Transfer Alert

This paper was transferred from another journal. As a result, its full editorial history (including decision letters, peer reviews and author responses) may not be present.

PCLM-D-24-00034

Exploring the Scalability and Sustainability of Community-Based Agroforestry to Achieve Planetary Health Benefits in Haiti’s Lower Artibonite Valley

PLOS Climate

Dear Dr. Blaise,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS Climate. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 07 2024 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at climate@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pclm/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Venkata Ravibabu Mandla, PhD, PDF (AUS)

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

Journal Requirements:

1. Please include a complete copy of PLOS’ questionnaire on inclusivity in global research in your revised manuscript. Our policy for research in this area aims to improve transparency in the reporting of research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community. The policy applies to researchers who have travelled to a different country to conduct research, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, and research on cultural artefacts. The questionnaire can also be requested at the journal’s discretion for any other submissions, even if these conditions are not met.  Please find more information on the policy and a link to download a blank copy of the questionnaire here: https://journals.plos.org/climate/s/best-practices-in-research-reporting. Please upload a completed version of your questionnaire as Supporting Information when you resubmit your manuscript.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

Dear Authors,

Please attend all review comments provided and submit the manuscript in the prescribed format

Wish Regards

Dr. Mandla

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Does this manuscript meet PLOS Climate’s publication criteria? Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions? The manuscript must describe methodologically and ethically rigorous research with conclusions that are appropriately drawn based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available (please refer to the Data Availability Statement at the start of the manuscript PDF file)?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception. The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS Climate does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Summary: This paper investigates how institutional collaboration and social networks facilitated the adoption, scaling up, and sustainability of community-based agroforestry in Haiti's Lower Artibonite Valley through the Haiti Timber Reintroduction Program (HTRIP). Using a mixed-methods approach, the authors conducted interviews, focus groups, and field observations to understand the mechanisms driving the success of HTRIP. They found that partnerships between HTRIP and trusted institutions played critical roles in the adoption and scaling of agroforestry practices. The authors also highlight the importance of aligning interventions with local livelihoods and continuously supporting the processes that help social groups form and mature for long-term sustainability.

Major Comments:

1. The authors should provide a clearer rationale for the selection of the 11 HTRIP communities and the distribution of participants across these communities. It is unclear if the sample is representative of the entire HTRIP network.

2. The data analysis section lacks details on how the qualitative data were analyzed. The authors should provide more information on the coding process, how themes were identified, and how disagreements between coders were resolved, among other details.

3. The authors mention the use of secondary data in Figure 3, but do not provide details on the nature and source of this data. More information is needed to assess the reliability and validity of these data.

4. The discussion section could be strengthened by comparing the findings to similar studies in other low-income or fragile state contexts. This would help to generalize the results within the broader literature on scaling up nature-based solutions.

5. The authors should discuss the potential limitations of relying on recall data for the social network analysis, as participants may not accurately remember all of their connections to other HTRIP communities.

6. The authors should consider providing more details on the specific agroforestry practices promoted by HTRIP and how these were adapted to the local context.

Minor Comments:

1. The abstract should mention the specific research methods used in the study. In addition, the writing of the abstract seems redundant, and the authors could make it more precise.

2. The introduction could better highlight the knowledge gaps that the study aims to address and the specific research questions.

3. The methods section should mention the language in which the interviews and focus groups were conducted and whether any translation was required.

4. Instead of providing long figure titles, the authors could provide figure notes.

Reviewer #2: The manuscript is well-structured and written in a lucid manner. The authors have very-well highlighted the scalability and sustainability of community based agroforestry to achieve planetary health benefits in Haiti. They could have mentioned SDGs as well because planetary health is connected to that. The Social Network Analysis is aptly done. It is an interesting study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes: Sonal Mobar Roy

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Exploring the Scalability and Sustainability of Community-Based Agroforestry to Achieve Planetary Health Benefits in Haiti’s Lower Artibonite Valley

PCLM-D-24-00034R1

Dear Dr. Blaise,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript 'Exploring the Scalability and Sustainability of Community-Based Agroforestry to Achieve Planetary Health Benefits in Haiti’s Lower Artibonite Valley' has been provisionally accepted for publication in PLOS Climate.

Before your manuscript can be formally accepted you will need to complete some formatting changes, which you will receive in a follow-up email from a member of our team. 

Please note that your manuscript will not be scheduled for publication until you have made the required changes, so a swift response is appreciated.

IMPORTANT: The editorial review process is now complete. PLOS will only permit corrections to spelling, formatting or significant scientific errors from this point onwards. Requests for major changes, or any which affect the scientific understanding of your work, will cause delays to the publication date of your manuscript.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact climate@plos.org.

Thank you again for supporting Open Access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Climate.

Best regards,

Venkata Ravibabu Mandla, PhD, PDF (AUS)

Academic Editor

PLOS Climate

***********************************************************

All reviewers comments are attended and modified accordingly

Reviewer Comments (if any, and for reference):