Enhancing Rural Resilience in a Tea Town of China: Exploring Tea Farmers’ Knowledge Production for Tea Planting, Tea Processing and Tea Tasting

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General comment

The topic dealt with in this article, relating to local knowledge dynamics, is very interesting. Local knowledge is connected to the concept of resilience and the hypothesis that rural resilience needs to be based on a neo-endogenous model of rural development in which local knowledge (the endogenous resource) is combined with scientific knowledge (exogenous resource) is explored with the case study presented.

While the theoretical section on rural resilience and knowledge production is very good, it seems to me that in the analysis of the case study the concept of resilience is utilized in a very loose way. What is the shock at which the rural tea economy considered should have reacted, showing its resilience? It’s the reform and market opening of the 1980? (Or the loss of biodiversity, and the death of the old tea trees: are the two phenomena connected?)  Why not build the narrative of the case study around such a shock, showing the resilience of the local knowledge system? It seems to me that what the Authors want to say, that in the face of such a shock, local knowledge was able to react and evolve through the integration with scientific knowledge, leading to better conditions in the rural area, it would be much clearer with this narrative construction. On the contrary, in the way the article is built now, it’s difficult to see why the concept of resilience should be relevant.

The description and analysis of the fieldwork is very interesting. I would suggest though:

1. to introduce a section or sub-section in which the context of the field research is presented. By context I mean the characteristics of Dancong tea production in the area object of study in comparison to other areas: is an area were tea production is more artisanal and carried out in small farms with respect to other areas, or tea production is carried out in very homogenous conditions all over China?
2. Also it would be useful for the reader to have presented the different stages of tea production ‘from the farm to the cup’.

As I understand the different stages are:

- grow seedlings,

- tea picking,

- tea making,: which involves:        sun-drying

making-green

killing-green

rolling

baking

- tea tasting-

Each stage should be shortly illustrated. are all the operations carried out by farmers? Is that common to all China or specific to your area of study? How is industrial tea production organised instead?

Finally I think the article needs a deep revision of the language.

Specific comments and suggestions:

 

1) Often in the text the expression ‘to make tea’ or ‘making the tea’ is ambiguous, and generates confusion. You may need to define a vocabulary that differentiate between the different stages of ‘making tea’ and utilise a more precise terminology.

More specific comments are in text file that I attach.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic is interesting, but the paper needs to be more coherent. Even qualitative research must contain some definitions, refer to some theories, and have a clear structure. There should be a clear goal of the paper.

In the text there is very little connection between the main research and the resilience concept. The “economic resilience” is mentioned in line 609, but it was not defined anywhere. The authors should either change the title or add some more connections.

There is very little about the “farmers producing local knowledge’ – I could find only some remarks on farmers using local production knowledge of their ancestors and acquiring external scientific knowledge concerning marketing and chemical substances present in the tea. Either the title or the text should be changed.

 

More detailed remarks are given below.

 

1. Introduction

• Line 65. I do not understand the following statement: “ […] due to policy environment improvements[…]”
• Line 66. Please, write explicitly which reform do you have in mind.
• Lines 76-95 look like the main research findings/conclusions. I think that the conclusions should be at the end of the paper, while the introduction should contain the research problem and goal.

2. Local knowledge evolution

• I suggest beginning this section with an introductory sentence.
• Lines 116-120. This sentence is quite long and difficult to follow – please, consider dividing it into two shorter ones.
• Line 121. This part of the sentence is not clear to me: “local knowledge has acquired the connotation of <<the other>>”
• Lines 144-145. This is somewhat blurred: “Critical consideration of local knowledge is not restricted solely to clarifying the nature of local knowledge”

3. Rural resilience and knowledge production

• In general, it would be good to make it clear when the text concerns resilience of the agricultural system, when the resilience of socio-economic relations in rural areas or even a particular village, and when the resilience of farms as economic enterprises or households. It would be also beneficial to write something about school learning, adult learning, social learning, formal and informal knowledge etc. Make sure that all relevant terms that are used further in the text are defined in this section. Please, make this whole section more to-the-point.
• Lines 173-174. “[…] the complexity of social systems to change, adapt, and transform”. I think that you meant rather “ability” than “complexity”.
• Line 194. “[…] farmers are able to consider different conditions […]”. Different than what? Did you mean “various conditions”?
• Lines 203-204. “Resilience thinking emphasizes knowledge production, which is the primary way to promote agricultural efficacy, even rural economic sectors.”. I do not understand what you mean.
• Line 206. “a process of social learning”. Earlier there was a sentence about knowledge in general, that is any kind of learning. Please, make it clear when you write about learning in general and when about social learning. It would be also good to define the term “social learning” when it is used for the first time.
• Lines 252-253. “Research has paid scant attention to this bottom-up approach, largely ignoring the roles of farmers,”. Please, make it clear if you mean “up-to-date research” or “this research”.

6. The role of local knowledge in developing rural resilience

• Lines 423-425. “In Fenghuang, as one of the main actors in rural areas, tea farmers’ energic local knowledge is a resource that should be rediscovered to help develop sustainable agriculture.” I do not understand whom you mean by writing “the actor”.
• Section 6.1 Local knowledge and sustainable agriculture. Can you compare the statements of the farmers with scientific suggestions in terms of their long-term production results, tree health, etc.? Can you put your finding more in order, to distinguish which traditional local knowledge is beneficial, and which is not?
• Can you define the term “pioneer farmer”?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The subject of the article is interesting, and it is linked to the objectives of the journal, however, there are some issues that have to be reconsidered.

For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. 

It is required a deeper explanation on how the sample of 22 farmers and 3 officials was selected  and why thei opinion is represenetative for the region.

I advise the authors to explore the subject a bit deeper, by offering an expert opinion about the accuracy of the knowledge’s and abilities offered and transmitted by farmers, as in many cases, traditional technics is not necessary, the most correct one.

The results are interesting and they are well discussed, but the conclusions are not enough to sustain the results. The use of the research is, so, insufficiently explained at the conclusion part, it seems just mention again the results. It is advisable to use that part for formulating general conclusions and recommendations for scholars, government, business etc.. 

Author Response

ID: Land-1665047

Title: Enhancing rural resilience in a tea town of China: Exploring tea farmers’ knowledge production for tea planting, tea processing, and tea tasting

Journal: Land

 

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you for your comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Enhancing rural resilience in a tea town of China: Exploring tea farmers’ knowledge production for tea planting, tea processing, and tea tasting” (ID: 1665047). Those comments are all valuable and very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to our research. We have studied the comments carefully and have made corrections which we hope meet with approval. Revised portions are marked in red on the paper. The main corrections in the paper and the responses to the reviewer’s comments are as follows.

 

[1] For better visibility on databases, the authors are asked not to repeat among keywords the words/concepts included in the title of the article. 

Response: Many thanks for reviewer’s comments. We have revised the keywords.

[2] It is required a deeper explanation on how the sample of 22 farmers and 3 officials was selected and why they opinion is representative for the region.

Response: Many thanks for reviewer’s comments. We have added a deeper explanation of how the sample of 22 farmers was selected and why their opinion is representative for the region. Snowball sampling was adopted in this process. First, we contacted 3 tea farmers we knew, and they introduced us to 22 other tea farmers for interviews. However, because tea farmers’ daily lives are simple and tea production techniques were repeatable and shared in the community, new content failed to appear when we interviewed the 22^nd farmer, which means we reached saturation and these farmers are able to represent the farmer group in Fenghuang. Thus we stopped the interviews. Because farmers are familiar with each other, the conversations were conducted naturally and showed real emotions. The participants included 19 males and 3 females, all of whom were older than 30 years. The oldest participant was 87 years old. In addition, we visited government officials, tea traders, and experts in order to gather potential complementary information. They are not our research subjects and their opinions are provided in the article as introductory information. Thus, we did not use a sampling method to select them. Please see section 4.

[3] I advise the authors to explore the subject a bit deeper, by offering an expert opinion about the accuracy of the knowledge’s and abilities offered and transmitted by farmers, as in many cases, traditional technics are not necessary, the most correct one.

Response: Many thanks for your suggestions. In the revised manuscript, we added two experts’ opinions about local knowledge in Fenghuang in order to show local knowledge’s role in daily agricultural production.

In terms of pest control, tea farmers adopt a primitive way to eliminate insects, they told me that if they sow a large area with pesticides, it would also hurt some beneficial insects, because "an overclean environment is not conducive to the growth of tea trees." Therefore, they do not apply the chemicals that the market sells. Consider moss as an example; moss attached to a tea tree will block its respiration and siphon off water and nutrients. To eliminate the moss, farmers manually peel the parasitic moss from the tea trees to promote good growth. An expert FH23 from the local agriculture institute mentioned that now they are working with farmers in order to develop pest control chemicals. However, he pointed out, “Although we recommend using some pesticides, their potential side-effects are not fully studied. We do not know the land as well as tea farmers do. So far, their conservative manners are more appropriate.”

Additionally, some local knowledge provides exploratory experience for forming reliable scientific knowledge. Specifically, although farmers do not know the scientific laws which may embed in local knowledge, their indigenous experiences inspire experts to verify some theories. For example, in regard to the daily care of tea trees, tea farmers tend to take natural actions to look after the trees. They are worried that chemicals will attack the trees and affect the quality of the leaves. Farmer FH05 told us, "I do not use those market-bought fertilizers because I am not sure what has been added to them. I compost and fertilize with soybean residue and the tea trees grow very well." They also use "guest soil mulching"- replacing chemical fertilizer with acidic soil from other places to supplement the tea plant's nutrition. Expert FH24 said that while doing research in Fenghuang, they noticed farmers’ methods of taking care of the trees. It inspired them to conduct a study on the acid-base preference of tea trees, which confirmed that tea trees are in favor of an acidic environment. Natural fertilizers that tea farmers use are acidic or neutral, and therefore suitable for tea tree growth.

Please see section 6.

[4] Comment: The results are interesting and they are well discussed, but the conclusions are not enough to sustain the results. The use of the research is, so, insufficiently explained at the conclusion part, it seems just mention again the results. It is advisable to use that part for formulating general conclusions and recommendations for scholars, government, business etc.

Response: Many thanks for your suggestions. We have supplemented the conclusions with recommendations for scholars and the government.

Firstly, the government should pay attention to the important role farmers play in local knowledge production, strengthen ties with local farmers, and cooperate with them for rural development.

Secondly, the government, as a link between the local community and the outside world, must tighten the connections among the government, universities, institutions, and farmers and establish a wider cooperation platform in which farmers can participate. While many cases have revealed the inequality between scientific knowledge and local knowledge, it is necessary to emphasize the significant position of local participants, which in turn narrows the gap between the local and the external and contributes to a fair dialog that democratizes knowledge.

Finally, previous studies have focused on the economic value of agriculture and the economic resilience of rural areas while neglecting the contribution of culture, identity, and emotion to rural resilience, which are often flexible and widespread forces that need attention. In addition, the government should give weight to farmers' emotional belonging and identity and activate endogenous attributes.

Please see section 7.

 

We really appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comments. They are very helpful. We revised our paper carefully and hope that our revisions have improved the quality of the paper. We would much appreciate if the Journal could reconsider this submission.

 

With thanks and best wishes

The Authors

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I think that this version of the paper is much better than the previous one. Thank you for your effort.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors succeed in answering my concerns, so the article can be published as it is.