Alternative Community-Based Village Development Strategies in Indonesia: Using Multicriteria Decision Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article aims to formulate a community-based village development strategy using the case study method in two villages in Indonesia. The authors employed a multi-criteria technique in their analysis to select the best alternative for community-based village development strategies. The following are some criticisms and suggestions for improving this paper.

 

(1)  Introduction:

-       The review of previous research is still limited in order to demonstrate the gap in knowledge as the contribution of this research in the field of village development. The authors only reviewed several articles on tourism-based village development and concluded that there were still few previous studies that looked at the potential of rural communities. It is suggested that the authors review the findings of research on rural development in Indonesia in a broader context, such as agricultural development, infrastructure development, or small business development, before explaining how this research fills a knowledge gap.

-       As an urgent framework for village development, the authors did not clearly distinguish between the livelihood approach and asset-based community development. The authors raised the concept of pentahelix as an urgent matter without connecting it to a broader framework, such as the livelihood approach or asset-based community development. It is suggested that the authors explain these points more thoroughly.

(2)  Literature review:

-       The authors presented a review of previous studies' findings based on the VOS-viewer results. I recommend that the VOS-viewer results be utilized to explain the knowledge gap that will be filled by this research and should be included in the introduction. The author must explain the key concepts of this research in this section, which includes various approaches to village development, community development, community-based village development, asset-based community development, etc.

(3)  Material and methods:

-       The authors employed a case study method with a qualitative approach. In practice, however, they did not follow the rules of case study research, such as those proposed by Robert Stake and John Creswell. Suggestion: define case study and the type of case study used (whether a substantive or instrumental case study; is it a comparative case study for two villages or a collective case study of the two villages). The description of the variables in this section is not relevant for the case study method, which tends to use the term theme that appears when the data has been collected. Furthermore, it is recommended that the steps for using multi-criteria analysis and PRIOMETHEE be fully explained in this section.

(4)  Analysis Result:

-       It is suggested that a description of the village development programs and activities that have been running in the two villages over the last five years be provided, followed by an analysis of whether these programs/activities meet the community-based village development approach. This show that existing village development programs and activities have not implemented community-based village development. 

-       Next, describe the approach provided by Criteria for Community Based Village Development, Alternative Community Based Village Development Strategies, and so on.

(5)  Discussion:

-       The findings of this study must be compared to the findings of other studies in Indonesia and other countries on the same topic to determine whether they support or contradict the findings of these other studies.

(6)  Conclusion:

-       The conclusion statement should respond more directly to the research objectives presented in the introduction. Furthermore, it is necessary to disclose the limitations of this research, both in terms of the topic and the research method.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions for our paper. We have made adjustments and improvements to the paper based on your suggestions and directions. Here we attach the response we did based on your suggestion.

Hopefully our paper can meet the criteria of this review process.

Thank you,

Regards.

 

(1)  Introduction:

-       The review of previous research is still limited in order to demonstrate the gap in knowledge as the contribution of this research in the field of village development. The authors only reviewed several articles on tourism-based village development and concluded that there were still few previous studies that looked at the potential of rural communities. It is suggested that the authors review the findings of research on rural development in Indonesia in a broader context, such as agricultural development, infrastructure development, or small business development, before explaining how this research fills a knowledge gap.

-       As an urgent framework for village development, the authors did not clearly distinguish between the livelihood approach and asset-based community development. The authors raised the concept of pentahelix as an urgent matter without connecting it to a broader framework, such as the livelihood approach or asset-based community development. It is suggested that the authors explain these points more thoroughly.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions. In the introduction we have added an overview of research findings on rural development in Indonesia (please check lines 90-115). In addition, in the introduction we have added a discussion on asset-based community development (please check lines 116-133).

 

(2)  Literature review:

-       The authors presented a review of previous studies' findings based on the VOS-viewer results. I recommend that the VOS-viewer results be utilized to explain the knowledge gap that will be filled by this research and should be included in the introduction. The author must explain the key concepts of this research in this section, which includes various approaches to village development, community development, community-based village development, asset-based community development, etc.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions. In the literature review section of the results of the VOS-viewer, we think it is necessary to include it in this section. Meanwhile, to explain the gap in the introduction, we have fixed it (please check lines 90-115).

 

 (3)  Material and methods:

-       The authors employed a case study method with a qualitative approach. In practice, however, they did not follow the rules of case study research, such as those proposed by Robert Stake and John Creswell. Suggestion: define case study and the type of case study used (whether a substantive or instrumental case study; is it a comparative case study for two villages or a collective case study of the two villages). The description of the variables in this section is not relevant for the case study method, which tends to use the term theme that appears when the data has been collected. Furthermore, it is recommended that the steps for using multi-criteria analysis and PRIOMETHEE be fully explained in this section.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions (please check lines 207-269).

 

(4)  Analysis Result:

-       It is suggested that a description of the village development programs and activities that have been running in the two villages over the last five years be provided, followed by an analysis of whether these programs/activities meet the community-based village development approach. This show that existing village development programs and activities have not implemented community-based village development.

-       Next, describe the approach provided by Criteria for Community Based Village Development, Alternative Community Based Village Development Strategies, and so on..

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions (please check lines 271-293).

 

(5)  Discussion:

-       The findings of this study must be compared to the findings of other studies in Indonesia and other countries on the same topic to determine whether they support or contradict the findings of these other studies.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions (please check lines 451-528).

 

 

(6)  Conclusion:

-       The conclusion statement should respond more directly to the research objectives presented in the introduction. Furthermore, it is necessary to disclose the limitations of this research, both in terms of the topic and the research method.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions (please check lines 548-569).

Reviewer 2 Report

The article aims to analyse the community-based village development strategies and formulate the best programs for community-based village development.

Necessary corrections to this article:

1.       There is a typo in the title; it should be corrected to “Multi-Criteria”.

2.       Indication of sources in the text is inappropriate. These need to be corrected and presented in the format specified by the MDPI.

3.       In the Introduction chapter, the main aims of the study are mentioned, as well as the identification of constraints. In this case, what kind of constraints can we talk about?

4.       86-105: There is no source citation in this section, although the text suggests it should be. The authors repeatedly refer to "research described previously; previous research", but it is not clear from the context which research they mean.

5.       The Literature Review section is relatively short. A strengthening of this section and a presentation of further research links to the topic are strongly recommended.

6.       In the Materials and Methods chapter, no limitations are mentioned regarding the research. Furthermore, more data is required about the use of PROMETHEE in the study (e.g. type, used formula etc.).

7.       There are spelling and editorial errors in the article, which should be corrected.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions for our paper. We have made adjustments and improvements to the paper based on your suggestions and directions. Here we attach the response we did based on your suggestion.

Hopefully our paper can meet the criteria of this review process.

Thank you,

Regards.

 

1. There is a typo in the title; it should be corrected to “Multi-Criteria”.

Dear Reviewer,          

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, in the title section we have corrected it according to your directions

2. Indication of sources in the text is inappropriate. These need to be corrected and presented in the format specified by the MDPI.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, in the process of citing the source in the text we will improve and adjust it at the end of the editing process.

3. In the Introduction chapter, the main aims of the study are mentioned, as well as the identification of constraints. In this case, what kind of constraints can we talk about?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, in the introductory section we have described the constraints that were discussed in our research. (Please check lines 107-115).

4. 86-105: There is no source citation in this section, although the text suggests it should be. The authors repeatedly refer to "research described previously; previous research", but it is not clear from the context which research they mean.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, in that section we have made improvements according to the input provided (please check lines 90-115).

5. The Literature Review section is relatively short. A strengthening of this section and a presentation of further research links to the topic are strongly recommended.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, in the literature review section we have made improvements by adding descriptions related to the topic of our research (please check lines 135-166).

6. In the Materials and Methods chapter, no limitations are mentioned regarding the research. Furthermore, more data is required about the use of PROMETHEE in the study (e.g. type, used formula etc.).

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, in the Materials and Methods section we have made changes and improvements that are adapted from reviewer input (Please check lines 2017-269).

7. There are spelling and editorial errors in the article, which should be corrected.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, for spelling and editorial errors in some parts of the writing of the paper, we have corrected it so that it can be as expected by the reviewer.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript presents a quite interesting study, but for me some aspects  must be improved:

-        How do you see this ” alternative  option V”-from line 382?  What are its benefits for the community in the future?

-        Which is the ”potential and the community itself”-line 49? For the area studied by you?

- What authors propose for the future so as to show that community-based tourism is a solution in village development?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions for our paper. We have made adjustments and improvements to the paper based on your suggestions and directions. Here we attach the response we did based on your suggestion.

Hopefully our paper can meet the criteria of this review process.

Thank you,

Regards.

 

 

1. How do you see this ” alternative option V”-from line 382?  What are its benefits for the community in the future?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, in that section we have improved it by adding the benefits for the community from alternative V (Please check lines 457-465). In addition, we have described it in the conclusion section (Please check lines 546-562).

2. Which is the ”potential and the community itself”-line 49? For the area studied by you?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, in that section we have improved it by adding an explanation of the potential and the community, (Please check lines 49-56).

3. What authors propose for the future so as to show that community-based tourism is a solution in village development?

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your comments and suggestions, in that section we have added an explanation of the problems we offer (Please check lines 272-293), and some additions to the conclusion section. Hopefully, this addition can answer what the reviewers expect.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the changes you made to my previous recommendations. For the purpose of this manuscript's scientific quality, however, I consider that the following points still need to be improved.

 

(1)   Literature review

As I suggested earlier, in this section the authors should review the concept of village development that has scientific legitimacy in this field, for example by Robert Chambers (Rural Development: Putting People First) and other experts. Additionally, the authors should demonstrate their comprehension of the community development perspective by using examples from Christenson and Christenson when discussing the idea of community development (Community Development in Perspective). It is also necessary to cite the definition of asset-based community development from the experts. The definition of asset-based community development needs to be defined, so that the authors have a basis in bringing up asset criteria (economic capital, physical capital, human capital, social capital, and natural capital) in formulating strategies in section 4.2. Without that explanation, the multi-criteria used in formulating the strategy seem without a clear theoretical basis.

 

(2)   Material and Methods

This study employed the case study methodology. The authors should demonstrate their understanding of the case study method from case study research such as Robert Stake, Nan Lin, and Creswell and Poth (2018). Describe what a case study is, the case unit being studied, and the several case study techniques that are employed. Please review the justification provided that the case study utilized in this study is an intrinsic case study to ensure that it complies with the definition offered by Stake, Lin or Creswell & Poth. Intrinsic case studies are case studies to explore the uniqueness or specificity of a case in order to obtain lessons learned from the case, while instrumental case studies are case studies that use a case to explain a theory/concept or solve a problem.

By making a strategy based on multiple criteria, shouldn't the case be placed as an instrument for explaining a concept, namely community-based village development, and that means this is an instrumental case study? Please specify if the two villages were investigated as a comparative case study or as a collective case study.

 

That’s my additional recommendation to improve the quality of this paper.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you in advance for your comments and suggestions for our paper. We have made adjustments and improvements to the paper based on your suggestions and directions. Here we attach the response we did based on your suggestion.

Hopefully our paper can meet the criteria of this review process.

Thank you,

Regards.

 

(1)  Literature review:

As I suggested earlier, in this section the authors should review the concept of village development that has scientific legitimacy in this field, for example by Robert Chambers (Rural Development: Putting People First) and other experts. Additionally, the authors should demonstrate their comprehension of the community development perspective by using examples from Christenson and Christenson when discussing the idea of community development (Community Development in Perspective). It is also necessary to cite the definition of asset-based community development from the experts. The definition of asset-based community development needs to be defined, so that the authors have a basis in bringing up asset criteria (economic capital, physical capital, human capital, social capital, and natural capital) in formulating strategies in section 4.2. Without that explanation, the multi-criteria used in formulating the strategy seem without a clear theoretical basis.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions. In the Literature review section, we have added discussion of Rural development and asset-based community development. the additions we make are based on papers and books that we have read and understand regarding the addition of the suggested material. (Please check lines 132-175).

 

 (3)  Material and methods:

This study employed the case study methodology. The authors should demonstrate their understanding of the case study method from case study research such as Robert Stake, Nan Lin, and Creswell and Poth (2018). Describe what a case study is, the case unit being studied, and the several case study techniques that are employed. Please review the justification provided that the case study utilized in this study is an intrinsic case study to ensure that it complies with the definition offered by Stake, Lin or Creswell & Poth. Intrinsic case studies are case studies to explore the uniqueness or specificity of a case in order to obtain lessons learned from the case, while instrumental case studies are case studies that use a case to explain a theory/concept or solve a problem.

 

By making a strategy based on multiple criteria, shouldn't the case be placed as an instrument for explaining a concept, namely community-based village development, and that means this is an instrumental case study? Please specify if the two villages were investigated as a comparative case study or as a collective case study.

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for the comments and suggestions, here are the responses that we have corrected according to your directions (please check lines 213-227).

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The study has improved a lot compared to previous material. The literature could still be strengthened and further relevant academic work highlighted, but overall the paper is in an acceptable format.

Regards,

Author Response

Thank you very much.