I am glad to notice that the manuscript has been revised carefully based on the reviewer's comments and suggestions. The point-by-point responses are also ok for me. The manuscript may be accepted in the future. While, I am not sure that some responses are enough or not. For example, the response to "Page 7: Last paragraph: I suggest to present the adjacent matrix in the supplementary material", could you find some other possible solution to fulfill the reviewer's suggestions? As for the response to "Include more recent citations in introduction", it is difficult for me to know what's kinds of references have been added. There are also some other similar situation. That's why I invited referees for further review.

It is a good work. While, I'd like to give some additional suggestions before acceptation.
1.Introduction. Page2, Line1. Please provide references for “Amazon basin is the world's richest biological reservoir and a globally significant carbon sink”.
2.Introduction. Page2, Lines 5-6. Please provide references for “Weak governments and political instability in Amazonian countries have reduced capacity to halt deforestation and related expansion of illegal activities”.
3.Introduction. Page 2, Lines 7-8. This sentence may not necessary for this paper.
4. Introduction. Page 2, Lines 9-10. There are some ambiguous expressions on future scenarios, please give detail description on the consequences of climate change you described in the previous sentences.
5.Introduction. Page 2, line 24-32, You have listed several case studies here “Nobre et al. (2016) promote a “third-way”, driven by investment in technical and social capital, catalysing a localised industrial revolution. Guedes et al. (2014) offer that increased access to technical assistance may permit communities to develop more sustainable livelihoods, converting natural capital to social. Lapola et al. (2014) infer that technological improvements along with sustainable land management could drive sustainable land use shifts. A further possibility may lie in the results of recent analyses, which suggest that socio-economic development in forest frontier regions of Brazil has uncoupled from environmental exploitation and degradation, due to policy development and implementation (e.g. Weinhold et al., 2015; Caviglia-Harris et al., 2016).Tritsch and Arvor (2016) propose that recent improved governance structures have begun to address competing rural development goals. Godfray et al. (2011) and Newton et al. (2013) advocate that governance and institutional improvements could provide a balance between conservation, development, and climate change mitigation”. Could you find some better way to list them? For example, is it possible for you to categorize these examples and condense them in a clearer way?
6.Introduction. Page 3, Line 1 and Line 5. The two "However" are not well readable, please reconstruct these sentences. It may be better to introduce the significance of stakeholders' relevant studies firstly, then propose the necessity on conducting stakeholders' evaluation in this region.
7.Introduction. Page 3, Lines 13-19. This paragraph is most important, but it is not well enough. You’d better to arrange the specific aims in accordance with order of the previous introduction.
8.Page 4 line 15, What’s meaning of IUCN? Please give its explanation.
9.Methodology. Section 3.1. This section has several minor shortages. For example, Page5, Lines 11-14 has three discontinuous references, which may not readable. Lines 14-19 are all related to function of FCM, which should be reduced by one or two concise sentences. Page6, Lines 2-3 may not logical.
10.Results. Page 9, Lines 6-10. These sentence not only for results, but combine some discussion sentences, such as "The density difference may suggest that stakeholders in Tapajós perceive greater causal relationships between components". It may be necessary to proofread the whole results and do revisions wherever needed.
11.Discussion. I am not sure the sub-title of Section 5.1 is good. It may be better to summarize the discussion and replace by other appropriate title.
12.Discussion. Page 13, Line 9. The word "who" may be replaced by "which".
13.Discussion. Page 13, Line 12. Complement further explanation of the causes on difference.
14.Discussion. Page 15. Line 11. In the previous sentences, you state the features of both institutional reforms and techno-social reforms, then you propose the issue of investment as well as the realistic status. These are critical and undoubtful. While, you may also need to list some solutions for these according to the results of your research. Current content is not enough.
15.As for the comments “Page 2: Include more recent citations in introduction”, please list the references you have been added in the Author Response.
16.SDGs is one of the most hot word for sustainability. Could you give more general background on sustainability? Such as SDGs. It may help to contact your research with UN targets, and have a more important significance.
17.Figure 9. Complement full name of Agri. Development in the caption.
18.Figure 3. Delete the "%" in labels of y axis.
19.Figure 1. Complement legend for the Amazon Basin.
20.Table 2. This table is better to be positioned in supplemental materials.

Thank you for your careful revision. It can be accepted for publication in my opinion.