The Roots of Resilience: Strengthening Agricultural Sustainability in Tengger, Indonesia Through Social Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reviewing the manuscript, I am pleased to note that the authors concluded that social capital, encompassing bonding, bridging, and linking dimensions, plays a critical role in sustaining agriculture in the Tengger community. Bonding social capital supports ecological knowledge transfer and resource management, and bridging fosters intergroup collaboration and economic opportunities, while linking enables access to external resources and institutional support. They emphasize that understanding these dynamics is essential for designing effective interventions and policies to enhance resilience and sustainability in mountain farming communities. The study calls for comparative research and mixed-methods approaches to deepen and generalize these insights.

After revision, the paper is suitable for publication. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find below a revision of your feedback on my article.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript, titled "The Roots of Resilience: Strengthening Agricultural Sustainability in Tengger, Indonesia through Social Capital," is an insightful exploration of the interplay between social capital and sustainable agricultural practices. Below are detailed suggestions for improving the manuscript:

General Comments:

1. Conceptual Rigor: The framework of bonding, bridging, and linking social capital is well-defined. However, more critical engagement with the nuances of these concepts in the context of mountain communities is encouraged (e.g., lines 45–77). Adding recent literature beyond Asia would strengthen the global relevance.
2. Clarity of Objectives: While the research questions are clear, they could be better emphasized in the introduction (lines 118–122). Consider rephrasing the objectives to focus on the practical implications of your findings for sustainable agriculture.
3. Depth in Results Discussion: The results section (lines 246–458) is comprehensive but could delve deeper into the causal mechanisms linking social capital types to sustainability outcomes.

Specific Comments:

1. Abstract (lines 11–23): The abstract is concise but lacks quantitative details. Adding numerical highlights from your findings (e.g., percentages or frequencies) will make the abstract more impactful.
2. Methods (lines 219–244):
• Clarify the rationale behind selecting the snowball sampling technique and how it mitigated potential selection bias.
• The use of NVivo software for coding (line 241-242) is commendable; however, further explanation of the coding framework will enhance reproducibility.
3. Results (lines 246–458):
• Tables 1–5 are useful but require more analytical narratives to connect the data to the research questions. For instance, highlight how specific bridging social capital activities impact ecological outcomes.
• Some sections (e.g., Table 3 linking characteristics, lines 338–339) could benefit from expanded interpretation of the implications.
4. Figures and Tables:
• Figure 1 (lines 354–355): Ensure all elements are clearly labeled for accessibility. A brief legend describing the sunburst graph would improve interpretability.
5. Discussion (lines 485–552):
• This section does a good job synthesizing findings but could improve integration with broader sustainability and social capital theories.
• Address the limitations of the study more critically, particularly regarding the reliance on qualitative methods (lines 532–537).

Recommendations

• Consider a tighter link between findings and actionable policy recommendations. For example, what specific interventions could policymakers prioritize to bolster linking social capital?

 

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

• Minor grammatical errors need attention (e.g., "homogenious" in Table 1; should be "homogeneous").
• Some sentences are overly complex. Simplify for clarity, especially for non-native English-speaking readers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find below a revision of your feedback on my article.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript entitled The Roots of Resilience: Strengthening Agricultural Sustainability in Tengger, Indonesia through Social Capital is an important work, first and foremost for the Indonesian population, but also beyond. The authors provide a good overview and address the topic in a unique way. This manuscript is recommended for publication, but after a few minor corrections:

1. The abstract is not sufficiently informative and representative of the topic being addressed. It would be good to briefly state the background of the topic and the main problem, the purpose of the research and the main solutions / recommendations that are highlighted in the text.

2. In the second title, Literature Review, a larger number of relevant references should be cited. This will increase the total number of references in the entire paper, which is very important for this type of paper.

3. In the results part, the word percentage should be replaced with the symbol % everywhere.

4. In the discussion part, there is not a sufficient number of appropriate references that would support / compare with the research in this paper.

5. Future recommendations should be added at the end of the text.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please find below a revision of your feedback on my article.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx