Determinants of Smallholder Farmers’ Income-Generating Activities in Rubber Monoculture Dominated Region Based on Sustainable Livelihood Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The subject matter of the article is interesting, and the idea of studying the conditions of economic activity of small farmers in a region dominated by monoculture has its potential. All in all, I think the authors put in a lot of effort to achieve their goal.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Point 1: The subject of the article is interesting, and the idea of studying the determinants of income-generating activities of small farmers in a region dominated by monoculture has its potential. Overall, I think the authors put in a lot of effort to achieve their goal. I appreciate their process of developing this research paper. The choice of the research problem should be assessed as accurate and justified in both the scientific and practical aspects. The study is a contribution to further theoretical considerations and empirical research on improving the living conditions of small farmers and enriching sustainable livelihoods. The layout of the article has been subordinated to the set goal and subject of the work - in my opinion, it is correct. The definitions, terms and names quoted by the authors are correct. Research methods have been properly selected, they enable the achievement of the set goal. The conclusions contain the most important findings from the conducted research.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we specified our research problem and improved the objective statement in the Introduction section. We further discussed the scientific and practical implications in the Discussion section.

The scientific implications are in both theoretical and methodological aspects. For the theoretical aspect, we claim that the SLF has been proven applicable and suitable to unfold the influencing factors and trends of farmers’ adoption of IGAs. While most studies focus on livelihood assets, more attention should be paid to the vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes from a holistic perspective. For the methodological aspects, we discussed the advantage and disadvantages of the qualitative approach in studying such research questions. The qualitative analysis discovers new patterns and characteristics to enrich theories and provides an in-depth understanding of farmers’ choices under risks. However, disadvantages such as researcher dependence, data complexity, and duplication difficulty are also noticed. A mixed methodological design combining qualitative and quantitative processes is recommended for future research.

The practical implications for improving IGAs adoption are summarized into three pathways according to SLF: Improving awareness of the vulnerability context, particularly shocks and seasonality of rubber; improving farmers’ livelihood assets with a focus on financial, social, and human capitals; strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes, such as extension services.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The research question needs to be deeper.

There needs to be more than the methodology.

The analysis is not enough.

Discussion must be improved.

The proposal is a rejection

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the thorough review and helpful comments. We have revised the paper and marked changes in the revised manuscript. We hope this version is improved according to the comments, and please let us know if any issue needs further clarification. Responses to the reviewer are as follows.

Point 1: The research question needs to be deeper.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we placed our research question in the broader context of sustainable development. From farmers’ perspective, sustainable development is premised on achieving a living that is economically, socially, and ecologically sustainable. However, farmers’ irrational behavior and fragile agricultural external environment make it difficult to change their livelihood strategies. At the same time, farmers tend to consider short-term economic factors when making IGA decisions, even if such behavior is unfavorable. Lack of consideration of social and ecological factors often makes it difficult in the long run. This will lead to the homogeneity of farmers’ IGAs and increase their vulnerability. Although most countries in the world are trying to change, the sustainable livelihoods of farmers have not yet been fully realized. Therefore, it is of great practical and theoretical significance to explore the trend of IGA under market price change, environmental degradation, and livelihood vulnerability.

Point 2: There needs to be more than the methodology.

Response 2: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we justified the reason we adopted the qualitative approach in the methodology section. The qualitative research methods determine the diversity of topics of interest and establish meaningful variation within a given population instead of aiming at establishing frequencies, means, or other parameters. Qualitative methodology is deeper and more conducive to exploring the phenomenon with limited knowledge and helps researchers answer “how” and “why” questions. As there is not much existing knowledge on the emerging IGA adoption issue in Xishuangbanna, the qualitative method is suitable. Nevertheless, the qualitative approach provides us not only the “text” but also quantitative information such as frequency and strengths, as shown in Table 2, Figures 3 and 4.

In the discussion section, we returned to the methodological isseu and discussed the advantages and disadvantages of the qualitative approach in studying such research questions. The qualitative analysis discovers new patterns and characteristics to enrich theories and provides an in-depth understanding of farmers’ choices under risks. However, disadvantages such as researcher dependence, data complexity, and duplication difficulty are also noticed. A mixed methodological design combining qualitative and quantitative processes is recommended for future research.

Point 3: The analysis is not enough.

Response 3: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we deepened our analysis in the Results section. On the one hand, we added a summary of common rules for farmers’ adoption of IGAs. In general, the economic consideration (price/rental/wage) plays the leading role in IGAs adoption, followed by extension services, land availability, peer example, information, and price changes, covering different elements in SLF. Much research focuses on livelihood assets in adoption studies, while our results indicate the necessity of including variables representing vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes, which also play vital roles in farmers’ adoption decisions.

On the other hand, we noted that the determinants for current adoption and future adoption of these IGAs might differ, which could be attributed to external conditions, livelihood assets, and individuals’ experiences. First, the changes in external conditions shape farmers’ action situations. For instance, the local government’s recent emphasis on the environmental-friendly rubber plantation and the supporting promotion measures are the vital drivers for current IGAs adoption, while in the long run, farmers consider their capacity to carry on certain IGAs. Second, farmers’ livelihood assets are dynamic; assets occupied by current IGAs might not be available for other IGAs in the future. Third, farmers’ recent successful or failed experiences would facilitate or hinder their future adoption.

In addition, the determinants discovered in our study are compared with others in the new sub-section added in the Discussion section, as illustrated in Response 4.

 

Point 4: Discussion must be improved.

Response 4: Thank you for your comments. We added the scientific and practical implications in the revised manuscript in the Discussion section.

The scientific implications are in both theoretical and methodological aspects. For the theoretical aspect, we claim that the SLF has been proven applicable and suitable to unfold the influencing factors and trends of farmers’ adoption of IGAs. While most studies focus on livelihood assets, more attention should be paid to the vulnerability context and transforming structures and processes from a holistic perspective. For the methodological aspects, we discussed the advantage and disadvantages of the qualitative approach in studying such research questions. The qualitative analysis discovers new patterns and characteristics to enrich theories and provides an in-depth understanding of farmers’ choices under risks. However, disadvantages such as researcher dependence, data complexity, and duplication difficulty are also noticed. A mixed methodological design combining qualitative and quantitative processes is recommended for future research.

The practical implications for improving IGAs adoption are summarized into three pathways according to SLF: Improving awareness of the vulnerability context, particularly shocks and seasonality of rubber; improving farmers’ livelihood assets with a focus on financial, social, and human capitals; strengthening the institutional assistance in the transforming processes, such as extension services.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper studies the consequences of the expansion of rubber plantations in China on income generating activities (IGAs) for smallholders. Because the price of rubber was driven down by increased supply, these smallholders were forced to find alternative sources of income. By understanding which IGAs smallholders were using after the expansion of rubber plantations, this paper provides a better understanding of land use in southern China. 

Author Response

Point 1: This paper studies the consequences of the expansion of rubber plantations in China on income generating activities (IGAs) for smallholders. Because the price of rubber was driven down by increased supply, these smallholders were forced to find alternative sources of income. By understanding which IGAs smallholders were using after the expansion of rubber plantations, this paper provides a better understanding of land use in southern China.

Response 1: Thank you for your comments. In the revised manuscript, we placed our research question in the broader context of sustainable development, improved our analysis, and added new sub-sections in Discussion to compare our results with others and reflect the methodological issues. Changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I liked the reviewed manuscript very much, it contains a lot of interesting data that shows how important the state policy is in shaping the lives of the largest group of smallholder farmers in the society of one of the most populous countries in the world. The work is written correctly according to generally accepted rules. Your tables and figures are very interesting, which you have developed very carefully and clearly. I will recommend the editors to accept your work for publication without changes.

Author Response

Point 1: I liked the reviewed manuscript very much, it contains a lot of interesting data that shows how important the state policy is in shaping the lives of the largest group of smallholder farmers in the society of one of the most populous countries in the world. The work is written correctly according to generally accepted rules. Your tables and figures are very interesting, which you have developed very carefully and clearly. I will recommend the editors to accept your work for publication without changes.

Response 1: Thank you very much for your beautiful comments. Your words encouraged us a lot. In the revised manuscript, we placed our research question in the broader context of sustainable development, improved our analysis, and added new sub-sections in Discussion to compare our results with others and reflect the methodological issues. Changes are marked in red in the revised manuscript.

Please see the attachment.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper was improved by adding some sentences. 

However, the research design and analysis are the same.

The content needs to be more scientific.