Analysis of Agro Alternatives to Boost Cameroon’s Socio-Environmental Resilience, Sustainable Development, and Conservation of Native Forests
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In abstract can add references. The findings and conclusion (in abstract) can be as paragraph and share more comprehensively the impact or changes recommended. Who or what will enhance sustainability?
Can add figure to show environment & natural resources interlink (introduction lines 37-41) within eco-system.
Line 57 new paragraph? similarly or contrastingly. Rephrase 'similarly' in parts?
Line 69 fstakeholders (typo)?
Line 74 - can mention firm governance & ownership structures. Role of regulator in less developed economies can have significance.
Maybe make introduction into 2 sections - Introduction & context.
Line 695/710 - can make into table? Clean table 1 titles
Could figure 6 be modified to (44) stakeholders of the research? Consolidate tidy table 3.
No need for table 4 - remove. The explanation of Boolean process is too detailed. Section 4 / 4.1 can be simplified and shortened considerably.
Move table 6 to appendix? Is it needed? The discussion & conclusion section is too long. What are the key learnings & priorities?
Theoretical & practical contribution?
Add section limitations & future research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The responses to what was requested have been uploaded in a word document. In the same way, the manuscript has been uploaded with the modifications provided.
Best regards
Tomas Gabriel BAS
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
In general the whole article can be greatly reduced in length, by synthesizing and eliminating generic and redundant parts.
Title is too long. Maybe tyhe first sentence “Sustainable local development of the territory.” Could be removed because is too generic and merged with the rest.
The first sentence of the abstract is too long and too generic “Cameroon is located in Central Africa with strong social inequalities and fragile govern- 10 ance and institutions that directly impact on the sustainable local development of its territory, com- 11 munities and indigenous forests, which are subject to constant socio-environmental and economic 12 pressures due to excessive resource extraction”.
There are too many sentences that are too long and difficult to read.
I personally have doubts about some used keywords beacuse they are too specific to retrieve results, e.g. “Sustainable local development” or “Competencies of Regions”. The authors should explain how they can find pertinent documents expressing the investigated concepts withou using these specific keywords but others.
Figure 7 is not a flow chart but a mind map.
Could the implementation of circular economy be a solution for the problem of this study? Refer for instance to ready-to-use design solutions about how to implement circular economy to answer this question, e.g. “Spreafico, C. (2022). An analysis of design strategies for circular economy through life cycle assessment. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 194(3), 1-33.”.
Results and discussion section is tool long and difficult to read. Can it be divided into sub-chapters by dividing the different kinds of obtained results?
Conclusions are too long. Why papers are cited in the conclusions? According to my opinion, conclusions section could be condensed, and the obtained results should be reformulated in a more generalized way.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
The responses to what was requested have been uploaded in a word document. In the same way, the manuscript has been uploaded with the modifications provided.
Best regards
Tomas Gabriel BAS
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The author improved the manuscript as required.
Author Response
Thank you for your kind review. I have performed a spellcheck of the document and made sure all the text is written using American spelling.
