Resilience in Retrospective: The Trajectory of Agro-Pastoral Systems in the Centro Region of Portugal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I only suggest you to improve the table 1, and to give some short answers to the following questions:

Line 637: How the dynamics of the system have been largely influenced 
by policy measures?

Line 638: Why this influence may be expected to continue in the future?

Author Response

Answers to comments and suggestions of Reviewer 1

I only suggest you to improve the table 1, and to give some short answers to the following questions:

Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive appreciation and comments.

The first version of Table 1 contained short expressions (with a legend), in order to keep the table width in line with the text. This makes interpretation more difficult. In addition, the table itself was unformatted in some lines in the uploading process.

The current version uses the same concepts, but without the mentioned limitations. 

Line 637: How the dynamics of the system have been largely influenced 
by policy measures?

Line 638: Why this influence may be expected to continue in the future?

Answer: We add a text (in pink) in the Conclusions explaining how dynamics of the system have been largely influenced by policy and how these measures are expected to continue in the future (Line 721- 730). 

Reviewer 2 Report

My first opinion on the article was negative and I recommended that I reject it. I appreciate the authors' willingness to improve, however the article still has some gaps; some comments were handled very loosely or were omitted. In some places the correction is cosmetic - more visual and not substantive, eg shifting a text fragment to another place - eg lines 100-156 - in version 1 it was "introduction", in version 2 it is in "methodological"; etc…. This improved the structure and clarity of the text. However, without improving and developing the "introduction" at the same time, it has made this part poorer than it was before. This is all the more important as the authors did not decide to introduce a separate chapter on the review of publications and the assessment of the current state of knowledge - no theoretical background (I mentioned this in the previous review).

I don't understand why so much of the text is marked red. As I guess, the red color should indicate the corrected (completed) text? So why are some fragments exactly the same as in version 1 (sometimes shifted to a different location)? Was it about giving the impression that a major and solid improvement had been made? In some passages, an appropriate correction has indeed been made. However, the actual improvement is much more modest than the amount of "red text" suggests. In a previous review, I suggested rejecting the article (or rethinking the concept of the article and seriously revising if re-submitted for publication), not a slight improvement.

Necessary elements that still require improvement concern mainly:

- poor review of the literature and the current state of knowledge (this is the most important objection) - familiarization with the current state of knowledge in a given topic is very important and allows for a substantive discussion. A very cursory review of the literature, in effect, translates into an average quality of discussion (second important objection);

- take a critical look again at the "discussion" section, all the more so as the authors continue to confuse this section with "results" and "conclusions" (for example, "Based on participants` statements it is clear that the interactions between the social and the ecological subsystems ... " - this is not "discussion", it is "results"; please consider what should be in the "discussion", what in "results" and what in "conclusions"). As I mentioned, the lack of a better discussion is limited by a poor literature review. As a result, the state of confrontation and reference to the results of other studies is insufficient. This also applies to comparisons with results from other regions or countries (the authors mention this quite casually). Please rethink this section.

I understand that this paper shows a case study, but if the authors intend to publish their results internationally rather than locally, a broader perspective is needed. An article presenting only a description of the local situation should be directed to national / local journals. Hence, a broader literature review and discussion are necessary, which will make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the authors of the study to the improvement of the current knowledge.

Author Response

Answers to comments and suggestions of Reviewer 2

My first opinion on the article was negative and I recommended that I reject it. I appreciate the authors' willingness to improve, however the article still has some gaps; some comments were handled very loosely or were omitted. In some places the correction is cosmetic - more visual and not substantive, eg shifting a text fragment to another place - eg lines 100-156 - in version 1 it was "introduction", in version 2 it is in "methodological"; etc…. This improved the structure and clarity of the text. However, without improving and developing the "introduction" at the same time, it has made this part poorer than it was before. This is all the more important as the authors did not decide to introduce a separate chapter on the review of publications and the assessment of the current state of knowledge - no theoretical background (I mentioned this in the previous review).

Answer: We thank the reviewer for the constructive suggestions which will improve the quality of our work. As suggested, we introduced a new chapter on literature review (2). New reflexions regarding resilience and socio-ecological systems concepts were added. However, to keep the text coherence, some paragraphs from the Introduction section and from 3.1 sub-section (2.1. in the previous round) were moved to this new section. Only the new text is in a different colour (pink)

I don't understand why so much of the text is marked red. As I guess, the red color should indicate the corrected (completed) text? So why are some fragments exactly the same as in version 1 (sometimes shifted to a different location)? Was it about giving the impression that a major and solid improvement had been made? In some passages, an appropriate correction has indeed been made. However, the actual improvement is much more modest than the amount of "red text" suggests. In a previous review, I suggested rejecting the article (or rethinking the concept of the article and seriously revising if re-submitted for publication), not a slight improvement.

Answer: It was not the authors' intention to highlight more changes than were actually made. In fact, the red markings are not the authors' responsibility and they appear either as new text or any other change. It probably results from the application used by the editors or journal system to mark changes. Moreover, the changes that were introduced resulted from improvements aimed at responding to the reviewers, who were unanimous in proposing changes in structure, which implies different location of the text.

In the current revision we have marked the new text in pink. Other changes that will be marked are the result of new changes in the new structure or minor changes in detail.  

Necessary elements that still require improvement concern mainly:

- poor review of the literature and the current state of knowledge (this is the most important objection) - familiarization with the current state of knowledge in a given topic is very important and allows for a substantive discussion. A very cursory review of the literature, in effect, translates into an average quality of discussion (second important objection);

Answer: A new section (2 ) was created with a review of the most relevant literature on the subject.

- take a critical look again at the "discussion" section, all the more so as the authors continue to confuse this section with "results" and "conclusions" (for example, "Based on participants` statements it is clear that the interactions between the social and the ecological subsystems ... " - this is not "discussion", it is "results"; please consider what should be in the "discussion", what in "results" and what in "conclusions"). As I mentioned, the lack of a better discussion is limited by a poor literature review. As a result, the state of confrontation and reference to the results of other studies is insufficient. This also applies to comparisons with results from other regions or countries (the authors mention this quite casually). Please rethink this section.

Answer: A new section 4.3 was created with a synthesis of the results. New text and references to the discussion (5.) have also been added (in pink).

I understand that this paper shows a case study, but if the authors intend to publish their results internationally rather than locally, a broader perspective is needed. An article presenting only a description of the local situation should be directed to national / local journals. Hence, a broader literature review and discussion are necessary, which will make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the authors of the study to the improvement of the current knowledge.

Answer: We expect that with this revision we have improved the paper by broadening the discussion. Thank you for the suggestions

Reviewer 3 Report

I thank the authors for responding to my comments.

Author Response

Answers to comments and suggestions of Reviewer 3

I thank the authors for responding to my comments.

Answer: We thank the reviewer for the positive appreciation.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There are no comments

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments along the reviewing process which greatly improved the quality of our manuscript.

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.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The main objective of this research is to understand the trajectory of agro-pastoral systems in the Portuguese Central Region. The participatory methods were used (16 face to face semi-structured interviews were carried out) and the theory of adaptive cycle. The most representative system of this type in Portugal was reasearched – the production system of Serra de Estrela cheese. Taking into consideration the methamorphosis of similar systems in other parts of Europe it is significant and current problem, so that the results may be interesting for many receivers including policymaker. The reasarch fills the gap in the literature connected with the lack of studies about resilience of rural community in Portugal. It identifies and analyses the key factors, which let us to understand the ways to adapt the reasearched system to changing conditions.

               The weakness of the paper is not enough references to other types of that systems in Europe. In the introduction it is said that in the majority regions of southern Europe the agro-pastoral systems have problems and they transform influenced by the changing world. Unfortunatelly, the topic is not developed, and I would suggest to shortly present at least one or two corresponding cases in Europe (other agro-pastoral systems), comment them wider and address to the results.

               Currently, the part ”Discussion and and conclusions (chapter 4)” is mainly the synthesis of results form chapter 3. To my mind, it should be more developed discussion. Moreover, the results should be addressed to the works of other authors who researched similar agro-pastoral systems in different countires. The factors influenced on the system (marketing, globalisation, management, technical and social innovations, climate changes, population decline, populace ageing) are similar. It may help to better assess occurent changes and the state of the reasarched area.

               I woud also suggest to write more about the stategical documents on the regional and country level, as well as point out how the politicians help and its results.

               There is a shortage of the characteristic of the researched area (subchapter 3.1.1). The socio-economic issues (e.g. populace, demographic structure, tourism, other economy departments) are almost completly unmentioned, paying attention to the natural features (climate, soli, plants) which conditioned the development of the researched system of agriculture. The socio-economic aspect should be described wider, which may let potentail reader fully assess and understand occurent changes in the researched system. More informataion about the agriculture (e.g. an average farm size and an average herd size) should be given.

Reviewer 2 Report

The article deals with an important problem, but it is poorly prepared. The article is of an eminently local character (it concerns the description of a phenomenon in one region). The lack of a broader context / background (comparisons) and drawing more general conclusions (synthesis) significantly affects the limitations of the article. As it stands, it is more suited to local / national journal. 

The article has many weaknesses, such as:

• local character - lack of reference and comparisons to a wider context (if the authors direct the article to an international / world journal, the analysis presented only in the local context strongly limits the group of potential recipients of the article)
• the whole text is incoherent and there are gaps - you get the impression that each part is "living its own life"; for example, the "introduction" part contains references to selected theories, but the authors later in the manuscript (empirical part - results, discussion, conclusion) do not refer to the theoretical background, or they do it to a limited extent (partly is it a consequence of a poor literature review - more below); large gaps (e.g. no discussion - more below); "Conclusions" should contain the most important results and recommendations, not "results" (eg cf. Tab. 12)
• not entirely appropriate structure of the text, eg 1) the characteristics of the area should be discussed in the "methodology" section rather than "results"; 2) the parts "discussion" and "conclusions" should not be combined ("discussion" should be a separate part, possibly combined with "results"); 3) moreover, part of the results was attached to chapter 4 (as a result, it is not known whether chapter 4 is a discussion, conclusions or results?; Table 12 is interesting, but these are "results", not "discussion") 
• apart from the improper structure of the text, it should be noted that there is no discussion at all in the article (it is only formally included in the title of chapter 4), no reference to the results of other studies; it is not known what new content the article brings to the existing state of knowledge. Lack of discussion is a serious complaint in scientific studies
• the aforementioned lack of discussion is connected with another important objection, ie a poor literature review (it appears only in the "introduction" part, while in the others it is much less or not at all); a cursory review of the literature results in the lack of any discussion and at least a minimal attempt to extrapolate the results
• the results of empirical research - they are clearly presented, but there is no in-depth analysis; the "results" chapter was not well thought out, as it was largely constructed on the basis of quoting selected individual statements of the respondents (roughly +/- 2/3 of the entire "results" chapter), while the authors' comments are superficial. This approach is not appropriate. The authors should be expected to carry out an in-depth analysis. The survey results could be used, for example, to conceptualize concepts and develop a synthesis. At a later stage, the results should be confronted and discussed more broadly (at least selectively, in the context of comparisons with other regions), and then appropriate conclusions should be drawn. 
• the lack of synthesis and discussion makes the arguments unconvincing and unbalanced
• the article does not adequate references; the results are not presented by references in secondary literature
• - in addition, a number of other minor questions / doubts / deficiencies arise, e.g. 1) what is the purpose of the mention of Covid-19 pandemic (line 42)? Is it an expression of the fact that "everyone" is writing about it now? Have the authors conducted (or know) any results regarding the impact of the pandemic on agro-pastoral systems? Are they making a hypothesis? Or are they just guessing? 2) references to sources (as already mentioned) - the authors write "Building on the adaptive-cycle model, the Resilience Alliance, an interdisciplinary network of scientists and practitioners focused on SES perspective, developed a Resilience Assessment Framework (RAF) that was used in the present research… ”(lines 135-140) - any source?
• and many others… 

Despite the drawbacks, the reviewer suggests that authors rethink the article and construct it from scratch. During the research, the authors collected interesting and valuable material that is worth publishing. However, one should approach the evaluation of the collected material more carefully. The article presents the "raw material" to a large extent, while it should be aggregated, and the results assessed in a broader context (including in comparison to the results from other regions / countries - maybe it will be possible to indicate some similarities, differences; prepare some synthesis, recommendations ?)

Reviewer 3 Report

The results of study are not validated by scientific arguments.

The study does not present a statistical analysis to validate the results of the study. The study presents just opinions of few local factors.

Keywords are not proper for the proposal study.

The abstract does not clearly present the results. These are just opinions.

The discussion don’t clearly interpret the results supported by pertinent and recent scientific literature. 

Reviewer 4 Report

Dear Authors:

Your paper examines an interesting and important topic: the resilience of agro-pastoral system in the central Region of Portugal, but you not clearly identified a literature gap and a need from practice that is much needed for exploration. The analyses and results interpretation seem appropriate. However, I do think this manuscript still needs some work before being accepted for publication, especially on the introduction and literature, which are quite loose in its current format, in my opinion.

Comments and suggestions:

Abstract: The abstract there should more clearly possible novelties and/or contributions, main few findings, and implications.

Structure of the manuscript:

The manuscript is not well structured. It needs more clear structure on introduction, review of literature, data and methods, empirical results and discussion.

In addition, the manuscript needs several clarifications and improvements:

1. Introduction:

The section on the Introduction is without research questions (RQs). It is suggested to include RQs in relation to the main objective of this research.

I suggest to explain in better way the definition of resilience and to define the agro-pastoral system and its implications on the environmental.

Lines 26-27: In the last decades, in most regions of southern Europe, Portugal being no exception, agro-pastoral systems have been experiencing a sharp decline, both in the number of farms and animals: Please see and cite the following paper:

Fanelli, R.M. (2020). The Spatial and Temporal Variability of the Effects of Agricultural Practices on the Environment. Environments 2020, 7(4), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/environments7040033

Pag. 8:

Factor 1 “Pastoral system with a negative effect on the farmland bird index”: The first factor (more than 19% of the explained variance) (Greece, Portugal, Slovenia, Cyprus, Croatia) was characterised by a high percentage on the LSU (Number of Livestock Units) of live goats (+0.78) and sheep (+0.77), with strong positive correlations with the permanent crops variable (+0.71) and negative correlations with the common farmland bird index (−0.69). A negative correlation (−0.54) can also be noted with arable land, which was an expected result.

Lines 28: It is not clear how agro-pastoral systems are the result of complex interactions between ecosystems and society.

Lines 32-33: Between 1999 and 2016, the number of sheep and milk sheep farms decreased, respectively, by 31% and 68%. Please cite source

Lines 124-2-125: Agricultural and rural policies, particularly those aimed at sustainable development, can only be successful if the link between the environmental and the social system changes are well understood. Please see the following paper:

Fanelli R. M. (2019). A new classification of European Union regions: A decision support tool for policymakers. SPANISH JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, 17 (1), e0102 16 pages, eISSN: 2171-9292. https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/2019171-13481.

2. Methodological framework

For this section, explanation is needed for:

Content analysis (the description of this method is absent)

Lines 141: The first step to describe the system is to define its social-ecological boundaries

Line 187: Please specify the period of the interviews, as well as the Hearing audio records.

3. Results and Discussion Instead Results

The results and findings should be discussed and compared with others previous studies and findings. I suggest to summarize the results with the aim to highlight the most important findings and to discuss it in relation to previous studies carry out for the area of ; Serra da Estrela

4. Conclusions and political implications Instead Conclusions

Conclusions should be improved as they are short and largely repeated the results. I suggest to highlight the political implications of the study, particularly those aimed at sustainable development.

Furthermore, Authors should better underline the intensions for future researches.

What are the study limitations?

What are the proposals for research in future?

Finally, Regarding Tables and Figures: the quality should be improved.