Biodegradable Raffia as a Sustainable and Cost-Effective Alternative to Improve the Management of Agricultural Waste Biomass

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper addresses an interesting and relevant topic: bio-degradable inputs for a more circular agricultural production. Specifically, the authors describe the importance, advantages, and disadvantages of replacing non-bio-degradable Raffia, with bio-degradable Raffia in Almeria, Spain.

My main concerns are related to the research design and the scientific soundness of the manuscript. While the introduction stated the topic's relevance appropriately, the research question was neither explicitly nor implicitly mentioned. Hence, it is not clear what does the research is trying to uncover. 

On page 4 , lines 143 - 146 the authors state: 

"That is why the main goal of this study is to present a profitable and sustainable alternative to plastic raffia with bio-degradable raffia and/or compostable raffia, given the importance that trellising has in the province of Almeria. It's about highlighting the existence of an ecological alternativeto move towards a more circular and sustainable protected horticulture" 

The stated goal does not correspond to a scientific research objective because it does not pretend to create new information. The research does not propose any methodological contribution, neither theoretical, and it is not supported in any theoretical framework. 

Moreover, the method described in section 2. "Materials and Methods", is very general, and unscientific. It seems that the authors obtained their results from secondary and primary data. Hence, for secondary data validity and also for replicability, the authors need to perform a systematic literature review. I recommend following the methodological recommendations of Gough, D., Oliver, S., & Thomas, J. (Eds.). (2017). An introduction to systematic reviews. Sage. 

Concerning primary data, the authors do not mention the number or type of actors that they interviewed. It is not mentioned what information was intend to be obtained from the questionnaires, and these are not shared as supplementary materials (needed for replicability). Finally, the method used for data systemizing and analysis is not mentioned. It is essential to explain how data was processed and how it informs the results. 

With respect to the economic assessment (2.2), it seems that it could be merged with section 3.9 (economic evaluation). Claims from both sections are in the same direction (bio-degradable raffia may be more profitable than non-bio-degradable raffia for some types of crops). I find, however, that the economic analysis is somehow simplistic. It is stated on page 5, lines 169 - 171:

"Nevertheless, farmers often indicate that the annual cost of bio-degradable raffia entails an additional expenditure that negatively 170 impacts their financial statement." But not further information about the additional costs is mentioned in this analysis. Later, in section 3.8, the authors show in figure 4. factors that may explain why farmers prefer non-bio-degradable raffia. In it, low availability, low resistance, and quality problems are mentioned. I think that these are some relevant considerations that need to be taken into account for the economic analysis. Farmers may save expenses in waste management with B raffia. However, they may face extra costs for replacing defective B raffia, which may reduce their productivity and hence their profits. 

Finally, some minor issues: 

-Abstract, lines [30-32] - Unclear sentence. 

- Page 7 , lines [239 - 240] - photos 1,2, and 3 (photo 4 is not referenced). 

- Pages 7 and 8 be careful with proper figures formats.

- Page 9, line 287, is it 2256 or 2756 tons of raffia? It does not match with table 1 numbers. 

- Page 13, lines [475-477], If there are several investigations, why do you only mention 2 in table 2?

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is well-reviewed and provides comprehensive information on the subject.

However, it would benefit from revisiting the style and language. Another round of edits would make the text tighter and easier to read. 

E.g. In paragraph starting line 62, out of six sentences, four started with the word "this". 

Some sentences throughout the manuscript are very long, which makes it difficult to read. 

Figure 1. is a bit text-heavy (also arrows cover the text)

On page 7 and 8 photos lack title and description.

Figure 2 is a bit confusing and lacks flow.

Table 2. in the text you say there are multiple examples of studies, yet in the table, only two studies are presented.

Figure 4. Revisit the table and shorten the text to make it less descriptive and more bullet-point like

Line 516 most recent data is from 2018 do you have any from 2019? 

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Abstract: Please shorten the Abstract to fit the word count limit (200 words). Please find the instructions for authors on this page: https://www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy/instructions

The Abstract provides information that does not feel really important (such as the number of crops using raffia), but there may be some information that is important, but is not yet included in the Abstract. Please reconsider the content of the Abstract.

Keywords: Their number is sufficient, but as there are up to 10 keywords are allowed, I suggest adding ‘horticulture’, ‘trellis’ and ‘raffia alternatives’ OR ‘alternatives to raffia’, and have ‘sustainable agriculture’ OR ‘sustainable horticulture’ instead of ‘sustainable development’.

Introduction: The Introduction contains the necessary background information, so that the reader understands the importance of recyclable materials and the concept of circular economy. The aims of the study are well-defined.

Materials and Methods: Easy to follow.

There is certain background information in subsection 2.2 (in lines 167-173), where a hypothesis is described, and I think that should be in the Introduction section. There are results in this section. They should go to the Results.

I am unsure about the location of two paragraphs starting in line 187. The information here is rather a background information that should go to Introduction or results and therefore should go to Results.

I did not find any reference to the Software used. Was it anything special, as it is mentioned in the Authors’ Contribution section?

Results: Clear and thorough presentation, but again, I was surprised to see such a valuable compilation of background data in the Results section. I think the information in 3.1, and perhaps 3.2, too, may go to the Introduction. Please explain why such a basic introductory material is located here, and not in the Introduction. I am willing to accept your explanation, but now I am a bit confused. The same happens in paragraph starting in line 297.

A very informative Figure 2.

Table 2 may look better if aligned horizontally, or if written out as a text, as there are only two references. I don’t see the justification of creating a table for such a small section of information. The line at the bottom (line 480) claiming the source is not needed. This table contains information you compiled. It is your own work, so there is no need to indicate that. The same goes to line 493.

Table 3 makes sense and is justified.

Header to Figure 4 (line 505) needs some improvement. The wording ‘Source: Own elaboration, from opinions of key players and supporting documents [47,66,101]’ is strange. Citing these references would have been prefect, there is no need to emphasize that it is your own work. The same goes to header to Figure 5, line 535; and also Table 4, line 544.

Conclusions: I do not see why organic fertilizers are mentioned in line 567. Other than that, a sound compilation of conclusions with reasonable suggestions towards policymakers, one may only hope they read this paper once it gets published.

References: #52 capitalize author’s name.

Author Response

Please, see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf