some of them? How many farmers were from one group? Did you contact exactly 280 farmers or more? Give details about this part of sampling and, of course, about the survey. Was, is a questionnaire, or maybe you used another method? Would you please describe more details?
Similarly, you need to add information about the workshops, interviews, and focus group discussion (how they were administered, how many participants, who they are, how you identified them when workshops took place, and where, etc.). Probably you had a structured discussion with some statements. Why did you choose the specific statements to be included in the questionnaire? In this extended and much-improved version, the authors do justify that, but not explicitly, therefore some brief statement(s) explaining their choices would be essential to increase the value of the analysis. As result parts, it seems that farmers took part in workshops as well, so it should be clarified. I suggest adding to table 1 details about participants in each event (number and characteristics, e.g., farmers). In this paragraph, it would be best to mention that participants identified problems in the current coffee supply chain and discussed solutions for the farmers-traders problem in the coffee supply chain, etc.
The Results are difficult to understand because, in table 2, they are in %, but we don't know how many actors were in each group (smallholders farmers, medium farmers, large farmers, etc.) Therefore, the table with such characteristics must be added to the text.
Then it should be presented (table 3, 4, 5) how many farmers or other stakeholders indicated each problem. (Line 287 the table 4 should be 5).
A better description of results will allow improving the discussion and conclusions section. It should be some references to the sustainability of the coffee supply chain.
In my opinion, The survey was not about sustainability chain but rather coffee production sustainability. Therefore, it is not entirely consistent with the goal of the paper. I suggest rewriting the manuscript looking at the consistency of the aim, title, and results.
Line 339: "The initiative has managed to improve the performance of coffee supply chain in Bandung regency" in the manuscript, it is not proving this. This statement is not eligible. You mentioned only "arrangements Between Farmers and Traders in the Proposed Cooperative Model." You have to show improvements using some indicators of the chain's sustainability and compare their value before and after implementing the policy!
In the conclusions, I suggest highlighting the limits of the research and possible future developments.
Best regards
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
We really are grateful that you are willing to take some of your busy time in reviewing our paper, and giving us with invaluable feedbacks. Our response to your comments are:
- First of all, the paper needs extensive English language editing as many grammatical issues, strange words, etc.
Response: We have improved the English by using the MDPI English editing service and attached the certificate.
- Second, the goal "This study aims to generate a public policy which enables the coffee supply chain in Bandung Regency to be more sustainable." Sustainability is mentioned in the manuscript title as well "Co-creation Approach in Designing a Sustainable Coffee Supply Chain…" but in the theoretical framework, there is no explanation of the Sustainable supply chain" and how you understand it defined in this article. Therefore, a paragraph concerning this issue is essential for readers to understand the survey and its potential benefits.
Response: We have added your suggested paragraph in the theoretical framework section.
- The literature review focuses on the short food supply chain and neglects other dimensions of food chain sustainability. More literature review in this Section should be added because other papers are available and relevant to the study (e.g., Brunori, Gianluca & Galli, Francesca. (2016). Sustainability of Local and Global Food Chains: Introduction to the Special Issue. Sustainability. 2016. 765. 10.3390/su808076, Okanović, Đorđe & Mastilović, Jasna & M., Ristić. (2009). SUSTAINABILITY OF FOOD PRODUCTION CHAIN. Tehnologija mesa. 50. 140-147 or Yuna Chiffoleau and Tara Dourian 2020 Sustainable Food Supply Chains: Is Shortening the Answer? A Literature Review for a Research and Innovation Agenda, Sustainability 2020, 12(23), 9831). The literature review must be strengthened.
Response: Thank you very much for the suggestion, adding those references really helps us to further improve our paper.
4. Lines 118-119: Can you provide a map for locating the regions chosen?
Response: we added the map of the study site
5. Lines 130 -133: There is only the statement that 40 farmers groups consist of 2830 members included in this study. You randomly selected a total of 280 farmers from members as respondents of the survey phase of this study". I suggest providing more information on conducting the survey – are those farmers from every 40 groups or only some of them? How many farmers were from one group? Did you contact exactly 280 farmers or more? Give details about this part of sampling and, of course, about the survey. Was, is a questionnaire, or maybe you used another method? Would you please describe more details?
Response: we elaborated more on this matter, you can see more details in the mentioned section.
6. Similarly, you need to add information about the workshops, interviews, and focus group discussion (how they were administered, how many participants, who they are, how you identified them when workshops took place, and where, etc.). Probably you had a structured discussion with some statements. Why did you choose the specific statements to be included in the questionnaire? In this extended and much-improved version, the authors do justify that, but not explicitly, therefore some brief statement(s) explaining their choices would be essential to increase the value of the analysis. As result parts, it seems that farmers took part in workshops as well, so it should be clarified. I suggest adding to table 1 details about participants in each event (number and characteristics, e.g., farmers). In this paragraph, it would be best to mention that participants identified problems in the current coffee supply chain and discussed solutions for the farmers-traders problem in the coffee supply chain, etc.
Response: we elaborated more on this matter, you can see more details in the mentioned section.
7. The Results are difficult to understand because, in table 2, they are in %, but we don't know how many actors were in each group (smallholders farmers, medium farmers, large farmers, etc.) Therefore, the table with such characteristics must be added to the text.
Response: we added the requested information and elaborate the results further.
8. Then it should be presented (table 3, 4, 5) how many farmers or other stakeholders indicated each problem. (Line 287 the table 4 should be 5).
Response: Thank you for the information, we have fixed the table. as for the table 3 and 4, they were the summary of the workshops, in-depth interviews and the focus group discussions, which only involves the key informants of the study. Thus, we cannot provide the number of the actors as we provided it in the survey phase.
9. A better description of results will allow improving the discussion and conclusions section. It should be some references to the sustainability of the coffee supply chain.
Response: we have elaborated the results further and added the suggested references.
10. In my opinion, The survey was not about sustainability chain but rather coffee production sustainability. Therefore, it is not entirely consistent with the goal of the paper. I suggest rewriting the manuscript looking at the consistency of the aim, title, and results.
Response: The paper's coherence have been improved to better link the title and the aims of the study.
11. Line 339: "The initiative has managed to improve the performance of coffee supply chain in Bandung regency" in the manuscript, it is not proving this. This statement is not eligible. You mentioned only "arrangements Between Farmers and Traders in the Proposed Cooperative Model." You have to show improvements using some indicators of the chain's sustainability and compare their value before and after implementing the policy!
Response: Thank you for the feedback, we realized that we made a mistake by putting the statement. As in the current state, we cannot measure the performance yet, and it was not our intention to do so. The initiative has just been started a few months ago, and we plan to do another study for this topic in the future. Thank you very much.
12. In the conclusions, I suggest highlighting the limits of the research and possible future developments.
Response: we added the limits and the possible future developments in the last paragraph of the paper.
For more detailed revisions, we uploaded the revised version of the article with track change on.
We also improved the English by using the MDPI English editing service and attached the certificate.
Thank you very much and Merry Christmas!
Regards,
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thanks for your remarkable scholarly output and the time you invested for improvement.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
Thank you for your efforts in completing the manuscript according to the guidelines.In this form, the layout of the article and its content is clearer and more comprehensive. I belie that, the issue you describe, is very important and interesting, I will be waiting to read your next article on this survey.
Best regards
