Agroforestry-Based Ecosystem Services: Reconciling Values of Humans and Nature in Sustainable Development
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear author, I enjoyed reading the manuscript that is, in general, well written and with several ideas linking theories and agroforestry. Although interesting for a presentation of ideas, the manuscript itself might not be considered a scientific manuscript, considering that the several ideas are not deeply discussed and not sufficiently linked. Also, I searched in the LAND journal for Perspective manuscripts type, but I was not able to read the guide for authors (limit of words, figures, tables, structure), so I was not to judge this aspect.
My main questions concerning the manuscript are:
1 - The figures are not particularly well done, too many colors, links, arrows, makes them a little messy and not easy to be follow – maybe for a power point presentation, but again not scientific in my point of view, considering that several links are not explained in the legend or in the manuscript; some of the original images’ credits should also be acknowledged.
2 – In the end, the 3 concepts presented early, do not seem to be well translated to the agroforestry systems. Like two independent parts. The author should make an effort to increase the first part of the speech with the “4. Roles for and contributions by agroforestry research”…until the end.
3 – Conclusion discussion very poor considering all the ideas disclosed initially, the author gives several personal points of view on how should be done and why…partially supported on published material
4 – Table 2 adds no information and should be removed from the manuscript in my opinion.
5 – Appendix 1 legend is not easy to understand and itself is not easy to read, for a perspective manuscript – it is not even cited in the text!
The author tries to “put everything in”, that even interesting, by discussing relevant questions starting from philosophy, psychology human behavior, ecosystem services, multifunctionality, land spare- land share debate, scale, what to research and even specific hypothesis to be further investigated considering agroforestry…and that is for me the major drawback, several ideas, but in the end the reader is overwhelmed by the broadness of ideas that end with a simple and vague conclusion.
Hope it helps
Author Response
Reviewer 1.
Dear author, I enjoyed reading the manuscript that is, in general, well written and with several ideas linking theories and agroforestry.
**AUTHOR** Thank you for the positive feedback in general and the critical points that helped me to sharpen the storyline at a number of points.
Although interesting for a presentation of ideas, the manuscript itself might not be considered a scientific manuscript, considering that the several ideas are not deeply discussed and not sufficiently linked. Also, I searched in the LAND journal for Perspective manuscripts type, but I was not able to read the guide for authors (limit of words, figures, tables, structure), so I was not to judge this aspect. **AUTHOR** This is for an editor to judge, I hope the manuscript meets the expectation for a ‘perspective’ piece, reflecting on current science and its progress, providing a perspective on where progress could be made, specifying some hypotheses that can be taken up.
My main questions concerning the manuscript are:
1 - The figures are not particularly well done, too many colors, links, arrows, makes them a little messy and not easy to be follow – maybe for a power point presentation, but again not scientific in my point of view, considering that several links are not explained in the legend or in the manuscript; some of the original images’ credits should also be acknowledged.
**AUTHOR** Thank you for the feedback – figures often lead to mixed responses, as they ‘work’ for some readers but not all. I revised Figure 1 that indeed had too harsh colors, tinkered a bit with Figure 2 (and added sources for the three portraits used); I removed what was Fig. 4 (indeed more for an oral presentation, with animation supporting the storyline) and replaced it by two figures that may further clarify the current ‘relational value’ and ‘LER concepts, as requested.
2 – In the end, the 3 concepts presented early, do not seem to be well translated to the agroforestry systems. Like two independent parts. The author should make an effort to increase the first part of the speech with the “4. Roles for and contributions by agroforestry research”…until the end.
**AUTHOR** Thank you for these comments – indeed the first question is not specifically addressing agroforestry, but explores the value concepts that are related to AF in questions 2 and 3. I have made various small edits that, I hope, strengthen the connections.
3 – Conclusion discussion very poor considering all the ideas disclosed initially, the author gives several personal points of view on how should be done and why…partially supported on published material
**AUTHOR** Indeed. I have completely rewritten the conclusion section, aiming for a rather high level of abstraction, in line with the review as such, but hopefully triggering reflection (and productive disagreement?) in the readers.
4 – Table 2 adds no information and should be removed from the manuscript in my opinion.
**AUTHOR** Thanks for this feedback, apparently the reference to Table A1 in the appendix (see also the following suggestion) did not work; I have brought the Table A1 into the main text, replacing Table 2, as it is indeed more substantive and Table 2 was not understandable by itself.
5 – Appendix 1 legend is not easy to understand and itself is not easy to read, for a perspective manuscript – it is not even cited in the text!
**AUTHOR** See preceding point
The author tries to “put everything in”, that even interesting, by discussing relevant questions starting from philosophy, psychology human behavior, ecosystem services, multifunctionality, land spare- land share debate, scale, what to research and even specific hypothesis to be further investigated considering agroforestry…and that is for me the major drawback, several ideas, but in the end the reader is overwhelmed by the broadness of ideas that end with a simple and vague conclusion.
**AUTHOR** Thanks for this feedback, as stated I have reworked the conclusion section
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an interesting, conceptually dense and well-written paper framing agroforestry research within broader theories of changes and putting it in the conceptual frame of socio-ecological systems. While reading the paper, I had at times the impression that the discussion transcended a bit too much the topic of agroforestry, but overall I enjoyed the reading. I point out some relatively minor issues to be addressed before publication.
Abstract: I suggest to briefly explain that the concept of Agroforestry-1, 2 and 3 refers to different scales, this becomes clear after reading the paper but the abstract shall be self-explanatory and readable as a stand-alone text.
Line 70 “(reducing development deficits)” is not very clear, I suggest to either explain it by elaborating or remove it.
Section 2.1. I like figure 2 and the conceptual discussion elaborated here. However, important as the three presented theories may be, there would be other important ‘changes of theories’ that could be mentioned here, for example referring to socio-economic aspects (e.g. Marxian theories) or epistemology (Kuhn, Popper). Of course, this paper is not the place to discuss them, so I simply suggest to slightly reword the text in lines 92-93 not to give the impression that these are the only 3 theories, as it may appear with the current phrasing.
Line 123 the expression “jenga-style collapse” may not be known by all readers, please provide a brief explanation (maybe in a footnote?)
Lines 149-150: please correct “jus publicum” to “ius publicum” as the latter is the correct form in Latin.
Lines 283-284 there is a repetition of the text at lines 273-276
Lines 310. Please provide a short explanation on how LERM is defined.
Table 2: I suggest to make clearer in the table caption that I = Instrumental, R = relational and M = mixed.
Author Response
Reviewer 2.
This is an interesting, conceptually dense and well-written paper framing agroforestry research within broader theories of changes and putting it in the conceptual frame of socio-ecological systems. While reading the paper, I had at times the impression that the discussion transcended a bit too much the topic of agroforestry, but overall I enjoyed the reading. I point out some relatively minor issues to be addressed before publication.
**AUTHOR** Thank you for the positive comments. I have followed up on your specific suggestions and tried to clarify the perspective that AF now deals with a much larger share of natural resource management issues than previously envisaged…
Abstract: I suggest to briefly explain that the concept of Agroforestry-1, 2 and 3 refers to different scales, this becomes clear after reading the paper but the abstract shall be self-explanatory and readable as a stand-alone text.
**AUTHOR** Thanks, I made sure the term scale is used in description if each AF category
Line 70 “(reducing development deficits)” is not very clear, I suggest to either explain it by elaborating or remove it.
**AUTHOR** Thanks it was indeed to condensed -- it now reads “combine fairness (ensuring that nobody is left behind in reducing development deficits that contribute to ‘poverty’)”
Section 2.1. I like figure 2 and the conceptual discussion elaborated here. However, important as the three presented theories may be, there would be other important ‘changes of theories’ that could be mentioned here, for example referring to socio-economic aspects (e.g. Marxian theories) or epistemology (Kuhn, Popper). Of course, this paper is not the place to discuss them, so I simply suggest to slightly reword the text in lines 92-93 not to give the impression that these are the only 3 theories, as it may appear with the current phrasing.
**AUTHOR** Thanks for this feedback. At risk of opening multiple cans of worms, I have added a brief reference to Karl Marx and his legacy, with the 20th century Ostrom work reinterpreting social and ‘commons’ aspects that were at risk of being babies in the change of bathwater.
Line 123 the expression “jenga-style collapse” may not be known by all readers, please provide a brief explanation (maybe in a footnote?)
**AUTHOR** Thanks, this was indeed too cryptic and has now been embellished.
Lines 149-150: please correct “jus publicum” to “ius publicum” as the latter is the correct form in Latin.
**AUTHOR** Corrected, thanks
Lines 283-284 there is a repetition of the text at lines 273-276
**AUTHOR** Overlap reduced, thanks
Lines 310. Please provide a short explanation on how LERM is defined.
**AUTHOR**
Table 2: I suggest to make clearer in the table caption that I = Instrumental, R = relational and M = mixed.
**AUTHOR** Thanks, done.
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.
