Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue

Article Menu

Share Help Cite Discuss in SciProfiles

Open AccessArticle

Peer-Review Record

Human Mobility, Sociolinguistic Diversity, and Social Sustainability in Rural Areas: Insights from Indonesian Transmigrant Communities

Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3615; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043615

by Kamaludin Yusra^*

and Yuni Budi Lestari

Reviewer 1:

Luis Antonio Sáez Pérez

Reviewer 2: Anonymous

Reviewer 3:

Christa Fouche

Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3615; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043615

Submission received: 7 December 2022 / Revised: 28 January 2023 / Accepted: 12 February 2023 / Published: 16 February 2023

(This article belongs to the Topic Diversity Competence and Social Inequalities)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear colleagues,

congratulations for your good paper.

Just two comments that don't need to be considered inmediatly at this point, but I think they might be helpful if you want to dig deeper into this topic.

1. I find the research very interesting. An inductive approach prevails, with excellent fieldwork, but I think migration theories could also have been taken into account (other social disciplines such as demography, sociology and economics use them). In this sense, there are multiple works that could have helped to introduce a more stylized analysis, which would reinforce some arguments and comparisons. I only cite two papers, one that is a classic, and another more recent, as mere suggestions:

Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1994). An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case. Population and Development Review, 20(4), 699–751. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137660 Bhagat, R. B. (2020). Migration Theories: A Critical Evaluation and Synthesis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344641827_Migration_Theories_A_Critical_Evaluation_and_Synthesis

2. Another interesting question, in my opinion, would be to have reflected in some way, perhaps with tables, the field work carried out, in terms of the number of interviews, surveys, observations, and also the methodological, conceptual and implementation problems carried out.

As I said at the beginning, they are only advice and not proposals to follow.

Thanks for your attention

Author Response

Please See the Attachment

POINTBY-POINT RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 1

Dear Sir/Madam

We really appreciate your comments with regards to our manuscript. Below are our summaries of revision in response to the comments. Hopefully, the revisions in the manuscript and this reply could answer all your concerns.

Once again, thank you very much.

Regards

Authors

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required

( ) Moderate English changes required

( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required

(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

Yes Can be improved Must be improved Not applicable

Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are all the cited references relevant to the research?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Is the article adequately referenced?

( ) (x) ( ) ( )

Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?

(x) ( ) ( ) ( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear colleagues,

Congratulations for your good paper.

Just two comments that don't need to be considered inmediatly at this point, but I think they might be helpful if you want to dig deeper into this topic.

I find the research very interesting. An inductive approach prevails, with excellent fieldwork, but I think migration theories could also have been taken into account (other social disciplines such as demography, sociology and economics use them). In this sense, there are multiple works that could have helped to introduce a more stylized analysis, which would reinforce some arguments and comparisons. I only cite two papers, one that is a classic, and another more recent, as mere suggestions:

Massey, D. S., Arango, J., Hugo, G., Kouaouci, A., Pellegrino, A., & Taylor, J. E. (1994). An Evaluation of International Migration Theory: The North American Case. Population and Development Review, 20(4), 699–751. https://doi.org/10.2307/2137660

Bhagat, R. B. (2020). Migration Theories: A Critical Evaluation and Synthesis. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344641827_Migration_Theories_A_Critical_Evaluation_and_Synthesis

Response: These theories of migration and other works relevant from the fields of demography, sociology and economics have been included in the revised version of the manuscript (pp. 1-3]

Another interesting question, in my opinion, would be to have reflected in some way, perhaps with tables, the field work carried out, in terms of the number of interviews, surveys, observations, and also the methodological, conceptual and implementation problems carried out.

Response: Information about field work, interviews, surveys, and observations has been presented in Table 1 (p.6) and the problems in methodology, concept and implementation have presented in Material and Method section (p. 6) where triangulation of data sources, methods of collection, and methods of analysis is expected to assist authors arrive at more objectively reliable findings amidst variability in the mobility, diversity and sustainability factors.

As I said at the beginning, they are only advice and not proposals to follow.

Response: We appreciate your comments and we seriously took them in account and followed them in revision.

Thanks for your attention

Submission Date

07 December 2022

Date of this review

17 Dec 2022 17:22:31

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This is an interesting study that looks at how a diverse rural community forms as a consequence of internal migration in Indonesia. I find that the focus of the study is important as it considers a context that is less well researched, i.e. internal migrations in a country (Indonesia) with a high level of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. Also, the rural setting makes an interesting contrast to the more often studied context of cities as places where people with different backgrounds meet.

Despite the above significance, in my opinion, the study falls short of explaining how superdiverse communities form and function. The results in this article are mostly a description of the setting along with a set of basic statistics (i.e. composition and history of the community studied). Importance of diversity is only discussed briefly and expanded upon with the analysis of the "anecdotal" example of the cake seller lady and her clients. I was hoping that the authors could do more by forming hypotheses about the importance of the factors that contribute to the apparent superdiversity or its effect on the community in this study. While I understand that testing any such hypothesis might be limited (e.g. due to available data), I believe that going beyond the simple desciptive statistics presented in the current study would be necessary. Questions arise about the role of interactions and social networks in Manggelewa. Even if the currently available data allows only limited analysis, a critical review of research possibilities and their requirements in terms of data and fieldwork would greatly enhance the current paper.

Along with the above concerns, I also missed somewhat the discussion of how this research relates to questions about sustainability in more conrete terms. Again, formalizing hypotheses (e.g. about what factors are important in rural communities engaging in sustainable practices) would be a first step in any such analysis.

Author Response

POINTBY-POINT RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 2

Dear Sir/Madam

Once again, thank you very much.

Regards

Authors

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
(x) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study that looks at how a diverse rural community forms as a consequence of internal migration in Indonesia. I find that the focus of the study is important as it considers a context that is less well researched, i.e. internal migrations in a country (Indonesia) with a high level of ethnic, linguistic and religious diversity. Also, the rural setting makes an interesting contrast to the more often studied context of cities as places where people with different backgrounds meet.

Despite the above significance, in my opinion, the study falls short of explaining how superdiverse communities form and function. The results in this article are mostly a description of the setting along with a set of basic statistics (i.e. composition and history of the community studied). Importance of diversity is only discussed briefly and expanded upon with the analysis of the "anecdotal" example of the cake seller lady and her clients. I was hoping that the authors could do more by forming hypotheses about the importance of the factors that contribute to the apparent superdiversity or its effect on the community in this study. While I understand that testing any such hypothesis might be limited (e.g. due to available data), I believe that going beyond the simple descriptive statistics presented in the current study would be necessary. Questions arise about the role of interactions and social networks in Manggelewa. Even if the currently available data allows only limited analysis, a critical review of research possibilities and their requirements in terms of data and fieldwork would greatly enhance the current paper.

Response: The article has been revised by explicitly explicating how inter-island migration and local (relocating) migration has formed sociolinguistic diversity of Manggelewa communities (section 3.1 Human Mobility and Sociolinguistic Diversity, pp. 6-12) including factors pushing and pulling th migrants to relocate to Manggelewa communities (Table 2, p. 12). How diversity function in social sustainability has been discussed (section 3.2. Sociolinguistic Diversity and Social Sustainability) emphasizing on symbolic social sustainability at individual-to-individual conversation micro levels and on social sustainability at macro societal levels where social dimensions of sustainability are measured with a rating-scale questionnaire and analyzed with inferential statistics (Chi-square) to tease which dimensions are significantly functional to the formation of social sustainability. Due the qualitative nature of the data, hypotheses cannot be formed but statistically proven interpretation of the data is expected to have escaped the “anecdotal” nature of the analyses. Further potential studies have been suggested in the conclusion section (p. 20) and, due to space limit and contextual relevance, the methodologies cannot be suggested.

Along with the above concerns, I also missed somewhat the discussion of how this research relates to questions about sustainability in more concrete terms. Again, formalizing hypotheses (e.g. about what factors are important in rural communities engaging in sustainable practices) would be a first step in any such analysis.

Response: Social sustainability has been redefined to non-economic contexts on which symbolic and sustainable interethnic relations have been emphasized. Social sustainability in theories (pp. 3-4), in conversational contexts between person to person (pp. and in societal contexts on how members perceive their communities have been presented in the revised version of the manuscript (section 3.2 Sociolinguistic Diversity and Social Sustainability, pp. 12-16). Though without hypotheses, the social sustainability factors and practices working in rural communities have presented and their impacts on rural social sustainability have been statistically analyzed and presented in this revised version (pp. 15-16).

Submission Date

07 December 2022

Date of this review

01 Jan 2023 15:15:07

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting manuscript with insights about communties that are unknown to many readers. It is clear also that the authors have a real connection with and deep knowledge of these communities and it will be of interest to the readers of this journal. The authors have studied these communities over many years and have clearly collected vast amounts of data that can inform multiple publications. They make several interesting points from the data that will all have huge interest internationally. However, such endeavours need to ensure that any single publication has both enough context to help readers understand the whole project and a clear focus on the small part of the data that forms the core argument of the particular publication. This is a fine balancing act and they did not get it right in this instance. I highlight four main issues to be addressed before this article can be considered for publication:

1) Core argument

It is really difficult to decipher what this article (and the 10-year study) is really about. The justification for the article is stated in the abstract as addressing a little understood area of how human mobility leads to linguistic diversity and social sustainability. It is then followed with a statement that the article intends to explain how transmigrants of various ethnic backgrounds have established an ethnically and linguistically multi-diverse transmigrant community. There is no reference to social sustainability and the article does not actually focus on how the transmigrant community has developed. In fact, the results almost exclusively focuses on the profile of the community – that (not how) it is diverse in terms of several characteristics.

The abstract further suggests the study (maybe not the article?) highlights that superdiversity is not only an urban phenomenon but also a rural reality. This argument comes through strongly in the discussion. So is the main focus of the article on superdiversity as a rural reality? Seems a good argument, but it does not align with the title, nor with the discussion of literature, nor with other statements about the focus of the article.

Almost every sentence in the introduction suggests a different aim for the article. In the first sentence of the introduction, superdiversity is linked to mobility – not rural realities: “This article examines mobility and superdiversity...”. In the very next paragraph it is claimed that “This study aims to identify how the numerous social backgrounds represent mobility and superdiversity among transmigrants ...”. So the reader is left confused on whether this aim is the focus of the whole 10-year study, or the focus of the argument in this manuscript. In the next paragraph, this confusion continues with a statement that “This article also discusses how mobility and superdiversity in the ... community have been linguistically constructed”. So the manuscript (not the study) aims to argue that linguistically diverse mobility leads to superdiversity? There is also reference to translanguaging in that it is claimed that “...social integration and interethnic solidarity would have become problematic if translanguaging had not been performed”. So does the article instead make a case that superdiversity requires translanguaging to be successful? The paragraph ends with a statement that the article “...will also examine how the social dynamics in mobility and superdiversity has been used as a discursive means of constructing common ground, mutual co-membership of social groups and mechanical and organic solidarity”. Not only does this statement introduce new concepts (the term solidarity appears often in the article with no clarification or link to the title). The sections ends with a statement that the aim of the article is indeed two-fold: “In this article, we explore the factors affecting transmigrants’ decisions to move locally ... and how these movements have affected the ethnic and linguistic composition in addition to the superdiversity of the newly formed community”. I am not convinced that the article lives up to this expectation.

I can identify more statements about the focus of the article / study throughout the manuscript, but in essence the point is that the reader is left unclear about the focus of the 10-year study, and the core argument of this manuscript – of relevance to the readers of this journal. The authors should tidy up the multiple statements and have a clear position on the focus of the study and the article that is used consistently throughout the manuscript, including in the title.

2) Main concepts

The title suggests five core concepts as a focus of the article: Human Mobility, Linguistic Diversity, Social Sustainability, Rural, and Transmigrant. There is no focus on social sustainability in the manuscript though. In fact, the word sustainability is only used three times in the article: once in the title and twice in the abstract. It is never used in the body of the manuscript. They do introduce superdiversity as a concept – and use it throughout the article effectively. There is also mention of interesting concepts such as ‘government-sponsored’, ‘solidarity’, ‘translanguaging’ and many others that are never fully utilised. I suspect the use of these many concepts - none of which are properly discussed from a theoretical lens, is a product of the lack of focus for the article. Some of these concepts are probably core to the study, but not this article and some of the concepts are only peripheral to this article, but may be of relevance to other articles with a different focus.

I suggest the authors decide (based on the core focus of the article) which concepts they want to focus on and ensure these (and only these) are discussed from the literature and used coherently throughout the article.

3) Methodology

The section on methodology (‘Materials and methods’) needs strengthening and the explanation requires consistency. It is stated in the abstract that data were collected from a ten-year participant ethnographic observation of the community. In the manuscript, it seems ‘visits’ started on 2009, but that the data collection for the ‘current study’ was done in 2017, 2018 and 2021. What is the difference between the ‘current’ study and the 10-year study and what is the relevance of either to this article?

In the abstract the main strategies for data collection included taking notes, collecting documents, distributing questionnaires, interviewing key informants and recording conversations. However, there is also mention of ‘formal and ‘informal’ data collection methods in the manuscript. None of these are explained and linked to participants. Where and with whom were ‘conversations recorded’ and who were interviewed, who completed questionnaires? Which documents (presented in the results) were used for ‘content analysis’?

The study apparently employed ‘ethnographic analysis’ (abstract), and this is further explained as comprising diffent foci – not all linked to the purpose of the article and most of it not presented in the results section. For instance, seems of particular interest in the analysis was “...the translanguaging practices and how they represented super-diversity and yet solidarity within the community”. This is not presented strongly in the results section. It is also stated that the data were analyzed at the macro-level along with ethnography of communication and at the micro-level using interaction analysis. Again, neither of these become clear in the results. There is also mention of ‘content analysis of various documents’, but the details of this process in an ethnographic study is unclear.

4) Ethics approval.

Lastly, the ethics approval is unclear. It is declared that Institutional Review Board approval was obtained in November 2021. Were there any other approvals that covered the ’10-year’ project and how was data collected for the ‘current study’ in 2017 and 2018? Furthermore, it is stated that “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.” There is reference to a great many people over 10 years, with some of the data collected ‘informally’ and some involving observations. The scope of the ethics approval should be clarified.

Author Response

POINTBY-POINT RESPONSES TO REVIEWER 3

Dear Sir/Madam

Once again, thank you very much.

Regards

Authors

Review Report Form

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting manuscript with insights about communties that are unknown to many readers.

Response: Thank you very much for the complement. Writing things about the rural communities in the Global South has been one of the prime motives of the article and urban communities in the Global North have been very much dicussed in numerous articles.

It is clear also that the authors have a real connection with and deep knowledge of these communities and it will be of interest to the readers of this journal. The authors have studied these communities over many years and have clearly collected vast amounts of data that can inform multiple publications.

Response: The transmigrant communities on the Sumbawa Island of Indonesia have been studied by the authors since 2009 and the reports were mostly unpublished and sent to the funding agencies in research report documents. Where relevant, references to these documents have been made in the revised version of the manuscript. Article versions of the general reports have been published in local journals and references to them have also been provided in details in the revised version of the manuscript. These studies have indirectly inform the authors about the communities under current study and the communities have not been particularly studied and the research reports above have not spefically concerned with the communities under the current study.

They make several interesting points from the data that will all have huge interest internationally. However, such endeavours need to ensure that any single publication has both enough context to help readers understand the whole project and a clear focus on the small part of the data that forms the core argument of the particular publication.

Response: History of migration to the Manggelewa areas has not been described in previous studies which focused on wider areas of migration to numerous transmigrant communities on the island (for example, Taliwang, Alas, Labangka, Sorinomo, Pancasila, Tolo Oi and others) and the findings in these studies have been presented in articles and unpublished reports mentioned above. Where relevant, the above works by the authors have been mentioned in the revised version of the manuscript (pp. 8-10).

None of the data from those studies are used in the manuscript. The current manuscript focuses on the Manggelewa communities because they have the social, demographical, cultural and linguistic potentials to offer new insights into mobility, diversity and sustainability in rural areas and the data were collected in our ethnographic visits in 2019, 2020, and 2021.

This is a fine balancing act and they did not get it right in this instance.

Response: That is true and in the revised version of the manuscript we have tried to clarify them to get it right.

I highlight four main issues to be addressed before this article can be considered for publication:

1) Core argument

It is really difficult to decipher what this article (and the 10-year study) is really about.

Response: The 10-year study is accummulation of ethnographic visits to the communities under study. It is relevant to uncover the history of migration to the areas and how the migration of people from various ethnic groups from various islands has led to current social economic development and social sustainability of the communities under study. References to these studies have been added to the revised version of the manuscript.

The focus of the article is on the current social sustainability based on the data collected in 2019, 2020 and 2021. The 10-year study simply provides explanatory background information to the current conditions of the studied communities.

The justification for the article is stated in the abstract as addressing a little understood area of how human mobility leads to linguistic diversity and social sustainability. It is then followed with a statement that the article intends to explain how transmigrants of various ethnic backgrounds have established an ethnically and linguistically multi-diverse transmigrant community. There is no reference to social sustainability and the article does not actually focus on how the transmigrant community has developed. In fact, the results almost exclusively focuses on the profile of the community – that (not how) it is diverse in terms of several characteristics.

Response: The concept of social sustainability has been significantly added to the revised version of the manuscript by including indicators of social sustainability. How diversity has formed social sustainability has been discussed (section 3.2. Sociolinguistic Diversity and Social Sustainability) and symbolic social sustainability in conversation levels and in societal levels is exemplified. Social dimensions of sustainability have also been are measured with a rating-scale questionnaire and analyzed with inferential statistics (Chi-square) to tease which dimensions are significantly functional to the formation of social sustainability. The revised version of the manuscript is no longer community profile.

Response: The title of the article (and the study) has been revised and the content has significantly been revised to accommodate the title. There has been a substantial amount of studies on mobility and superdiversity or sociolinguistic diversity in urban communities and the manuscript expects to fill the void by studying mobility and sociolinguistic diversity in rural communities.

Superdiversity has been used as the term covering multi-complex diversity in communities and the multicomplexity has been seen from social and cultural dimensions. The manuscript looks at it from linguistic complexity in addition to social, demographical and cultural complexities which lead to or are represented in sociolinguistic diversity. This diversity leads to multiplicity in linguistic competence (i.e., being able to speak in all languages in contact) and this competence is one of the local human capitals for sustaining social solidarity which is also essential core for social sustainability in multilingual and multicultural rural agricultural communities. The manuscript has also added new dimensions of mobility, sociolinguistic diversity and social sustainability in rural communities with examples and inferential statistical proofs.

Response: Other studies on human mobility and sosial and linguistic superdiversity in the Global North have mainly focused on urban communities as if these social dimensions are not present in rural communities and this is the gap that the article expects to fill by exemplifying mobility and sociolinguistic diversity in the rural communities. Mobility (i.e., migration) of transmigrants has brought them to particular ethnic areas of the Manggelewa communities. These people have brought with them various social backgrounds (i.e., geography (Balinese from the island of Bali, the Sasak from the island of Lombok, and the Bimanese from Bima and Dompu), ethnicity (Balinese, Bimanese, and Sasak), religions (Hinduism, Islam) and languages (the Balinese, the Bimanese and the Sasak languages)) and when they interact with one another these social dimensions are also brought into interactions. Consequently, the interactions recorded for data in the study would indicate mobility of people from those backgrounds and, thus, multi-complex diversity within the transmigrant communities.

In short, the article and the study expects to illustrate how mobility leads to sociolinguistic diversity and then how this diversity leads to (symbolic) social sustainability.

So the reader is left confused on whether this aim is the focus of the whole 10-year study, or the focus of the argument in this manuscript.

Response: The focus has been reinstated and the relationship between the current study (and the article) with the 10-year study has been revised and explicated better in the revised version. The focus of the current study (and the article) is on the current condition and social sustainability observed in 2019, 2020, and 2021. This mistake has been reworked in the revised version of the manuscript.

In the next paragraph, this confusion continues with a statement that “This article also discusses how mobility and superdiversity in the ... community have been linguistically constructed”. So the manuscript (not the study) aims to argue that linguistically diverse mobility leads to superdiversity?

Response: In the field of sociolinguistics, the connection between mobility and sociolinguistic diversity and between sociolinguistic diversity to symbolic social sustainability has been seen from the points of view of language and language and this phenomenon has been largely referred to as the linguistic turn in the study of society. The manuscript has been revised to clarify the concept where migration of language speakers to an area build diversity of languages and cultures in the area and the languages and the cultures can become resources for really social sustainability and not sustainability from primarily socio-economic in nature. This argument is foundational to the manusctipt.

There is also reference to translanguaging in that it is claimed that “...social integration and interethnic solidarity would have become problematic if translanguaging had not been performed”. So does the article instead make a case that superdiversity requires translanguaging to be successful?

Response: Translanguaging and other language practices can be used as symbolic strategies to represent social sustainability in a multiethnic community. But, the concept of translanguaging has been revised from the manuscript.

The paragraph ends with a statement that the article “...will also examine how the social dynamics in mobility and superdiversity has been used as a discursive means of constructing common ground, mutual co-membership of social groups and mechanical and organic solidarity”. Not only does this statement introduce new concepts (the term solidarity appears often in the article with no clarification or link to the title).

Response: “Social solidarity” is a common term in sociolinguistic studies suggesting shared membership of a social or ethnic group in multiethnic contexts. However, “social sustainability” is conceptually a better term as it covers more comprehensive aspects of human relation and not only group membership as the term ‘solidarity’ would imply. In the revised version, the latter has been used replaced the former.

The sections ends with a statement that the aim of the article is indeed two-fold: “In this article, we explore the factors affecting transmigrants’ decisions to move locally ... and how these movements have affected the ethnic and linguistic composition in addition to the superdiversity of the newly formed community”. I am not convinced that the article lives up to this expectation.

Response: The factors and the impacts of local relocational migration to sociolinguistic diversity have been discussed in section 3.1. Human Mobility and Sociolinguistic Diversity and the impact of sociolinguistic diversity on social sustainability has been elaborated in section 3.2. Sociolingistic Diversity and Social Sustainability in which the dimensions in the diversity have been teased out and their impacts on social sustainability have been exemplified and proven with inferential statistical analyses.

Response: The relationship between the 10-year studies and the current study has been reinstated in the revision: the 10-year studies of the neighboring areas indirectly provide information about the areas under current study and the results of the 10-year studies have been reported separately but referred to in the revised version of the manuscript. The core arguments in the current study were obtained from 2019, 2020 and 2021 data collection focusing on how the history of migration leads to current sociolinguistic diversity and how this diversity is beneficial to socially sustainable practices in the observed communities.

of relevance to the readers of this journal.

Response: The article offers a new insight into how social sustainability is studied. It offers a way of looking at social sustainability at individual conversational levels in addition to the traditional way of looking at social sustainability at societal level where physical structures and infrastructures of prime concern. The article discusses the real “social” dimension of sustainability excluding the predominantly ‘economic’ side of it.

The authors should tidy up the multiple statements and have a clear position on the focus of the study and the article that is used consistently throughout the manuscript,

Response: The statements have been revised and changes have been made to accommodate the new title.

including in the title.

Response: The title has also been revised to accommodate the content and its expected revisions.

2) Main concepts

Response: The concept of social sustainability has been added and elaborated in concepts and in analytical findings and discussion. Other concepts and terms have been redifined to clarify the notions.

In fact, the word sustainability is only used three times in the article: once in the title and twice in the abstract. It is never used in the body of the manuscript.

Response: The concept of social sustainability has been added and elaborated in concepts and in analytical findings and discussion. Section 3.2 discusses how sociolinguistic diversity was used as resources for social sustainability in multiethnic contexts. As a concept, social sustainability has been added (p. 4-5).

They do introduce superdiversity as a concept – and use it throughout the article effectively. There is also mention of interesting concepts such as ‘government-sponsored’, ‘solidarity’, ‘translanguaging’ and many others that are never fully utilised.

Response: “solidarity” and “translanguaging” have been eliminated in the revised version and “social sustainability” and a more general term “language use” have been instead used. “Government-sponsored” transmigration has been described by giving a footnote.

I suspect the use of these many concepts - none of which are properly discussed from a theoretical lens, is a product of the lack of focus for the article.

Response: That is true and the focus has been reformulated in the revised version.

Some of these concepts are probably core to the study,

Response: No, they are the foci of the current study. The comments from this reviewer and others have helped us reshape our understanding of the concepts and better relevant terms have been instead adopted.

but not this article and some of the concepts are only peripheral to this article, but may be of relevance to other articles with a different focus.

Response: The use of the concepts has been explicated more in the revised version of the manuscript.

I suggest the authors decide (based on the core focus of the article) which concepts they want to focus on

Response: The concepts of mobility, sociolinguistic diversity and social sustainability have been used and better defined in the revised manuscript.

and ensure these (and only these) are discussed from the literature and used coherently throughout the article.

Response: Only the concepts of mobility, sociolinguistic diversity and social sustainability were discussed in the revised manuscript.

3) Methodology

The section on methodology (‘Materials and methods’) needs strengthening and the explanation requires consistency.

Response: This section has been rewritten in order to clarify various sources of data, varied methods of collection, and methods of analyses. Descriptive and inferential statistical analyses have also been added in the revised version.

It is stated in the abstract that data were collected from a ten-year participant ethnographic observation of the community. In the manuscript, it seems ‘visits’ started on 2009, but that the data collection for the ‘current study’ was done in 2017, 2018 and 2021. What is the difference between the ‘current’ study and the 10-year study and what is the relevance of either to this article?

Response: The source of the confusion has been clarified. The 10-year studies indirectly contribute background information to the current study. These studies have been reported and references to these reports have been added in the revised version of the article.

Data for the current manuscript were collected in 2019, 2020 and 2021 and these findings have not been reported elsewhere.

Response: These informal and formal data collection and analyses have been clarified and information about conversation, interview, document and questionnaire data collected for the study has been presented in table (Table 1).

Response: Qualitative and quantitative (statistical) analyses have been added to enrich ethnographic analysis. Section 3.1. Human Mobility and Sociolinguistic Diversity and section 3.2. Sociolinguistic Diversity and Social Sustainability present results of interviews and conversations with respondents and these are in essence ethnographic. “Translanguaging” and “soldarity” are not relevant with the current study and they have been eliminated in the revised manuscript. Instead, in the result section, mobility, sociolinguistic diversity and social sustainability have been presented also with descriptive and inferential statistics.

It is also stated that the data were analyzed at the macro-level along with ethnography of communication and at the micro-level using interaction analysis. Again, neither of these become clear in the results. There is also mention of ‘content analysis of various documents’, but the details of this process in an ethnographic study is unclear.

Response: The procedure of data analysis has been altered. At macro societal level, descriptive qualitative analysis was used to tease general patterns from mobility, diversity and sustainability data. This analysis also includes interpretation of statistical data from the statistics and village offices as well as analysis of contents in observation and interview notes. Ethnograhy of communication and interaction analysis were used for analysing recorded conversations. Inferential statistics (Chi-square) was used to measure difference in frequency data accummulated by using questionnaires. These sources of data and methods of analyses have been mentioned in the Results section. .

4) Ethics approval.

Lastly, the ethics approval is unclear. It is declared that Institutional Review Board approval was obtained in November 2021.

Response: Mistakes have been corrected. The ethics approval was obtained on February 11, 2019

Were there any other approvals that covered the ’10-year’ project and how was data collected for the ‘current study’ in 2017 and 2018?

Response: The approval covered data collection for the artcile which was conducted in 2019, 2020, and 2021. Other studies with the 10-year time frame have their own ethics approval.

Furthermore, it is stated that “Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.” There is reference to a great many people over 10 years, with some of the data collected ‘informally’ and some involving observations. The scope of the ethics approval should be clarified.

Response: Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the 2019, 2020 and 2021 data collection for the article. Informed consent for other studies conducted within the 10-year time frame was also obtained separately from its respective respondents. These latter studies involved different respondents in different research settings and for different research purposes.

Submission Date

07 December 2022

Date of this review

19 Dec 2022 21:21:56

General Remark: Thank you very much for such a comprehensive review. We could have not revised the manuscript to its current condition without those critical comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for the improvements and additions to this article, which I now believe contains interesting empirical results along with an important context. This way, I can recommend publication after clarifying the following points:

-- line 251-252: "how this diversity has led to its social sustainability" -- I believe that this is still something that could be the basis of formal hypotheses, maybe in follow-up work?

-- line 245-247: "transmigrants in rural Indonesian transmigrant communities had no choices at all with regards to targets and means of migration because all of them had been arranged by the governments" -- Does this mean that they did not have a choice whether or to relocate at all? (i.e. were they compelled to relocate?)

-- How does the interaction among different languages and different branches of Islam affect social cohesion? Is the significance of religious denomination larger than shared language or ethnicity?

-- line 430: "local migration": Does this refer to migration / relocation within the area (i.e. within Manggelewa), after an original in-migration happened? As a follow-up, is there a statistic on the share of people who made onward migration (either within Manggelewa or outside of this area)?

-- lines 443-475: Do the percentages refer to the share of people who ranked a specific factor as first?

-- line 445-446: "these dimensions of economic failures contribute around 45% to relocation decision" -- How is this estimated? Is it the number of people who rank any one of these factors as first?

-- Table 2: why are scores for pull factors higher than push factors? Is it only because there are more possible pull factors to select from? Or did more people select the same pull factors? Note that 70*19 = 1330, so it is unclear how "Business Opportunities" can have a score of 1828. Looking at the data table in the included SI makes things further confusing; specifically, I believe that there might be an error in how the points for the first-ranked items were calculated. Please double-check this and clarify the results. Also, since there are different number of possible factors, it might be easier for the reader of the scores in Table 2 were normalized (e.g. relative to the maximum score attainable for each factor).

-- Please mention the total number of respondents for the surveys in the main text as well (Table 2 and Fig. 7).

-- Fig. 7 / lines 597-601: importance of "common historical background" -- I find this quite interesting and would consider that potentially the people do not think that it is important because they do not have a common historical background (at least among ethnicities and communities); this can be an example how personal experiences shape what factors are considered important in this context.

Author Response

Top of Form

Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Journal

Manuscript ID

sustainability-2116426

Type

Article

Title

Human Mobility, Linguistic Diversity and Social Sustainability in Rural Areas: Insights from Indonesian Trans-migrant Communities

Authors

Kamaludin Yusra * , And Yuni Budi Lestari

Topic

Diversity Competence and Social Inequalities

Abstract

A substantial number of studies have been completed with respect to human mobility, linguistic diversity, and social sustainability in the global North but very few have been undertaken in relation to the global South. Mobility, diversity and sustainability are not recent phenomena, but little, if anything is understood as regards how human mobility leads to linguistic diversity and social sustainability. This article fills this gap by explaining how transmigrants of Javanese, Balinese and Sasak ethnic backgrounds along with the Bima and Dompu host communities have established an ethnically and linguistically multi-diverse transmigrant community of Manggelewa on the Indonesian island of Sumbawa. Data were collected from a ten-year participant ethnographic observation of the community. The main strategies for data collection included taking notes, collecting documents, distributing questionnaires concerning multiple mobility, identity and linguistic competence, interviewing key informants and recording conversations. Employing ethnographic analysis, the study exhibits the community’s dynamic mobility and superdiversity in language, ethnicity, religions and socio-economic conditions amidst its rurality, suggesting that superdiversity is not only an urban phenomenon but also a rural reality.

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 2)

Please provide a point-by-point response to the reviewer’s comments and either enter it in the box below or upload it as a Word/PDF file. Please write down "Please see the attachment." in the box if you only upload an attachment. An example can be found here.

^* Author's Notes to Reviewer

FileEditViewInsertFormatToolsTableHelp

Paragraph

0 WORDS

Word / PDF

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Review Report Form

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

-- line 251-252: "how this diversity has led to its social sustainability" -- I believe that this is still something that could be the basis of formal hypotheses, maybe in follow-up work?

This has been added in the conclusion suggesting for more detailed studies on the pushing and the pulling factors in local migration where hypotheses might be formed and tested for more generalizable conclusions (p 20 paragraph 1).

-- line 245-247: "transmigrants in rural Indonesian transmigrant communities had no choices at all with regards to targets and means of migration because all of them had been arranged by the governments" -- Does this mean that they did not have a choice whether or to relocate at all? (i.e. were they compelled to relocate?)

It has been added in the revised manuscript that the concern of the current study is on social sustainability in symbolic sense and the impacts of the pulling and the pushing factors for local voluntary relocation migration on local social sustainability in socio-economic terms would be reported in follow-up works (pp. 244-252 and page 16, paragraph 1). Actually, which of these factors are significant from respondents’ points of view has been statistically identified and reported in the manuscript (p 16 paragraph 1), where these factors (i.e. common historical background, specification of agricultural produces, current quality of public and product transportation, current quality of health services, and communal tolerance in ethnic and religious differences) are found to be statistically significant. However, the need for examining them further in socio-economic terms has been suggested (p 16, paragraph 1).

-- How does the interaction among different languages and different branches of Islam affect social cohesion? Is the significance of religious denomination larger than shared language or ethnicity?

Interaction among people of different ethnolinguistic backgrounds does not impede social cohesion and, as the study shows, each ethnic group has been labeled based on parents’ ethnicity (e,g., orang Bima [the Bima person], orang Sasak [the Sasak person], orang Samawa [the Samawa person], orang Bali [the Balinese person]) and based on linguistic behaviors (e.g., orang Kalembo Ade [the Bima person], orang Lasingan [the Sasak person], orang Aida [the Samawa person], and orang Beli or orang jegeg [the Balinese person] due to frequent use of the expressions in interactions. Religious denomination is less important for ethnic categories. This information has been added in the revised manuscript (p 15, paragraph 2).

-- line 430: "local migration": Does this refer to migration / relocation within the area (i.e. within Manggelewa), after an original in-migration happened? As a follow-up, is there a statistic on the share of people who made onward migration (either within Manggelewa or outside of this area)?

Our analysis of 2009 to 2022 local migration data indicates that 409 people (or 1.3% or 31480 population) have decided to relocate to Manggelewa from neighboring transmigration units and 68 of them migrated from within Manggelewa. This information has been added to the revised manuscript. .

-- lines 443-475: Do the percentages refer to the share of people who ranked a specific factor as first?

The percentages are based on the ranks made by respondents and points or scores based on those ranks. Each rank in the 12 pushing factors is assigned a point/score: rank 1 is assigned 12 points and son on until rank 12 which is assigned 1 point. Each rank in the 19 pulling factors is also assigned a score: rank 1 is assigned 19 points and son on until rank 19 which is assigned 1 point. Multiplying the points with the number of respondents in each rank, we identified the point for each factor. Dividing each point with the sum of all points and multiplying them with 100%, we identified the percentage of contribution of each factor to the decision to make the relocation migrations.

We tried using the frequency of rank 1, but the results failed to represent the complexity of the dimensions. Besides, there are factors considered as number 2, 3, or even 7, in the ranking (for example, interethnic solidarity within Manggelewa society, better farming, better product sales, or better transport), the accumulating of the contribution to the relocation migration increases when all the rankings are taken into account. This calculation procedure has been added to the revised manuscript.

-- line 445-446: "these dimensions of economic failures contribute around 45% to relocation decision" -- How is this estimated? Is it the number of people who rank any one of these factors as first?

The percentage is calculated by summing up all percentages of all factors related to the dimension. For example, contribution of economic issues is 45.29% which is the sum of economic failure (12.45%), farming failure (11.94%), trading failure (11.94%), and lack of farming skill (8.96%). The same procedure was applied to other dimensions in the pulling and pushing factors. This information has also been added to the revised manuscript

-- Table 2: why are scores for pull factors higher than push factors? Is it only because there are more possible pull factors to select from? Or did more people select the same pull factors? Note that 70*19 = 1330, so it is unclear how "Business Opportunities" can have a score of 1828. Looking at the data table in the included SI makes things further confusing; specifically, I believe that there might be an error in how the points for the first-ranked items were calculated. Please double-check this and clarify the results. Also, since there are different numbers of possible factors, it might be easier for the reader of the scores in Table 2 were normalized (e.g. relative to the maximum score attainable for each factor).

Thank you very much for this suggestion. We re-checked the calculation and there was a mistake in the calculation. The frequency of rank number 1 in the 19 pulling factors should have been assigned 19 points but it was assigned with 119. These mistakes have been corrected and the order of the contributing factors have been changed and taken into consideration in the revised version of the manuscript. The percentages of contribution have as well been corrected.

-- Please mention the total number of respondents for the surveys in the main text as well (Table 2 and Fig. 7).

The number of respondents (70 = seventy) have been mentioned in the revised version (p 11 paragraph 2 and p 16 paragraph 1) and these respondents were proportionally recruited from relocation migrants based on ethnicity and place of domicile. These are the characteristics of the respondents: Bima 27, Sasak 13, Bali 9, Samawa 5, Others (Bugis 4, Jawa 4, Flores 4, miscellaneous 4).

-- Fig. 7 / lines 597-601: importance of "common historical background" -- I find this quite interesting and would consider that potentially the people do not think that it is important because they do not have a common historical background (at least among ethnicities and communities); this can be an example how personal experiences shape what factors are considered important in this context.

The need to examine the contribution of this factor as well as others requires follow-up studies in the Manggelewa context with more comprehensive theoretical and analytical perspectives. As the article discusses symbolic form of social sustainability, further studies on the socio-economic form of social sustainability has also been suggested for future follow-up works..

Submission Date

07 December 2022

Date of this review

23 Jan 2023 15:23:42

Bottom of Form

Reviewer 3 Report

You have engaged well with my previous comments and I think the manuscript is much stronger

Author Response

Journal

Sustainability (ISSN 2071-1050)

Manuscript ID

sustainability-2116426

Type

Article

Title

Human Mobility, Linguistic Diversity and Social Sustainability in Rural Areas: Insights from Indonesian Trans-migrant Communities

Authors

Kamaludin Yusra * , And Yuni Budi Lestari

Topic

Diversity Competence and Social Inequalities

Abstract

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Author's Reply to the Review Report (Reviewer 3)

^* Author's Notes to Reviewer

FileEditViewInsertFormatToolsTableHelp

Paragraph

0 WORDS

Word / PDF

Bottom of Form

Top of Form

Review Report Form

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	(x)	( )	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

You have engaged well with my previous comments and I think the manuscript is much stronger

Submission Date

07 December 2022

Date of this review

13 Jan 2023 01:19:31

Article Menu

Human Mobility, Sociolinguistic Diversity, and Social Sustainability in Rural Areas: Insights from Indonesian Transmigrant Communities

Further Information

Guidelines

MDPI Initiatives

Follow MDPI