Leveraging Japanese Sado Island Farmers’ GIAHS Inclusivity by Understanding Their Perceived Involvement

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript investigated whether farmer visibility actually translates to farmers’ actual perception of GIAHS (Globally Important Agriculture Heritage Systems) involvement. A survey was conducted among Sado island (in Japan) farmers to determine their knowledge and perception of their GIAHS involvement. In general, the manuscript is written and organized well. However, there are some parts of the manuscript that should be improved. Below are my concerns:

• Abstract:
  • Line 10: Please, define
  • Lines 17-21: Please, provide some numerical results in this part.
• Introduction:
  • Lines 26-65: The authors should provide sufficient references in this part.
  • Lines 75-86: There are 11 sites designated as GIAHS in Japan. These sites should be shown on a map.
  • Lines 99-105: The authors should provide sufficient references in this part.
• Materials and methods:
  • Lines 147-150: The authors should provide the latitude and altitude of the Sado Island.
  • Figure 1: Please, point to the north arrow and the legend should be provided.
  • Lines 159-160: More details about the three-point method should be provided.
  • Lines 161-162: More details about the ordinal logistic regression method should be provided.
• Results and discussion: The authors should provide more analysis on this part. The discussion section should be separated from the results.
• Conclusions: The limitations of the study should be presented in this part. Also, the future work should be presented in this part.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. They made us aware of some of the points which were important to make the paper robust. We have responded to all your comments, which are explained point by point in the attached file. We believe you comments have helped to improve the paper and we have done our best to respond.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This manuscript explores whether farmer visibility converts, in effect, to farmer’s actual perception of GIAHS involvement. The scope of this manuscript is significant for promoting conservation of GIAHS sites and development of local socioeconomic systems. The results and findings are instructive. Overall, this manuscript reads smoothly. But, key references are missing; inconsistent and false data need to be amended; some grammatical mistakes need to be corrected. Hope the following comments may help to improve this manuscript.

comments:

1. In the introduction part, the full name of GIAHS is missing.
2. The following references are recommended to improve the introduction.

Zhou, N.Y. and Li, L.C., 2020. An Ecosocial Climax Model Based on Concepts of Climax Community for Analyzing Communities in Silas Marner to Ensure Protection of Ecosystem. Journal of Environmental Informatics, 35(1), 45-55.

Li, Z., Li, J.J. and Shi, X.P., 2020. A Two-Stage Multisite and Multivariate Weather Generator. Journal of Environmental Informatics, 35(2), 148-159.

Wu, H.P., Chen, J., Zeng, G.M., Xu, J.J., Sang, L.H., Liu, Q., Dai, J., Xiong, W.P., Yuan, Z., Wang, Y.Q. and Ye, S.J., 2020. Effects of early dry season on habitat suitability for migratory birds in China’s two largest freshwater lake wetlands after the impoundment of Three Gorges Dam. Journal of Environmental Informatics. 36(2), 82-92.

Danilina, V. and Grigoriev, A., 2020. Information Provision in Environmental Policy Design. Journal of Environmental Informatics, 36(1), 1-10.

Dong, G. H. Huang, and G. H. Cheng,  2021. Offshore wind can power Canada, Energy.

3. There are now more than sixty systems have been designed as agricultural heritage sites. Each of them has its own character. What are the unique features of Sado island compared to other sites. Could it represent all other sites in Japan or those in other countries? Why this study is conducted around Sado island.
4. In line 74: Could you provide the definition of the term “new commons”.
5. In line 75-86: I think tabulating the introduction to the 11 sites could make the relevant statement more clearer.
6. In line 91-105: It seems more rational to put the introduction to the Sado island at the beginning of the part of Materials and Methods.
7. In line 146: the title of “Materials and Methods” is inappropriate, because this is not an experimental study. It is advised to change it into “Study area and Methods”
8. In line 192, in Table 1: The total of percentage of GIAHS involvement is not 100. Why? The same issue can be found in the survey results of “Environment conservation agriculture (ECA) effect on climate change”. How were the percentages of the term “Selling place for products” calculated? The sum of them is also not 100%. Please explain them.
9. In line 257: What is the full name of “PRs”?
10. In line 263: “which”? A grammatical mistake.
11. In line 346 The “reflects” should be in the singular.
12. In line 388: It seems improper to say that data is a framework.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments and suggestions. They made us aware of some of the points which were important to make the paper robust. We have responded to all your comments, which are explained point by point in the attached file. We believe you comments have helped to improve the paper and we have done our best to respond.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors improved their manuscript based on the reviewer's comments. I suggested to be accepted for publication.