Rural Community Agency in Cameroon: Interactions with Forest Policies and the REDD+ Climate Change Regime

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper makes an interesting contribution that is socially relevant. The methodology, the results and the discussion is clearly presented.  Some minor editing (typos mostly) of the paper would be helpful. Table 5 should be edited (it does not align properly and some parts are missing) to make it readable.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

 

Comment: “Some minor editing (typos mostly) of the paper would be helpful.”

Response: The entire paper has been edited for typos.

 

Comment: “Table 5 should be edited (it does not align properly and some parts are missing) to make it readable.”

 

Response: The table has been edited for alignment.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors of "Rural community agency in Cameroon: Interactions with forest policies and the REDD+ climate change regime"

I have no major comments to your document. I believe that you have motivated you research question and answered with a method suited for the challenge.

Before publication, I recommend you to

1) check for typos. In the introduction, for instance, you use semi-colons where they should not go, and in figure 1, the word affected is misspelled. There are other typos here and there.

2) While you motivate your research question, I wonder whether you can go more to the point. The initial paragraphs in the introduction do not really take the reader to where the paper goes. By reading the initial paragraphs, the reader may think that we are going to documentation of reasons for failure of Korup project, for instance. This comment implies trimming and reordering your introduction.

3) In your abstract, try to be a lot more specific on the takeaways of your paper. 

 

Looking forward to reading your revised manuscript.

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Comment: “check for typos. In the introduction, for instance, you use semi-colons where they should not go, and in figure 1, the word affected is misspelled. There are other typos here and there.” 

Response: The entire paper has been edited for typos.

 

Comment: “While you motivate your research question, I wonder whether you can go more to the point. The initial paragraphs in the introduction do not really take the reader to where the paper goes. By reading the initial paragraphs, the reader may think that we are going to documentation of reasons for failure of Korup project, for instance. This comment implies trimming and reordering your introduction.”

 

Response: The following paragraph has been added.

“Given that the Korupt project is an important part of the discussion section, it is important that it is mentioned in the introduction of the paper. However, to avoid making the reader think that the Korup project is the focus of the paper, we have added the phrase “For example” (line 47) when Korup project is first mentioned. This makes it a follow up to the previous sentence about ICDPs.  
    

Comment: “In your abstract, try to be a lot more specific on the takeaways of your paper.”

Response: To capture the “takeaways” of the paper in the abstract, we have added these phrases: The results also show that both communities share many of the patterns of diversity and integration to a similar extent. Although there is no definitive distinction between the two communities, the findings suggest that some differences exist in their degree of integration.  (Lines 20-23)

Reviewer 3 Report

• Abstract presents the background but does not present findings adequately. Need to rewrite the abstract.
• Implication of the research in the final sentence of abstract is recommended. 
• Line 47: Difficult to understand what Korup project is? A bit more background would be helpful. 
• Justification for why the chosen area is appropriate for this study is needed. Mentioning selection criteria would be helpful.
• Why both random and non random sampling is used here, what are the implication of these methods in data collection for this study, more elaboration is needed. 
• No results shows the interaction with REDD+ interventions
• How has collection action influenced the intervention?
• Line 454-456: Just a question? Critique it with reference. 
• Link between result and discussion is weak.
• The first paragraph of conclusion is more like a introductory part, and is not convincing. Need to rewrite it. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

 

Comment: “Abstract presents the background but does not present findings adequately. Need to rewrite the abstract.”

 

Response: To adequately present the finding in the abstract, we have added these phrases: The results also show that both communities share many of the patterns of diversity and integration to a similar extent. Although there is no definitive distinction between the two communities, the findings suggest that some differences exist in their degree of integration.  (Lines 20-23)

 

Comment: “Implication of the research in the final sentence of abstract is recommended.”

 

Response: To capture the implication of the study, we added the following phrase in the final sentence of the abstract:

                  “The implication of this study is that threats of conflicts may increase when the villagers’ perception of the potential costs of losing their lands to REDD+ is formed by their experiences from current restrictions on the use and management rights of their lands.” (Lines 25-28) 

                

Comment: “Line 47: Difficult to understand what Korup project is? A bit more background would be helpful.”

 

Response: More background information has been added. The phrase now read as follows:

                 “For example, the Korup project, an ICDP in the Korup National Park in the South West Region of Cameroon that began in 1988, has been characterized by some as a “catastrophic failure.”  (Lines 52-54)

 

Comment: “Justification for why the chosen area is appropriate for this study is needed. Mentioning selection criteria would be helpful.”

 

Response: The following statement has been added to justify choice of the study areas:

                  “The two communities were chosen for this study because of their experience with an internationally funded conservation program (i.e., the Korup project), which shares some similarities with the proposed REDD+ program in areas.” (Lines 100-102)

 

Comment: “Why both random and non random sampling is used here, what are the implication of these methods in data collection for this study, more elaboration is needed.”

 

Response: The following statements have been added to justify the use of both random and nonrandom sampling techniques:

                 “We used random sampling to ensure that every individual in the two communities had a nonzero probability of being selected. The non-random sampling technique was used to ensure that groups like women (gender distribution) and strangers that may not be properly represented in the sample are represented” (Lines 232-234)

 

Comment: “No results shows the interaction with REDD+ interventions.”

 

Response: Yes, but this is because the REDD+ program has not yet been implemented, but inferences to the modes of interaction with forest policies outlined in Table 5 are made to the REDD+ program in the discussion section – 6.1 through 6.3

 

Comment: “How has collection action influenced the intervention?”

 

Response: Again, inferences to the modes of interaction with forest policies outlined in Table 5 are made to the REDD+ program in the discussion section

 

Comment: “Line 454-456: Just a question? Critique it with reference.”

 

Response: The following information has been added:

                  “Given that many authors, including [72-74] have documented accounts of conflicts that have arisen from forest people’s fears that they will be disenfranchised by REDD+ projects in their communities and that their land will be appropriated, there is a real possibility that the pending REDD+ projects in Fabe and Mosongiseli could exacerbate the threats of conflicts in the two communities.” (Lines 469-473)

 

Comment: “Link between result and discussion is weak.”

 

Response: This is because the REDD+ program is not yet been implemented in the study areas, making it difficult to discuss the results with existing literature.

 

Comment: “The first paragraph of conclusion is more like a introductory part, and is not convincing. Need to rewrite it.”

 

Response: Yes, but we use this style to remind the reader of the raison d’etre of the paper.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript has now improved, and the authors have incorporated most of the comments.