Input Behavior of Farmer Production Factors in the Range of Asian Elephant Distribution: Survey Data from 1264 Households in Yunnan Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAs a whole, this is an outstanding paper and I commend the authors on their excellent work. In addition to providing valuable insight into how community livelihoods can be handled, the paper provides an impressive reading on the Human-Wildlife conflict debate.
Nevertheless, I would suggest that the paper be corrected in a few areas;
1. Introduction: In the second paragraph, some statements require references (3rd and 4th sentences), and the last sentence in the same paragraph.
2. The same *(lack of reference) can be found on the 3rd page (2.2.2) first paragraph.
3. To conclude, the authors might want to spend some time fixing a few statements in the paper that lack citations.
4. In section 2.2.1, the authors indicate that the interview revealed that many affected households opt to reduce the planting.... how many are many? Can you provide any statistics or numbers to support your claim?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis is an elegantly written manuscript which is fortunate as the copy I received to review did not have line numbers. Thus, my specific comments refer to sections and pages. The study takes an anthropocentric approach to a human-wildlife conflict issue through social science and economics. In this case, the conflict is Asian elephant depredations in agricultural systems and the cost is measured as monetary. This is a novel approach and differentiates the study from the more typical one of conflict resolution through deterrence or lethal measures where wildlife behaviour is to the fore. The authors rightly state that such ecological perspectives warrant further research, but I would add an investigation of any benefits from the elephant’s presence such as alternative enterprises like wildlife tourism.
The manuscript sets out a series of clearly stated hypotheses that are resolved through well-conceived data gathered and appropriate analysis. Even so one might expect some interaction between the various ‘Capital’ variables which is not analysed. The discussion is insightful, and the final section of recommendations is clear and concise.
Some issues deserve attention as minor revisions.
Page 1: The title is framed as a process rather than a result. I suggest: ‘Input behaviour of farmer production factors…: Survey data…’
Page 1, Abstract: Spell out abbreviation OLS.
Page 1, Abstract: ‘managing and preventing wildlife damage’
Page 1, Introduction: The unit mu is certainly appropriate to China but perhaps conversion to hectare or km2 would improve universal understanding.
Page 2, Materials and Methods: ‘from the authors’ institution’. This is a multi-author paper.
Page 7, Table 1: ‘Kind of flat’ is vague, perhaps ‘gentle undulations’?
Page 9, Heading 4: This should simply be ‘Results’ given Heading 5 is ‘Discussion’
Page 13, Discussion: ‘optimizing allocation decisions’
Page 14, Discussion: ‘demonstrating the study’s conclusions’
Page 14, Discussion: Perez and Xu Jianying are multi-authors papers.
Page 15, Recommendations: Each of the four recommendations’ titles should be subheadings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageSee above.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
