‘Land Maxing’: Regenerative, Remunerative, Productive and Transformative Agriculture to Harness the Six Capitals of Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript should be revised as follows.

(1) The whole manuscript is confusing and illogical and needs to be rewritten to highlight the purpose of the study, refine the research methodology, clarify the findings, highlight the innovativeness, and clarify the significance of the study.

(2) In the abstract, there is no description of the research program, main conclusions and implications, needs to be rewritten.

(3) “1. Context” can be merged with the introduction.

(4) In the introduction, the purpose, the idea, the results, and the significance of the study need to be briefly introduced, which needs to be added.

(5) In the methods, there is no detailed program with specific methodology, there is no experimental program design, which needs to be added.

(6) The findings are not fully integrated with the research ideas in the manuscript and need to be reorganized.

(7) In the discussion, there is no introduction to the difference and connection between the results of this manuscript and the results of related studies, which can not highlight the advancement and innovation of this manuscript and needs to be supplemented with a comparative analysis of related research situations.

(8) In the conclusions, there is no brief summary of the main findings of this manuscript. There is no description of the problems of this study, significance, and the future research direction.

(9) In the references, the relevant literature should be added to compare this manuscript with the relevant results.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

The manuscript should be revised as follows.

• The whole manuscript is confusing and illogical and needs to be rewritten to highlight the purpose of the study, refine the research methodology, clarify the findings, highlight the innovativeness, and clarify the significance of the study.

This paper is a literature review and not a research paper – hence the different structure and content.

• In the abstract, there is no description of the research program, main conclusions and implications, needs to be rewritten.

There was no research programme, so we have revised the text in accordance with the comments of Reviewers 2 and 3.

• “1. Context” can be merged with the introduction.

1. We have subdivided the Introduction into (a) policy context and (b) status of agricultural development in the tropics and subtropics.

• In the introduction, the purpose, the idea, the results, and the significance of the study need to be briefly introduced, which needs to be added.

The introduction presents the unattained land use/agricultural policy aspirations of recent years and summarizes the wide range of inadequate approaches aimed at enhancing greater environmental sustainability at the expense of social and economic benefits. This underpins the the issues discussed later in the paper. 

• In the methods, there is no detailed program with specific methodology, there is no experimental program design, which needs to be added.

There was no experimental programme. The methodology was a literature review based on a innovative case study and other related publications (Table 1).

• The findings are not fully integrated with the research ideas in the manuscript and need to be reorganized.

Again, this is a policy related literature review, not a research study.

• In the discussion, there is no introduction to the difference and connection between the results of this manuscript and the results of related studies, which can not highlight the advancement and innovation of this manuscript and needs to be supplemented with a comparative analysis of related research situations.

It seems you have misunderstood the connections between the presentation of related studies and the concept of Land Maxing based on the case study.

• In the conclusions, there is no brief summary of the main findings of this manuscript. There is no description of the problems of this study, significance, and the future research direction.

In the context of the issues raised in the early part of the paper, the later sections present 13 innovative outcomes delivering benefits for the capitals of sustainable development and sets them within a holistic framework of policy interventions. The Conclusion briefly draws together the threads of the arguments.

• In the references, the relevant literature should be added to compare this manuscript with the relevant results.

We believe the relevant literature has been cited.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors present an interesting and critical study of sustainable eco-agricultural development. They provide a comprehensive overview of the concept and potential of “land maxing” through a systematic overview and case studies, and theoretical analysis. This is a very interesting study. I would like to make my own suggestions on some of the details of the manuscript and look forward to the publication of the authors’ work.

1. The authors now present “Keywords” for a total of 10. I would suggest that the number could be reduced slightly to retain the key content.
2. Please note that literature citations use the correct format.
3. For Figure 1, I would suggest that the authors could alphabetize each sub-figure and then explain the content of each figure in the figure name, instead of putting the name of the species directly in the picture.
4. Figure 2: Please check the color of “Less migration” in Social Capital. Because I noticed different depths of gray. And it appears that the legend for Figure 2 is also shown below the figure name, which should be adjusted in this section. Please check the angle of some of the connecting lines to make sure it presents a neat figure.
5. Figure 4: I would suggest putting the general figure name and the names of the subfigures above the graphic instead of below it.
6. Discussions on the future application of “Land Maxing”, especially in the global context of climate change and intensified human activities, are necessary. Smallholder economies, such as those in Africa, are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. I suggest that the authors could discuss how “Land Maxing” could play a unique role in facing the challenges of the future.

Author Response

• The authors present an interesting and critical study of sustainable eco-agricultural development. They provide a comprehensive overview of the concept and potential of “land maxing” through a systematic overview and case studies, and theoretical analysis. This is a very interesting study. I would like to make my own suggestions on some of the details of the manuscript and look forward to the publication of the authors’ work.

Thank you for your appreciation of what we have presented and for the constructive comments on the details of the figures.

• The authors now present “Keywords” for a total of 10. I would suggest that the number could be reduced slightly to retain the key content.

The guide to authors suggested a maximum of ten key words. We have removed a few.

• Please note that literature citations use the correct format.

Thank you, we have addressed this.

• For Figure 1, I would suggest that the authors could alphabetize each sub-figure and then explain the content of each figure in the figure name, instead of putting the name of the species directly in the picture.

We have addressed this point.

• Figure 2: Please check the color of “Less migration” in Social Capital. Because I noticed different depths of gray. And it appears that the legend for Figure 2 is also shown below the figure name, which should be adjusted in this section. Please check the angle of some of the connecting lines to make sure it presents a neat figure.

We have addressed this point. The Guide to Authors indicates that Figure Legends should be below the figure.

• Figure 4: I would suggest putting the general figure name and the names of the subfigures above the graphic instead of below it.

We have not addressed this point as we believe it is against the standard format of the journal.

• Discussions on the future application of “Land Maxing”, especially in the global context of climate change and intensified human activities, are necessary. Smallholder economies, such as those in Africa, are more vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. I suggest that the authors could discuss how “Land Maxing” could play a unique role in facing the challenges of the future.

We have strengthened these points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The concept of the review, “Land Maxing: Regenerative, Remunerative, Productive, and Transformative Agriculture to Harness the Six Capitals of Sustainable Development,” is promising and timely. However, the manuscript currently lacks clarity, coherence, and effective organization. The sections do not follow a clear logical flow, and the argument is often obscured by vague terminology and repetition.

 

• Define "Land Maxing": The term remains undefined. Please provide a clear, operational definition early in the manuscript, ideally in both the abstract and introduction.
• Avoid Jargon: Terms like “trade-ons” are unclear and non-standard. Consider rephrasing them using conventional terminology or provide precise definitions.

• Abstract: Currently attempts to cover too much at once. Split it into 2–3 structured parts:
• Problem Statement
• Land Maxing Approach
• Expected Impacts / Contributions
• Introduction: Needs substantial revision. Clearly articulate:
• The rationale behind the review
• The objectives and scope
• The relevance of Land Maxing to sustainable development
• Context Section: Recommend merging this with the Introduction (lines 32–64) to avoid fragmentation.

• Figure Legends: All legends require clarification. They should be self-explanatory and include:
• A clear description of what the figure represents
• The source of the data or image (if applicable)
• Figure 4: Unclear purpose. Please explain what it represents and enhance the legend to guide interpretation.
• Case Study Clarification: If Cameroon is the only case study, specify that clearly in the introduction and indicate whether findings are generalizable.

• Several points are repeated unnecessarily—especially regarding the benefits of indigenous crops and the concept of rebuilding natural, human, and social capital.
• Consolidate these arguments to avoid redundancy and maintain reader engagement.

• Rework convoluted or overly long sentences.

• Limit to 5–6 keywords.
• Ensure they are specific and reflect core themes (e.g., Land Maxing, regenerative agriculture, six capitals, indigenous crops, sustainability metrics).

• Conclusion: Avoid repetition of earlier figure references (e.g., Figure 2).
• Focus instead on summarizing the key insights and outlining actionable recommendations or policy implications.

Author Response

• The concept of the review, “Land Maxing: Regenerative, Remunerative, Productive, and Transformative Agriculture to Harness the Six Capitals of Sustainable Development,”is promising and timely. However, the manuscript currently lacks clarity, coherence, and effective organization. The sections do not follow a clear logical flow, and the argument is often obscured by vague terminology and repetition.

Thank you for recognizing the potential of land Maxing to address current issues in tropical/subtropical agriculture. Through our responses to the three reviewers, we have attempted to address the issues of clarity, coherence and organization.  

• Define "Land Maxing": The term remains undefined. Please provide a clear, operational definition early in the manuscript, ideally in both the abstract and introduction.

Land Maxing is actually defined in the Abstract! Land maxing is a complex concept so in the text we presented the defining processes in a way that explains what it is all about. We have now added the definition in the text.

• Avoid Jargon: Terms like “trade-ons” are unclear and non-standard. Consider rephrasing them using conventional terminology or provide precise definitions.

We have only used already published terms. They may be non-standard but they are important and can be found in the cited literature.

• Abstract: Currently attempts to cover too much at once. Split it into 2–3 structured parts:
• Problem Statement
• Land Maxing Approach
• Expected Impacts / Contributions

Our Abstract does indeed cover these three topics. We have broken it into three paragraphs, but we are not clear whether this format would be acceptable to the journal.

• Introduction: Needs substantial revision. Clearly articulate:
• The rationale behind the review
• The objectives and scope
• The relevance of Land Maxing to sustainable development

We have split the Introduction into: (a) policy context (ie. rationale) (b) status of agricultural development in the tropics and sub-tropics, (c) an explanation of the ‘big issues’ and (d) the challenges and relevance of Land Maxing.

• Context Section: Recommend merging this with the Introduction (lines 32–64) to avoid fragmentation.

Yes, done.

• Figure Legends: All legends require clarification. They should be self-explanatory and include:
• A clear description of what the figure represents
• The source of the data or image (if applicable)

Yes, done.

• Figure 4: Unclear purpose. Please explain what it represents and enhance the legend to guide interpretation.

Yes, done.

• Case Study Clarification: If Cameroon is the only case study, specify that clearly in the introduction and indicate whether findings are generalizable.

We state that TAAI is developing proposals for follow up projects to determine the applicability of this model to other physical and socio-economic situations.

• Several points are repeated unnecessarily—especially regarding the benefits of indigenous crops and the concept of rebuilding natural, human, and social capital.

Because this paper is the first to detail the unconventional concept of land Maxing we feel that some repetition of these points is essential to reader understanding.

• Consolidate these arguments to avoid redundancy and maintain reader engagement.

We certainly wish to maintain reader engagement and have made some appropriate edits.

• Rework convoluted or overly long sentences.

1. Through our responses to the three reviews we edited the text and hope we have achieved this.

• Limit to 5–6 keywords. Ensure they are specific and reflect core themes (e.g., Land Maxing, regenerative agriculture, six capitals, indigenous crops, sustainability metrics).

The journal puts a limit on ten key words. Convention does not include words in the title of the paper. However, we have made a few changes.

• Conclusion: Avoid repetition of earlier figure references (e.g., Figure 2).

OK.

• Focus instead on summarizing the key insights and outlining actionable recommendations or policy implications.

As this is a policy review, we have focussed more on the insights and needs relevant to policy/decision makers.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

No.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We have made some edits to the English

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Condense the introduction and conclusion.

Revise the figure legends according to the prior revision comments.

Author Response

We have shortened the Conclusions, but not the Introduction, which in effect is four Introductions, one for each of the four different contexts described in this review.

We have added further information to the Figure legends.

We have edited the Abstract.

Round 3

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have incorporated some of the suggestions provided in the previous revisions; however, several important recommendations were not addressed, particularly regarding the excessive length of the introduction.

Author Response

We have restructured the first pages of the paper such that the Introduction in now short, and amended the sub-headings accordingly.

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx