Traditional and Local Knowledge in Chile: Review of Experiences and Insights for Management and Sustainability
, María Isabel Mujica 1,3, Matías Barceló 2,3, María Fernanda Vio-Garay 3, Stefan Gelcich 2,3 and Juan J. Armesto 1,3,4Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This is an important paper, and also one that is concise, clear, and based on a sound methodology. I enjoyed reading it, mostly pertaining to some minor odd expressions/grammatical issues.
Please see the suggestions below:
Lines 28-29: 'Work in Chile has not yet fully addressed...nor broaden its attention...' → 'Work in Chile has not yet fully addressed...nor has it broadened attention...' (Grammar) Lines 59-60: A second perspective focus on →A second perspective focuses on (Grammar) Line 62: Delete 'to focus our analysis.' Lines 64-65: One concerning the body of knowledge about the →One of these dimensions is related to ...' Line 65: This type of research is...→ Research on this type of knowledge is... Line 67: Later →more recently Line 68: Children health → child health Line 110: Once a publication comply with...→ One a publication complied with Line 111: ...classifying each paper by...→each paper was classified by... Lines 133-134: meaning unclear, consider revising this sentence. Line 203: ...and who published...→ delete who Line 213: marine ecosystem →marine ecosystems (plural) Line 332: AICHI →Aichi Line 351: western knowledge → this is a vague expression, better to say 'scientific knowledge'? Lines 363-364: Consider revising sentence for clarity.
Author Response
Specific Comments
Lines 28-29: 'Work in Chile has not yet fully addressed...nor broaden its attention...' → 'Work in Chile has not yet fully addressed...nor has it broadened attention...' (Grammar)Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Lines 59-60: A second perspective focus on →A second perspective focuses on (Grammar)Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 62: Delete 'to focus our analysis.'Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Lines 64-65: One concerning the body of knowledge about the →One of these dimensions is related to ...'Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 65: This type of research is...→ Research on this type of knowledge is...Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 67: Later →more recentlyResponse
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 68: Children health → child healthResponse
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 110: Once a publication comply with...→ One a publication complied withResponse
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 111: ...classifying each paper by...→each paper was classified by...Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Lines 133-134: meaning unclear, consider revising this sentence.Response
We re-wrote the sentence.
Line 203: ...and who published...→ delete whoResponse
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 213: marine ecosystem →marine ecosystems (plural)
Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 332: AICHI →AichiResponse
We modified the text as suggested.
Line 351: western knowledge → this is a vague expression, better to say 'scientific knowledge'?Response
We modified the text as suggested.
Lines 363-364: Consider revising sentence for clarity.Response
We re-wrote the sentence for major clarity
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript seems to be interesting, but it has some of shortcomings. Firstly, I cannot find any clear implications for sustainability policy in results/conclusions of the manuscript, as Authors promised in the title. Secondly, the structure of the manuscript is a bit confusing. If the sections Results and Discussion are mixed, thus there is not clear what main findings we can see in original results of Authors. Clear findings or main implications for ecosystem management and sustainability policy I cannot find also in the section Conclusion. I enhance Authors to rework the manuscript seriously following my next recommendations and resubmit it in revised version.
Line 3: What management Authors mean? Ecosystem management, landscape management???
Line 4: Authors should add a word “policy” to the end of the title /see line 87, where Authors say about sustainability policy/.
Line 17: Why Authors use the abbreviation TLK and not use better “TLEK” if say about “traditional and local ecological knowledge”? It should be corrected in the whole body of the manuscript.
Lines 19-31: Abstract is very poor. Too much redundant information related to method are here, but nearly there is missing a brief presentation of main findings/results of the manuscript. Also, there is missing one – two sentences about findings relevant for insights for management and sustainability as Authors indicated in the title.
Line 36: Here the clear definition/explanation of the key term of the manuscript is missing. I recommend move here the paragraph in lines 53-62.
Line 40: What means “non-Newtonian sciences”?
Line 41: Each of ecosystem management measurements is provided in local scale/context. Authors should rephrase this idea and explain WHY this context is important (and other is not important?).
Line 50-51: This sentence is here beyond the context. Move this sentence to the beginning of the paragraph in line 77 and better explain why you chose Chile as study area.
Line 64: Rephrase it. Who are “we”? It seems, that mentioned two dimensions come from literature cited.
Line 86: But it is unclear, where in the body of manuscript Authors discussed how to incorporate… see my next comment to line 135.
Line 93: Why Authors cited sources 36_38. There is generally known, what “liter. review” means.
Line 93: Did authors use the right names of both databases?
Line 100: But Web of Science indexes paper from 1945.
Line 108-109: Move this sentence to the section Acknowledgements.
Line 119-134: This section is unclear. Authors should present criteria in table or figure, which would be clearer for reader.
Line 135 etc.: The whole section no 3 need serious reworking. This form of mixture of results with opinion of Authors is very confusing. Authors should divide original findings from the review to the section “Results” and then Authors discuss these results in section “Discussion”. The new seriously reworked section Discussion can start by the text in line 322 (subsection no 3.4). Authors should rework this clearer in order to highlighted the insights/implications for both ecosystem management and sustainability policy - from their original results (coming from the analyse in section Results) based on scientific discussion with international literature (from other parts of the world) related to the same topics as Authors deal with.
Line 389-421: Section Conclusion must be reworked. Current form of this section conclude too much redundant general statement (e. g. lines 408-411). Authors did not use holistic analyse of TLEK in Chile and thus should not say about it as approach in Conclusion /line 415/. There is lack of clear and brief summary/presentation of main findings/conclusions from the review – and, also, there is missing any clear insights for ecosystem management and sustainability policy both Chile. Authors must add also explanation, what findings/conclusion from their study from Chile is portable in international scale (sustainability is an international journal).
Author Response
Specific Comments
Line 3: What management Authors mean? Ecosystem management, landscape management???Response
We use the term management in general because the management of nature from traditional and local communities use different scales and approaches that are beyond the definition of landscape or ecosystem. We think that a broad concept is more precise, considering the diversity of management systems.
Line 4: Authors should add a word “policy” to the end of the title /see line 87, where Authors say about sustainability policy/.Response
We added the term “policy”
Line 17: Why Authors use the abbreviation TLK and not use better “TLEK” if say about “traditional and local ecological knowledge”? It should be corrected in the whole body of the manuscript.Response
At the beginning we refer to the concept as traditional and local ecological knowledge. Nevertheless, in the entire ms, we only refer this concept as traditional and local knowledge. We eliminated the term ecological in the abstract.
Lines 19-31: Abstract is very poor. Too much redundant information related to method are here, but nearly there is missing a brief presentation of main findings/results of the manuscript. Also, there is missing one – two sentences about findings relevant for insights for management and sustainability as Authors indicated in the title.Response
We think that the abstract, in proportion, is occupied mainly by the results (lines 22-28). We eliminated lines 21-22 and rephrase the final part of the abstract to highlight the paper contribution to management and sustainability.
Line 36: Here the clear definition/explanation of the key term of the manuscript is missing. I recommend move here the paragraph in lines 53-62.Response
We moved the paragraph 53-62 to the beginning of the paper
Line 40: What means “non-Newtonian sciences”?Response
We explain the approach, taking as a reference Berkes, 1999: Sacred Ecology).
Line 41: Each of ecosystem management measurements is provided in local scale/context. Authors should rephrase this idea and explain WHY this context is important (and other is not important?).Response
We added two arguments why the context is important and have implications for management and conservation.
Line 50-51: This sentence is here beyond the context. Move this sentence to the beginning of the paragraph in line 77 and better explain why you chose Chile as study area.Response
We better explain why Chile is an interesting case to evaluate the knowledge documentation about the people and the diversity of ecosystems.
Line 64: Rephrase it. Who are “we”? It seems, that mentioned two dimensions come from literature cited.Response
We rephrased the sentence as suggested.
Line 86: But it is unclear, where in the body of manuscript Authors discussed how to incorporate… see my next comment to line 135.Response
We tackled this issue in the next comment to line 135
Line 93: Why Authors cited sources 36_38. There is generally known, what “liter. review” means.Response
We added the literature cited as a way to standardize and clearly define the literature review conducted.
Line 93: Did authors use the right names of both databases?Response
We complemented ISI Web of knowledge with “Web of Sciences”. Scopus is ok.
Line 100: But Web of Science indexes paper from 1945.Response
We corrected the information about years and origin of different sources of publications.
Line 108-109: Move this sentence to the section Acknowledgements.Response
The interviews with the two experts were part of the methodology. We added an explicit recognition for Carolina Villagrán in Acknowledgements for her contribution with important information.
Line 119-134: This section is unclear. Authors should present criteria in table or figure, which would be clearer for reader.Response
We added a table to facilitate the recognition of the seven critera used for classifying the literature reviewed.
Line 135 etc.: The whole section no 3 need serious reworking. This form of mixture of results with opinion of Authors is very confusing. Authors should divide original findings from the review to the section “Results” and then Authors discuss these results in section “Discussion”. The new seriously reworked section Discussion can start by the text in line 322 (subsection no 3.4). Authors should rework this clearer in order to highlighted the insights/implications for both ecosystem management and sustainability policy - from their original results (coming from the analyse in section Results) based on scientific discussion with international literature (from other parts of the world) related to the same topics as Authors deal with.Response
We rearranged the sections Results and Discussion. We added more information and discuss deeper some sections of the results that were poorly analyzed. We added more discussion to the section “Lessons from TLK to improve management and sustainability”.
Line 389-421: Section Conclusion must be reworked. Current form of this section conclude too much redundant general statement (e. g. lines 408-411). Authors did not use holistic analyse of TLK in Chile and thus should not say about it as approach in Conclusion /line 415/. There is lack of clear and brief summary/presentation of main findings/conclusions from the review – and, also, there is missing any clear insights for ecosystem management and sustainability policy both Chile. Authors must add also explanation, what findings/conclusion from their study from Chile is portable in international scale (sustainability is an international journal).Response
We have reduced some points and added more information regarding on the highlighted points.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors made serious effort in order to impovement the manuscript following my previous comments. No I think that improved manuscript is acceptable for publishing.
