Agriculture Risks and Opportunities in a Climate-Vulnerable Watershed in Northeastern Taiwan—The Opinions of Leisure Agriculture Operators

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her useful suggestions regarding the present paper. All comments were addressed in the revised manuscript, along with some major modifications and improvements by the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The issue raised by the authors is indeed an important one, and is interesting from both scientific and practical perspectives.

The manuscript is written nicely with detailed methodology and results. However, the manuscript requires important considerations (specially the introduction and discussion sections) and is not suitable for publication in its present form. I would call for Major Revisions based on following comments:

1. The abstract does not convey the content of the paper accurately. The abstract should introduce the reader to the research and hence state the research objective clearly, the methods used, some of the specific findings and some of the conclusions. I would also recommend authors to cut back the abstract to 200 words.

2. The introduction does not contain a clear statement of the problem, the relevant literature on the subject, and a proposed approach or solution. The topicality and novelty of the research are not understood from the introduction. It is necessary to bring the reader to the thought of the relevance of this study. The Introduction of the manuscript contains irrelevant information and lacks proper citations.

3. The literature review refers to the central issue of the paper, it is not quite extensive, relevant and thorough. I would like to mention that the authors have not studied the literature on the issue published over the last five years.  The review will not be of interest to other researchers. Any peer-reviewed journal paper must have a certain level of literature reviews to justify the contribution of this paper.

4. A major methodological flaw is the lack descriptions of how the authors selected the sample population. There is no justification for which selective method the authors used? Why was the sample size 78 units? Are the answers to the questions consistent? And what methods did the authors use to assess the consistency of responses?

5. The Discussion and Conclusion sections are just repetition of results.

The important part of a manuscript, where the authors could justify their findings based on their objectives and literature is Discussion. However, I found that in the present manuscript, the Discussion part is just repetition of results and not literature citations were given.  I suggest that discussion part should be rewritten by adding related references and discussion obtained results based on it.

The conclusions of the paper are to abstracting to include the key findings of the paper and their contributions to the current literature on the topic under consideration. The paper also needs to include policy implications and recommendations for further studies. The conclusion should contain actual results. The conclusion should be enhanced, and it should be connected with the paper aim. There should several important scientific results having novelty, future and application in the considered context for the community in globe.

6. Based on the above, I doubt the correctness of the results obtained. So, the results may be useful for the studied territory, but not relevant for the wider literature.

7. Based on the assumption that the article may be based on a large amount of work done by the authors, the issue of its publication in the journal could be further considered after its revision.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her useful suggestions regarding the present paper. All comments were addressed in the revised manuscript, along with some major modifications and improvements by the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Suggestion and Recommendation: 

The authors present a research paper with relevant topic, proper research case study and potentially good contribution to the field of studies.

The authors are encouraged to resubmit the paper with more clarity on presented performance assessment metrics with the selected relevant Case studies and possible application scenario with assessment metrics. The paper should be written in proper format, figures should fit within the text, use of font should be uniform in all paper, as well as references should be updated with most recent results.

Suggestion and Recommendation:

1. Authors may elaborate more on the novelty/contribution of their work and how it

2. Authors need to be specific about their problem statement and the scope of their research.

3. Abstract: elaborate more on the problem statement, findings, and contributions.

4. Introduction is not clear. Authors may contribute more towards this.

contributes to the literature in the second last paragraph of the introduction clearly.

5. Thorough proofreading is recommended.

6. A few of the figures are taken from the sources and are not cited properly, either they may be cited properly with permissions or may be removed/ redrawn.

7. The conclusion is not clear and needs revision and clarity and alignment with the abstract and title.

 

References:

1. Your references are not listed in good style, as citation style is different from one paper to other. 

2. some of your references are not complete please check. 

3. Some citations (references) created in wrong manner (Please follow journal's criteria).

 

Major Concerns:

1. In the introduction, the scientific problem of the existing evaluation is missing. There should initially be discussed the actual problem and then the research motivation.

2. Please highlight major contributions of this work in this current version, otherwise the current form shows weak/lack of novelty.

3. Please refine the language of this paper, such as avoid we, they, our, and other related words in this paper.

4. Check mathematical description in the proposed work section, the expression showing totally general, no customize or testing samples are discussed/presented.

5. Authors are encouraged to base on recent references about the current development in blockchain technology. Moreover, technology collaborates with other technologies to create new paradigms, such as artificial intelligence, such machine learning, deep learning, with federated learning.

Minor editing is required.

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her useful suggestions regarding the present paper. All comments were addressed in the revised manuscript, along with some major modifications and improvements by the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Después de una revisión exhaustiva del artículo Cambio climático: un estudio de caso de medidas de adaptación y transición a una agricultura segura en una cuenca climáticamente vulnerable en el noreste-oeste de Taiwán, creo que tiene una base teórica actual y confiable que enmarca el contexto y revisión bibliográfica del tema de investigación. 

En términos metodológicos, las tres partes de la metodología son fundamentales para adquirir resultados concluyentes, por lo que considero que este enfoque es adecuado para lograr el objetivo planteado en el artículo de investigación (una revisión de la literatura sobre cambio climático y estrategias de adaptación, (2) trabajo de campo en LRW para evaluar su industria agrícola, y (3) un cuestionario estructurado para profesionales de la agricultura recreativa).

Finalmente, tomando una perspectiva global del artículo, considero que el artículo está sólidamente construido y que este ítem conduce a conclusiones evidentes que arrojan conocimientos relevantes. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors wish to thank the anonymous reviewer for his/her useful suggestions regarding the present paper. All comments were addressed in the revised manuscript, along with some major modifications and improvements by the authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors! You have done a lot of work to correct my comments. The issue raised by the authors is indeed an important one, and is interesting from both scientific and practical perspectives. The structure of the article does meet the requirements of the publication (Research Manuscript Sections).
The introduction does contain a clear statement of the problem, the relevant literature on the subject, and a proposed approach or solution. The topicality and novelty of the research are understood from the introduction. The literature review refers to the central issue of the paper, it is quite extensive, relevant and thorough. The review will be of interest to other researchers. I would like to mention that the authors have comprehensively studied the literature on the issue published over the last five years. References are correct. The conclusion is consistent with presented arguments and evidence. The results complete previous results on the matter and are supported by references.

Reviewer 3 Report

The author addressed all my concerns.

Please accept this version.

Thanks

Minor spell checks are required.