The Integration of Local Actors in Policy Implementation: The Case of Organic Farming in Costa Rica
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
First, I congratulate the author of the article for the research he/she has carried out, since the work presented for evaluation is very well founded, structured, written, exposed and developed. In addition, it is a study of a very relevant socio-economic reality in Costa Rica, specifically the local actors and/or farmers that are involved in organic farming in this country. However, it is necessary to clarify or develop some ideas showed in the text.
1. As the research presented in the article exposes a great variety of primary data, obtained by the researcher, it is necessary to indicate the specific dates on which the field work and data collection were carried out. Likewise, it is advisable to indicate the possible practical problems that the researcher encountered when doing the field work (e.g.: problems for contacting to local actors, private actors, local associations of farmers, etc.). I think that this can be indicated in the methodology section (section 3 of the article).
2. It is necessary to indicate the sources in all tables of the article. In all the tables of the article, starting in page 8 (Table 1) and in the Figure 1 (page 15), the source of the data shown is not indicated. Therefore, it is necessary to indicate the source in all tables and in Figure 1. If the source is the authors’ own elaboration, as it appears to be, it must be indicated. This should be done with all the tables of the article.
3. In the methodology section, it is necessary to indicate specific data about the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the canton of Zarcero. As a case study of the Zarcero canton is developed, it is consistent that the author includes data on these characteristics: geographical location within Costa Rica, total population of the canton, percentage of the population employed in agriculture, total number of local associations of farmers, percentage of land dedicated to agriculture, level of studies of the inhabitants, predominant social class, religious practices of the population, religious associations or groups, political parties and public leaders who has governed the canton during the decade from 2009 to 2019, etc. These characteristics can also provide interpretive keys to analyze the data of the interviews carried out.
4. In line 362 the author says “This can be considered typical for top-down implementation”. In this regard, beyond numbers or percentages, it is necessary to explain more detailed what and why the “typical for top-down implementation” is. Probably, the social and political contexts, and history, are very important in the top-down implementation, etc. In this sense, is required to explain or clarify the quoted phrase.
5. It is very necessary to review tables A1, A2 and A3, in the appendix, as there are several errors in the use of the Spanish language. For example:
In Table A1:
Where it says “benedicios” it should say Beneficios.
Where it says “Extención” it should say Extensión.
Where it says “Prommotora d” it should say Promotora de
Where it says “Insituto Nacioal” it should say Instituto Nacional
Where it says “pequenas” it should say pequeñas
Where it says “Transderencia” it should say Transferencia,
Where it says “Nacioal” it should say Nacional
Where it says “Garantia” it should say Garantía, etc.
Author Response
Thank you for your review. I appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on my manuscript. I am very grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to this paper. I have incorporated all of the suggestions made by you and all changes are highlighted using the track changes function in Word.
Please find below, in bold, a point-by-point response to your comments and concerns.
- Suggestions to describe time frame of data collection and practical problems
Author response: I added in the methodology section a short overview about the time period of data collection and some practical problems that I encountered.
- Comment on the necessity to indicate the sources in all tables of the article.
Author response: I indicated for each table and figure 1, that it is my own elaboration.
- Suggestion to add specific data about the geographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the canton of Zarcero.
Author response: As suggested by the reviewer, I added some geographic and socioeconomic data for the canton of Zarcero in order to provide a better overview of the characteristics of the canton under investigation.
- Comment on the necessity to explain more detailed what and why the “typical for top-down implementation”.
Author response: I agree with the Reviewer, I clarified this aspect and added further explanations by comparing it to the typical characteristics of bottom-up approaches.
- Comment on several errors in the use of the Spanish language.
Author response: Thank you for pointing this out. The reviewer is right, and I have corrected the mentioned mistakes and also further mistakes in the tables.
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper on “The integration of Local Actors in Policy Implementation: The Case of Organic Farming in Costa Rica” presents the results of sociological analysis, based on 30 questionnaires responsed by different actors involved in organic farming in Costa Rica. The results can have significant importance for the development of OA in Costa Rica and this study can be a model research for other countries. But the weakness of the methodology is a small number of questionnaires and rather narrow scope of research and statistical methods of analysis. Authors used mainly social network analysis (SNA) which is suitable for this kind of study. The conclusions according to the collaboration are based on a number of ties between different actors and levels of organization.
The Introduction sections is prepared carefully, in a very detailed way. The methodology and results are clearly presented and analyzed exhaustively.
The discussion and conclusions sections should be more connected with the current state of organic farming in Costa Rica. They should be supplemented by Autor’s insights how the results of the study influence the development of AO and production and what can be future scenarios for this agricultural system in Costa Rica.
Some minor remarks are presented in the pdf of the paper.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you for your review. I appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing feedback on my manuscript. I am very grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to this paper. I have incorporated all the suggestions made by you and all changes are highlighted using the track changes function in Word.
According to your suggestions, I re-elaborated the discussion part to connect it more with the current state of organic farming in Costa Rica. I provided some suggestions how organic farming policy implementation can be improved, according to the results of the present study. More concretely I added an evaluation on further implications of this study as well as discussed current problems related to the poor integration of local actors in the implementation process of organic farming in Costa Rica.
Please find my answers to the minor remarks presented in the pdf attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper entitled 'The Integration of Local Actors in Policy Implementation: The Case of Organic Farming in Costa Rica' deals with an important research topic which includes the empirical evaluation of relations, engagements and contribution of different stakeholders to policy-making (in this case, regarding environmental protection). The paper is well structured, with a sound introduction, a clear research question which outlines some hypotheses and a qualitative interview method that investigate the application of two laws in Costa Rica. The main structural problem concern the discussion part, which omits to include a more comprehensive evaluation of these policies, which remains vague and general. As for the expectation that the author created, it was surely much better to discuss the investigation results in the light of a detailed analysis of the two laws while offering insights for integration/changes/modifications.
As for the style, often there are repetitions, and sometimes a bad English sentence weakens the overall readability. İ suggest making an extended logical/grammar English review.
You can find my detailed comments in the attached file.
Good luck!
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Thank you very much for your review. I appreciate the time and effort that you dedicated to providing detailed feedback on my manuscript. I am very grateful for the insightful comments on and valuable improvements to this paper. I have incorporated most of the suggestions made by you and all changes are highlighted using the track changes function in Word.
According to your suggestions, I largely restructured the materials and methods section, and re-elaborated parts of the second section in order to present further relevant information. Furthermore, I revised the discussion part to connect it more with the current state of organic farming in Costa Rica. I provided some suggestions how organic farming policy implementation can be improved, according to the results of the present study. More concretely I added an evaluation on further implications of this study as well as discussed current problems related to the poor integration of local actors in the implementation process of organic farming in Costa Rica.
Moreover, a native English speaker revised the manuscript for language style issues.
Please find my answers to the detailed comments presented in the pdf attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Since my major concern in the first round was about the discussion, i concentrated my attention to this part and, unfortunately, i found that the author did not take into account to provide a major revision of the document, as i suggested.
The discussion remains too weak, general, vague and sometimes apodictic... without giving a sense that the findings of the study can suggest any specific policy implementation. Results are mixed with some discursive sentences that stated the poor involvement of the local farmers in the implementation of the law. But the law and the regulations are not explained in their structure thus hiding the real potential integration that the author should suggest...
This type of article requires a deep critique of the law and regulation, otherwise, the level of argumentation remains at a poor descriptive floor, without any real concrete suggestion.
As for the style: the sentencing is too fragmented. Too many repetitions. Some words are missing. Please take more time to revise carefully this manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your second review. I appreciate the time you dedicated to review again the manuscript and that you provided detailed feedback on the discussion part. I have incorporated your suggestions and all changes are highlighted using the track changes function in Word.
I deleted paragraphs which should be part of the results and re elaborated the discursive sentences about the integration of local actors. Most of all, I provided an explanation about the content of the law and regulation and discussed the potential integration of local actors accordingly.
Please find my answers to the detailed comments presented in the pdf attached.
Best regards
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 3 Report
İ think that the last version of this manuscripts reached a good quality.
