Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a paper on a timely topic - that of HEC. It offers some interesting insights into people's experiences with wild elephants, the impact of coexistence, and the possibility of alternative crop-cultivation to mitigate conflict. However, I found the focus of the paper confusing.  I couldn't tease out the main research question being addressed. The paper seems to jump across several areas of HEC and HEC-related areas, but it's unclear what this paper is specifically contributing to. For example, it states that it will examine people's perceptions and attitudes towards wild elephants. This is not achieved in this paper.  Q7 of the survey is not an 'attitude' question ("I can coexist with wild elephants").  It's a behaviour question. I might be able to coexist, but that doesn't mean I like elephants. I'm also concerned that the survey is a fixed response for many questions (yes or no). Ethically, there should be a 'don't know' or 'neutral' option. Likewise, interviews are carried out but how they are analysed is unclear. Were ethical issues addressed during the recruitment and interviewing? Why not do a qualitative analysis of what people say? The paper has some interesting things to say, but it needs focus and consistency. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study is highly valuable because it includes various types of detailed and extensive data derived from long-term, locally-based research. The interdisciplinary nature of the research, which covers social, ecological, and economic aspects, is particularly commendable. The focus on alternative crops is critically important, and the study effectively demonstrates their usefulness for promoting human-elephant coexistence as well as the challenges associated with introducing these crops. However, there are several aspects that require modification and improvement.

 

Title: It appears somewhat vague, and it is difficult to discern from it whether this study examined the usefulness of alternative crops using multidisciplinary methods. Additionally, it is unclear whether alternative crops can truly be considered a “community-based solution” based on the results of the study. I recommend the authors reconsider the title to more accurately reflect the content of the study.

 

Abstract: While the contents of the paper are generally presented, the abstract lacks sufficient sophistication and logical structure. I recommend that the authors further refine it to enhance clarity and coherence.

 

Keywords: I believe it is necessary to reassess whether all the keywords are appropriate. Please ensure that each keyword accurately reflects the core themes and content of the paper.

 

Data collection and Results: The division of the section into Social, Ecological, and Economic appears to be inappropriate. For example, economic aspects are described in the Social section, and criteria of alternative crop species for the ecological, economic, and social contexts are demonstrated in the Ecological section. I recommend reorganizing the overall structure as follows.

1. First, present the results of the interview surveys with local people and the studies on planting and cultivation. This will provide an overview of the agricultural production and the conflict with elephants in the region.

2. Second, based on these results, suggest that the introduction of alternative crops could be a viable solution.

3. Third, show the results of ecological and economic studies on alternative crops, along with farmers' perceptions and adoption of these crops, to examine the feasibility of introducing alternative crops.

 

Figures and Tables: I recommend adding concise titles to all figures and tables to clearly indicate their content at a glance. Additionally, there is excessive descriptive content that would be more appropriately included in the main text.

 

Figure 2: I am concerned about the potential issues regarding the portrait rights of the local people.

 

Discussion 4.1: It currently contains excessive information that would be more appropriately located in the Results section. Notably, some information has already been addressed in the Results, while other details are introduced for the first time here. I recommend providing a more concise summary of the results and focus more on developing in-depth discussions. If the overall structure is reorganized as suggested in the previous comments, it will also be necessary to reconstruct the Discussion section accordingly.

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my comments are in the attached PDF.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the appropriate revisions. I think it has become much more organized and clear. I salute the authors' great efforts to obtain highly abundant and diverse data based on long-term fieldwork and welcome the publication of such a significant study.