Application of Landscape Approach Principles Motivates Forest Fringe Farmers to Reforest Ghana’s Degraded Reserves

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript focused on the specific landscape approaches and role of actors in Ghana case.  I think this research paper is unique and high standard research.

However, manuscript should be improved several points. One of critical points of this manuscript is lack of explanation of all stakeholders. When read this manuscript, I sometimes cannot imagine which actors involve some specific activities For example, the authors mention local NGO role. But this stated in the concluding section. It is lack of information in results parts.

The detailed comments described as bellows.

• Line 22-26

Please state objectives of this manuscript more clearly in abstracts.

• Line 24

In my impression, trade-off occurred between different SDGs goals, not between SDGs goals (i.e.SDGs15) and conserving forests.

• Line 32

Is there no discussion section in abstract?

• Line 56-57

I cannot find out the objectives of this manuscript. Dose this sentence state your objectives of this manuscript or not? Please clarify this point.

• Line 73

Can you state your objectives more clearly i.e (The objectives of this study is to assess.................)

• Line 103

I understood the landscape approach pay attention to the role of stakeholders. But I still do not understand how this approach dealing with natural resources issues.

• Line 112

The authors stated "both approach".  What that means “both approach”?  Maybe one is landscape approach, and what else (the other one) is ??.

• Line 117

Each SDGs goal have detailed targets. It is better to state detailed target in each goals more clearly.

• Line 125

 In the materials and methods section, please explain all of stakeholders who involve this target area. When I read some results parts, it is very difficult to understand some actors suddenly exists.

• Line 129

The authors said “I consulted….” But, the authors of this manuscript is more than one person.

• Line 141

Who are interested in this activities in each household. Head of households or interviewee? I do not clearly understand the meaning of farmer. Is he/she head of household? Or others?

• Line 159

Is the meaning of this head of household or participants?

• Line 190

Why the authors can state "landscape approach brings stakeholder with different interest together to achieve common goal" based on this paragraph.

• Line 196

Why the authors pay attention with establishment of nursery in this issue. Please explain why. And are there another decision making opportunities among stakeholders?   Here, the authors can argue participation procedure only farmers. Didn't other stakeholder participate in this process such as foresters including their advice?

Which actors belong to this project team? Farmers? , academics and others? Please clarify this.

• Line 215

Which actors belong to this commission?

• Line 255

It is better to state which stakeholders involved this project in "materials and method" section.

• Line 263

What is different between this manager and forester?

• Line 264

What do the authors means "indirectly" ?

• Line 308

Project team may consists of several different actors. Which actors do the authors means here.

• Line 326

If the authors mention stakeholder capacity, it seems that all of stakeholders may include. But the authors are focused on main actor of this project. it is better to state this point more clearly.

• Line 328

Does all of participated farmers received the training or not. In my experience, sometimes some farmers have interested this type of training, but some framer may not. What about real situation of this project.

• Line 342

Is this realty ignorance of farmers? I presumed that some farmers may recognized the impact of chemical to teak seedlings, but they prioritized maize. What do the authors think of this point.

• Line 349

Is this really unpredictable of human behavior. It seems that the authors listed up above these issue may easily image what's happen.

• Line 434

This project was successful implemented. But in my observation, most of this type of project may be failed lack of something.  But in this project, project team consisting of experts may lead farmers including financial support. What about real situation?

• Line 449

Who or which actors show the option of planted tree species to farmers?  Don't the project team show the option for fast growing species for selling?  I think the selection by farmers induce by experts in the project team. Not simply farmers opinions.

• Line 468

I understood the participation of framers near forest is very important. But it is too much focused on farmers in this sentence. At the same time, clever guidance for farmers by expert also should be necessary, I presumed.

• Line 473

This is first time to recognize the stakeholder”NGO”. Does NGO involve this projects activities? If NGO support project activates, you have to explain this since earlier section of this manuscript. This is conclusion section.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The study provides valuable insights into the implementation of a reforestation project that applies principles of the forest landscape approach in Ghana. It is a relevant and timely article that shows how important the involvement of local farmers is for an effective and legitimate project implementation.

My main concern is that so far, the manuscript is written in a style of a project report rather than in the style of a research article.

The introduction makes a good problem statement but lacks references of relevant articles of forest landscape debate. Moreover, it remains unclear, what the aim of the paper is and which research question it seeks to answer. Is it about showing the trade-offs and ways to address them or about testing in how far the principles of the landscape approach can be translated into practice? Or is it about comparing the Taungya system with forest landscape approach?

Is the focus on instiutions and procedures (participation, conflict solving, etc) or on outputs (monetary benefits/livlihoods)? Or on both? What does the study seek to investigate? This should also be made explicit in the introduction.

The results could be re-structured according to the research aim and question instead of listing the principles. In some sections teh authors  claims that conflicts were solved in consensus and that nothing was imposed but jointly decided. This sounds great - but it remains unclear how this was possible. Was is really only the money that motivated people or was is also the participatory proces? This could like to a concluding discussion in how far both is needed: a legitimate process and livlihood benefits.

While reading about the successful participation process, I was wondering what frequency of meetings was required and how did the project team facilitate the multi stakeholder participation so that trust developed.

The article so far lacks a discussion. It refer only to the SDGs but does not link to the debate about other reforestation or conservation projects in Ghana or other developing countries.

The conclusion is mainly a summary of the results and would benefit to answer the research question (once it is clearly formulated).

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Thank you to the authors for the opportunity to read this manuscript. I think the project is potentially of interest to readers of the journal, but I think the presentation and argumentation needs to be significantly improved to be of use to potential readers. I have included specific comments in the attached PDF, and I summarize my main concerns here.

1) The project activities as a whole are not described in sufficient detail for the readers to identify the applications of the landscape principles to the project. There is some overall description of the project at the end of the manuscript, but this should be presented much, much earlier if the readers are to have an understanding of the context under which the claims about the landscape approach are made.

2) I have some questions about the degree to which the project indeed embodies the participatory components of the landscape approach. From the description, it seems to have been a pretty typical top-down integrated conservation and development project. I think this argument needs to be substantially clarified.

3) The presentation of the survey results is cumbersome and, I think, inconclusive. As this was not a randomized controlled trial, it is difficult to attribute the observed benefits to the project itself without making an explicit counterfactual. That is, what would have happened to farmers in the project's absence? This requires thinking about the opportunity cost of the time and resources spent on the project.

4) I think the landscape approach itself needs to be better justified. Why is it superior to (or, indeed, different from) previous integrated conservation and development approaches?

5) I would like to see a bit more of the voice of the community here. Given that the project team is reporting on their own project, I am worried that it might be presented in an excessively optimistic fashion.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Based on the revision, the quality of this manuscript has been developed drastically. However, it still has several remaining issues. See below comments.  Please continue to revise this manuscript for the final process.

Point 6: Line 103

I understood the landscape approach pay attention to the role of stakeholders. But I still do not understand how this approach dealing with natural resources issues.

Response 6: The landscape approach pays attention to the role of different stakeholders of a specific landscape. In most cases the landscape is a multi-functional landscape such as forest landscape that plays multiple functions to diverse stakeholders. In this case, the landscape approach attempts to bring together the different stakeholders each of whom has a different interest in the forest landscape. These stakeholders come together to build consensus and negotiations for improved conservation and the achievement of individual goals with trade-offs.

⇒it seems that the authors still did not answer my question. My question is whether the landscape approach dealing with natural resources issues. If so, please state this point clearly in the manuscript.

Point 9: Line 125

 In the materials and methods section, please explain all of stakeholders who involve this target area. When I read some results parts, it is very difficult to understand some actors suddenly exists.

Response 9: All the stakeholders involved in this research project have been detailed in the first paragraph of the methods. Lines 136-140 reads “Four stakeholders were involved in this research project – Forest Managers (from the Forestry Commission of Ghana and Forest Services Division), Forest Technical Officers (Forest Ranger, Forest Cartographer, both from the Forest Services Division), Project Team (Research Assistant - Ecomafghana, Forest Ranger, Forest Guard, Field Manager, and Academic) and farmers”.

⇒I still do not clearly understand the stakeholders. Where came from member of the project team?  Originally, which organization they belong to? for example forest ranger and forest guard? And what about NGOs?

Point 13: Line 190

Why the authors can state "landscape approach brings stakeholder with different interest together to achieve common goal" based on this paragraph.

Response 13: The farmers were cultivating illegally in the forest reserve without growing any trees in the forest because their interest is food crop production. The project initiators were interested in growing trees to restore the degraded forest. This will rationally mean that the farmers would have to be evicted from the land and be deprived of their source of livelihood from the land. To prevent this negative impact on the farmers, the landscape approach rather engages the farmers in the reforestation activity to ensure that both parties (the farmers and the project initiators) achieve their objectives. The farmers get the land for farming and the project initiators get the land planted with trees.

⇒all right. Please put additional explanation for better understanding "landscape approach brings stakeholders with different interests together to achieve common goal" in the manuscript.

Point 14: Line 196

Why the authors pay attention with establishment of nursery in this issue. Please explain why. And are there another decision making opportunities among stakeholders?   Here, the authors can argue participation procedure only farmers. Didn't other stakeholder participate in this process such as foresters including their advice?

Which actors belong to this project team? Farmers? , academics and others? Please clarify this.

Response 14: We paid attention to the establishment of the nursery because the process entailed lots of learning and adaptive management from the beginning to the end. Making the nursery beds for the tree seeds involved some techniques that without the advice of foresters, the farmers would not have known. Once the seeds started germinating, uncertainties set in as to what was weed and what was a seedling. Advice from the foresters became significant at this point too (as stated on lines 237-240). The establishment of the nursery was therefore used to assess the initial commitment of the farmers to the project (as stated on lines 240-242).

⇒All right. Please put the additional explanation in the manuscript why the authors pay attention to establishment of the nursery in this issue

The composition of the project team is stated on lines 156-157  “…..Project Team (Research Assistant - Ecomafghana, Forest Ranger, Forest Guard, Field Manager, and Academic)…..”.

⇒All right. See my additional comments on points 9.

Point 17: Line 263

What is different between this manager and forester?

Response 17: The District Manager oversees all activities in the Forest Services Division. The Plantations Manager oversees all activities relating to plantations establishment in their catchment areas. Although these managers are also foresters, I use the word ‘foresters’ to refer to those that go to the field and do the actual work. These are mainly the Forest Rangers and Forest Guards in this research.

⇒All right. Please put the additional information for better understanding above matter.

〇Line 166.

Does “Academic” mean the authors’ team?

〇Line 200.

Is this chapter3 or 4? Please check this point.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

1) The Introduction has improved as it is more explicit about the aim of the study. However, a concrete research question is still lacking. The authors evaluated/assessed the applicability of FLR at a micro-scale. They found that a participatory and inclusive project design and livlihood benefits contributed to a positive project outcome (SDG contributions).

To have a logical and solid research design, authors should not claim from the beginning how successful their projet was. The following formulation was confusing in this regard:

The study "examined how farmers in forest fringe communities could be engaged in restoring degraded forests using the landscape approach and through which their livelihoods would improve".

Please re-consider the phrasing and claims. So far, it seems that you start with the intention to assess something and already assume its success (creating positive livlihood benefits). The research design needs to be improved by staying more open and cautious with claims in the introduction.

2) In the last section, it is conculded that the poject "has achieved significant successes". Again, a more self-critical reflection would improve the case study. Even though, the case present a rather positive example, the claim of being "significant success" is too one-sided. Success from the perspective of whom? Based on which criteria? Did participants also evaluate and assess the project as positive/successful - any evidence? Are there any new insights into trade-offs or remainig challenges that can be demonstrated by the case study?

Author Response

Please see the attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I feel that the authors have adequately addressed my concerns with the manuscript.

Author Response

We thank you for your constructive comments.