Guardians of the Forest: The Impact of Indigenous Peoples on Forest Loss in Chile

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper is well laid out with only minor edits needed to the English.

I suggest keeping to the passive voice throughout, for consistency across the paper.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The opening of the paper has very good English, however the middle sections need some edits as per the PDF.

Author Response

Reviewer 1 proposed 37 edits to improve the readability and clarity of the text. We are happy to say we were able to implement all 38 edits directly as suggested.

the last suggestions/feedback (#38) was

379 I don’t get what you are trying to say here “spatially it can be hard to account for except when

cross-referencing the origins and destinations of agricultural produce.” Expand please

 

Response:

 

We adjusted the text by expanding the paragraph to:

“It would require tracking the flow of agricultural goods from rural to urban areas to help identify patterns of land conversion driven by urban consumption, which would involve sophisticated spatial analysis techniques to accurately map the indirect pressures caused by urban centers.” (lines 485-489, page 12)

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is of academic value in that it provides a sophisticated analysis of the impact of indigenous forest management on deforestation. It is also novel in that it reveals that distance to agricultural land is an important factor.

 

However, for readers who are unfamiliar with the actual situation of indigenous peoples in Chile, the following two pieces of information would add even more value.

 

First, please add what exactly are the activities that are guaranteed on the supposed indigenous lands. Specifically, the reader will better understand what activities indigenous peoples traditionally engage in to conserve biodiversity if you explain at the outset.

 

Second, please reconsider whether we can consider indigenous peoples homogeneous. Is it possible that the younger generation of indigenous peoples are living an urban lifestyle and are not using the forests in the traditional way? The title of the paper is "Guardians of the Forest," and whether it is sustainable and whether the skills and knowledge will be passed on to future generations is an important issue in evaluating indigenous forest management. If it is difficult to consider this point, I would like to see it mentioned as an issue at the end of the paper.

 

Author Response

 

Comment 1: First, please add what exactly are the activities that are guaranteed on the supposed indigenous lands. Specifically, the reader will better understand what activities indigenous peoples traditionally engage in to conserve biodiversity if you explain at the outset.

Comment 2: Second, please reconsider whether we can consider indigenous peoples homogeneous. Is it possible that the younger generation of indigenous peoples are living an urban lifestyle and are not using the forests in the traditional way? The title of the paper is "Guardians of the Forest," and whether it is sustainable and whether the skills and knowledge will be passed on to future generations is an important issue in evaluating indigenous forest management. If it is difficult to consider this point, I would like to see it mentioned as an issue at the end of the paper.

Response:
We agree that discussing the activities of indigenous peoples in terms of conservation (comment 1) and their homogeneity vs differences among groups (comment 2) is an important addition for the reader of the paper to understand the context. We therefore expanded this section in (page 3) with the following text:

“Indigenous peoples are not a homogenous group; they are diverse and their practices vary. Within the Mapuche community, for example, there is significant diversity in how individuals and subgroups interact with their environment (Aylwin et al. 2013). However, many indigenous communities share common principles that promote environmental stewardship. A prime example is the Mapuche people's belief in the interconnectedness of all elements, which underpins their conservation practices (Neira Ceballos, 2012). This holistic approach ensures that their activities do not deplete natural resources, allowing ecosystems to be able to regenerate. These activities include sustainable land management practices, such as agroforestry (Aylwin et al. 2013).
However, the Mapuche have faced significant challenges in keeping their ancestral lands. Since the 1940s and 1950s, structural factors have driven a large portion of the Mapuche population to migrate to urban areas, with 70-80% now residing in cities such as Santiago (Bello, 2002). This migration was partly due to the degradation and reduction of community lands caused by the land tenure policies imposed by the Chilean state. These policies led to the expropriation, usurpation, and irregular sale of Mapuche lands, forcing these people, especially the younger community members, to seek livelihoods in urban environments. Sadly, even in urban areas, the Mapuche have faced poverty, discrimination, and social marginalization (Bello, 2002; Andrade, 2019).
The sustainability of indigenous forest management depends significantly on whether traditional knowledge and practices are passed on to future generations. With a substantial portion of the Mapuche population living in urban areas, there is a real risk that these skills and knowledge could be lost. While some urban Mapuche communities actively work to preserve their cultural heritage, the physical disconnection from their ancestral lands presents a challenge (Bello, 2002; Becerra et al. 2018). The Chilean state has often failed to value or incorporate indigenous knowledge in its environmental policies. This oversight is evident in the state's forestry policies, which have prioritized economic interests over ecological and cultural sustainability (Aylwin et al. 2013).This has prompted these communities to engage in activism to reclaim their ancestral lands through land occupation and legal processes (Bidegain, 2017). Therefore, the recognition and support of their land rights will be vital in sustaining their role as true guardians of the forest.” (Lines 65-98, pages 2-3)

Andrade, M. J. (2019). La lucha por el territorio mapuche en Chile: una cuestión de pobreza y medio ambiente. L’Ordinaire des Amériques, (225).

Aylwin, J., Fuenzalida, N. Y., & Sánchez, R. (2013). Pueblo mapuche y recursos forestales en Chile: devastación y conservación en un contexto de globalización económica. Observatorio Ciudadano IWGIA.

Bello, Á. (2002). Migración, identidad y comunidad mapuche en Chile: entre utopismos y realidades. Asuntos indígenas, 3(4), 40-47.

Becerra, S., Merino, M. E., Webb, A., & Larrañaga, D. (2018). Recreated practices by Mapuche women that strengthen place identity in new urban spaces of residence in Santiago, Chile. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 41(7), 1255-1273.

Bidegain, G. (2017). From cooperation to confrontation: The Mapuche movement and its political impact, 1990–2014. Social movements in Chile: Organization, trajectories, and political consequences, 99-129.

Neira Ceballos, Z., M Alarcón, A., Jelves, I., Ovalle, P., Conejeros, A. M., & Verdugo, V. (2012). Espacios ecológico-culturales en un territorio mapuche de la región de la Araucanía en Chile. Chungará (Arica), 44(2), 313-323.

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors.

Thank you for your presentation. I have found a well-structured and developed job. Without a doubt, this research represents a good case study that helps understand the causes of deforestation in specific contexts, in this case, Chile. In my technical opinion, the case study is robust, and its conclusions are useful for Chile's decision-makers and forest managers.

However, I present below some elements (form and substance) that could improve the impact of your presentation.

1. INTRODUCTION: It is very well-structured, and its content is relevant. However, the authors could make a greater effort to demonstrate the novel contributions of their case to the global deforestation literature. For example, to emphasize the case novelty due to the forest type studied. Why is this deforestation model used and not another? What is new in terms of more and better explanatory variables? It is important to highlight these developments so that this does not seem like another deforestation report.

2. Lines 70 to 74. Check the wording. The question mark is missing in the paragraph.

3. Line 155. What is the SPSS reference or source? What does SPSS mean? Why is this tool used? 

4. METHODS: They are clear and coherent. However, why is this deforestation prediction model used? This is the only one? What are its advantages or disadvantages? I consider this to be fundamental in the manuscript and in defining the novel contributions of this research. The selection of this model is an element that must be discussed and argued. In addition to the above, a graph with the method phases would greatly help your overall understanding.

5. Lines 172–174. Why use Euclidean distances? Why this method? Please argue properly.

6. Line 210. Why do you consider the work of Sharman et al. (2020) in Shan State, Myanmar, as essential guiding work in your research? What is the similarity of this study with your research case?

7. Line 236. What is the reference of To assess goodness-of-fit, the Nagelkerke R square was calculated? What are the advantages of its use?

8. Lines 292-293. The authors mention: "A second noteworthy finding regarding conservation efforts in Chile is the observation that protected areas exhibit even lower deforestation rates compared to Indigenous lands." Interesting result. What is its cause? Why, in the context of this research, is this relevant?

9. DISCUSSION: It is well-argued. However, in light of the specific results of this case. What are the recommendations in terms of the management of indigenous lands and protected areas? What management aspects (from the government and authorities) should be reinforced, improved, or changed? The discussion could be strengthened if the authors bring these findings to bear on more concrete and tangible proposals.

Furthermore, in the discussion, it should be clear what are the contributions of this research to the literature on deforestation. Was a method replicated, or what progress was made with this contribution?

Best regards,

Cesar Ruiz

Author Response

Comment 1: INTRODUCTION: However, the authors could make a greater effort to demonstrate the novel contributions of their case to the global deforestation literature. For example, to emphasize the case novelty due to the forest type studied. Why is this deforestation model used and not another? What is new in terms of more and better explanatory variables? It is important to highlight these developments so that this does not seem like another deforestation report.

 

Response:

We agree that making more explicit the novelty of our approach earlier in the paper (introduction) will help readers understand from the onset the unique contributions. Therefore we added in page 3 the following paragraph:

 

“Unlike many previous studies, this model explicitly includes the location of lands managed by Indigenous peoples as a variable. This is particularly relevant as previous research indicates that Indigenous-managed lands often have lower rates of deforestation, but this has not been extensively studied in temperate forests like those in Araucanía. By testing different distances to drivers of deforestation, the model has been specifically tailored to the unique characteristics of the Araucanía region. This customization ensures that the model accounts for local factors that may influence deforestation patterns differently than in other regions or forest types.” (Lines 118-126, pages 3)

 

 

Comment 2: Lines 70 to 74. Check the wording. The question mark is missing in the paragraph.

 

Response:

Questions mark was added and wording was checked

 

 

Comment 3:  Line 155. What is the SPSS reference or source? What does SPSS mean? Why is this tool used?

 

Response:

We added the following information:

“..performed a logistic regression analysis using the software: Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS 28.0).” (Lines 280-283, page 8)

 

 

Comment 4:  METHODS: They are clear and coherent. However, why is this deforestation prediction model used? This is the only one? What are its advantages or disadvantages? I consider this to be fundamental in the manuscript and in defining the novel contributions of this research. The selection of this model is an element that must be discussed and argued. In addition to the above, a graph with the method phases would greatly help your overall understanding.

 

Response:
Agreed! to address this comment we included the following section on page 8-9:

 

“Logistic regression analysis is commonly used for deforestation prediction models due to its effectiveness in handling binary response variables, such as the presence or absence of deforestation (Arekhi, 2011; Hu et al., 2014; Bavaghar, 2015; Gayen & Saha, 2018). This approach is particularly advantageous when the goal is to statistically relate deforestation occurrence to various predictor variables or covariates. Logistic regression's popularity in deforestation research stems from its robustness and ease of interpretation (Salas-Eljatib et al. 2018). One of its main advantages is the ability to provide clear probabilities of deforestation based on the predictors, which aids in understanding the influence of different factors. However, it is not the only model available; other methods, such as random forests or neural networks, can also be used for deforestation prediction (Soto et al. 2022; Zanella et al. 2017). While logistic regression offers simplicity and interpretability, it may not capture complex non-linear relationships as effectively as some machine learning models. Nonetheless, its frequent use and proven reliability make it a standard choice for many deforestation studies (Salas-Eljatib et al. 2018).” (Lines 296-310, pages 8-9)

 

Gayen, A., & Saha, S. (2018). Deforestation probable area predicted by logistic regression in Pathro river basin: a tributary of Ajay River. Spatial Information Research, 26(1), 1-9.

 

Salas-Eljatib, C., Fuentes-Ramirez, A., Gregoire, T. G., Altamirano, A., & Yaitul, V. (2018). A study on the effects of unbalanced data when fitting logistic regression models in ecology. Ecological Indicators, 85, 502-508.

 

Soto, P. J., Costa, G. A., Feitosa, R. Q., Ortega, M. X., Bermudez, J. D., & Turnes, J. N. (2022). Domain-adversarial neural networks for deforestation detection in tropical forests. IEEE Geoscience and Remote Sensing Letters, 19, 1-5.

 

Zanella, L., Folkard, A. M., Blackburn, G. A., & Carvalho, L. M. (2017). How well does random forest analysis model deforestation and forest fragmentation in the Brazilian Atlantic forest?. Environmental and ecological statistics, 24, 529-549.

 

 

Comment 5: Lines 172–174. Why use Euclidean distances? Why this method? Please argue properly.

 

Response:

Addressed by expanding with:

 

“Euclidean distance is a commonly used spatial analysis that represents the straight-line distance between two points in a plane and represents the distance at which a variable may have influence on deforestation observations.” (Lines 224-227, page 7)

 

 

Comment 6: Line 210. Why do you consider the work of Sharman et al. (2020) in Shan State, Myanmar, as essential guiding work in your research? What is the similarity of this study with your research case?

 

Response:
Made the inclusion of Sharma et al reference more clear by stating which aspects of their work are similar to our study (the method and sample size).

The sentence in question now reads like this:

 

“This is in line with sampling strategies employed by similar studies, such as Sharma et al. (2020), who also looked at similar spatial variables of deforestation in Pathro river basin and used a sample size of 4000 points in a smaller study area.” (Lines 267-268, page 8)

 

 

Comment 7: Line 236. What is the reference of To assess goodness-of-fit, the Nagelkerke R square was calculated? What are the advantages of its use?

 

Response:

We added the following information:

“The Nagelkerke R square is easy to interpret due to its scale from 0 to 1, making it a comparable metric for assessing model performance as it indicates the proportion of the variation in the dependent variable that is explained by the independent variables in the model.” (Lines 317-320, page 9)

 

Source: Gayen, A., & Saha, S. (2018). Deforestation probable area predicted by logistic regression in Pathro river basin: a tributary of Ajay River. Spatial Information Research, 26(1), 1-9.

 

 

Comment 8: Lines 292-293. The authors mention: "A second noteworthy finding regarding conservation efforts in Chile is the observation that protected areas exhibit even lower deforestation rates compared to Indigenous lands." Interesting result. What is its cause? Why, in the context of this research, is this relevant?

 

Response:
We agree that this paragraph needed a better explanation of the relevance and causes. We have tried to address this by replacing it with the following paragraph:

 

“This finding could be particularly valuable for the government of Chile, as it highlights the potential role of protected areas in reducing deforestation rates and preserving biodiversity in Chile. However, further research is necessary to pinpoint the exact causes behind these outcomes, especially since forest policies in Chile have not provided any economic incentive to conserve native forests. This suggests that other factors are actively contributing to the observed conservation success  (Arriagada et al. 2016). The disparity in deforestation rates between protected areas and Indigenous lands in this study may be attributed to the difference in political protection. While governmental land-use restrictions placed on protected areas deter parties who desire to use the land for practices like agriculture, for decades Indigenous communities have experienced difficulties protecting their lands from these same parties, even resulting in conflicts with the Chilean government (Jaimovich & Toledo, 2021). Another potential factor contributing to the effectiveness of protected areas is their relative inaccessibility, exemplified by the limited infrastructure found within these regions (Kucsicsa & Dumitrică, 2019).” (Lines 392-406, page 11)

 

Comment 9: DISCUSSION: It is well-argued. However, in light of the specific results of this case. What are the recommendations in terms of the management of indigenous lands and protected areas? What management aspects (from the government and authorities) should be reinforced, improved, or changed? The discussion could be strengthened if the authors bring these findings to bear on more concrete and tangible proposals.

 

Response:

We added the following paragraph to the discussion:

“This study underscores the critical role Indigenous communities play in conserving forest ecosystems, particularly in the Araucanía region of Chile. The findings of this study contribute to strengthening the case for Indigenous land rights and forest management, both in Chile and around the world, highlighting the intertwined benefits of environmental conservation and the preservation of Indigenous cultures. it is crucial to strengthen legal frameworks to protect the land rights of Indigenous peoples. This includes formally recognizing Indigenous land tenure systems and taking robust measures to prevent illegal expropriations and sales of these lands. Additionally, improving the monitoring and enforcement of environmental regulations is essential to prevent activities that degrade biodiversity on Indigenous lands. These recommendations can help governments and authorities protect the biodiversity of indigenous lands while supporting the cultural and socio-economic well-being of indigenous peoples.” (Lines 512-524, page 13)

 

 

Comment 10: in the discussion, it should be clear what are the contributions of this research to the literature on deforestation. Was a method replicated, or what progress was made with this contribution?

Response:
We added the following paragraph:

“This study employed a similar approach to research such as Arekhi (2013), Kaimowit et al. (2012), and Pir Bavaghar (2015). It replicates and validates the use of logistic regression models to analyze deforestation patterns, demonstrating its effectiveness in explaining deforestation patterns. One of the novel contributions of this research is the incorporation of indigenous land ownership into the analysis of deforestation. While previous studies have often overlooked the role of indigenous peoples in conservation, this research highlights the potential importance of their land management practices in conservation. It therefore not only broadens the scope of deforestation research but also highlights the value of indigenous land management in biodiversity conservation.” (Lines 491-500, pages 12-13)

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Thank you very much for your effort in responding to the comments. Without a doubt, this second version is clear, and the research contributions to the literature are evident.

I have carefully reviewed each response and its inclusion in the second version of the manuscript. In my view, the manuscript is suitable for publication in the Journal.

I have no future comments. Good job. It's an interesting research piece.

Best regards, 

Cesar Ruiz