A Study on the Perception of African Elephant (Loxodonta africana) Conservation by School Children in Africa and England (UK)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting paper that I enjoyed reading. The premise (to assess the different perceptions of elephants by children in three very different countries, where the possible exposure to elephants could be in very different contexts) is very intriguing and compelling. As such, I look forward to seeing this published.  

In general, I only have minor comments on the manuscript, but I do wonder if some reanalysis may be beneficial. I don't want to state this as a definite requirement, but it may be worth looking at using one GLM-type model for analysis, to avoid the multiple testing with many chi-square tests that is currently presented in the data. Age, gender and country could go in to the model as the independent variables. 

Aside from that possibility - which I leave open, as I say - my minor comments are as follows:

Table 1: perhaps re-label the ‘elephant exposure’ column to indicate this is potential or likely exposure only. Just as we can’t assume that all the children in the UK have been so zoos with elephants, we cannot assume that all children in Nairobi have been to reserves or wildlife areas where they saw elephants. This could then also be something to comment on in the Discussion section (e.g. around line 245). 

 

Table 2 indicates that the first option given for why elephants may be threatened is 'loss of habitat from cutting down trees'. I think it is important to explain the rationale for this phrasing (in the Methods). Habitat loss is a huge driver of reduction in elephant numbers, but that loss is not really about loss of trees per se across savannah elephant range. 

 

Line 135: I think it will be helpful to explain the use of a likert scale in binary yes-no responses. This analysis section could benefit from a bit more explanation. 

 

Results section: Perhaps present results in a similar order to the question appearance in the questionnaire. At least, I would suggest dealing with the photo ID data first (currently from line 176), as knowing if the children know what an elephant is, is an important first question to answer. 

 

Lines 150-154: What were the rates of reporting wishing to see an elephant in the wild, across the three countries? 

 

Figure 2: it would be helpful if the segments appeared in the same order across all three rings, to help with visual comparisons, rather than in decreasing order from 12 o’clock. 

 

Figure 4: It is not clear what the 1-4 and different rows signify in the y-axis. 

 

Lines 257-264: This is really interesting, and fits with my impressions of Kenya and South Africa. Proportionately, more Kenyans are employed in or dependent on income from wildlife tourists than in South Africa. That this pattern shines through even though the Kenyan children are based in Nairobi, whilst the South African children are based considerably closer to important  wildlife reserves (around Hoesdpruit) could be seen as a pretty damming indictment of how conservation revenues are shared within SA. You could perhaps draw on additional research where you (gently) discuss this. 

 

Lines 280-284: The pattern of primary threats perceived by the children also fits with the elephant conservation narratives of the countries concerned, I think. Kenya has led the pack against international ivory trading, and poaching is therefore frequently discussed. Anti-poaching campaigns have also been quite prevalent in the UK. But in South Africa, the key issue in elephant management is about space (in typically fenced reserves). I find it interesting that the children's views seem to echo the national narratives. (But perhaps I have something of a confirmation bias here, so feel free to not comment on this!)

Author Response

See comments attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a well written and agued manuscript and makes a significant contribution to this aspect of conservation. I thoroughly enjoyed the read

I suggest that lines 108 to 111 (or thereabouts) be amended for accuracy and completeness. My comment was, ' Elephants are predominantly in the wild, but South Africa does have captive elephants (e.g. zoos and circuses). I acknowledge that for the students who took part in this research, it is unlikely (given that they reside significant distances away from cities with zoos and circuses) that they would have been exposed to captive elephants. Having said this, the study should, at least, recognise this context.

A general comment on the questionnaire, I felt the students should have been asked whether they had (personally) seen an elephant and where. This information could have been used to not only give insights into their point of reference but also could have been used as a 'blocking variable'. As it stand the analyses are seen to be simplistic. It would have been appropriate to have undertaken a multivariate analysis as a means to generate hypotheses that could then be tested with the linear statistics used. 

Author Response

See comments attached. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I recommend it be published

I recommend it be published

Author Response

No changes needed for reviewer 2

Author Response File: Author Response.docx