Administrative Level May Be the Key Factor to Improve Protection Effectiveness of Nature Reserves in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I have read the manuscript entitled “Administrative Level Maybe the Key Factor to Improve Protection Effectiveness of Nature Reserves in China” by Xuhui Sun and colleagues, submitted to the Sustainability magazine. The presented data are interesting, as information about nature protection system in China is not well known. Thus, the data presented in the manuscript could be interesting for many scientists and conservationists. However, I think the version of the manuscript could be improved. I hope that the following comments can be used to improve it.

General remarks:
I believe that the main aim of the study was to find how to improve the management protection effectiveness of nature reserves in China. Analyzing, e.g., staffing, the number of grass-root stations and financial input budget the Authors emphasize that staffing and financial input among different regions and levels of NRs are “extremely unbalanced”. I believe it is true. However, in the manuscript, I have found no information if – for example – such unbalanced input could be connected with distribution of biodiversity hotspots, or other priority areas for biodiversity conservation. It is really possible, that important (for conservation) areas/species are not evenly distributed through the country. Thus, data showing that the unbalancing is not connected with, e.g., presence of priority for conservation areas/species is necessary for the manuscript, I think.

Statistical analyses:
t Student tests (parametric one), the Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric), and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (parametric) were used. Have you checked assumptions for the analyses done using the parametric methods? If yes, it should be stated, and such information presented. If not: perform it, as it is important for correct using statistical tests.

What is ± symbol? It is SD? It should be stated.

Results of statistical analyses should be presented in a better way, I think. For example, the lines 171-172 “The average number of departments in NNRs was significantly higher than lower levels nature reserves (5.52 VS 4.36, NNNR = 215, NLNR = 75, P < 0.001).”
– Which test was used?
– Generally, it is not easy to read the manuscript with many such abbreviation like here, i.e., “NNNR”, “NLNR”.

line 207 “P = 0” – what does it mean? Should it be, e.g., P < 0.001?

Generally: in the manuscript, presentation of statistical results could be considerably improved, I think.

Figures:
General comment: In scientific papers, captions of figures and tables should be ‘self-explaining’, i.e., should provide sufficient information to the readers without looking for information in the text. Thus, better captions would be useful for readers.

Fig. 2. It is better to not use three-dimensional graphs for such two-dimensional data. Additionally:  the presented numbers could be confusing for readers. It looks like 58.20%, 61.21% and 171.59%. If you would like to present numbers AND percentages, I recommend to change the values to – for example – “58 (20%)”, “61 (21%)” and “171 (59%)”.

Figures 3 and 5. Such (like on the figures) legend is not necessary, as the same information are in another part of the figure, see the x axis. However, another legend is necessary: it should be stated what is presented in the figures, i.e., average?, SD?, SE?, range?, … ?
Additionally: it would be good to explain the “***” and “**” symbols, and clearly show between which groups are the statistical differences. By the way (I think that the data presented on the figures 3 and 5 were analyzed using the Kruscal-Wallis tests): have you used post hoc tests? (such information should be presented in the Material and methods section).

Other remarks:
The manuscript needs corrections, I think. For example:
– there are lack of question marks in several places (for example, in the last paragraph of the Introduction section),
– line 147 repeated “of”,
– km2 (many places in the manuscript) – “2” should be written correctly as superscript, 
– line 189: r2 – “2” should be written correctly as superscript,
etc.

I think that table (for example as Supplementary Materials), with the data analyzed in the manuscript and partially presented in the figures, could be interesting and useful for readers.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have read the manuscript entitled “Administrative Level Maybe the Key Factor to Improve Protection Effectiveness of Nature Reserves in China” by Xuhui Sun and colleagues, submitted to the Sustainability magazine. The presented data are interesting, as information about nature protection system in China is not well known. Thus, the data presented in the manuscript could be interesting for many scientists and conservationists. However, I think the version of the manuscript could be improved. I hope that the following comments can be used to improve it.

General remarks:

I believe that the main aim of the study was to find how to improve the management protection effectiveness of nature reserves in China. Analyzing, e.g., staffing, the number of grass-root stations and financial input budget the Authors emphasize that staffing and financial input among different regions and levels of NRs are “extremely unbalanced”. I believe it is true. However, in the manuscript, I have found no information if – for example – such unbalanced input could be connected with distribution of biodiversity hotspots, or other priority areas for biodiversity conservation. It is really possible, that important (for conservation) areas/species are not evenly distributed through the country. Thus, data showing that the unbalancing is not connected with, e.g., presence of priority for conservation areas/species is necessary for the manuscript, I think.

Respond: thanks for your suggestion, we have done some work to show the staffing and financial input were different in different provinces and Chinese ecological security barrier regions, see figure 4 and figure 6.

Statistical analyses:

t Student tests (parametric one), the Kruskal-Wallis test (non-parametric), and Pearson’s correlation coefficient (parametric) were used. Have you checked assumptions for the analyses done using the parametric methods? If yes, it should be stated, and such information presented. If not: perform it, as it is important for correct using statistical tests.

Respond: yes we have done it, but it was not stated in text, we have added it in the Material and methods section.

What is ± symbol? It is SD? It should be stated.

Respond: ± is the SD, we have stated it.

Results of statistical analyses should be presented in a better way, I think. For example, the lines 171-172 “The average number of departments in NNRs was significantly higher than lower levels nature reserves (5.52 VS 4.36, NNNR = 215, NLNR = 75, P < 0.001).”

– Which test was used?

Responds: thanks, we have corrected them.

– Generally, it is not easy to read the manuscript with many such abbreviation like here, i.e., “NNNR”, “NLNR”.

Respond: we have corrected them.

line 207 “P = 0” – what does it mean? Should it be, e.g., P < 0.001?

Respond: thanks for suggestion, we have corrected it.

Generally: in the manuscript, presentation of statistical results could be considerably improved, I think.

Figures:

General comment: In scientific papers, captions of figures and tables should be ‘self-explaining’, i.e., should provide sufficient information to the readers without looking for information in the text. Thus, better captions would be useful for readers.

Fig. 2. It is better to not use three-dimensional graphs for such two-dimensional data. Additionally:  the presented numbers could be confusing for readers. It looks like 58.20%, 61.21% and 171.59%. If you would like to present numbers AND percentages, I recommend to change the values to – for example – “58 (20%)”, “61 (21%)” and “171 (59%)”.

Respond: thanks for suggestion, we have adjusted the display mode of the Figure 2.

Figures 3 and 5. Such (like on the figures) legend is not necessary, as the same information are in another part of the figure, see the x axis. However, another legend is necessary: it should be stated what is presented in the figures, i.e., average?, SD?, SE?, range?, … ?

Respond: thanks for suggestion, we have adjusted the display mode of the figure 3 and figure 5.

Additionally: it would be good to explain the “***” and “**” symbols, and clearly show between which groups are the statistical differences. By the way (I think that the data presented on the figures 3 and 5 were analyzed using the Kruscal-Wallis tests): have you used post hoc tests? (such information should be presented in the Material and methods section).

Respond: thanks for your suggestions, we have done the post hoc test and added the information in the Material and methods section. Then adjusted the display mode of the figure 3 and figure 5.

Other remarks:

The manuscript needs corrections, I think. For example:

Respond: thanks, we have carefully revised the full manuscript.

– there are lack of question marks in several places (for example, in the last paragraph of the Introduction section),

Respond: thanks, we have deleted it.

– line 147 repeated “of”,

Respond: thanks, we have deleted it.

– km2 (many places in the manuscript) – “2” should be written correctly as superscript,

Respond: thanks, we have corrected them.

– line 189: r2 – “2” should be written correctly as superscript,

Respond: thanks, we have corrected them.

etc.

I think that table (for example as Supplementary Materials), with the data analyzed in the manuscript and partially presented in the figures, could be interesting and useful for readers.

Respond: thanks, we have done it.

Reviewer 2 Report

A comprehensive investigation of Chinese NR status is necessary. According to the results of this study, the objectives and conclusions should be focused on the “status”, rather than the author’s “suggestions”.

For example, there must be sufficient evidence for the suggestions that “the administrative levels of management organization in NRs should be unified, strengthen the financial and staffing input in the western NRs of China”. Due to the lower density of population around western NRs, the effort to prevent human disturbance is smaller, excess staffing input is a waste. On the other hand, some NRs in western China are large, remote and difficult to reach, the willingness of staff to be stationed for a long period is not strong. According to the unbalanced development, the management should be adapted to local conditions, rather than unified.

The English writing is very poor, with a lot of wording, writing, symbolling and grammatical errors. Such as Line 70, 89, 91, 106, 109-110, 115-116, 139, 147, 149, 162, 172, 234, 235, 263, 268, 271, 281, 284, 289, 296…

It is suggested that all figures be drawn in color and output at a higher resolution.

Table 1 is needless because all information can be found in the main text.

“Lower levels” in Fig.1 should be lower-level NRs.

The number in “km2” should be written in a superscript form.

“Lower levels NRs” or “lower level NRs” should be lower-level NRs.

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

A comprehensive investigation of Chinese NR status is necessary. According to the results of this study, the objectives and conclusions should be focused on the “status”, rather than the author’s “suggestions”.

For example, there must be sufficient evidence for the suggestions that “the administrative levels of management organization in NRs should be unified, strengthen the financial and staffing input in the western NRs of China”. Due to the lower density of population around western NRs, the effort to prevent human disturbance is smaller, excess staffing input is a waste. On the other hand, some NRs in western China are large, remote and difficult to reach, the willingness of staff to be stationed for a long period is not strong. According to the unbalanced development, the management should be adapted to local conditions, rather than unified.

Respond: thanks for your suggestions, we main objective was state the administrative level of management organization was different in same NRs, and it has seriously affected the budget of staffing and financial input in NRs, and although the staffing and financial input above global level even United States, but it was extreme imbalance, we found that there was not independent management organization and full-time staff in many NRs in Qinghai-Tibet Plateau during our investigation in 2021.

What’s more, we suggestion that unifying the administrative level of management organization in same rank NRs, we think that the NRs rank is good, and national level is the most important, but our results show that the budget of staffing and financial input were not depend on the importance of NRs, but depend on the administrative level that is also a specific problem of NRs in China. Maybe we didn't express it clearly enough, we have revised the express it in new manuscript.

The English writing is very poor, with a lot of wording, writing, symbolling and grammatical errors. Such as Line 70, 89, 91, 106, 109-110, 115-116, 139, 147, 149, 162, 172, 234, 235, 263, 268, 271, 281, 284, 289, 296.

Respond: the manuscript have been revised by our foreign colleague.

It is suggested that all figures be drawn in color and output at a higher resolution.

Respond: thanks, we have done it.

Table 1 is needless because all information can be found in the main text.

Respond: thanks for your suggestion, we have deleted it.

“Lower levels” in Fig.1 should be lower-level NRs.

Respond: thanks, we have corrected it.

The number in “km2” should be written in a superscript form.

Respond: thanks, we have corrected them.

“Lower levels NRs” or “lower level NRs” should be lower-level NRs.

Respond: thanks, we have corrected them.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been significantly improved, however, I still have several specific comments.

In the manuscript, I still found no information what is “±” symbol. The first time, in the manuscript, the symbol is presented in the line 168, I think. It should be stated that it is SD (based on the Author Response).

Presentation of statistical analyses results.
(1) in some places there is lack of value of statistic of the used test. For example: lines 183-184 “(8.48 VS 5.77, 183 NNNR = 159, NLNR = 47, df = 164, P < 0.01).”, but also lines 192-193, 195-196, 204 – value of statistic of the used test (here “t” value) is recommended.
(2) I am not sure if good version of t test was used. I have no dataset, thus I only can speculate, and thus please forgive me for my possible mistake: I think that in some analyses the unequal variance (Welch) t test should be used [as “classical” t test requires homogeneity of variance]. For example, see values of SD in the table 3 and results of the statistical analyses (line 226) – I believe that for such dataset the unequal variance (Welch) t test should be used.

Figures 3. and 5. What is “SD” on the figures? Typically SD is “standard deviation”, however here min-max values (i.e., range) is presented, I think. Additionally, information that different letters indicate differences between groups (in the figure legend) is recommended.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments. It has helped our manuscript to be further improved and improved. Our manuscript has been further improved in English with the help of foreign colleagues.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The comments have been replied one by one and all errors corrected. It is strongly recommended that the full text be polished by an editing service before publishing.

Author Response

Dear reviewer

Thank you for your comments. It has helped our manuscript to be further improved and improved. Our manuscript has been further improved in English with the help of foreign colleagues.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.