Socio-Eco-Efficiency in Agroforestry Production Systems: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. The serial number of the formula in the text should be added.

2. The Land input in line 233 lacks an explanation of the meaning of this parameter.

3. According to the results of literature search by keywords in the paper, 2022 is the latest deadline, but why did no relevant literature be retrieved in 2023 and 2024?

4. The names and serial numbers of all images in the text should be placed below the images.

5. The map of China is not correct and should include Taiwan Province. It is recommended to modify Figure 3.

6. The references in the paper are not standardized, and it is suggested to modify according to the journal format.

7. This paper only briefly reviewed and evaluated the literature related to socio-eco-efficiency, but the significance and innovation of socio-eco-efficiency research were not clear enough, and the application value of socio-eco-efficiency research in the field of agriculture and forestry was not analyzed enough. It is suggested to strengthen the analysis in the above aspects.

Author Response

Comments 1:  The serial number of the formula in the text should be added.

Response 1: Serial numbers have been added to the formulas.

Comments 2: The Land input in line 233 lacks an explanation of the meaning of this parameter.

Response 2: A description was added in line 230.

Comments 3: According to the results of literature search by keywords in the paper, 2022 is the latest deadline, but why did no relevant literature be retrieved in 2023 and 2024?

Response 3: The explanation for this question was added in line 279.

Comments 4: The names and serial numbers of all images in the text should be placed below the images.

Response 4: The numbers and names of the images and tables at the bottom have been rearranged.

Comments 5: The map of China is not correct and should include Taiwan Province. It is recommended to modify Figure 3.

Response 5: The map in Figure 3 was corrected according to your recommendation regarding the province of Taiwan. The total number of publications from China and Taiwan was combined.

Comments 6: The references in the paper are not standardized, and it is suggested to modify according to the journal format.

Response 6: The references in the document are organized according to the journal's format. In this case, only the hyperlink to the references needs to be added.

Comments 7: This paper only briefly reviewed and evaluated the literature related to socio-eco-efficiency, but the significance and innovation of socio-eco-efficiency research were not clear enough, and the application value of socio-eco-efficiency research in the field of agriculture and forestry was not analyzed enough. It is suggested to strengthen the analysis in the above aspects.

Response 7: The analysis on socio-eco-efficiency was strengthened in lines 502-528.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is a valuable contribution to the literature on the important topics of agroforestry and sustainability. The study provides interesting insights into this important topic. The research problem is appropriate for the journal. The figures and maps are illustrative and helpful as they help the reader to better understand the results.

Detailed comments can be found in the PDF document. Here are some general notes:

• The Results section is the most problematic part of the paper and should be revised.
• This section currently contains only technical analyses of the articles (e.g. spatio-temporal patterns of publications, institutions involved in this research and research topics covered). It lacks a qualitative synthesis of the content of the articles in terms of their main findings. For example, it would be beneficial to analyse the application of the socio-eco-efficiency approach in agroforestry production systems or the challenges and opportunities associated with this approach. These are only suggestions, and I leave it to the authors to decide which qualitative aspects are most important and should be investigated further. The systematic review by Weiss et al. (2020) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2020.102288) or by Donici and Dumitras (2024) / https://doi.org/10.3390/f15040588) and the study by Miassi and Dossa (2024) (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2024.05.006) can serve as good examples. Although the topics of these manuscripts are different, their examination of methods and results could provide useful perspectives.
• The Discussion chapter is missing — please discuss with the editor whether it should be added.
• The Conclusions section should be revised: Parts of the discussion (comparison with previous research) are in this chapter. Please remove these parts or move them to the Discussion. This chapter should include a summary of key findings, highlighting the significance of the research, its implications for theory, practise and policy, limitations and recommendations.
• The authors should emphasise the new insights that this study has provided.
• The limitations of the study are missing and should be added to the Conclusions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: research aim should be added in abstract

Response 1: The objective was added in lines 20-22.

Comments 2: 2 times 85% (delete one)

Response 2: Corrected

Comments 3: reference is missing

Response 3: That paragraph is the authors' assertion. A statement was added to clarify this in line 52.

Comments 4: singular instead of plural?

Response 4: singular

Comments 5: must add reference here - what is the source of definition?

Response 5: Reference [6] added.

Comments 6: I cannot find those sections in the manuscript. Chapter 2 is Material and Methods.

Response 6: Error corrected

Comments 7: There are no 10 sections, anyway. Please check this and make necessary corrections.

Response 7: Error corrected

Comments 8: add: in (in 1990)

Response 8: Corrected

Comments 9: Right now, it looks like reference and the journal has different citation system

Response 9: Corrected

Comments 10: study limitations are missing; should be added in Conclusions

Response 10: The study's limitations were added in lines 504-513 to the new discussion section as recommended.

Comments 11:  this and other similar comparison with previous research do not belong to Conclusions chapter.

Response 11: It was added to the new discussion section.

Comments 12: This chapter should contain: summary of key findings, highlights of the significance of the research, its impact on theory, practice, policy, limitations, recommendations, etc.

Response 12: The new discussion section was added between lines 458-540.

Comments13:  this is discussion, not conclusions

Response 13: It was moved to the discussion section.

I appreciate your valuable contributions to improving the quality of the work. I agree with most of the comments, and the necessary adjustments were made.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors accepted all comments, with the exception of the changes in the Results chapter, which referred to the need to conduct a qualitative analysis. In the previous review, the general impression was that the study is interesting and valuable, but the new knowledge generated by this manuscript is not sufficient for an impact-factor journal. The lack of qualitative (in-depth) analysis is justified ("The limitation of this study was the limited availability of documents on the theory of socio-eco-efficiency (SEE), stemming from the nascent development of its state of the art, which restricted a deeper analysis of its implications in sustainable agroforestry"). However, this lack of new knowledge, which requires an influential journal with IF, is still present.

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to reviewing our manuscript once again. Your comments and observations have been invaluable in improving the quality of this work, and we are pleased to inform you that we have addressed all the recommendations provided.

Comment 1: The authors accepted all comments, with the exception of the changes in the Results chapter, which referred to the need to conduct a qualitative analysis.

Response 1: We appreciate this observation, as well as the one made by Reviewer 2. In response, we have incorporated a section in the Results chapter titled "Analysis of Socio-Eco-Efficiency in Agroforestry Systems", located between lines 457-504. This new section includes a detailed analysis of the existing literature on socio-eco-efficiency in agroforestry systems, allowing us to delve deeper into this fundamental aspect of the study.

Additionally, a new research question was added on lines 576-577. The references were reviewed and adjusted according to the insertion of subsection 3.4 in the results.

Comments 2: In the previous review, the general impression was that the study is interesting and valuable, but the new knowledge generated by this manuscript is not sufficient for an impact-factor journal.

Response 2: We believe that this work provides a valuable contribution to the field of eco-efficiency studies, as it highlights the importance of integrating new social variables that are essential for strengthening sustainable production, particularly in agroforestry systems. Our analysis comprehensively addresses eco-efficiency, starting from its foundations, through sustainability, agriculture, and finally, socio-eco-efficiency.

We recognize that the theory of socio-eco-efficiency is in an early stage of development, and as such, we have proposed new research questions for future exploration. This manuscript, beyond simply adding to the discussion, can be considered a turning point in the study of socio-eco-efficiency, with significant implications for advancing this field. We are confident that the thorough analysis presented here not only strengthens the existing theoretical framework but also introduces new knowledge that will enrich academic discourse in this area.

We remain open to any additional comments and thank you once again for your valuable feedback.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have no further comments. Authors sufficiently modified the manuscript.