Assessment of the Diverse Roles of Home Gardens and Their Sustainable Management for Livelihood Improvement in West Java, Indonesia
, Su Young Woo 1,*, Myeong Ja Kwak 1, Jong Kyu Lee 1, Sundawati Leti 2 and Trison Soni 2Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper deals with important issues for sustainability however it is linked to the topic of Forests. Homegarden is a traditional agroforestry system in West Java, Indonesia and plays a fundamental role in providing subsistence food and income to local people. The topicality of paper is well addressed and the references are provided for the background of the study however in the end of introduction the structure of the paper should be presented. The strengths and weaknesses of methodology need to be addressed. The limitations of the study are not clearly provided. Discussion of results should be based on comparison of findings with results of similar studies in this field. The conclusions should be more concise. The policy implications should be provided in conclusions including future research guidelines based on limitations of conducted study. The figures should be avoided in conclusions.
Author Response
Point 1: The topicality of paper is well addressed and the references are provided for the background of the study however in the end of introduction the structure of the paper should be presented.
Response 1: [lines 68-74, 78-92] We presented a brief methodology and result of this study at the end of the introduction.
Point 2: The strengths and weaknesses of the methodology need to be addressed.
Response 2: [lines 165-167, 131-138, 197-202] In this study, economic and ecological values were evaluated by different indices which are widely and generally used when we study financial analysis and ecological characteristics analysis. Thus it is expected to be more generally acceptable. In addition, raw data was surveyed by direct communication with each household through a structured questionnaire which is able to get more practical and comprehensive results.
On the other hand, when we study ecological characteristics analysis, the limited number of species were used for assessing the stand structure characteristics without herbaceous plant species.
Point 3: The limitations of the study are not clearly provided.
Response 3: [lines 68-74, 78-92] The limitation of this study was described as it was not able to survey all homegardens in the study sites. Thus it is necessary to collect more information through an increased number of sample plots for ecological surveys and an increased number of the respondent for financial survey in the study sites.
Point 4: Discussion of results should be based on the comparison of findings with results of similar studies in this field.
Response 4: [lines 311-314] We have structured the results and discussion together so the comparison of findings with results of similar studies is described all over the results and discussion section. Furthermore, we added a comparison result which was not mentioned in the original description.
Point 5: The conclusions should be more concise. The policy implications should be provided in conclusions including future research guidelines based on limitations of conducted study. The figures should be avoided in conclusions.
Response 5: [lines 473-485] The conclusion was revised in order to more concise by focusing on the result of this study. Also, the figure was deleted. We also suggested the research guidelines for making better result on the financial situation of the households.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Include in the introduction section highlights of the methodological approach and main results It is unclear what the population studied is: how many homegardens are there in the region? What percentage of these is the sample? Discuss why the interest rate was taken as 12%, it is unclear The discussion on sustainable management (3.4) is unconnected to the results presented in the paper. It seems the research was unnecessary to reach the discussion section's points The authors talk about estimation of benefits and costs but do not explain what data were collected for this reason, so it is impossible to know if the methodology followed is valid. This section has to be expanded to include this informationAuthor Response
Point 1: Include in the introduction section highlights the methodological approach and main results.
Response 1: [lines 68-74, 78-92] Referring to the guidelines of the author and the comments, we added a brief methodology and result at the end of the introduction.
Point 2: It is unclear what the population studied is: how many homegardens are there in the region? What percentage of these is the sample?
Response 2: [lines 103-105, 131-132, Table 1] As commented, we added the total population surveyed and the percentage of the total population in this region. However, it is not possible to describe how many homegardens in the region, but we are able to guess there might be around 3,524 homegardens since each household might have their own homegarden.
Point 3: Discuss why the interest rate was taken as 12%, it is unclear.
Response 3: [lines 178-179] Interest rate as 12% is according to the interest rate of loan from the bank in Indonesia at that time.
Point 4: The discussion on sustainable management (3.4) is unconnected to the results presented in the paper. It seems the research was unnecessary to reach the discussion section's points. The authors talk about the estimation of benefits and costs but do not explain what data were collected for this reason, so it is impossible to know if the methodology followed is valid. This section has to be expanded to include this information.
Response 4: [lines 403-485] Based on the comment, we have revised the manuscript. Discussion on sustainable management (3.4) is modified to more focus on the species composition based on the result of this study and literature review rather than considering strategic approaches on the management of homegardens which was not clearly proved in this study.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I found your manuscript interesting enough. Below are small comments and suggestions that I hope will be taken into account by you when revising.
rows 75-78. Add the hypothesis you plan to prove with this manuscript rows 81-91. How typical or unique are the selected villages? rows 94-95. You probably need to specify the source of borrowing the map. Table 4 and 9. How important are local plant names to an international scientific journal? I am sure that Latin names will be enough. row 240. Missing the dot (P. falcataria) Table 3. Missing the dot 90.0 row 430. P. falcatariaI wish you the best of luck!
Author Response
Point 1: I found your manuscript interesting enough. Below are small comments and suggestions that I hope will be taken into account by you when revising. Add the hypothesis you plan to prove with this manuscript.
Response 1: [lines 78-92] As suggested, we added the hypothesis of this manuscript and more clarify describe the objectives at the end of the ‘Introduction’ section.
Point 2: How typical or unique are the selected villages?
Response 2: [lines 103-105, 75-77] Homegardens are the typical farming systems commonly used in the region and villagers are highly depend on their livelihood on agricultural activities such as rice paddy, fruit products, crops, and horticulture products from their own homegardens by generating income source. Also, the selected villages are considered to be affected by urbanization and commercialization due to the geographical features that are closed to Bogor as one of the biggest satellite city of Jakarta.
Point 3: You probably need to specify the source of borrowing the map.
Response 3: [lines 112-113] Based on a policy of the website where it is an origin of the map, we added a source as https://www.mapsland.com/asia/indonesia at the end of description Figure 1.
Point 4: (Table 4 and 9) How important are local plant names to an international scientific journal? I am sure that Latin names will be enough.
Response 3: [Table 4, Table 9] Based on the comment, we have revised the table 4 and 9 without the local name. The only scientific name is presented.
Point 5: (Row 240 and Row 430) Missing the dot and (Table 3) Missing the dot.
Response 5: [lines 257, 442, Table 3] We have put a period of the indicated Row and Table.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have corrected manuscript and addressed all comments however it is strange that changes are indicated just in response to reviewers comments but are not marked in the etxt of manuscript.. So reviewers should search in the text of the paper by themselves. My comments were addressed and paper was improved therefore, according to my opinion it can be published in current form.
Reviewer 2 Report
The previous comments have been adequately addressed.
