Land Use Planning and the Configuration of Local Agri-Food Systems (LAFSs): The Triple Border Between the States of Minas Gerais, Rio de Janeiro, and São Paulo, Brazil as a Space of Possibilities
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsIt's important to clearly define the concept of "territory" and justify why the chosen one is adopted.
It's better use Landscape planning or Land use planning than Territorial planning.
Briefly explain the characteristics of integrated protection units and sustainable use units, or refer to the bibliography that explains them.
Why are sustainable use units excluded from the analysis? Explain it.
Explain what types of vegetation are grouped into the categories "natural vegetation" and "land use mosaic".
Explain why "Area 3" was selected for the analysis of primary agrifood production and processing activities, and participation in the PNAE.
Explain the methodology of the "observation panel" analysis in methods section.
No documentary evidence or methodology in presented to obtain information regarding the institutional weakness of the PNAE, meaning that the factors cited to explain this weakness are not substantiated.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsOnly a few considerations about methodology:
The criteria/limits used to define smallholdings, small farms, large rural properties, etc., should be established and shown.
Figure 11. "Sitio ecológico" should be translated into the English language.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Editor and Authors,
Regarding the paper submitted for review, I would like to begin by emphasizing that it addresses a topic of interest for territorial planning and rural development: the configuration of local agri-food systems (LAFS) and sustainable rural development. Furthermore, I believe it presents a case study with high applicability that can be extrapolated to other contexts in the Global South.
The main objective of the paper is well formulated and highly relevant: to identify and map areas with potential for smallholder agricultural production and to discuss their integration into LAFS. The methodology used is appropriate, combining secondary data sources and spatial analysis. The use of decision rules and classification adds rigor. However, the description of some aspects is overly complex (e.g., the weighting or criteria for grouping municipalities), and I believe simplification is necessary to improve readability.
The results are well structured, with maps and local examples, and the fieldwork and interviews allow for comparison with the statistical data collected. However, I consider the absence of separate "Discussion" and "Conclusions" sections a critical flaw in the manuscript.
While the discussion may be implicitly present in the results section, where data on public programs, farmer associations, and institutional weaknesses are interpreted, a dedicated section is needed to compare the results with existing literature and to assess their contribution in relation to other studies, both national and international.
Similarly, the conclusions, although present, are scattered throughout the final paragraphs. The article lacks a structured conclusion that clearly summarizes the main findings, methodological limitations, and practical implications for public policy.
This lack of structure negatively impacts the clarity of the paper; therefore, I believe the article requires further revision.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have taken my suggestions into account and I believe the manuscript is ready for publication.
