Competitiveness of Ecuador’s Flower Industry in the Global Market in the Period 2016–2020

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

Line 268: check “…and other fresh flowers and buds, …”

In addition to the review report I have submitted online, please see below my additional comments: This manuscript provided an overview on the world flower industry including the main exporting and importing countries and the types of flowers offered and demanded, and investigated the Ecuadorian flower industry and its position in the world flower market. The manuscript is well written. The topic is original and relevant in the field. I recommend the manuscript "Accept after minor revision".

Author Response

Dear Reviewer

Thank you very much for your review.
Changes in line 268 have been made.

 

Regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The subject is interesting.

However, my main comments are as follows:

 

 

1

Equation 5

Please check this equation, and especially the symbol ‘x’.

 

Was it a multiplication ×, or division ÷?

Please also note if a parenthesis () is needed when applicable.

 

This equation is not clearly defined and explained.

Please check the equation and define it more clearly. Also, the results from this equation should be clearly explained and discussed.

 

2

Line 108

Place the citation [20] at the end of the sentence.

 

3

Table 1. Main flower exporting countries ranking according to their comparative advantage level.

This is a third-party material. Please confirm that the copy permission had been obtained from the source reference.

 

4

RCA definition

There are diverse statements on this index ‘RCA’.

Line 104: explicit comparative advantage index or Balassa index (RCA)

Line 150: Balassa index scores (RCA)

Line 152: Note: RCA: Revealed Comparative Advantage

Line 186: Balassa index value

 

On the other hand, the RC index is also stated as the ‘revealed competitiveness (RC) index’ (line 100).

 

All these are confusing. Please do clarify.

 

5

Line 308

Reference 1

‘Lista de los export…’

Please use standard English instead.

 

6

Tables 2 – 5

These tables should be in the Results section, rather than the Discussion section.

Or the authors could merge the Results and Discussion sections into Results and Discussion.

 

7

4.1. Statistical validation of the results

There is only one subheading for Discussion.

I suggest the authors could move this part into the Results and Discussion, and list more subheadings as appropriate.

 

8

The only key result of this paper was Table 2 (Balassa index scores (RCA) for the main flower exporters in 2016-2020), while others (Tables 3-5) are statistical evaluations for selecting significant indices.

 

So, please discuss on this Table 2 thoroughly.

 

Please also discuss why the authors choose RCA over other indices (RXA, RMA, RTA, RC).

 

9

In the introduction, results, and discussion, please specify what flowers (roses, gypsophila, or others, for example) Ecuador mainly exports. This is very important.

 

10

The only result is Table 2. If possible, please add analyses on different flower categories that Ecuador exports, for example, roses, gypsophila, alstroemeria, aster, gerbera, hydrangea, chrysanthemums, and carnations.

 

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer, 

Thank you for your work and dedication in reviewing our manuscript. I am truly grateful for your invaluable input. File is attached with the changes made under your suggestions.  Regards    

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. The results of the statistical analysis of the ranking of the main exporting countries of flowers in terms of their comparative advantages must also be presented in the form of a graphical dependence with the calculation of the main statistical characteristics (mathematical expectation, variance, and so on).

2. It is necessary to indicate the main technologies for the production of flowers - from planting to sale to the consumer, taking into account global trends in the development of the flower industry.

3. It is not entirely clear why the article does not take into account the export potential of Ecuador for 2021 and 2022 - the relevance of the selected years of statistical analysis should be indicated

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your work and dedication in reviewing our manuscript. I am truly grateful for your invaluable input
File is attached with the changes made under your suggestions.

Regards,

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

There is clarity in the approach to the problem and the results that seek to provide Ecuadorian flower companies and the government with an update on the floriculture sector for planning production and implementing marketing strategies. As well as to deliver a wide range of policies to address its economic objectives related to several economic sectors. The method and experimental design are straightforward and shows innovation in implementing and analyzing a range of indices, proposed by Balassa’s methodology for Ecuador and the five significant flower exporting countries.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I am writing to express my sincere gratitude for your invaluable contribution to the review process of our manuscript.

 

Regards

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

The manuscript has undergone necessary revisions.

However, there are still several problems that must be addressed and corrected.

Please see them below.

 

1

Line 60-63

‘In the 2016-2020 period, the flower export structure was as follows: Roses 73% ($609 million dollars), fresh flowers and bus,…chrysanthemums 1% ($6 million dollars).’

 

These sentences seem to be the results of the present study (Table 4). If so, please move it to the Results section. In the Introduction section, these data may only need to be mentioned briefly.

 

 

2

Line 1272

‘The results of this equation are the RCA that are in Table 4. Revealed Comparative Advantage (RCA) index scores for the main flower exporters in 2016-2020. They define the competitiveness of the countries studied.’

 

Should it be in Table 5? Please check this. As I read, The RCA values are presented in Table 5.

 

 

3

Table 2.

 

Please specify the countries in the table legend (all the countries in the world taken into analysis, or only Ecuador? It seems the former).

 

‘Fresh flowers and buds (gypsophila. alstroemeria. aster. gerbera. hydrangea)’

The type ‘Fresh flowers and buds’ belongs to a different classification way, because all the flower species (Roses, Chrysanthemums, Carnations, others) can be in the form of ‘fresh flowers and buds’. Did the authors mean: ‘Fresh flowers and buds of gypsophila, alstroemeria, aster, gerbera, and hydrangea’? Please revise it.

 

The words ‘gypsophila, alstroemeria, aster, gerbera, and hydrangea’, if they are genus names, please make the first letter capital, ‘Gypsophila’.

 

4

Table 3

‘Fresh cut flowers and buds’

It is confusing.

According to Table 2, this may be ‘Fresh flowers and buds of gypsophila, alstroemeria, aster, gerbera, and hydrangea.

Please do revise it, and also, please state this in the table legend.

 

Also, in line 153:

‘the two main floral products: fresh flowers and buds, and roses’

It should also be clarified, of gypsophila, alstroemeria, aster, gerbera, and hydrangea.

 

The first line of this table (total exports of all the countries in the world) could be deleted, since they are already presented in Table 2.

 

Besides, in the last row of this table, it may be specified in this way: the total of the five exporting countries.

 

 

 

5

Table 4 Types of flower exports from Ecuador

There is a mistake in the numbers.

 

‘Roses, 608,811’ 

 

However, in Table 3, it was:

‘Colombia 608,811

Ecuador 458,460’

 

Please do check this, and must make corrections. This is very important.

 

Line 166:

‘These two types of floral products reached 95% of world exports (Table 4).’

 

This statement is obviously wrong.

It should be: these two types of floral products reached 95% of Ecuador flower exports (Table 4).

 

The authors should carefully check all the data of the tables.

 

6

Line 313

‘In a comparative analysis, an RCA index is found to be higher than Ecuador with …’

Please rewrite this sentence.

 

 

7

Graphic 1. Main statistical characteristics (Min, Max, Average, Std) for the RCA indices of Ecuador, the Netherlands, Colombia, Kenya, and Ethiopia in 2016-2020.

 

It might be Figure 1.

Besides, the figure legend should be placed below the figure.

Thank you.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for taking the time to review my article for sustainabiliy. Your comments and suggestions were invaluable in improving the quality of the work and ensuring that it meets the high standards required for publication.

I appreciate your constructive and detailed approach to reviewing the article, which demonstrated your expertise in the field and your commitment to academic excellence. Furthermore, thank you for pointing out some errors and ambiguities that may have otherwise gone unnoticed.

Your feedback helped enrich and clarify the discussion, and contributed to the overall quality of the work. I thank you again for your time and dedication in reviewing my article, and look forward to continuing to receive your support and guidance in future revisions.

Sincerely,

Authors

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf