Next Article in Journal
Variations of Soil Physico-Chemical and Biological Features after Logging Using Two Different Ground-Based Extraction Methods in a Beech High Forest—A Case Study
Previous Article in Journal
Quantitative Identification of Rural Functions Based on Big Data: A Case Study of Dujiangyan Irrigation District in Chengdu
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Artisanal Products and Land-Use Land-Cover Change in Indigenous Communities: The Case of Mezcal Production in Oaxaca, Mexico

by María G. Lira 1,*, Iain J. Davidson-Hunt 1 and James P. Robson 2
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Reviewer 4: Anonymous
Submission received: 2 February 2022 / Revised: 24 February 2022 / Accepted: 28 February 2022 / Published: 5 March 2022

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is one of the best papers I have ever read about the externalities on Land Use and Land Cover (LULC) of the artisanal food systems. I liked very much the critical and empathic analysis about the sustainability of traditional food. Also, I enjoyed reading the way mixed methods are used and the form in which the community was involved in the participatory analysis of LULC and the changes of the Tropical Dry Forest (FDT).

However, the conclusions can be improved in regard to the role of the weakness of common institutions as a mediators between local producer and external markets due to the dynamics of national and international consumers.

The authors say that there is a need to "...encourage certification systems to incorporate Indigenous perspectives for artisanal products...or even consider new types of certifications" (rows 526-528). The question is what kind of certification do they have in mind? A participatory one? A third-party certification? I am aware that the aim of the article is not this subject, but they have decided to mention it. If they would develop a proposition, the article could boost its impact

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments: 

  1. “…the conclusions can be improved in regard to the role of the weakness of common institutions as a mediators between local producer and external markets due to the dynamics of national and international consumers.”

Response:

Thanks for this suggestion to improve our conclusions. We added a sentence (line 531-537) about the role of common institutions as mediators between local producers and markets. Our recently published paper (Lira et al., 2022) based on the same case study specifically addresses the issue of commons institutions in the context of mezcal market growth. We now cross reference that paper in our manuscript conclusion, which the reader can turn to for further details.

Lira, M.G.; Robson, J.P.; Klooster, D.J. Commons, Global Markets and Small-Scale Family Enterprises: The Case of Mezcal Production in Oaxaca, Mexico. Agric Hum Values 2022, doi: 10.1007/s10460-021-10293-z.

  1. “The authors say that there is a need to "...encourage certification systems to incorporate Indigenous perspectives for artisanal products...or even consider new types of certifications" (rows 526-528). The question is what kind of certification do they have in mind? A participatory one? A third-party certification? I am aware that the aim of the article is not this subject, but they have decided to mention it. If they would develop a proposition, the article could boost its impact”

Response:

We really appreciate this comment and we agree with the reviewer that developing a proposal on the possible types of certifications is necessary to support Indigenous producers. However, we believe that such a proposal requires research undertaken in partnership with Indigenous producers. As we suggest in the conclusion, Indigenous producer communities should direct and design the certification schemes that would best allow them not only to obtain economical benefits from participating in global-value chains of mezcal, but also to protect their common resources, institutions, and traditional production techniques. As recognition of the need for such research, and a process led by Indigenous producers became evident, we feel that pointing to this need as a conclusion is the extent of what we can say at this time.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

Very interesting article showing new possibilities of extending the issues that can be monitored in the field of LULC. Interesting, original approach to the issue. Particular attention was paid to the need to support Artisanal products (which are important for the quality of life of societies in many countries, not only Mexico), but also to the protection of TDF. Advances in earth observation techniques and information technologies have enabled LULC changes to be monitored at multiple spatial and temporal scales. Gradually, the field has evolved to address not only localized land change processes, but globally connected land systems impacted by rural economic changes, urbanization processes and global demand. However, some points need to be modified, such as point 3.3. Community responses to land use change is not clear. If any interview statements are referenced, the list of participants should be listed in the attachments to the article or in Supplementary Materials. It is not entirely clear at this point what was their number, what was the structure of the competition and the timing of the event.

Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments:  

  1. “However, some points need to be modified, such as point 3.3. Community responses to land use change is not clear.”

Response:

We thank the reviewer for pointing out that there is some lack of clarity. We have added a new paragraph (line 350) to make the section clearer. We feel it is important to point out the tension the community is facing in trying to benefit from the growth in mezcal markets while also maintaining their ability to self-determine how this should occur within their territory. We hope this is clearer now.

  1. “If any interview statements are referenced, the list of participants should be listed in the attachments to the article or in Supplementary Materials. It is not entirely clear at this point what was their number, what was the structure of the competition and the timing of the event.”

Response:

Thanks for this comment. We are not sure we understood it correctly but we assumed the reviewer is suggesting to add more details about the semi-structured interviews with community members. There is a detailed description (line 229) of the informants which includes their age range, occupation and the topics covered in the interviews with them. In the same paragraph, we also included the sampling technique and number of informants. We modified the start of that paragraph (line 229) to make more clear the difference between the LULC interpretation sessions with community authority members and the semi-structured interviews with community members. We also added a foot note (footnote 3) with details about the total of mezcal producers and agave growers in the community.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author.

Reviewer 3 Report

An important and current research problem was taken up in the manuscript submitted for review. In order for a manuscript to be published in Land it is necessary:

1) Specify the research methodology. Include in this part information about the population (its size). If the authors have access to the data, they should be detailed so that the reader knows what part of the population was the research sample.

2) The aim of the research should be clearly defined and its implementation referred to in the conclusions.

3) The abstract also needs to be refined. Please pay special attention that it should contain such elements as: the purpose of the research, specification of the research methods and tools used, basic research results and conclusions.

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We are grateful for your insightful comments on our paper. We have been able to incorporate changes to reflect the suggestions provided. Here is a point-by-point response to your comments: 

  1. “Specify the research methodology. Include in this part information about the population (its size). If the authors have access to the data, they should be detailed so that the reader knows what part of the population was the research sample.”

Response

Thanks for this suggestion to improve our methods section. We added a foot note (footnote 3 in page 7) with details about the total of mezcal producers and agave growers in the community.

  1. “The aim of the research should be clearly defined and its implementation referred to in the conclusions.”

Response

Thank you for this recommendation. The aim of this research is included in line 88-93. We made some changes to our conclusions (line 523) to make sure the language matches the language used in the aim of the paper.

  1. “The abstract also needs to be refined. Please pay special attention that it should contain such elements as: the purpose of the research, specification of the research methods and tools used, basic research results and conclusions.”

Response

Thanks for this recommendation. We made changes to our abstract to include the mentioned elements. The purpose of the research is in line 14, research methods in line 16, basic results in line 18 and the conclusions in line 22.

Please, let me know if you have further questions.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author

Reviewer 4 Report

Review, Manuscript ID: land-1603573

`Artisanal products and Land Use Land Cover change in Indigenous Communities: the case of mezcal production in Oaxaca, Mexico`

 

Thank you for the opportunity to review this manuscript.

The paper analyses the temporal and spatial changes of LULC (Land Use and Land Cover) and its relationship with the growing demand for mezcal production in communally owned and managed landscapes in the case of San Juan del Río, in Oaxaca / Mexico.

The aim of the study is clear and relevant to the scope of the Journal of Land. The case study area, dataset and methods to conduct this study are appropriate to address the aim of the study.

The paper presents an interesting method to address its main purposes. Also, in general the technical, structural and formal quality of the manuscript is good, and the results are thoroughly presented, and discussed with the relevant literature.

The paper provides a different perspective on the relationship among the production of artisanal food and beverage products, which is generally thought to be a sustainable alternative to agro-industrial commodities, national and global market dynamics, landscapes and local producers. Also the paper integrates social and cultural dimensions of LULC change with spatiotemporal features of the landscape in coupled human-environment systems.

I really enjoyed reading this paper and look forward to seeing it published.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

we appreciate very much the time and effort you have put on reading our manuscript and we thank you for your constructive comments.

Sincerely,

Corresponding author.

Back to TopTop