Farmers’ Socioeconomic Characteristics and Perception of Land Use Change Defining Optimal Agroforestry Practices in Khost Province, Afghanistan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Since the subject is human in the social field, producing a manuscript is difficult, but it must be done. In this respect, this manuscript in which you examine the socioeconomic effects of forest products and vegetable cultivation on the society and the satisfaction level of the society due to these activities is an important study. I wish you continued success.

Point 1	Line 53,	Make sure that the tables and figures used as references in the text are presented in the position closest to the sentence in which they are used as the first reference. Figure 1 and Table 2, 3, 4, 5
Point 2	Line 213	Pay attention to the percentage totals in the tables. There is an error due to number rounding. For example, Table 2 martial status total is 30.00+68.60+1.50 = %100.10 and No. of Household Members total is %99.90
Point 3	Line 234	Likewise, Table 3 Job/Employment and Working Experience total is %100.10
Point 4	Line 309	Punctuation error in this sentence should be corrected “bility and accessibility of vegetables and forestry products. [28] explained that cultivating”

Author Response

Point 1: Line 53, [Make sure that the tables and figures used as references in the text are presented in the position closest to the sentence in which they are used as the first reference. Figure 1 and Table 2, 3, 4, 5]

Response point 1: Each table and figure is quoted in the sentence in which they are used as the first references, as suggested. Thank you for your comment.

Point 2: Line 213, [Pay attention to the percentage totals in the tables. There is an error due to number rounding. For example, Table 2 marital status total is 30.00+68.60+1.50 = %100.10 and No. of Household Members total is %99.90].

Response point 2: The error in percentage totals in tables is corrected. Now, the percentages of all categories are summed up to 100%.

Point 3: Line 234, [Likewise, Table 3 Job/Employment and Working Experience total is %100.10]

Response point 3: The error in percentage totals in tables is corrected. Now, the percentages of all categories are summed up to 100%.

Point 4: Line 309, [Punctuation error in this sentence should be corrected, “bility and accessibility of vegetables and forestry products. [28] explained that cultivating”]?

Response point 4: Thank you for your comment. The sentence is modified to make it clearer: A study emphasizing the differences between agroforestry and farm mosaic systems explained that cultivating one crop on a certain land is a risky, particularly in drought conditions due to climate and market uncertainty [1].

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

I appreciate your work. The study of agroforestry practices and land use change, in relation to  socioeconomic characteristics of agroforestry communities is a very relevant issue. Evaluation of the local’s population or communities perception or level of satisfaction and knowledge of local factors is also of great importance. You have done relevante field work to gather an important data base.

Although, I found fragilities in your's manuscript.

The introduction provides sufficient background and include relevant references, gives a quite good context of the problem in hands and explicit the aim of the study clearly. Although references are almost all change - I mean, the numbers referred in the text do not correspond to the article in the final reference list. All references across the manuscript have to be checked. 

Two examples of truncated references:
1) line 53-54 “[7] highlighted the benefits of agrofrestry as shade and fruit and the main tree species favourable to grow in semi-arid Isiolo County, Kenya ...” ;

list of references [7] – Hamidazada, M., Cruz, A. M., & Yokomatsu, M. (2019). Vulnerability factors of Afghan rural women to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10(4), 573-590.

2) line 66-67: “… caused by land use change and deforestation [9], the impact of agroforestry practices on dependent communities’ socioeconomic development in Khost Province, Afghanistan …”;

list of references [9] - Kassie, G. W. (2016). Agroforestry and land productivity: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 425 1259140.

Methods chapter, in general, lacks of clarity, mainly concerning how variables were quantified/assessed. And specially, it was very difficult for me to understand the statistical analysis (and results) presented. Research design seems appropriated, however methods need to be more adequately described to let the reader really understand what was done, how and why. Mainly, there is no sufficient information about the questionnaire - How many questions were assessed for each validated construct? Could you give a few examples of the type of questions used for each different construct? How satisfaction with the level of facilities and infrastructure, or knowledge of land use change and impacts, factors of land use change, were quantified? How respondents were asked to rank for example their satisfaction? By using multiple choice, a likert type scale? How many levels had the scale?

In line 172, you said that “A cross-sectional research design was used to gather data at one point in time.” Could you refer when the data was gathered?

 Concerning statistical analysis: Independent and Dependent variables must be clear identified. As one main objective of the study is to compare satisfaction with the level of facilities and infrastructure, factors of land use change, and impact of land use change across different agroforestry practices, could you explain how data was organized by groups (forest products and vegetable farming)? How groups were formed to run the tests? Which is the Group factor? And the groups sizes? And why you used different tests (MANOVA and ANOVA), for different variables? Could you informe about homogeneity and normality of data, to performed statistical tests?

Concerning interpretation of tests results, it is usually considered that if Wilks' lambda value is smaller than the critical value, the null hypothesis (that the group means are equal across all dependent variables) should be reject. As I understand you assumed the opposite conclusion. Why? 

In general, comparison results are not clear, for me. Mainly table 4 and 5 – how did you get values of MANOVA F and respective p-value for each group? Did you run a Post hoc test?

Because conclusion of this study could have an high impact in future agroforestry in the region, it is necessary that there are no doubts about the results obtained by the study.

I hope my comments could help you improving your study and the manuscript.

Best regards,

 

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer’s 2 Comments
Comments from Second reviewer: I appreciate your work. The study of agroforestry practices and land use change, in relation to socioeconomic characteristics of agroforestry communities is a very relevant issue. Evaluation of the local’s population or communities’ perception or level of satisfaction and knowledge of local factors is also of great importance. You have done relevante field work to gather an important data base. Although, I found fragilities in your's manuscript. Point 1: The introduction provides sufficient background and include relevant references, gives a quite good context of the problem in hands and explicit the aim of the study clearly. Although references are almost all change - I mean, the numbers referred in the text do not correspond to the article in the final reference list. All references across the manuscript have to be checked.  Two examples of truncated references:
[1) line 53-54 “[7] highlighted the benefits of agroforestry as shade and fruit and the main tree species favorable to grow in semi-arid Isiolo County, Kenya ...”;]? [list of references [7] – Hamidazada, M., Cruz, A. M., & Yokomatsu, M. (2019). Vulnerability factors of Afghan rural women to disasters. International Journal of Disaster Risk Science, 10(4), 573-590.] [2) line 66-67: “… caused by land use change and deforestation [9], the impact of agroforestry practices on dependent communities’ socioeconomic development in Khost Province, Afghanistan …”;]? [list of references [9] - Kassie, G. W. (2016). Agroforestry and land productivity: Evidence from rural Ethiopia. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 2(1), 425 1259140.] Response point 1: The references were redesigned using Mendeley referencing feature in Word. All references were reconciled to cite the original work of authors. Two examples of corrected references: [1) line 53-54 “[7] highlighted the benefits of agroforestry as shade and fruit and the main tree species favorable to grow in semi-arid Isiolo County, Kenya ...”;]? [list of references [7] – Quandt, A.; Neufeldt, H.; McCabe, J.T. Building Livelihood Resilience: What Role Does 442 Agroforestry Play? Clim Dev 2019, 11, 485–500, doi:10.1080/17565529.2018.1447903] [2) line 66-67: “… caused by land use change and deforestation [9], the impact of agroforestry practices on dependent communities’ socioeconomic development in Khost Province, Afghanistan …”;]? [list of references [9] - Kouassi, J.-L.; Gyau, A.; Diby, L.; Bene, Y.; Kouamé, C. Assessing Land Use and Land Cover Change and Farmers’ Perceptions of Deforestation and Land Degradation in South-West Côte d’Ivoire, West Africa. Land (Basel) 2021, 10, 429, doi:10.3390/land10040429.] Point 2: [Methods chapter, in general, lacks of clarity, mainly concerning how variables were quantified/assessed. And specially, it was very difficult for me to understand the statistical analysis (and results) presented. Research design seems appropriated, however methods need to be more adequately described to let the reader really understand what was done, how and why. Mainly, there is no sufficient information about the questionnaire - How many questions were assessed for each validated construct? Could you give a few examples of the type of questions used for each different construct? How satisfaction with the level of facilities and infrastructure, or knowledge of land use change and impacts, factors of land use change, were quantified? How respondents were asked to rank for example their satisfaction? By using multiple choice, a Likert type scale? How many levels had the scale?] Response point 2: To achieve clarity, the methods section is further divided into six sections, including research design, study population, sampling technique, study sample, research instrument, and data analysis methods with a brief explanation. The development and validation process of the questionnaire is disclosed, along with the operationalization and scaling of the variables.
Point 3: [In line 172, you said that “A cross-sectional research design was used to gather data at one point in time.” Could you refer when the data was gathered?] Response point 3: Time period in which the data was gathered is mentioned: “A cross-sectional research design was used to gather data by getting questionnaires filled between 8 February and 15 February 2023” Point 4: Concerning statistical analysis: Independent and Dependent variables must be clear identified. As one main objective of the study is to compare satisfaction with the level of facilities and infrastructure, factors of land use change, and impact of land use change across different agroforestry practices, could you explain how data was organized by groups (forest products and vegetable farming)? How groups were formed to run the tests? Which is the Group factor? And the groups sizes? And why you used different tests (MANOVA and ANOVA), for different variables? Could you inform about homogeneity and normality of data, to performed statistical tests? Response point 4: Dependent variables and grouping (independent) variables is clearly defined. Group size for each product is mentioned in Table3 and 4. Data analysis was expanded to describe the reason behind the use of two different tests, as well as the procedures of conducting those analyses.  Point 5: Concerning interpretation of tests results, it is usually considered that if Wilks' lambda value is smaller than the critical value, the null hypothesis (that the group means are equal across all dependent variables) should be reject. As I understand you assumed the opposite conclusion. Why? Response point 5: SPSS does not calculate the exact critical value of Wilk’s lambda for making any such conclusion; rather the p-value of F-test statistic and Wilk’s Lambda should be less than the critical value of 0.05 for rejection of null hypothesis. Using this rule as suggested by Hair et al., 2014 & Field (2024), the null hypothesis were decided to be accepted or rejected.  Point 6: In general, comparison results are not clear, for me. Mainly table 4 and 5 – how did you get values of MANOVA F and respective p-value for each group? Did you run a Post hoc test? Response point 6: MANOVA F and respective p-value for each group can be found in Multivariate analysis table. MANOVA F and respective p-value for each group and sub-dimension of dependent variables can be found in Tests of Between-Subject Effects table. Procedure of rejecting null hypothesis is disclosed in data analysis. Because conclusion of this study could have a high impact in future agroforestry in the region, it is necessary that there are no doubts about the results obtained by the study.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

First you must mention the aim of the paper in the introduction part

You must rename point 1.1 in Literature review and you must improve it...as iti is now it is not enough!

In the methodology part must be mentioned the number of questionaires aplied and where where aplied

In the results part you must coment each table so as the reader to understand better the research

In the conclusion part you must mention the future proposals

The reference part also must be enlarged...27 citations are not enough

Kind regards

Author Response

Point 1: First you must mention the aim of the paper in the introduction part

Response point 1: The aim of the paper is removed from Literature review and added in the introduction part.

Point 2: You must rename point 1.1 in Literature review and you must improve it...as it is now it is not enough!

Response point 2: Point 1.1 is replaced as 2. Literature review. More literature on agroforestry, agroforestry adoption, and agroforestry practices and systems were written. At the end of literature review, a summary was provided while taking towards the theme and basic idea behind the study objectives.

Point 3: In the methodology part must be mentioned the number of questionnaires applied and where applied.

Response point 3: A detailed explanation of questionnaire development and operationalization and scaling of variables is added in ‘3.6. Research Instrument ‘section. Also, sampling population and study sample are disclosed in separate section.

Point 4: In the results part you must comment each table so as the reader to understand better the research

Response point 4: Each table reference is added in the first possible sentence that explains the findings of the table as Table 1, 2, 3, so that readers can easily understand the interpretation of each Table.

Point 5: In the conclusion part you must mention the future proposals

Response point 5: Future proposals were mentioned in the conclusion part (Line 423).

Point 6: The reference part also must be enlarged...27 citations are not enough

Response point 6: 12 new articles were added to literature review and other sections, making a total of 39 citations in references part.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have improved the manuscript, mainly methods are now much more clearly described.  Although, as I referred in the first revision report, I continue to have great doubts about data treatment and statistical analysis, and, therefore, about study results.

As I understand now (in the revised version), authors have considered the different factors (items) of each dependent variable as different variables and run a MANOVA test for each variable or construct - results of MANOVA presented in tables 4 and 5.  This is, for me, a very unfamiliar way to perform a multivariate analysis.

Also grouping factor used looks to me quite suspicious: authors formed groups according the type of products (gathered or cultivated by respondents), but groups are overlapped (the sum of the groups size, in %, is much more then 100% of the total sample size), because each respondent could belong to two or more different groups (i.e. products).  If grouping factor is suspicious, respective results should also be suspicious.

Author Response

Point 1: As I understand now (in the revised version), authors have considered the different factors (items) of each dependent variable as different variables and run a MANOVA test for each variable or construct - results of MANOVA presented in tables 4 and 5. This is, for me, a very unfamiliar way to perform a multivariate analysis.

Response point 1: As MANOVA analysis was done considering different factors (items) of each dependent variable as different variables, the results for each factor are now presented separately in Tables 4 and 5 as well as in its explanation. 

Point 2: Also grouping factor used looks to me quite suspicious: authors formed groups according the type of products (gathered or cultivated by respondents), but groups are overlapped (the sum of the groups size, in %, is much more than 100% of the total sample size), because each respondent could belong to two or more different groups (i.e. products). If the grouping factor is suspicious, respective results should also be suspicious.

Response point 2: Since farmers as respondents were engaged in more than one product, and even both forest products and vegetable farming, the description of percentages was changed to “(% of total sample size engaged in a certain product)”. Also, an explanation is added in the data analysis section of methodology section: “Here, since farmers were engaged in more than one product and even in forest production and vegetable farming at the same time, the percentages of total respondents engaged in production of each product was mentioned alongside their names in brackets.”

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Indeed you have made some corections but some of them remains:

- you must mention the number of questionaires aplied and where where aplied

- still in the results part you must coment a litle bit each table

- In the conclusion part you must mention your future proposals

The reference part also must be enlarged...the citations are not enough

Author Response

Point 1: you must mention the number of questionnaires applied and where applied

Response point 1: An explanation is added to the study sample:

“A total of 750 questionnaires were spread physically, and 687 questionnaires were returned while equalizing the calculated sample size needed from each district, resulting in 91.6% response rate.”

Point 2: still in the results part, you must comment a little bit each table

Response point 2: A more detailed explanation of each table is added in the results section along with Table references as Table 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 so that readers can easily understand the interpretation of each Table (In particular, the Table 4 and 5 is explained with more details, stating what the results actually means).  

Point 3: In the conclusion part, you must mention your future proposals

Response point 3: Future proposals were mentioned in the conclusion part:

“Several future proposals can be inferred based on the study’s findings and limitations. Firstly, potential scholars can explore factors beyond land use change, such as climate change, shifts in policies and regulations, and changes in financial support available to farmers and agroforestry, which may affect the socioeconomic characteristics of agroforestry systems in dependent communities of Afghanistan. Secondly, an experimental or longitudinal design can also be employed to examine the long-term effects of such environmental shifts. Thirdly, the current work can be replicated in other areas and provinces in Afghanistan as well as other agricultural countries such as Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Liberia, Nigeria, and Ghana, etc. in order to increase outcome generalizability. In addition, similar studies can be conducted with simpler sampling techniques such as purposive sampling or convenience sampling to replicate the findings and implications of this research. Similarly, similar studies can be conducted on large-scale or medium-scale farmers to increase the generalizability of the findings. Lastly, future researchers can also interview farmers and agroforesters to elicit the practices used and their potential benefits and drawbacks for enhanced research objectivity and generalizability.”

Point 4: The reference part also must be enlarged...the citations are not enough

Response point 4: 25 new articles were added to literature review and other sections, making a total of 52 citations in references part.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 I appreciate very much the revision you made in the manuscript; present version is much clearer.

 However, I have a few latest suggestions to improve the understanding and quality of the manuscript.

 A first question relates to study aims (general and specifics), that needs to be clarified:

 Lines 84-85: “This study aims to examine the impact of agroforestry practices on dependent communities’ socioeconomic development in Khost Province, Afghanistan.”

 Commentary: You describe the socioeconomic characteristics of an agroforestry community (Khost Province´s), but in my opinion your study do not have results about the impact of agroforestry practices on socioeconomic development because you tried to relate community perceptions of natural and artificial factors with agroforestry practices (expressed as crops or products), but you did not related socioeconomic indicators with agroforestry practices.

As I understand the focus of the study is to relate actual farmers (and agroforesters) practices (i.e., their crops and forestry products) with their perception about natural and artifical factors (of land use).

 Lines 85-88: “The objectives are two-fold; to (i) examine the socioeconomic characteristics, and (ii) compare a satisfaction level across forest products and vegetable farming of the agroforestry community in Khost Province.”

Commentary: There is no doubt about the first objective - describing the socioeconomic characteristics of an agroforestry community (Khost Province´s).

Although, the second specific objective need to be more clearly described. Because:

1) the study presented results about 4 different variables and not only about community satisfaction level with infrastructures;

2) the study compares factors of satisfaction with infrastrucures, factors of knowledge about land use change (etc); the study do not compare the variable satisfaction, knowledge of ..., etc.;

3) the products were not compared – the individuals or farmers having report that production are compared (subjects in the analysis are not the products but the farmers that have a specific characteristic, pratice or production).

My second question relates to the main study variables (second specific aim). First (satisfaction with the level of facilities and infrastructure) and second variables (knowledge of land use change and impacts) are clearly defined and /coherently referred in text. The 2 other variables - factors of land use change and impact of land use – need more explanation. In some parts of the text it seems they are referred as “knowledge of” … Do they refer to knowledge of or to perception of factors of land use change? And to perception of or to knowledge of the impact of land use change? Because respondents rank their agreement level, I supposed that those variables refer to (individuals) perception or to their knowledge about. Therefore, this aspect shlould be clarified in the description of the variable (method) and the designation of the variable changed accordingly (for example to "perception of the impact of land use change"). Consequently, results and discussion should also be revised (when the name of the variables are referred).

 The last questions related to results (and discussion).

 - Lines 369-370; 373-375; 385-386; etc

Commentary: from which statistical test come those values? β values?

Did you used Regression Method or Model in the analyse? Regression model is not referred in data treatment (method).

 

- Line 387: “…berries were significantly associated with artificial factors …”

Commentary: As I perceived, factors were not measured in the present study – the knowledge or perception that the community members have about the factors were quantified. Simplification of the designation of the variable leads to misunderstanding of results (and discussion).

This aspect, i.e. using the wording “factors of land use change” and “impacts of land use change” creates misundertanding of the results and bias in the discussion. The study quantify (and present results) the  community “knowledge (or perception) of factors of land use change”, which is completelly different from quantifying and presenting values of “factors of land use change”.

 

- Line 500: “The study observed that changes in land use and associated knowledge significantly affected forest products”

Commentary: the study suggests that perception/knowledge of local communities about land use changes (etc) significantly relates to farming and agroforestry practices. But, again, changes in land use was not observed/registered/measured n the presented study– only the associated knowledge was observed/measured.

 

- Line 447 – “While examining the socioeconomic factors and exploring the satisfaction level of forest products and vegetable farming of agroforestry community of Khost Province, Afghanistan”.

Commentary: the study did not evaluate satisfaction level of forest products and vegetable farming – the study evaluated satisfaction (and perception) of farmers according to their crop/forest production. Products are not tested, nor the satisfaction with products. Producers (farmers and agroforesters) are the subjects of the study, and their productions (crops and forest products) a characteristic of the individuals. This simplification also introduce lack of clarity in the description of results and discussion.

 - Line 449-452: “the study found that certain crops are more suitable to grow due to the changes in the land use, climate change, changes in facilities and infrastructure, locals’ knowledge of land use change and impacts, natural and artificial factors of land use change, and positive and negative impact of land use change.”

Commentary: above referred lack of clarity in designation of variables affect the analysis (or description) of results  and introduced bias in conclusions: as far as i note, your study do not assess suitability of crops to changes in land use, climate, etc., the study did not found that certain crops are more suitable to grow due to the changes in the land use – the study found that certain agroforestry practices (crops, products) appeared associated with farmers perception of changes in the land use.

 Line 457: “As opposed to mono-cropping, multi-cropping and multipurpose trees under agroforestry …”

Commentary: Multi-cropping is a focus question in this study, in my opinion, and have been very few referred.

 One last suggestion: conclusion seems to me a continuation of discussion; discussion seems more a resume of results with considerations about the implications of results. May a few references to other studies will enrich your discussion?

I hope my notes could help you to embodied more clarity in your manuscript, 

Author Response

 

1. Summary
Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/in track changes in the re-submitted files.
2. Comments from second reviewer: I appreciate very much the revision you made in the manuscript; present version is much clearer. However, I have a few latest suggestions to improve the understanding and quality of the manuscript.   Point 1: A first question relates to study aims (general and specifics), that needs to be clarified: 1.       Lines 84-85: “This study aims to examine the impact of agroforestry practices on dependent communities’ socioeconomic development in Khost Province, Afghanistan.” 2.       Commentary: You describe the socioeconomic characteristics of an agroforestry community (Khost Province´s), but in my opinion your study do not have results about the impact of agroforestry practices on socioeconomic development because you tried to relate community perceptions of natural and artificial factors with agroforestry practices (expressed as crops or products), but you did not related socioeconomic indicators with agroforestry practices. 3.       As I understand the focus of the study is to relate actual farmers (and agroforesters) practices (i.e., their crops and forestry products) with their perception about natural and artifical factors (of land use). Response Point 1: The study aims to made clearer: “This study aims to examine the farmers’ socioeconomic characteristics and perception of land use changes that defines optimal agroforestry practices in Khost Province, Afghanistan.”   Point 2: 4.       Lines 85-88: “The objectives are two-fold; to (i) examine the socioeconomic characteristics, and (ii) compare a satisfaction level across forest products and vegetable farming of the agroforestry community in Khost Province.” 5.       Commentary: There is no doubt about the first objective - describing the socioeconomic characteristics of an agroforestry community (Khost Province´s). Although, the second specific objective need to be more clearly described. Because: 1) the study presented results about 4 different variables and not only about community satisfaction level with infrastructures; 2) the study compares factors of satisfaction with infrastructures, factors of knowledge about land use change (etc); the study do not compare the variable satisfaction, knowledge of ..., etc.; 3) the products were not compared – the individuals or farmers having report that production are compared (subjects in the analysis are not the products but the farmers that have a specific characteristic, practice or production).   Response Point 2: The study objectives is made clearer: “The objectives are two-fold; to (i) examine the socioeconomic characteristics of farmers, and (ii) assess farmers’ perception of land use changes across production of vegetables and forest products to define optimal agroforestry practices in Khost Province.”   Point 3: My second question relates to the main study variables (second specific aim). First (satisfaction with the level of facilities and infrastructure) and second variables (knowledge of land use change and impacts) are clearly defined and /coherently referred in text. The 2 other variables - factors of land use change and impact of land use – need more explanation. In some parts of the text it seems they are referred as “knowledge of” … Do they refer to knowledge of or to perception of factors of land use change? And to perception of or to knowledge of the impact of land use change? Because respondents rank their agreement level, I supposed that those variables refer to (individuals) perception or to their knowledge about. Therefore, this aspect should be clarified in the description of the variable (method) and the designation of the variable changed accordingly (for example to "perception of the impact of land use change"). Consequently, results and discussion should also be revised (when the name of the variables are referred). Response Point 3: The study variables were changed in the entire study: (Now these relates more with perception (and satisfaction) of farmers Point 4: The last questions related to results (and discussion).  - Lines 369-370; 373-375; 385-386; etc Commentary: from which statistical test come those values? β values? Did you use Regression Method or Model in the analysis? The regression model is not referred to in data treatment (method). Response Point 3: No, only MANOVA and univariate analysis is applied. Results are now reported in standard format for interpretation of MANOVA and univariate analysis – reporting F test results and using mean scores to describe the results Point 5: - Line 387: “…berries were significantly associated with artificial factors …” Commentary: As I perceived, factors were not measured in the present study – the knowledge or perception that the community members have about the factors were quantified. Simplification of the designation of the variable leads to misunderstanding of results (and discussion). This aspect, i.e. using the wording “factors of land use change” and “impacts of land use change” creates a misunderstanding of the results and bias in the discussion. The study quantifies (and presents results) the community's “knowledge (or perception) of factors of land use change”, which is completely different from quantifying and presenting values of “factors of land use change”.   Response Point 5: As mentioned earlier, the variables names are now changed, which relates now with farmers’ perception Point 6: - Line 500: “The study observed that changes in land use and associated knowledge significantly affected forest products” Commentary: the study suggests that perception/knowledge of local communities about land use changes (etc) significantly relates to farming and agroforestry practices. But, again, changes in land use was not observed/registered/measured n the presented study– only the associated knowledge was observed/measured. Response Point 6: Changed to perceptions: “While investigating farmers’ perception of land use change in terms of four main elements i.e., farmers’ satisfaction with facilities and infrastructure, knowledge of land use changes, satisfaction with land resources, & perception of land-use trade-offs, the study provides a set of optimal agroforestry practices that effectively work to support the challenging changes in land use, and helps farmers understand which crops or forest products production is more favorable for them.” Point 7: - Line 447 – “While examining the socioeconomic factors and exploring the satisfaction level of forest products and vegetable farming of agroforestry community of Khost Province, Afghanistan”. Commentary: the study did not evaluate satisfaction level of forest products and vegetable farming – the study evaluated satisfaction (and perception) of farmers according to their crop/forest production. Products are not tested, nor the satisfaction with products. Producers (farmers and agroforesters) are the subjects of the study, and their productions (crops and forest products) a characteristic of the individuals. This simplification also introduces lack of clarity in the description of results and discussion. Response Point 7: The comparison of subjects/ farmers termed as ‘production of vegetables and forest products’ or ‘farmers producing or not producing a single crop or product’ in the analysis addressed this lack of clarity. Point 8: - Line 449-452: “The study found that certain crops are more suitable to grow due to the changes in the land use, climate change, changes in facilities and infrastructure, locals’ knowledge of land use change and impacts, natural and artificial factors of land use change, and positive and negative impact of land use change.” Commentary: above referred lack of clarity in the designation of variables affected the analysis (or description) of results and introduced bias in conclusions: as far as I note, your study does not assess the suitability of crops to changes in land use, climate, etc., the study did not found that certain crops are more suitable to grow due to the changes in the land use – the study found that certain agroforestry practices (crops, products) appeared associated with farmers perception of changes in the land use. Response Point 8: The aims and results are harmonized: “While examining the socioeconomic factors and perception of land use changes that define optimal agroforestry practices in Khost Province, Afghanistan, the study found that certain agroforestry practices (expressed as vegetables and forest products) are more suitable to grow due to farmers’ satisfaction with facilities and infrastructure, knowledge of land use changes, satisfaction with land resources, & perception of land-use trade-offs. These forest products include fruits, berries, timber, oils, wood, honey, wild animals, herbs, mushrooms, and pine nuts, while the vegetables include pepper, eggplant, carrot, and cucumber among vegetable farming. The production of these vegetables and forest products defines the optional agroforestry practices, which can generate more produce and more income for the local agroforestry community of Khost Province, Afghanistan.” Point 9:  Line 457: “As opposed to mono-cropping, multi-cropping and multipurpose trees under agroforestry …” Commentary: Multi-cropping is a focus question in this study, in my opinion, and there have been very few referred. Response Point 9: Multi-cropping is one aspect of the study. The main focus is to define optimal agroforestry practices based on farmers’ perceptions of land use change. Multi-cropping supports this idea.  Point 10: One last suggestion: the conclusion seems to me a continuation of the discussion; the discussion seems more like a resume of results with considerations about the implications of results. May a few references to other studies will enrich your discussion? Response Point 6: We have rewritten the conclusion, included implications of results in the discussion, and added references to other studies.   I hope my notes could help you to embodied more clarity in your manuscript,

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

 

You did improve the article

...stil one aspects remains: in the results part, you must comment the last table so as the reader to understand the purpose of the analysis

Author Response

3. Comments from the third reviewer:

Point 1: Still one aspects remain: in the results part, you must comment the last table so as the reader to understand the purpose of the analysis

Response point 1: All variables in Table 5 are now clearly discussed in section 4.5 Farmers’ Perception of Land Use Changes across Vegetables Farming.