African Forest-Fringe Farmers Benefit from Modern Farming Practices despite High Environmental Impacts
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Congratulations for preparing an excellent paper in all respects. I really appreciate the differentiated analysis and discussion. The topic is very important. Well done!!
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for taking the time to review our paper. We are most grateful.
Kind regards,
Authors
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents a research aiming to analyze the perception by different stakeholders of three farming systems (traditional, mixed-input, modern) in forest-fringe areas in Ghana. The main motivation for the research is the high rate of deforestation in Ghanaian forest reserves affecting ecosystem services. The three farming systems are spread in these reserves but are very different in terms of impact on forest land use, thus the authors want to highlight the perception of costs and benefits of these farming systems using a multi-criteria analysis. The paper is clearly written and, in my opinion, deserves publication in Land.
There are only some minor points to be addressed:
1) Figure 2 and similar (4, 5, 7, 9): I suggest to remove the "Score" in the centre of the Figure and indicate in the legend the values indicating the scores. Moreover, in Figure 9 I suggest to indicate in the legend what do red letters a, b, c, d... mean.
2) The three farming systems are well described. However, it is unclear in the paper the relative importance of each of them both at the national or the local study area levels. Can you give some additional details?
3) I suggest the authors to give in the material and method section more information about the stakeholder selection and the methods of the survey (individual?). For example, you say that the farmers were indicated by local communities, however, are they belonging to one of the farming systems? Which one? Does the different farming system can explain the results obtained for the farmer stakeholder type?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you very much for your comments. They were really helpful for improving the quality of the paper. Please below are the minor comments you made and the responses we have provided. We have addressed all your comments and can be verified from the revised version of the manuscript. Thank you for your time and efforts.
1) Figure 2 and similar (4, 5, 7, 9): I suggest to remove the "Score" in the centre of the Figure and indicate in the legend the values indicating the scores. Moreover, in Figure 9 I suggest to indicate in the legend what do red letters a, b, c, d... mean.
Response: The ‘score’ in the center of the Figures 2, 4, 5, 7, and 9 has been removed. A legend has been added to the figures indicating the score values and what a, b, c, d, e, f, g, and h mean. These can be seen on lines 297, 355, 377, 409, and 429. Thank you.
2) The three farming systems are well described. However, it is unclear in the paper the relative importance of each of them both at the national or the local study area levels. Can you give some additional details?
Response: Additional details on the relative importance of the farming systems in the context of the study area and rural Ghana have been added. Please see lines 215 to 233 for the details. Thank you.
3) I suggest the authors to give in the material and method section more information about the stakeholder selection and the methods of the survey (individual?). For example, you say that the farmers were indicated by local communities, however, are they belonging to one of the farming systems? Which one? Does the different farming system can explain the results obtained for the farmer stakeholder type?
Response: We have given more information about the stakeholder selection and the rational for selecting the various stakeholder groups. We have provided more information on the farmers interviewed and the systems they belonged to. Please see lines 171 to 193 for details. Thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
I would recommend the following:
Minor language modifications
Better explain the methodology (emphasize the samples’ relevance)
Additional perspectives for the future development of this topic
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your time spent in reviewing our paper. We really appreciate. Please we have addressed all your comments and below are the responses indicating the areas in the manuscript that you can find the corrections we have made. Thank you.
1) Minor language modifications
Response: A native English speaker and editor has read through the entire manuscript and made the necessary language modifications. Thank you.
2) Better explain the methodology (emphasize the samples’ relevance)
More explanations have been given regarding the samples’ relevance. Please see lines 171 to 193 for details. Thank you.
3) Additional perspectives for the future development of this topic.
Response: Areas of further research have been added to the concluding remarks of the manuscript. Please refer to lines 545 to 548 for details. Thank you.
