Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to see a concrete narrative on why the authors are focusing more on mopane, among other species of interest in that part of Namibia. The authors are reminded that the species is having a high utilization value and I would like to see for formulation which balances the use and climate efforts of the species. Also, the authors need to mention the values, both mitigative and adaptation values more succinctly.

On page 2, it is stated that “Bridging this gap would ……….”, I could not pick up the gap which the authors are alluding to. It must be written clearly.

Looking at the maps, Kunene is in northwest of the country, Omusati in the central north. It maybe misleading to coin the entire study area as central Namibia.

Figure 1. The map should be the other way round. Let’s have a bigger Namibia and a smaller African continent, to increase the details. There is no need to show other countries at bigger scales, unless if the mopane eco-region is defined. The map scale is for which map? This is confusing please. In addition, colour maps are not advisable, if a black and white copy is made out of this, it may not be legible. Rather use other means of shading.

A reference is required to support the following statement: “These rural areas, which are frequently underdeveloped and marginalized, are more severely affected by the effects of climate change”.

What version of SPSS was used in the analysis? What research design issues were considered?

Measures for the climate change knowledge need to be revisited. What is it that the authors looked at, is it the knowledge in terms of impacts (which I doubt they will say they have limited knowledge) or it is interventions or is it the science around it? This has to really come out clear. In other words, the point of enquiry leaves much to be desired.

Climate change affects different gender/age groups differently and this is connected to the use of forest resources. It was going to be interesting to assess the levels of knowledge by stratifying all issue by gender, even by age groups.

Aims and objectives should be combined, at present, it reads like a thesis (also other parts of the manuscript appears like a full thesis). This should be an article. The authors are advised to seek examples of how this is done in other related papers.

The paper still needs a thorough copy edit as grammatical errors occur throughout.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Reviewer 2 Report

< General critique >

The title of “Implementing local climate change adaption actions in the context of forest ecosystem services: The role of various policy instruments in north-central Namibia”. However, I think that the main content of the article is a little far from the title. 

Ecosystems service is only dealt with in the discussion section, mentioning that “Mopane woodlands play a critical role in carbon sequestration, supporting livelihood for rural communities, biodiversity, soil conservation, and forest ecosystem services in general.” (Jenkins & Schaap, 2018). Looking at the title, it is expected that the paper will cover the role of various policy instruments in north-central Namibia in utilizing the ecosystem services of carbon sequestration, supporting livelihood for rural communities, biodiversity, and soil conservation. However, the paper mainly reports that the awareness of various experts on climate policy at the rural and national levels is low and that such a situation is concerning because local communities in rural areas are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and will continue to degrade forest ecosystems for their livelihood. I think there is a discrepancy between the title and the content.

Furthermore, in the conclusion section, it was stated that “However, there is a need for Namibia to adopt holistic climate change policies that will reduce vulnerability and improve adaptive ability, especially in vulnerable rural communities. At the same time, the existing policies and action plans should focus on the long-term social and economic development goals and not only on the short-term ones that comprise the dynamic changes that local communities experience.” However, this suggestion is not derived from the study result. I could not find any part of the analysis and results of this study that provides a basis for this claim.

Lastly, I consider the Forests journal as an excellent journal corresponding to Q1 in the forestry field. It is surprising to see that the labeling of materials in the paper was wrong many times. I find this manuscript to be not ready for publication. I recommend that the authors review the materials thoroughly and resubmit the paper.

< Introduction >

o A detailed introduction to Colophospermum mopane is necessary either in the introduction or at least in the mateirals and methods section. International readers are unaware of why certain African species are important, or in what ways they are important. It is difficult to understand because it appears as a term in the text without an explanation.

 

< Materials and Methods >

 

O Survey 2.1 should be 2.2 

 

o We collected data using an online semi-structured online questionnaire (Survio)

→ you can delete one “online” from the sentence. 

→ The survey items should be provided in the main text or in the Appendix to make it easy for readers to understand the content and the item structures.

 

o SPSS is highly user-friendly because it supports command-line input and programming, as well as graphical interface analysis, and can handle a large set of data with multi- ple variables

→ Since SPSS is a basic statistical package that is already widely known, there is no need to explain this.

 

o Qualitative data were coded according to relevant themes using the Thematic Content Analysis.

→ It was said that a Thematic Content Analysis was performed, but there is no explanation at all. There is a need to provide an explanation of the Thematic Content Analysis. What is it? How is it performed? It may be helpful to show the procedure flow of the analysis using diagrams.

 

 

< Results and discussion >

 

o  Since the questionnaire is the main tool of the study, the information of the respondents is very important.  However, detailed information about the respondents is not provided. Why were they the target of the study? How old were they? What was their education level?

 

o Limited knowledge of climate change is a result of many factors including the lack of public education, and lack of awareness programs.

→ What is the basis for this claim?

o 3.2 The implementation of policy instruments, 3.2. Effectiveness of the policy instrument.

è The number labeling in the table is incorrect.  

< Discussion >

3. Discussion should be  “4. Discussion”  

 

< Conclusion >

3. Conclusion should be “5. Conclusion” 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for their thoughtful responses. My only remaining concern is that The survey items should be provided in the Appendix to make it easy for readers to understand the content and the item structures. If this part is supplemented, I do not consider that any further review or changes are required.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.