Family Farming as a Key Element of the Multifunctional and Territorialized Agrifood Systems as Witnessed in the South Pacific Region of Costa Rica
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear editor and authors,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the article entitles Family farming as a key element of the multifunctional and territorialized agrifood systems as witnessed in the South Pacific region of Costa Rica. The paper compares two family farming systems of a mountainous area in Costa Rica (peasant and indigenous). Although a bit descriptive, the paper is of great interest, especially if the analytical perspectives were strengthened. Below are my comments.
The introduction lacks a clear research question. I believe the definition of a clear research question would then help to frame the rest of the article which, in my opinion, is at times a bit unorganized. The research question could then be followed by a synthetic outline as well as the authors could also include a paragraph with the main results and make explicit the paper originalities.
The authors articulate their paper around the comparison of two farming systems, namely the peasant and the indigenous farming system. I believe it can be argued indigenous people are peasants and was wondering whether re-labelling the peasant system as mestizo system would make sense? Additionally, the concept of metis may vary in different part of the world. For instance, while in Canada, metis are the descendants of settlers and indigenous people, mestizos in Latin America are the descendants of the settlers. I would therefore suggest the authors to better define the concept of mestizo. The concept of ecosystem services, which is actually core for the entire paper, is not defined and appears in the methods section. It would help the reader is the articulation of this concept with the rest of the paper was operated in the introduction (probably in the paragraph l.59-73).
The study area: while the section is quite complete, the flow could be improved. For instance, the agricultural consequences for producers of the weather and geographical conditions may be better connected while the consequences of the social environment (park regulations, pineapple plantations’ pressures) may be grouped together. In particular, may the authors develop whether the rise of employment on pineapple plantations has modified the income of local populations or their habits and to what extent this affects the management of family farms or tensions among family farmers.
Methods: this section needs better organization. First, I would suggest the authors to separate the information about the area and the participants. While it would help the reader to better comprehend the choices made by the authors, it may also facilitate authors’ work of justification of these choices. In particular, what does the inventory of plots bring to the study? The characteristics of families for each farming model should also better be described to help the reads make connections with what follows in the results and the assess the quality of the results. Overall, the two farming systems must be better discriminated; at this point, the two definitions (l.133-141) do not read significantly different.
There is a slight confusion in the paper, which is understandable but would make the paper gain clarity if solved, around the number of interviews for the authors sometimes state 60 while there are actually 70. I do not think it makes sense to distinguish the two sub-samples and the 70 interviews may be mentioned all together each time.
Around line 166, the contribution of each topic could be made explicit as the research question would be clearly stated in the introduction (and not around l.173). This is currently a bit obscure how the response to these questions will be articulated in the paper in order to respond to the research question. L.171/172 documents are mentioned but their origin and their content are not clearly described, which is important for the potential replication of the study. More importantly, how this information will be analyzed? It is also unclear what difference exists between the questionnaire used for each group (farmers and leaders) as well as each farmer group (mestizo and indigenous). Around l.185, another set of documents is mentioned; however, it is not clear if these documents are the same as previously or if they differ. And in that case, again, what would be their origin, their content and the method of analysis of those documents.
Results: First, would it be possible to explain what an orography is? L.204, what do you mean by “the central axis of the farm”? “live fences”? (can they move?)
L.226-229, the description of the indigenous farm system is extremely brief and not balancer with the length of the description of the mestizo farming system. Is there a reason for that? Is it possible to emphasize the similarities and the differences?
The long tables that present very descriptive information could be re-located in the appendices in order to concentrate the analytical discussions together.
The authors mention the existence of corridors. However, there is no definition or clear explanation of their role, which could help the understanding of researchers unfamiliar with the topic. Furthermore, does the larger share of forestland on indigenous farming systems result in the existence of natural continuous zones and, therefore, does not imply a necessity to implement corridors, since they naturally exist? Is this an indigenous practice based on the observation of the existence of ecosystem services? Also, the issue of corridors is also stated in the discussion but it does not appear to clear if it impacts (and how?) access to resources and biodiversity?
Section 3.2 lacks explanations and investigations of the consequences of what is described; the results are overall too descriptive and not analytical enough. I would suggest the authors to try to strengthen this aspect of the paper. Especially, l.293-294, what is the conclusion of the authors? Please make your analyses more explicit and less subjective to interpretation. Figure 4, is the lower share of practices damageable? How can this result be interpreted? I was not also too clear about the description of the family nucleus and who the adults could be? Are their grand-parents? Are they other families? Friends?
In section 3.3, the authors mention infrastructure, please detail more what is neuralgic? Is there a connection to be made between section 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 between infrastructure and rural conditions and, if yes, which one?
Section 3.4.1 are the authors referring to a multi-level governance around l.402?
In section 3.4.2, are the authors referring to the communal ownership in the sense of Hardin and the tragedy of the commons or as a sustainable form of governance due to the existence of social institutions?
Discussion: Some information presented in the discussion may be better re-located in the introduction section (l.431-438) or explain why is it relevant here? Same l.439-447, why not mentioning this information in the results? Again, in section 4.1, some information sounds to me mis located. I am wondering to what extent this lack of organization is due to the absence of a clearly stated research question.
- It would also greatly improve the content of the discussion if the mechanism for the provision of PES were detailed or at least commented. (l.506)
- The role of the state seems to be ambiguous? Is it possible to detail more this aspect of the results and discuss them? (l.524)
- The role of infrastructures, the state and telecommunication also seems to affect marketing, which may deserve more attention (l.538), especially in regards to quality definition and recognition.
Overall in section 4.4, the idea of designing a vision of the future seems important (l.569 & 609). This issue has been raised for instance by Ouin et al. (2021) : Building a shared vision of the future for multifunctional agricultural landscapes. Lessons from a long term socio-ecological research site in south-western France.
Author Response
We, the authors, are extremely grateful for all the contributions made by you to our manuscript entitled "Family Farming as a key element of the Multifunctional and Territorialized Agrifood Systems as witnessed in the South Pacific region of Costa Rica”, which have allowed us to significantly improve the quality of our intellectual production.
Attached you will find the correspondent cover letter.
Kind regards, the authors.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript presents an analysis of the contribution of family farms to the local food system, by analysing a case study in the South Pacific region of Costa Rica. Here, the authors distinguish family farms from mestizos community and from two different indigenous communities, living in a transition foothills area between the pineapple plantings in the plain and a natural park. The research is based on a semi-structured survey of family farms and by a direct observation of 60 plots from these farms. This observation is based on several variables including biophysical variables, the field management, the commercialisation and the governance of the field. The results underline the different management from the two types of family farms and the great amount of biodiversity managed by those farmers. In my opinion, this manuscript deserves publication in the Land journal, however, some revisions are needed.
1) in the case study description there is a focus on the pineapple production that is not really the focus of the paper, even though it had a strong impact in land use change and local socio-economic dynamics. I would like to have more information about other type of farming in the area.
2) in the method description it is unclear to me how you have use FF surveys, plot observation and additional surveys to other local actors. I would like to have a methodological scheme explaining all the source of data you have used and to what results they contributed. This can help to clarify this part and in case help the authors to eliminate some parts that do not contribute to the results of the study.
3) in the results, I would expect a table synthetizing the main variables under investigations using average values when possible (ex. Altitude or slope of the observed fields) as well as standard deviation or coefficient of variation. Of course this is a descriptive result can help the readers to understand the family farms in the area.
4) there are no analysis of the statistical significance of the results for the two types of family farms, e.g. mestizos and indigenous. I strongly advise to add it.
5) Finally, there is a large literature on family farms in other parts of the world than Latin America, that has not or poorly been quoted. I think that in order to generalize their results, the authors should try to discuss their results referring more to this literature.
Author Response
We, the authors, are extremely grateful for all the contributions made by you to our manuscript entitled "Family Farming as a key element of the Multifunctional and Territorialized Agrifood Systems as witnessed in the South Pacific region of Costa Rica”, which have allowed us to significantly improve the quality of our intellectual production.
Attached you will find the correspondent cover letter.
Kind regards, the authors.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors and editor,
I command your revision work. The paper is much clearer and the results more easily understandable. Thank you for your hard work.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Attached the cover letter for the second round review. Kind regards,
Frank González
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
I acknowledge the revisions made by the authors. They replied to almost all my comments, except about trying to estimate the statistical differences among the groups. In my opinion, authors could have done it without compromizing a further research with more surveys.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Attached the cover letter for the second round review. Kind regards,
Frank González.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
