Niche Sustainable Agricultural Production in Colombia: The Case of Territorial Development Agendas and Development Planning in the Province of García Rovira

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript lacks a solid methodological foundation and sample representativeness. The methods used in this paper are rudimentary and fail to properly support research findings.  The repetition of certain words ("highlight", for example) raises doubts over the meaning in some fragments. The poor academic soundness is another weakness of this paper. I suggest the authors completely revise this manuscript before resubmitting. 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Extensive editing of English language required

Author Response

The manuscript lacks a solid methodological foundation and sample representativeness. The methods used in this paper are rudimentary and fail to properly support research findings.  The repetition of certain words ("highlight", for example) raises doubts over the meaning in some fragments. The poor academic soundness is another weakness of this paper. I suggest the authors completely revise this manuscript before resubmitting. 

 

Answer

Methodological clarification is provided in lines 258-272. Additionally, the repetition of specific terms like 'highlights' is addressed. Furthermore, this is complemented by a literature review aimed at enhancing the academic rigor of the study, with improvements made to the English writing.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Throughout the paper, the authors introduce the concept of the "planning regime"; however, its meaning is not clearly defined. It is necessary to specify whether it refers to a specific policy or a set of policies that have promoted local transformation, impacting environmental, productive, and social levels. This must be supported by empirical data.

It is also essential to include additional information about the scale of niche production systems at local, regional, and national levels. To fully understand the dynamics of niche crops compared to traditional crops, it is necessary to introduce additional categories such as productivity, harvest value, employment, and others.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate editing of English language required

Author Response

Throughout the paper, the authors introduce the concept of the "planning regime"; however, its meaning is not clearly defined. It is necessary to specify whether it refers to a specific policy or a set of policies that have promoted local transformation, impacting environmental, productive, and social levels. This must be supported by empirical data.

It is also essential to include additional information about the scale of niche production systems at local, regional, and national levels. To fully understand the dynamics of niche crops compared to traditional crops, it is necessary to introduce additional categories such as productivity, harvest value, employment, and others.

 

Answers

In lines 96 - 11 the concept of planning regime supported by Colombian regulations is clarified. Additionally, in line 397-404additional information on production and productivity at the regional and national levels is added. Other variables such as employment and crop value are not available at the provincial level, and therefore, are not included in the regional and national context and the writing in English has been improved

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the sustainable agricultural production niche in the department of García Rovira, Colombia, and explores the implications of regional development planning. The study is well designed, methodologically rigorous, and comprehensively analyzed.While your paper explores an interesting topic, it still has some problems. We have identified several key issues that need to be addressed:

 

 

1.The article mentions attempts at regional planning and sustainable development in the introductory section, but it seems to lack a more in-depth critical analysis of the existing literature, especially with regard to specific case studies in Colombia or similar developing regions. It is suggested that the authors should expand the literature review section to discuss in more detail the shortcomings of existing research and to clarify how this study fills these gaps.

 

2.The article mentions the use of mixed methods, but does not elaborate on how the quantitative and qualitative data were integrated and how this integration enhanced the credibility of the findings. It is suggested that the authors need to more clearly describe the specific steps of data collection and analysis, including the design and implementation of mixed methods, and how the reliability and validity of the findings were ensured.

 

Author Response

This article provides an in-depth analysis of the sustainable agricultural production niche in the department of García Rovira, Colombia, and explores the implications of regional development planning. The study is well designed, methodologically rigorous, and comprehensively analyzed.While your paper explores an interesting topic, it still has some problems. We have identified several key issues that need to be addressed:

 

1.The article mentions attempts at regional planning and sustainable development in the introductory section, but it seems to lack a more in-depth critical analysis of the existing literature, especially with regard to specific case studies in Colombia or similar developing regions. It is suggested that the authors should expand the literature review section to discuss in more detail the shortcomings of existing research and to clarify how this study fills these gaps.

 

2.The article mentions the use of mixed methods, but does not elaborate on how the quantitative and qualitative data were integrated and how this integration enhanced the credibility of the findings. It is suggested that the authors need to more clearly describe the specific steps of data collection and analysis, including the design and implementation of mixed methods, and how the reliability and validity of the findings were ensured.

 

 

Answers

1

 

Starting from line 224, the analysis of the existing literature regarding the Colombian case is expanded, and the gaps that this study addresses in approaching this literature are clarified.

 

2

Starting from line 265, both the integration of qualitative methods with quantitative ones and the steps for data collection are clarified.

 

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The objective of the manuscript is to “understand the influence of the planning regime on the agendas that seek territorial development in the province, as well as the capacity of these agendas to generate sustainable production niches and to determine the factors that foster their transition” (Lines 126-129). “Understand” may not be the best verb choice for the objective, as it is not clear how the research will reach this understanding.

Lines 41-42: “regional planning has focused one of its approaches”: Planning is a process, not an actor that can decided to focus on some specific way of grouping municipalities. Moreover, this idea of grouping municipalities seems to be out of topic here.

Line 45: Language needs to be more direct and to the point: “The previous view continues to try to integrate…”

Lines 47-48: This is too metaphoric: “In this sense, the sustainable development perspective emerges as an answer”

Lines 50-51: This is also too metaphoric: “transitions to sustainability are a framework of interpretation that seeks”

Line 56: “always” is too categorical, because just one counterexample falsifies the sentence.

Line 60: This is an obvious truth: “This implies changes”. Of course, because “this” here refers to “transitions”.

Lines 61-63: This needs to be clearer and to the point: “planning is about changes, and this is a meeting point with transitions to sustainability, where changes in niches, regimes, and landscapes are 62 analysed.”

Line 75: The planning regime for what administrative unit?

Line 77: The administrative division in Colombia, including departments and provinces, has not been made sufficiently clear.

Lines 87-88: This doesn´t make sense: “insists on declining traditional production”. Insists on reducing?

Line 103: this idea is repeated from Line 61.

Line 107: This doesn´t make sense: “at this level are the local actors”

Line 118: it is not clear if you are writing here theoretically or about Colombia.

Line 119: What debate?

Line 122: What tools are you referring to?

 Line 126: The gap in the research has not been made sufficiently clear.

Lines 131-136: This should be moved to the methodology section.

Line 215: Is this objective repeated from Line 126?

Lines 219-224: Repeated from end of introduction.

Line 227: Once you do the research, it is no longer a “proposal”.

Line 258: Is this method a survey?

Line 274: How was the data processed for the analysis?

Line 292: Mentions from whom?

Line 293: What two concepts?

Line 295: What is a “sectoral perspective”?

Lines 295-296: Please include these references in the reference list at the end of the manuscript.

Line 297: What national agendas?

Line 303: What above concepts?

Lines 306-308: Why are there three colons (“:”) in sequential order?

Line 308: What is “Capitanejo”? Is this some kind of example?

Line 313: The target of what?

Line 320: As we saw above where?

Figure 1: What is the unit of measurement for production? Both axes (X and Y) need axis titles. If you only have three data points, these should be clearly marked in the X axis.

Figure 2: The method to obtain these numbers has not been made sufficiently clear.

Table 1 is unclear in general. Does it have two titles? The second column is missing a title. “Agenda de territorial” is unclear.

Lines 452-460: The relationship between niche and landscape has not been made sufficiently clear.

 Line 467: Where does this quote begin?

Line 489: Table 2?

Line 498: Unclear: “from by”

Discussion: It should compare the results of your research to those of previous studies. In its current form, it has zero citations, so it is not a discussion.

Conclusions: should be a summary of results. It should not add new information about the case study. Please add recommendations for policymakers and future research.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript needs professional English editing.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.

The objective of the manuscript is to “understand the influence of the planning regime on the agendas that seek territorial development in the province, as well as the capacity of these agendas to generate sustainable production niches and to determine the factors that foster their transition” (Lines 126-129). “Understand” may not be the best verb choice for the objective, as it is not clear how the research will reach this understanding.

Lines 41-42: “regional planning has focused one of its approaches”: Planning is a process, not an actor that can decided to focus on some specific way of grouping municipalities. Moreover, this idea of grouping municipalities seems to be out of topic here.

Line 45: Language needs to be more direct and to the point: “The previous view continues to try to integrate…”

Lines 47-48: This is too metaphoric: “In this sense, the sustainable development perspective emerges as an answer”

Lines 50-51: This is also too metaphoric: “transitions to sustainability are a framework of interpretation that seeks”

Line 56: “always” is too categorical, because just one counterexample falsifies the sentence.

Line 60: This is an obvious truth: “This implies changes”. Of course, because “this” here refers to “transitions”.

Lines 61-63: This needs to be clearer and to the point: “planning is about changes, and this is a meeting point with transitions to sustainability, where changes in niches, regimes, and landscapes are 62 analysed.”

Line 75: The planning regime for what administrative unit?

Line 77: The administrative division in Colombia, including departments and provinces, has not been made sufficiently clear.

Lines 87-88: This doesn´t make sense: “insists on declining traditional production”. Insists on reducing?

Line 103: this idea is repeated from Line 61.

Line 107: This doesn´t make sense: “at this level are the local actors”

Line 118: it is not clear if you are writing here theoretically or about Colombia.

Line 119: What debate?

Line 122: What tools are you referring to?

 Line 126: The gap in the research has not been made sufficiently clear.

Lines 131-136: This should be moved to the methodology section.

Line 215: Is this objective repeated from Line 126?

Lines 219-224: Repeated from end of introduction.

Line 227: Once you do the research, it is no longer a “proposal”.

Line 258: Is this method a survey?

Line 274: How was the data processed for the analysis?

Line 292: Mentions from whom?

Line 293: What two concepts?

Line 295: What is a “sectoral perspective”?

Lines 295-296: Please include these references in the reference list at the end of the manuscript.

Line 297: What national agendas?

Line 303: What above concepts?

Lines 306-308: Why are there three colons (“:”) in sequential order?

Line 308: What is “Capitanejo”? Is this some kind of example?

Line 313: The target of what?

Line 320: As we saw above where?

Figure 1: What is the unit of measurement for production? Both axes (X and Y) need axis titles. If you only have three data points, these should be clearly marked in the X axis.

Figure 2: The method to obtain these numbers has not been made sufficiently clear.

Table 1 is unclear in general. Does it have two titles? The second column is missing a title. “Agenda de territorial” is unclear.

Lines 452-460: The relationship between niche and landscape has not been made sufficiently clear.

 Line 467: Where does this quote begin?

Line 489: Table 2?

Line 498: Unclear: “from by”

Discussion: It should compare the results of your research to those of previous studies. In its current form, it has zero citations, so it is not a discussion.

Conclusions: should be a summary of results. It should not add new information about the case study. Please add recommendations for policymakers and future research.

 

 

 

Answers

 

• Understand (lines 126-129) was changed, the change is now on lines 143-146
• In lines 41-42, a conceptual adjustment is made according to the suggestions.
• In line 45, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided.
• In lines 47-48, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided.
• In lines 50-51, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided.
• In line 56, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on line 54
• In line 60, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on line 58
• In lines 61-63, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on lines 57-60.
• In line 75, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on line 71
• In line 77, the administrative division of Colombia is clarified.
• The meaning of lines 77 and 78 is changed; it is now reflected in lines 89-91.
• The repeated idea is removed in line 103
• The idea from line 107 is removed.
• With regard to the question from line 119: The debate is clarified in lines 134-136
• In lines 137-138, the tools mentioned in line 122 are clarified
• Additional information is provided in lines 95-111 to clarify the point raised in line 126
• The information from lines 131-136 was moved to the methodology.
• Lines 219-224 are deleted
• In the line 227, the word 'proposal' is changed; it is now reflected in line 251
• Regarding the question from line 258, the answer is that yes, it is a survey."
• In lines 259 to 276, it is clarified how the data was processed.
• Regarding the question from line 292, the initiatives are related to the development plan of the Santander department
• Regarding the question from line 293, the two concepts are productive aspects and environmental aspects
• Regarding the question from line 295: The sectoral perspective refers only to the rural dimension of production as outlined in the Santander development plan. This dimension does not take into account the connection between productive and environmental aspects.
• The references (lines 295-296) are included in lines 847-849.
• In line 297: they are the national agendas of productivity, competitiveness, and SDGs.
• In line 303: they are the concepts related to productivity, competitiveness, and SDGs
• In lines 306-308: the points are in the same order as the development plan of the municipalities of Santander
• In line 308: Capitanejo is a municipality in the Garcia Rovira province.
• In line 320: it refers to the citation in the Santander development plan.
• Figure 1: units of measurement are added on both axes
• In lines 306-309 the method to obtain the data in Figure 2 is described.
• Table 1: The title is adjusted, the title of the second column is added, and the territorial agenda is corrected.
• In lines 505-508, the relationship between niche and landscape is clarified.
• In line 467: the citation is now in lines 513-516
• Table 2: the citation is corrected to Table 2, previously it was referred to as Table 1.
• Table 2: the Source of said table is adjusted.
• Discussion: The discussion contrasts the literature on regional planning and sustainability and discovered the importance of using analytical frameworks that transcend sustainable development with the results of the case.
• Conclusion: recommendations are added in lines 767-773.

 

 

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript still does not meet the academic standards for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The manuscript still does not meet the academic standards for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Author Response

 

A new version of the document is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have not adequately addressed the reviewer´s comments, as detailed in the attached document.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Moderate English editing will be necessary for style. The suggestions made by this reviewer are aimed at clarity, so if these are addressed, an English editor should be able to solve stylistic issues.

Author Response

 

Initial reviewer comment	Author response	Reviewer comment in second review	Answers
The objective of the manuscript is to “understand the influence of the planning regime on the agendas that seek territorial development in the province, as well as the capacity of these agendas to generate sustainable production niches and to determine the factors that foster their transition” (Lines 126-129). “Understand” may not be the best verb choice for the objective, as it is not clear how the research will reach this understanding.	Understand (lines 126-129) was changed, the change is now on lines 143-146	Now it is even more confusing because “understand” was changed to “explore” on Line 22 and to “analyze” on Line 155. The manuscript needs a single objective that can be fulfilled within the limits of the manuscript. The methodology presented is more appropriate for an exploration than a proper analysis.	In line 155 analyze was changed to explore
Lines 41-42: “regional planning has focused one of its approaches”: Planning is a process, not an actor that can decided to focus on some specific way of grouping municipalities. Moreover, this idea of grouping municipalities seems to be out of topic here.	In lines 41-42, a conceptual adjustment is made according to the suggestions.	Solved
Line 45: Language needs to be more direct and to the point: “The previous view continues to try to integrate…”	In line 45, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided.	Solved
Lines 47-48: This is too metaphoric: “In this sense, the sustainable development perspective emerges as an answer”	In lines 47-48, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided.	Solved
Lines 50-51: This is also too metaphoric: “transitions to sustainability are a framework of interpretation that seeks”	In lines 50-51, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided.	It is still confusing: “transitions to sustainability are an interpretative framework…”	Transitions towards sustainability are a framework of analysis which is evidenced in the methodology through the identification of a sustainable production niche.
Line 56: “always” is too categorical, because just one counterexample falsifies the sentence.	In line 56, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on line 54	Solved
Line 60: This is an obvious truth: “This implies changes”. Of course, because “this” here refers to “transitions”.	In line 60, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on line 58	Solved
Lines 61-63: This needs to be clearer and to the point: “planning is about changes, and this is a meeting point with transitions to sustainability, where changes in niches, regimes, and landscapes are 62 analysed.”	In lines 61-63, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on lines 57-60.	Now it reads “planning focuses on changes”. This is questionable, because this may be desirable but not always achieved.	At this point, planning focuses on changes because it is related to transitions.
Line 75: The planning regime for what administrative unit?	In line 75, a language adjustment is made based on the suggestions provided the change is now on line 71	Solved
Line 77: The administrative division in Colombia, including departments and provinces, has not been made sufficiently clear.	In line 77, the administrative division of Colombia is clarified.	Solved
Lines 87-88: This doesn´t make sense: “insists on declining traditional production”. Insists on reducing?	The meaning of lines 77 and 78 is changed; it is now reflected in lines 89-91.	Solved
Line 103: this idea is repeated from Line 61.	The repeated idea is removed in line 103	Solved
Line 107: This doesn´t make sense: “at this level are the local actors”	The idea from line 107 is removed.	Solved
Line 118: it is not clear if you are writing here theoretically or about Colombia.	With regard to the question from line 119: The debate is clarified in lines 134-136	Solved
Line 119: What debate?	In lines 137-138, the tools mentioned in line 122 are clarified	Solved
Line 122: What tools are you referring to?	Additional information is provided in lines 95-111 to clarify the point raised in line 126	Solved
Line 126: The gap in the research has not been made sufficiently clear.		The comment was ignored by the authors. The problem subsists: The gap in the research has not been made sufficiently clear.	Additional information is provided in lines 95-111 to clarify the point raised in line 126 Additionally, In the literature on sustainability transitions, several gaps have been identified. These include a tendency towards generalization, a lack of practical implementation, and a lack of consensus on the definitions of the concepts of niche, regime, and landscape.   This article specifically addresses the gap in clarity regarding the concept of niche within the sustainability transitions framework. Our research contributes by exploring a case study that delves into a niche, providing a detailed analysis to enhance understanding. This is also reflected in the methodology.   Additionally, the literature review examines the relationship between planning, multi-level perspective, and agency, further complementing the identified gap in the literature
Lines 131-136: This should be moved to the methodology section.	The information from lines 131-136 was moved to the methodology.	Solved
Line 215: Is this objective repeated from Line 126?		Comments was ignored. There is still repeated text. Line 154: “Consequently, with all of the above, the aim of this paper is to analyze the influence of the planning regime on the agendas that seek territorial development in the province, as well as the capacity of these agendas to generate sustainable production niches and to determine the factors that foster their transition.” Line 264: “the aim of this paper is to analyze the influence of planning on agendas that seek territorial development in the province, as well as the capacity of these agendas to generate sustainable production niches and determine the factors that foster their transition”	The aim of line 264 is eliminated.
Lines 219-224: Repeated from end of introduction.	Lines 219-224 are deleted	Solved
Line 227: Once you do the research, it is no longer a “proposal”.	In the line 227, the word 'proposal' is changed; it is now reflected in line 251	Solved
Line 258: Is this method a survey?	Regarding the question from line 258, the answer is that yes, it is a survey."	If yes, this needs to be clarified in the text.	In line 307 it is clarified that this was done through a survey.
Line 274: How was the data processed for the analysis?	In lines 259 to 276, it is clarified how the data was processed.	No, it has not been clarified. You are confusing data gathering with data analysis.	In line 308 it is mentioned how the data was processed.
Line 292: Mentions from whom?	Regarding the question from line 292, the initiatives are related to the development plan of the Santander department	Then this needs to be clarified in the text.	In lines 330-335 the wording is modified as follows
Line 293: What two concepts?	Regarding the question from line 293, the two concepts are productive aspects and environmental aspects	Then this needs to be clarified in the text.	It is clarified in lines 334 and 335.
Line 295: What is a “sectoral perspective”?	Regarding the question from line 295: The sectoral perspective refers only to the rural dimension of production as outlined in the Santander development plan. This dimension does not take into account the connection between productive and environmental aspects.	Then this needs to be clarified in the text.	It is clarified in lines 338 and 340.
Lines 295-296: Please include these references in the reference list at the end of the manuscript.	The references (lines 295-296) are included in lines 847-849.	I don´t fin them. Please use proper citations for these references.	Was included in the references section
Line 297: What national agendas?	In line 297: they are the national agendas of productivity, competitiveness, and SDGs.	Then this needs to be clarified in the text.	It is clarified in line 342
Line 303: What above concepts?	In line 303: they are the concepts related to productivity, competitiveness, and SDGs	Then this needs to be clarified in the text.	It is clarified in line 348-349
Lines 306-308: Why are there three colons (“:”) in sequential order?	In lines 306-308: the points are in the same order as the development plan of the municipalities of Santander	If this is so, then it needs to be clearer in the text, following standard grammatical rules.	This is in accordance with APA standards.
Line 308: What is “Capitanejo”? Is this some kind of example?	In line 308: Capitanejo is a municipality in the Garcia Rovira province.	It needs to be clarified that you are using Capitanejo as an example.	It is clarified in line 356-358
Line 313: The target of what?	In line 320: it refers to the citation in the Santander development plan.	There is no citation there. It is still unclear.	It is clarified in line 361
Line 320: As we saw above where?		The comment was ignored by the authors and the problem subsists.	It is clarified in line 368-369
Figure 1: What is the unit of measurement for production? Both axes (X and Y) need axis titles. If you only have three data points, these should be clearly marked in the X axis.	Figure 1: units of measurement are added on both axes	Solved
Figure 2: The method to obtain these numbers has not been made sufficiently clear.	In lines 306-309 the method to obtain the data in Figure 2 is described.	The method to obtain the data has not been made sufficiently clear. Please clarify.	In lines 302-306 the method to obtain the data in Figure 2 is described.
Table 1 is unclear in general. Does it have two titles? The second column is missing a title. “Agenda de territorial” is unclear.	Table 1: The title is adjusted, the title of the second column is added, and the territorial agenda is corrected.	The title was expanded, but it still does not adequately reflect the content of the table. The other issues were solved.	Table 1 Title Has Been Changed
Lines 452-460: The relationship between niche and landscape has not been made sufficiently clear.	In lines 505-508, the relationship between niche and landscape is clarified.	Solved
Line 467: Where does this quote begin?	In line 467: the citation is now in lines 513-516	Solved
Line 489: Table 2?	Table 2: the citation is corrected to Table 2, previously it was referred to as Table 1.	Solved
Line 498: Unclear: “from by”	Table 2: the Source of said table is adjusted.	Solved
Discussion: It should compare the results of your research to those of previous studies. In its current form, it has zero citations, so it is not a discussion.	Discussion: The discussion contrasts the literature on regional planning and sustainability and discovered the importance of using analytical frameworks that transcend sustainable development with the results of the case.	The discussion only has one reference, so it cannot be contrasting the literature with the results of the case.	In the following lines, the case is contrasted with the literature:   Lines 644-652: the case with the multi-level perspective. Lines 653-659: niche theory with the case. Lines 669-676: planning with the case. Lines 685-693: agency with the case.
Conclusions: should be a summary of results. It should not add new information about the case study. Please add recommendations for policymakers and future research.	Conclusion: recommendations are added in lines 767-773.	The recommendations were added, but the conclusions are not a summary of the results and do not fulfill the research objective. New information was added that has not been included in the results.	In lines 766-777, it is clarified how the research fulfilled the objective.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the manuscript does not meet the standards for publication in the Sustainability journal.

Author Response

A new version of the document is attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors state that “Additional information is provided in lines 95-111 to clarify the point raised in line 126”. No additional information was provided as stated, but given the change in the objective on Line 113, it will not be necessary.

Line 241: Can you briefly explain what the Atlas ti program does and provide a reference?

Line 255: “(Santander Development Plan, 2020; and development plans for the province, 2020).” These documents need to be added to the references list, in a way that can be found from the information in the citation. It think the Santander plan is in Spanish in the reference list (see Line 708).

Line 277: I cannot find the APA standard that you are referring to for colon use. May I recommend this one: “If you use colons in your writing, use them sparingly, and never use a colon more than once in any sentence.” https://aso-resources.une.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WC_Punctuating-with-semicolons-and-colons1.pdf

Line 281: You should mention that it is an example before, not after, the example given.

Line 291: This document needs to be added to the references list, in a way that can be found from the information in the citation. It think the Santander plan is in Spanish in the reference list (see Line 708).

The authors state that “In lines 302-306 the method to obtain the data in Figure 2 is described.”, but it is not. My original observations is still relevant: “Figure 2: The method to obtain these numbers has not been made sufficiently clear.”

Table 1: May I recommend that if “you use colons in your writing, use them sparingly, and never use a colon more than once in any sentence.” https://aso-resources.une.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WC_Punctuating-with-semicolons-and-colons1.pdf

The authors state that “In the following lines, the case is contrasted with the literature: Lines 644-652: the case with the multi-level perspective. Lines 653-659: niche theory with the case. Lines 669-676: planning with the case. Lines 685-693: agency with the case.” My observation remains true: “The discussion only has one reference, so it cannot be contrasting the literature with the results of the case.” You have to cite references for it to be a discussion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor English editing is recommended.

Author Response

Comments

The authors state that “Additional information is provided in lines 95-111 to clarify the point raised in line 126”. No additional information was provided as stated, but given the change in the objective on Line 113, it will not be necessary.

Answer

According to the reviewer, the change is no longer necessary.

Comments

Line 241: Can you briefly explain what the Atlas ti program does and provide a reference?

Answer

The Atlas Ti program helps to perform qualitative analysis. For example, with interviews it helps to process information.

Comments

Line 255: “(Santander Development Plan, 2020; and development plans for the province, 2020).” These documents need to be added to the references list, in a way that can be found from the information in the citation. It think the Santander plan is in Spanish in the reference list (see Line 708).

Answer

The reference list changes the Santander development plan from Spanish to English

In lines 866 to 905, references to the development plans were added

Comments

Line 277: I cannot find the APA standard that you are referring to for colon use. May I recommend this one: “If you use colons in your writing, use them sparingly, and never use a colon more than once in any sentence.” https://aso-resources.une.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WC_Punctuating-with-semicolons-and-colons1.pdf

Answer

The Colon are used to highlight what the interviewees have expressed.

Comments

Line 281: You should mention that it is an example before, not after, the example given.

Answer

The requested change is made and the mention of the example is placed before

 

 

Comments

Line 291: This document needs to be added to the references list, in a way that can be found from the information in the citation. It think the Santander plan is in Spanish in the reference list (see Line 708).

Answer

 

The reference list changes the Santander development plan from Spanish to English

All development plans mentioned have been added to the references

Comments

The authors state that “In lines 302-306 the method to obtain the data in Figure 2 is described.”, but it is not. My original observations is still relevant: “Figure 2: The method to obtain these numbers has not been made sufficiently clear.”

Answer

In lines 307-308 another detail is added on the elaboration of figure 2

Comments

Table 1: May I recommend that if “you use colons in your writing, use them sparingly, and never use a colon more than once in any sentence.” https://aso-resources.une.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/WC_Punctuating-with-semicolons-and-colons1.pdf

Answer

The adjustment suggested in table 1 is made

Comments

The authors state that “In the following lines, the case is contrasted with the literature: Lines 644-652: the case with the multi-level perspective. Lines 653-659: niche theory with the case. Lines 669-676: planning with the case. Lines 685-693: agency with the case.” My observation remains true: “The discussion only has one reference, so it cannot be contrasting the literature with the results of the case.” You have to cite references for it to be a discussion.

Answer

In the discussion, references were added in the following lines: 651, 658, 672, 686 and 689. These references are used to contrast the literature with the case.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf