Multi-Scale Drivers of Land-Use Changes at Farm Level II: Application of Conceptual Framework in the Salinity Intrusion Zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta and Cross-Case Comparison with the Highly Flooded Zone

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Recommendations to authors

 

General recommendations:

(1) Please provide a concise overview of the findings from the previous study you mention in the text concerning the application of the proposed methodology in the highly flooded upper delta zone. You also present the differences between the two areas and then proceed making "a cross-case comparison". Maybe the easiest way to achieve this is to present data from both areas in the same table.

(2) No information is given about the sample size. The number of 32 semi-structured interviews with farmers in six communes used as input data might be low (or non-representative for the total population) for analysis.

(3) The figures used in the text do not contribute to the understanding of the data. Some are confusing and must be improved (i.e., Figure 2). Instead of graphs (Figure 4), please consider constructing thematic maps to present “Spatial and temporal aspects of drivers”. 

(4) Consider adding a limitations section. Emphasize the inherent uncertainty and potential bias stemming from the reliance on the farmers' perspective in deriving the results.

 

Detailed comments (from the previous review stage that have not been addressed):

- Lines 1 – 4: Improve title. Please consider a change to: "Multiscale Drivers of Land-Use Changes from Farmers' Perspective: A Case Study in the Salinity Intrusion Zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta". I suggest that ".. and cross-case comparison 4 with the highly flooded zone" should be removed.

- Lines 29 – 36: Remove these lines and provide more quantitative results. For example: "The main drivers for the land-use change path can be summarized as financial assets (20%), infrastructure (12%), socio-economic context (12%), natural assets (10%), and technologies (9%)".

- Lines 37 – 38: Improve keywords and remove "Mekong Delta" and "Vietnam". A basic rule is to avoid using the same words given in the title.

- Line 273: Figure 2 the graph is confusing, it does not help to understand the data and it must be improved. Please consider a different, more effective presentation of data. Maybe you should consider plotting only one path (line) per commune (district) as the average trend for the land-use change pathways in each area or otherwise separate plots of all the pathways in each district.

- Line 339: The total of the percentages (of the four main drivers) affecting the change from rice farming to a mixed rice and vegetable system was influenced is 59%. There is no comment for the rest of 41% (!).

- Line 354: Figure 3 has a critical flaw: the sum of the percentages for the driving factors do not lead to 100%. Please make the proper corrections and show at least one more category (i.e., "Others") so that the sum of all the percentages gives 100%. Caption of Figure 3 must also be improved.

- Line 379: Same comment as above: The total of the percentages given for the main driver is 61% and there is no reference for the rest of 39%. The presentation of all similar data must be reconsidered.

- Line 481: Although beautiful this graph has several issues. How big is each circle? What percentage represents each value? There is no index or any kind of clustering, so practically the use of this graph is only to compare the relative percentages. I suggest you consider constructing thematic maps for each driving factor for all districts (where the value/color of each district will be the percentage). 

- Line 486: How do you make a cross-case comparison without providing the main data you are comparing? Please provide a table with the main data you need to make a comparison between the land-use changes in the two areas.

- Line 684: To reduce bias please drive (safe) conclusions based on given data. For now, the cross-case comparison seems not to be based on quantitative results.

- Line 701 – 710: This is a very superficial assessment of current methodology; nowhere is mentioned that the results are based on the farmers’ opinion about the land-use changes. Please rewrite the last paragraph and present results/conclusions stressing the potential uncertainty in results derived from a farmers’ perspective. The findings of the current study must be confirmed using “hard” data of statistical agencies or local municipalities before they are presented as "safe", "effective" or "good reference". Please consider adding a limitation section.

Additional comments:

[1] Concise overview of the findings in two documents or at least of the elements that are being compared (providing a table with relative evidence). The response was ".. you found it missed much important information to review the cross-scale comparison. Sorry for the inconvenience.". So, instead of summarizing the findings of the two articles to support the cross-scale comparison, they somehow with an ironic tone urged reviewers to find the previous article online and make the comparison on their own trying to find the evidence needed in both cases.

[2] Sample size: this is a very critical issue. Questionnaires is a statistical tool and there is a framework-methodology that all must follow. Determining the appropriate sample size in survey research is the first and most critical step. Authors in this study did not address the sample size at all.
Their response to my comment about the sample size was sincere but not scientific at all: "This qualitative approach is a time-consuming and labor-intensive investigation. Since we did not have enough resources to conduct hundreds of interviews, we choose a small number of interviews but still, ensure the quality of information.". Just for your information, for a given "population size" of 648k potential people to respond to the questionnaires at least 384 questionnaires had to be collected (with 5 to 10% standard error, 95% conf.). It is obvious that only 32 questionnaires (farmers) is not adequate to provide information about 40 years of land-use history with 3-4 stages of changes, and a variety of driving factors at each stage. In addition, a part of their response also sounds very strange: "As almost half of the participants were interviewed twice with additional questions being asked, it helps to confirm and intensively interrogate the findings from the interviews.". Based on which statistical methodology these people were interviewed twice??

[3] Figures: they must be improved. Some of them are complex (with no reason), and some others are confusing or even misleading. Examples: (a) Figure 2: makes no sense at all; (b) Figure 3: the totals either horizontally or vertically do not lead to 100%. Authors had to add another category i.e. "others", so the sum will be 100%. Therefore, the graph in its current form is awkward and misleading. Authors although realized the critical issue here they did not changed the graph saying the rest of the data is in the Appendix(!): "The percentage number shown in Figure 3 does not present all the data. They just show the values of the factors mentioned in the text. I think this will confused reader. Thus, in the resubmitted version, I edited the percentage values in Figure 3, using the rule of top 3 values. The values of all factors are presented in Appendix A, table A.2. (pages 29-31)."

[4] Regarding the findings of this "work" and its importance: in line 859, authors reach the following conclusion: "Our study introduces a systematic and scientific approach to the analysis of land-use history considering the full set of biophysical and socio-economic drivers of land-use changes at the farm level. Our multi-scale framework enabled us not only to explore the richness of qualitative data through farmers’ narratives but also to quantify the contribution of each driver by the frequency with which it was mentioned by interview respondents". The approach is not scientific as is not based on a statistical framework and also did not quantify the contribution of the factors by any means. The text remained the same although authors agreed that "Moreover, statistical studies depend heavily on the sufficiency and transparency of input data, which cannot always be assured at the local level, particularly over a long period."
My previous response to this:
"This is a very superficial assessment of current methodology; nowhere is mentioned that the results are based on the farmers’ opinion about the land-use changes. Please rewrite the last paragraph and present results/conclusions stressing the potential uncertainty in results derived from a farmers’ perspective. The findings of current study must be confirmed using “hard” data of statistical agencies or local municipalities before they are presented as "safe", "effective" or "good reference". Please consider adding a limitation section." 

 

Author Response

Additional comments:

[1] Concise overview of the findings in two documents or at least of the elements that are being compared (providing a table with relative evidence). The response was ".. you found it missed much important information to review the cross-scale comparison. Sorry for the inconvenience.". So, instead of summarizing the findings of the two articles to support the cross-scale comparison, they somehow with an ironic tone urged reviewers to find the previous article online and make the comparison on their own trying to find the evidence needed in both cases. 

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely appreciate your detailed feedback on our manuscript. We have carefully considered each of your points, and we would like to address them comprehensively in our response.

We apologize for the confusion caused by our previous response. We acknowledge that it is our responsibility to present the evidence from both articles in a manner that supports the comparison effectively. However, given the length of the article, accommodating this request proves challenging within the current scope. In light of this constraint, we strongly encourage readers to read the entirety of Part I and Part II articles to gain a comprehensive understanding of our study.

[2] Sample size: this is a very critical issue. Questionnaires is a statistical tool and there is a framework-methodology that all must follow. Determining the appropriate sample size in survey research is the first and most critical step. Authors in this study did not address the sample size at all.
Their response to my comment about the sample size was sincere but not scientific at all: "This qualitative approach is a time-consuming and labor-intensive investigation. Since we did not have enough resources to conduct hundreds of interviews, we choose a small number of interviews but still, ensure the quality of information.". Just for your information, for a given "population size" of 648k potential people to respond to the questionnaires at least 384 questionnaires had to be collected (with 5 to 10% standard error, 95% conf.). It is obvious that only 32 questionnaires (farmers) is not adequate to provide information about 40 years of land-use history with 3-4 stages of changes, and a variety of driving factors at each stage. In addition, a part of their response also sounds very strange: "As almost half of the participants were interviewed twice with additional questions being asked, it helps to confirm and intensively interrogate the findings from the interviews.". Based on which statistical methodology these people were interviewed twice?? 

We deeply appreciate your insights regarding the sample size and methodology. We understand your point regarding the limitations posed by a sample size of 32 participants in capturing the full complexity of the land-use history and its driving factors. Thus, we have taken steps to address this concern within the discussion section of the revised manuscript (Lines 916-945).

However, we would like to clarify that our research did not rely on questionnaires or statistical analyses to derive its findings. Instead, we employed a semi-structured interview approach and utilized qualitative data analysis techniques, including transcript analysis with color coding tools. This method allowed us to delve into the extensive history of land-use changes and comprehensively explore the driving factors involved.

You can find further details about this qualitative interview technique at this link: http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html

Besides, it's important to note that our decision to revisit the case study and conduct a second round of interviews with farmers stemmed from our recognition that the initial interview data had not yet reached saturation. In qualitative research, saturation is achieved when recurring themes, ideas, opinions, or patterns emerge consistently throughout the course of interviews or observations. Our iterative approach aimed to ensure a comprehensive exploration of these themes, allowing us to avoid missing any crucial insights as we engaged with more participants.

We have taken the opportunity to clarify the methodology employed in our research within the revised version of the manuscript, specifically in section 2.2 (Lines 245-334).

[3] Figures: they must be improved. Some of them are complex (with no reason), and some others are confusing or even misleading. Examples: (a) Figure 2: makes no sense at all; (b) Figure 3: the totals either horizontally or vertically do not lead to 100%. Authors had to add another category i.e. "others", so the sum will be 100%. Therefore, the graph in its current form is awkward and misleading. Authors although realized the critical issue here they did not changed the graph saying the rest of the data is in the Appendix(!): "The percentage number shown in Figure 3 does not present all the data. They just show the values of the factors mentioned in the text. I think this will confused reader. Thus, in the resubmitted version, I edited the percentage values in Figure 3, using the rule of top 3 values. The values of all factors are presented in Appendix A, table A.2. (pages 29-31)."

We regret the shortcomings you have identified in relation to our figures. We agree that figures should be informative and accurate. Therefore, we have conducted a thorough review of our figures to rectify any issues before resubmitting them.

With regard to Figure 2, its purpose is to illustrate the distinct land-use change pathways traced by individual farms within our case study. This graphical representation encapsulates significant historical events as narrated by the farmers themselves. Moreover, it excels in depicting the discernible patterns and trajectories of land-use changes, offering a robust visualization that facilitates understanding of these transformations. This type of graph aligns with established conventions in prior literature and studies below:

1. Wilson, G.A. Multifunctional Agriculture: A Transition Theory Perspective; CABI: Trowbridge, Cromwell, 2007; ISBN 978-1-84593-257-2.
2. Valbuena, D.; Verburg, P.H.; Bregt, A.K.; Ligtenberg, A. An Agent-Based Approach to Model Land-Use Change at a Regional Scale. Landscape Ecol 2010, 25, 185–199, doi:10.1007/s10980-009-9380-6.23.

We have carefully reviewed the dataset utilized for constructing Figure 3 (please refer to Appendix A, Table A2). We have ensured that the total sum of each column accurately corresponds to 100%. Notably, the values depicted in Figure 3 represent the three most prominent values derived from our research findings. These values are presented to guide readers' attention towards the driving factors most frequently mentioned by farmers.

[4] Regarding the findings of this "work" and its importance: in line 859, authors reach the following conclusion: "Our study introduces a systematic and scientific approach to the analysis of land-use history considering the full set of biophysical and socio-economic drivers of land-use changes at the farm level. Our multi-scale framework enabled us not only to explore the richness of qualitative data through farmers’ narratives but also to quantify the contribution of each driver by the frequency with which it was mentioned by interview respondents". The approach is not scientific as is not based on a statistical framework and also did not quantify the contribution of the factors by any means. The text remained the same although authors agreed that "Moreover, statistical studies depend heavily on the sufficiency and transparency of input data, which cannot always be assured at the local level, particularly over a long period."

My previous response to this:
"This is a very superficial assessment of current methodology; nowhere is mentioned that the results are based on the farmers’ opinion about the land-use changes. Please rewrite the last paragraph and present results/conclusions stressing the potential uncertainty in results derived from a farmers’ perspective. The findings of current study must be confirmed using “hard” data of statistical agencies or local municipalities before they are presented as "safe", "effective" or "good reference". Please consider adding a limitation section." 

We appreciate your critical assessment of our approach and findings. Your comments have prompted us to thoroughly reconsider the clarity of our assertions and the robustness of our claims.

Nevertheless, upon careful consideration, we have opted not to revise the conclusions presented in the updated manuscript as we have addressed the limitations of our approach within the discussion section, outlining strategies to enhance the robustness of our findings.

In the concluding remarks, we aim to underscore the profound significance of qualitative research in investigating land-use change, particularly in unearthing the driving factors underpinning each transformation. Additionally, we introduce an innovative approach to analyzing and presenting outcomes arising from transcript analysis. This approach entails the quantification of ideas and opinions expressed by interviewees, providing a novel dimension to our textual presentation of results.

Once again, we extend our gratitude for your thorough review and constructive feedback.

Sincerely,

Thuy Ngan Le

On behalf of all the authors 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

The research entitled “Multiscale drivers of land-use changes at farm level II: application of conceptual framework in the salinity intrusion zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta and cross-case comparison with the highly flooded zone” is an interesting topic and within the scope of journal. Authors aimed to qualitatively analyze the long-term drivers of land use change at farm-scale in a saline intrusion zone of Tra Vinh province and made a cross case comparison with a flooded zone using a theoretical framework and farmer’s interviews. Overall, the article is written with detailed explanation, but the length of paragraphs with a long discussion of results is not gaining reader attention. Presentation can be improved by more graphs or tables in results with comprehensive scientific writing.

Overall, improvements are needed before acceptance.

Specific comments include,

1.     Introduction states the paragraph

The current article presents a second application of the framework in a very different agro-hydrological setting: the salinity intrusion estuarine zone. Our application of the framework in two contexts had three main aims: (i) to test the validity and rigor of the developed framework, 125 (ii) to gain a deeper understanding of the complex multi-scale drivers of land-use changes at the farm level, and (iii) to explore the potential role of the socio-hydrological setting in shaping these drivers and the resulting land-use change.

However, the organization of results is not according to research objectives. Either restate the objectives according to results or organize the results according to these objectives.

 

2.     Why did author prefer “semi-structured” interviews with qualitative data analysis?  While in my opinion including a part of quantitative analysis could improve the results with and visualizations.

1-    Please change the heading number according to sequence and comprehend the findings of “3.2.  multi-scale drivers of land use change” in a smaller number of paragraphs. Line 443: “According to one 443 interviewed farmers in My Hoa, a water crisis forced him and his neighbors to switch from double rice cropping……………” is not a scientific writing style of research article.

2-    Similarly, also elaborate the “3.3. Spatial and temporal aspects of drivers” in less paragraphs with major findings.

3-     “3.4 cross case comparison” is not attractive enough and lacks any presentation. Provide comparative analysis in some tabular form or graphs for a clearer view and shorten the paragraphs. Also give a brief overview of flooded zone in study area part.

4-    Discussion is only supported by 2 research. Increase the relevance of your research findings with other relevant studies.

5-    State conclusion according to the sequence of research objectives.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The research entitled “Multiscale drivers of land-use changes at farm level II: application of conceptual framework in the salinity intrusion zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta and cross-case comparison with the highly flooded zone” is an interesting topic and within the scope of journal. Authors aimed to qualitatively analyze the long-term drivers of land use change at farm-scale in a saline intrusion zone of Tra Vinh province and made a cross case comparison with a flooded zone using a theoretical framework and farmer’s interviews.

Overall, the article is written with detailed explanation, but the length of paragraphs with a long discussion of results is not gaining reader attention. Presentation can be improved by more graphs or tables in results with comprehensive scientific writing.

Overall, improvements are needed before acceptance. 

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your review of our manuscript. We appreciate your valuable feedback and the time you have taken to provide us with detailed comments for improvement.

We understand your point about the length of certain paragraphs in the discussion of results, and how it might impact reader engagement. Nevertheless, there are a few reasons why we couldn't restructure the presentation of the results, which we would like to elaborate on:

1. This manuscript constitutes the concluding phase of our study, following the publication of a preceding stage. The initial stage introduced the multi-scale drivers framework and its first application in the highly flooded zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta (https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071273). To maintain coherence and enable a seamless cross-case comparison, we have chosen to present the findings of the second case study in parallel with those of the first case study, ensuring clarity for readers who will be referring to both companion articles.
2. Our research encompasses a 40-year history of land-use changes, characterized by 3 to 4 distinct transition stages. Within each stage, an analysis of all key driving factors and their intricate interactions was conducted. The wealth of information gathered from our findings necessitates a comprehensive presentation within the results section, as summarizing these details could potentially undermine the nuances and depth of our analysis.
3. Employing transcript analysis for the qualitative data gathered from semi-structured interviews with 32 farmers allowed us to present a nuanced portrayal of the extensive history of land-use changes in the region. This approach was chosen to highlight the specific interplays of various driving factors in varying contexts. Furthermore, given the limited number of interview samples, presenting them through graphs or tables may not be the most effective means of conveying their insights, and a textual approach offers a more intricate narrative.

We sincerely appreciate your understanding and your feedback, which aids us in further clarifying the rationale behind the presentation of our results. We are committed to ensuring that our manuscript remains coherent, detailed, and comprehensive, while also taking your valuable insights into consideration.

Specific comments include,

1. Introduction states the paragraph

The current article presents a second application of the framework in a very different agro-hydrological setting: the salinity intrusion estuarine zone. Our application of the framework in two contexts had three main aims: (i) to test the validity and rigor of the developed framework, 125 (ii) to gain a deeper understanding of the complex multi-scale drivers of land-use changes at the farm level, and (iii) to explore the potential role of the socio-hydrological setting in shaping these drivers and the resulting land-use change.

However, the organization of results is not according to research objectives. Either restate the objectives according to results or organize the results according to these objectives.

Regarding the organization of the introduction and results sections, we have formulated three concise research questions (Lines 145-160) to better align the presentation of results with our research objectives. We recognize the importance of clear and logical flow, and we'll make sure the structure of the article enhances the reader's understanding of the study's aims and findings.

“To bridge the divide between the government’s land-use and water management plans and their practical implementation, a comprehensive analysis of land-use changes and their driving factors at the farm level is a necessary contribution. Hence, this research applied the multi-scale drivers framework to tackle the subsequent inquiries:

(1) What patterns characterize the pathways of land-use change within the salinity intrusion zone of the VMD?

(2) What primary factors significantly steer land-use decisions at the level of individual farms?

(3) To what extent do different socio-hydrological conditions within the delta region shape the drivers of land-use changes and subsequently mold the resulting land-use change patterns?

The third research question will be addressed through a comparative analysis with the outcomes of our earlier investigation conducted within the highly flooded zone of the VMD. By contrasting results from distinct agro-hydrological case studies, we can derive more comprehensive conclusions regarding the intricate interplay among land-use change, water resource management, and various driving factors inherent to delta management.” 

2. Why did author prefer “semi-structured” interviews with qualitative data analysis?  While in my opinion including a part of quantitative analysis could improve the results with and visualizations. 

Concerning the use of "semi-structured" interviews and the qualitative data analysis approach, we chose this method to capture the nuanced and context-specific insights from the participants.

To facilitate a semi-structured interview, the interviewer prepares and employs an interview guide. This guide comprises a collection of open-ended questions and subjects that necessitate coverage during the conversation, typically in a specified sequence. The adaptable framework of the interview affords the researcher the opportunity to explore deeper by encouraging the interviewee to elaborate new avenues brought forth by the interviewee's responses. This method also grants the interviewees the liberty to articulate their viewpoints using their own expressions.

Particularly, the semi-structured interview proves most effective in situations where the researcher will have only one opportunity to interview the individual and when multiple interviewers will be dispatched to gather data in the field.

Source: http://www.qualres.org/HomeSemi-3629.html

However, we understand your point about incorporating quantitative analysis for enhanced the results. Employing semi-structured interviews and analyzing transcripts presents challenges in terms of both time and resources. Consequently, our interview scope was limited to 32 farmers in six communes. As a result, the applicability of our research in larger areas with varied interviewee groups might be limited. We have addressed this concern in the discussion section (Lines 916-945) of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have introduced an alternative data collection approach to alleviate processing time constraints when conducting the study on a more extensive scale.

1-Please change the heading number according to sequence and comprehend the findings of “3.2.  multi-scale drivers of land use change” in a smaller number of paragraphs.

Line 443: “According to one interviewed farmers in My Hoa, a water crisis forced him and his neighbors to switch from double rice cropping……………” is not a scientific writing style of research article.

2-    Similarly, also elaborate the “3.3. Spatial and temporal aspects of drivers” in less paragraphs with major findings.

We have rectified the heading number of "3.2. Multi-scale drivers of land-use change" (Line 426).

In response to the suggestion regarding paragraph reduction within sections 3.2 and 3.3, we have thoroughly deliberated upon it. However, after careful consideration, we have opted to retain all paragraphs. Each paragraph has been carefully crafted to provide concise yet comprehensive elaboration on the driving factors across six stages of land-use changes (as illustrated in Figure 3), as well as the unique driving factors within the six studied communes (as illustrated in Figure 4).

Particularly, land uses and the trajectories of land-use change within the salinity intrusion zone exhibit a remarkable diversity and variation, largely influenced by the geographical characteristics of the study sites. This inherent variability underscores the necessity of retaining the current level of detail in our discussion.

We acknowledge your feedback about the style of writing in the 3.2 section (Line 521 in the revised version). We would like to improve our writing but we need more information on why you perceive the text writing is not a scientific writing style of research article. Could you kindly provide further clarification on this matter?

In the paragraph commencing at Line 521, our intention is to relay a narrative shared by a farmer who was interviewed. This narrative shed light on the profound implications of the government's construction of a sluice gate within the study area, impacting both land-use patterns and the livelihoods of local farmers. Through this, we aim to highlight the consequences that interventions in water management can yield, prompting a significant shift in the land-use decisions of local farmers, transitioning from a predominant focus on rice cultivation to embracing a diversified pathway of both rice and shrimp farming.

While this narrative is based on the account of a single farmer, it serves as a crucial illustration to elucidate the interplay among various driving factors. This approach helps contextualize the complex dynamics at play and underscores the significance of understanding multifaceted interactions.

3- “3.4 cross case comparison” is not attractive enough and lacks any presentation. Provide comparative analysis in some tabular form or graphs for a clearer view and shorten the paragraphs. Also give a brief overview of flooded zone in study area part.

We appreciate your suggestion to present the cross-case comparison in a more visually appealing manner, such as through tables or graphs. Nevertheless, we would like to keep the textual exposition to present our findings and analysis pertaining to the divergence in land-use change pathways between the two case studies, along with the underlying factors contributing to these. The depth of explanation provided in the textual format ensures a nuanced understanding of the intricate dynamics at play, thus aiding in the formulation of informed policies.

Regarding the recommendation to include a concise overview of the highly flooded zone, we recognize the benefits of facilitating reader comprehension through direct comparison. However, given the length of the article, accommodating this request proves challenging within the current scope. In light of this constraint, we strongly encourage readers to read the entirety of Part I and Part II articles to gain a comprehensive understanding of our study.

4- Discussion is only supported by 2 research. Increase the relevance of your research findings with other relevant studies.

We have updated the references pertaining to further support and enrich the content of our discussions. (Lines 844-945)

5- State conclusion according to the sequence of research objectives. 

In the revised version of our manuscript, we have introduced a more concise research objective with three research questions that aligned with our conclusions. (Lines 145-160)

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I would have liked to have seen a point-by-point response to my earlier comments / suggestions ... it would be quicker and easier for me and for you it is less likely that I'll think of new things to ask questions about ...

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

We sincerely apologize for the oversight in not sending our response to your previous comments, even though we submitted it through the journal's system on the 23^rd of July 2023.

We appreciate the time and effort you have invested in reviewing our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and have made necessary revisions to address the concerns raised.

Attached herewith, you will find our point-by-point response (round 1) to the comments of four reviewers and the final revised version of our manuscript.

Thank you once again for your valuable input.

Sincerely,

Thuy Ngan Le

On behalf of all the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The article proposes a very interesting topic. 

My suggestion to implement the quality of the proposed work is to present the factors with more bibliographic sources.

Although the framework has already been developed in another article, the proposed literature is scarce for the importance of the topic and should be implemented.

The results and discussions should also be accompanied by a comparison with the literature. 

Otherwise, the study is well organised. 

 

Minor requirements 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript. We appreciate your feedback and suggestions for improving the quality of our work.

We have expanded our reference list to encompass a broader range of sources that substantiate the significance of the factors presented in our study. In Section 2.2 (Lines 246-258), we have updated the references pertaining to the driving factors within the multi-scale drivers framework. In Section 4 (Lines 844-945), we have engaged in a discussion regarding the insights gained from our application of the multi-scale drivers framework in two case studies. We have taken care to incorporate the relevant references that further support and enrich the content of this section.

For your convenience, we have enclosed the final revised version of our manuscript, complete with the aforementioned updates to references.

Sincerely,

Thuy Ngan Le

On behalf of all the authors

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report (New Reviewer)

I have found the article to be  interesting. However there are few points I want the authors to address, which are:
1. In my opinion, the paper lacks a clear and concise research question and hypothesis. In the introduction section or even in the abstract there is no mention of main research problem or objective and how this paper contributes to solving it. It will be better if the author provide specific research question or hypothesis that guide the analysis and interpretation of the outcome. 
2. The paper does not explain the rationale or criteria for selecting the case study site and the interviewees. Moreover, the authors does not justify the why Tra Vinh Province is representative of the salinity intrusion of Vietnamese Mekong Delta or how the six communes were chosen from the province.

3. Addition of an paragraph explaining the implication and limitation of the study is need considering the the fact that only 32 farmers have been interviewed. 

I hope the authors will address the above mentioned points which I think will improve the quality of the manuscript. 

The quality of English language is sufficiently good and only minor enhancement is needed. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions to improve the quality of our manuscript. We have carefully considered each comment and have made necessary revisions to address the concerns raised.

Attached herewith, you will find our point-by-point response to your comments and the final revised version of our manuscript.

Sincerely,

Thuy Ngan Le

On behalf of all the authors

Responses to reviewer:

I have found the article to be interesting. However, there are few points I want the authors to address, which are:

1. In my opinion, the paper lacks a clear and concise research question and hypothesis. In the introduction section or even in the abstract there is no mention of main research problem or objective and how this paper contributes to solving it. It will be better if the author provides specific research question or hypothesis that guide the analysis and interpretation of the outcome.

In the revised manuscript, we have enhanced Section 1 by formulating concise research questions (Lines 145-160):

“To bridge the divide between the government’s land-use and water management plans and their practical implementation, a comprehensive analysis of land-use changes and their driving factors at the farm level is a necessary contribution. Hence, this research applied the multi-scale drivers framework to tackle the subsequent inquiries:

(1) What patterns characterize the pathways of land-use change within the salinity intrusion zone of the VMD?

(2) What primary factors significantly steer land-use decisions at the level of individual farms?

(3) To what extent do different socio-hydrological conditions within the delta region shape the drivers of land-use changes and subsequently mold the resulting land-use change patterns?

The third research question will be addressed through a comparative analysis of the outcomes of our earlier investigation conducted within the highly flooded zone of the VMD. By contrasting results from distinct agro-hydrological case studies, we can derive more comprehensive conclusions regarding the intricate interplay among land-use change, water resource management, and various driving factors inherent to delta management.”

Moreover, it is crucial to underscore that this paper represents the subsequent stage of our study. The first stage has been published, introducing the primary research goal of developing a framework aimed at organizing and examining the multiscale aspects of land-use changes and the driving factors of such changes. For more comprehensive information, kindly consult the provided link: https://doi.org/10.3390/land12071273

Le, T.N.; Bregt, A.K.; van Halsema, G.E.; Hellegers, P.J.G.J.; Ngo, T.T.T. Multi-Scale Drivers of Land-Use Changes at Farm Level I: Conceptual Framework and Application in the Highly Flooded Zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Land 2023, 12, 1273. 

2. The paper does not explain the rationale or criteria for selecting the case study site and the interviewees. Moreover, the authors do not justify why Tra Vinh Province is representative of the salinity intrusion of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta or how the six communes were chosen from the province.

In Section 2.1 of the revised manuscript (Lines 180-195), we have explained our choice of Tra Vinh Province as a case study. Firstly, our literature review pointed to the agro-hydrological characteristics of Tra Vinh Province, which mirror the alternative cycles of fresh and saline water conditions in the salinity intrusion zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Secondly, the province benefits from the safeguarding presence of the South Mang Thit salinity prevention infrastructure system, a defender of the coastal areas engaged in freshwater agriculture. Through an exploration of the historical trajectory of land-use changes in Tra Vinh Province, we can discern variations in the forces driving these transformations—both preceding and following the implementation of the salinity prevention infrastructure. This inquiry equips us with a comprehensive lens to scrutinize how this vital intervention has molded the intricate dynamics of land-use alteration within the salinity intrusion zone.

In Section 2.2 (Lines 261-267), we have provided an explanation of our approach to selecting both the six communes and the participants for our interviews. The chosen set of six communes serves to showcase a diverse range of hydrological characteristics and land-use patterns encountered in Tra Vinh Province. These communes are strategically positioned to span from the northern inland areas (e.g., Binh Phu commune), which experience minimal impact from salinity intrusion, to the southern coastal regions that are strongly affected by this phenomenon (e.g., My Long Nam commune). Furthermore, their distribution extends from the eastern regions proximate to the river mouth and sluice gates (e.g., Vinh Kim commune), to the western areas situated further inland yet adjacent to the freshwater supply canals (e.g., Don Xuan commune). (Refer to Figure 1 and Table 1 for visual representation).

To identify interview candidates, we utilized the snowball approach, initiating the process with individuals endorsed by the local agricultural officers. The quantity of interviewed farmers was established based on the juncture of achieving information saturation. To gain a deeper understanding of the historical land-use strategies and the catalysts influencing shifts in land utilization, we interviewed farmers with extensive farming experience, serving as the primary labor force for their household farms. (Lines 281-296).

3. Addition of a paragraph explaining the implication and limitation of the study is need considering the fact that only 32 farmers have been interviewed. 

I hope the authors will address the above-mentioned points which I think will improve the quality of the manuscript. 

In the updated version of the manuscript, we have introduced a paragraph that delves into both the implications and limitations associated with the utilization of semi-structured interviews and transcript analysis (Lines 916-945). This addition serves to provide a clearer understanding of our methodological choices. We have also elaborated on the rationale behind conducting a total of 32 interviews with farmers, articulating the measures we undertook to ensure the robustness and representativeness of our findings despite the relatively constrained interview pool.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English language is sufficiently good and only minor enhancement is needed.

Thank you for your comment on the quality of the English language. The manuscript was proofread and edited by a professional English editing service before it was submitted to the Land Journal. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Recommendations to authors

- Line 294: The following sentence "However, practical constraints in terms of time and logistical resources led us to concentrate our interviews on a total of 32 farmers situated across six communes" is contrary to what is mentioned in line 283 "The number of farmers interviewed was determined by the point of information saturation, ensuring a comprehensive and rich dataset". So, was the required data collected for the analysis or not?

- line 675: It is difficult to follow the cross-case comparison presented. As it was suggested at a previous review stage, authors must provide a table as a concise review of the two cases under consideration, otherwise the comparison seems to be subjective and not based on specific data/findings of the two studies.

- Line 924: In the text it is mentioned that "a literature review on land-use change in the salinity intrusion zone was conducted prior to initiating the interviews". However, no information is given about this review (aim or scope of the review, digital sources used, the search expression, the number of resulting studies, findings etc.).

 

Author Response

please see Attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

I have now completed my review for the research entitled “multi-scale drivers of land-use changes at farm level II: Application of conceptual framework in the salinity intrusion zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta and cross-case comparison with the highly flooded zone” for consideration in “land”.

The research is improved according to review comments. Research questions are clearer and more understandable. Discussion is improved and overall research quality has been improved. I have no additional comments and recommend acceptance.

Author Response

Thanks for your review.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

The corrections have been made. Minor editing of English is required. The importance of publishing the second part of the study at the beginning and end of the study should be better emphasised.

Minor editing of English is required. 

Author Response

please see Attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Recommendations to authors

- Line 20-43, abstract: The text length is much longer than the journal specifies (200 words).

- Line 37-43, abstract: This part can be improved.

- Line 330: In the text it is mentioned that “we revisited the communes in April 2016 for second interviews with the same farmers, or to interview additional farmers considered likely to have different land-use change pathways. Eighteen households were interviewed twice”. Please provide a reference for the statistical tool you followed that allows the same people to be interviewed twice. How did you manage the answers in these 18 cases? Have you included both interviews for each person?

- Line 433: No improvements in graphs and figures (they remain the same even after recommendations). The graphs are complex and difficult to read and comprehend. 

- Line 528: Significant flaws still exist in figure 3: the total of the percentages in each case is not 100% (line 528, figure 3). Information is missing for the rest of the percentages up to 100% and the graph is misleading. The conclusions are based on totals low the 50% of the total data leaving space for questions to arise for the rest of the data. For example (in figure 3, first column): the total of the percentages for the factors identified regarding the transition from single rice/shrimp farming to double rice cropping is 56%; no information is given for the rest of the 46%.

- Line 689: The table that presents evidence from both cases is a nice addition in Appendix B. However, the way the data is presented (fully descriptive with no quantitative data) makes the comparison difficult. As a result, discussion based on this table and the comparison data seems to be subjected to bias.

- Line 858: Improve English in this section. Quantitative results are missing here.

- Line 944: In the text is mentioned that “Besides, nearly half of our participants underwent a second round of interviews with additional inquiries”. Please provide information on the need for these additional interviews and how you managed this. You must be clear about the statistical tool of interviews you used: was the same questionnaire for all? Did all the participants answer the additional inquiries? It is not clear why this second round was needed and what happened to the first questionnaires that were already collected. In statistical terms, no second round is needed unless the first is considered as “pilot”. Also, it should be noted that the responsible for getting the interview must ensure that the same conditions exist when each of the interview takes place, otherwise several issues and errors must be considered (for example each person must be interviewed individually to avoid interference or influence from other people being close/around).

- Line 982: You must emphasize the inherent uncertainty and potential bias stemming from the reliance on the farmers' perspective in deriving the results. It should be stressed that the findings of the current study are totally based on peoples’ perspectives and not on real data and measurements. In the limitation section (currently missing) it should be noted also that there is uncertainty regarding the accuracy of the results and current findings are just an indication and must be confirmed using information from other sources, and data analysis on real data.

 

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The only issue I have with the paper is the extent to which the results reflect social convention, what is considered acceptable to say, for example, "policies" with a single exception are not frequently mentioned, is this because the farmers don't perceive the role of central Government or is it a local "convention" not to talk about the government? Similarly is the low frequency of mentions of "willingness" a result of society "norms" being towards the group rather than the individual? But as an approach to understanding change I think this is a good way forward, I like it a lot.

There are a couple of minor edits required, on line 484 I think it should be "4" not "1" and on line 603 "5" not "1".

Reviewer 2 Report

The research entitled “Multi-scale drivers of land-use changes at farm level II: application of conceptual framework in the salinity intrusion zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta and cross-case comparison with the highly flooded zone” is an interesting topic to study and within the scope of journal. Overall, the article is well-written and well-presented but based on the title and aims I have some serious concerns which need to be addressed before acceptance.

 

1.     First, the author said that they are using a “land-use change framework” which is being explained in another companion article which is not published. In such case, I would recommend providing a brief detail about the framework in the methodology section. Objectives of the study should be clearly mentioned by number or hypothesis.

2.     Similarly, authors intend to make a cross-case comparison of “salinity intrusion zone” with unpublished research “flooded upper delta zone”. It should be justified. E.g., If authors wants to compare the land use drivers of two regions or zones, the frame work structure and the characteristics of other regions i.e., delta zone should also be described.

3.     Moreover, the research questionnaire in this kind of study could be well structured. Why did author prefer “semi-structured” interviews with qualitative data analysis?  While in my opinion quantitative analysis could provide more attractive results and visualizations compared to qualitative.

4.     Please also give a brief intro about “grounded theory with color coding” in the method section. Why it was significant to apply?

5.     Results are written with a good explanation, but these can be categorized into sub-parts with more graphical presentation.

6.     The 1^st part of the discussion heading 4.1 explains a long case comparison of land use change drivers in two regions salinity intrusion and delta zone. First, if it is an objective, it should not be a part of discussion but with results. Or the differences between land use drivers should be explained with reference to literature which is missing in this whole part. Similarly, the 2nd part of the discussion should also be referred with other relevant studies.

7.     Ref [5] is repeated twice in line num 50.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Recommendations to authors

General recommendations:

(1) Please provide a concise overview of the findings from the previous study you mention in the text concerning the application of the proposed methodology in the highly flooded upper delta zone. You also present the differences between the two areas and then proceed making "a cross-case comparison". Maybe the easiest way to achieve this is to present data from both areas in the same table.

(2) No information is given about the sample size. The number of 32 semi-structured interviews with farmers in six communes used as input data might be low (or non-representative for the total population) for analysis.

(3) The figures used in the text do not contribute to the understanding of the data. Some are confusing and must be improved (i.e., Figure 2). Instead of graphs (Figure 4), please consider constructing thematic maps to present “Spatial and temporal aspects of drivers”. 

(4) Consider adding a limitations section. Emphasize the inherent uncertainty and potential bias stemming from the reliance on the farmers' perspective in deriving the results.

 

Detailed comments:

- Lines 1 – 4: Improve title. Please consider a change to: "Multiscale Drivers of Land-Use Changes from Farmers' Perspective: A Case Study in the Salinity Intrusion Zone of the Vietnamese Mekong Delta". I suggest that ".. and cross-case comparison 4 with the highly flooded zone" should be removed.

- Lines 29 – 36: Remove these lines and provide more quantitative results. For example: "The main drivers for the land-use change path can be summarized as financial assets (20%), infrastructure (12%), socio-economic context (12%), natural assets (10%), and technologies (9%)".

- Lines 37 – 38: Improve keywords and remove "Mekong Delta" and "Vietnam". A basic rule is to avoid using the same words given in the title.

- Line 273: Figure 2 the graph is confusing, it does not help to understand the data and it must be improved. Please consider a different, more effective presentation of data. Maybe you should consider plotting only one path (line) per commune (district) as the average trend for the land-use change pathways in each area or otherwise separate plots of all the pathways in each district.

- Line 339: The total of the percentages (of the four main drivers) affecting the change from rice farming to a mixed rice and vegetable system was influenced is 59%. There is no comment for the rest of 41% (!).

- Line 354: Figure 3 has a critical flaw: the sum of the percentages for the driving factors do not lead to 100%. Please make the proper corrections and show at least one more category (i.e., "Others") so that the sum of all the percentages gives 100%. Caption of Figure 3 must also be improved.

- Line 379: Same comment as above: The total of the percentages given for the main driver is 61% and there is no reference for the rest of 39%. The presentation of all similar data must be reconsidered.

- Line 481: Although beautiful this graph has several issues. How big is each circle? What percentage represents each value? There is no index or any kind of clustering, so practically the use of this graph is only to compare the relative percentages. I suggest you consider constructing thematic maps for each driving factor for all districts (where the value/color of each district will be the percentage). 

- Line 486: How do you make a cross-case comparison without providing the main data you are comparing? Please provide a table with the main data you need to make a comparison between the land-use changes in the two areas.

- Line 684: To reduce bias please drive (safe) conclusions based on given data. For now, the cross-case comparison seems not to be based on quantitative results.

- Line 701 – 710: This is a very superficial assessment of current methodology; nowhere is mentioned that the results are based on the farmers’ opinion about the land-use changes. Please rewrite the last paragraph and present results/conclusions stressing the potential uncertainty in results derived from a farmers’ perspective. The findings of current study must be confirmed using “hard” data of statistical agencies or local municipalities before they are presented as "safe", "effective" or "good reference". Please consider adding a limitation section.

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors,

Dear Editors,

I found this manuscript inappropriate to be reviewed. Indeed, I assumed that this manuscript was part of a research of which a closely related manuscript had already been submitted for review in the journal Land (reference 23 in the reference list). Since the earlier manuscript is still in the review process and is closely related to the present manuscript, I am not in a position to check and compare the two manuscripts, not even from the point of view of results, framework, theoretical issues, references, methodology or even plagiarism etc. Formally, I should be able to check any reference from your reference list, and I am not able to do it. I have read this manuscript and think it has a lot of potential, but for formal reasons I recommend that the manuscript should be rejected. I would suggest to the Editors that this manuscript be put on hold until the first manuscript is published (I hope) and then resubmitted for review.