Payment for Urban Mangrove Forest Conservation in Vietnam: A Community Case Study of Can Gio Biosphere Reserve, Ho Chi Minh City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
General comments
This paper provides clear evidence of the importance of WTP in mangrove conservation and sustainable use in the Vietnam. The paper is well conceived and can be published upon thorough editing and correction.
Generally, many unusual sentences, expressions and misconstructions were identified about the English language. I therefore suggest the authors to take the manuscript through an English editing process for an accurate scientific English.
There is also an abundant use of the present tense, particularly in the methodology and result sections. The simple past should be dominant in the paper.
The introduction doesn’t flow. There is no flow of ideas in the introduction. The paragraphs are highly isolated in terms of ideas, and construction. The introduction needs to be corrected in general.
The specific comments on each section are presented below:
Introduction
Line 29-30: the authors wrote “Mangroves bring a lot of benefits and values to the community and society.” It should be “Mangroves provide a lot of benefits and values to the community and society”
Line 44-45: “It is estimated that in the period 2000-2020, about 200,000 hectares of mangroves have been 45 destroyed”, add the source of this assertion as well as the country you are referring to. I presume it is Vietnam
Line 53-54 : “In Ho Chi Minh City, the largest city in Vietnam, the mangrove forest in Can Gio Biosphere Reserve plays a particularly important role”. Which role are you referring to?
Line 72-73: the authors wrote “This research can advance the implementation of mangrove restoration and conservation strategies in the context of climate change, such as REDD+ programs.” How?? Explain in the introduction.
Line 74: the authors wrote “cliamte change” instead of “climate change.”
The introduction is silent about the concept of WTP, contingent valuation methods and how they have been used in other studies as well as their importance. You should bring this important information.
Justify the use of the WTP, especially the use of the contingent valuation methods in the research.
The introduction should end by the main objective and the specific objectives of the study. I saw that the authors stated the main objective at the beginning of the methodology. They should bring it in the introduction.
Study area
Line 89-90: The authors wrote: “This place is a population of terrestrial and aquatic fauna and flora, formed in the large delta of the Dong Nai, Saigon and Vam Co Dong and Vam Co Tay rivers (Pham et al., 2016).”
This sentence needs to be revised.
Line 92-93: The authors wrote: “Before Vietnamese war, Can Gio was originally a mangrove forest with a rich flora and fauna. This place was destroyed by bombs and poisons during the national resistance war.”
When has this war taken place???
Line 124: The authors wrote: “Taking advantage of natural advantages…..”. This expression sounds unusual. In fact, there are many unusual expressions and sentences in the paper that need to be revised.
There several crucial information lacking in the study area section:
What are the mangrove species found in the reserve? Is there any coastal water which supports them? The treats they are undergo. And their spatial distribution across the reserve?
Describe the interplay or the relations between local populations and mangroves in the area.
Describe the climatic and the edaphic conditions of the area.
Methodology
Line 136-137: “The main objective of the work should be sent to the introduction, not in the methodology.”
Nowhere in the paper the authors try to explain the concepts of WTP and CVM. One or two paragraphs in the introduction is enough for a brief literature review about these methods.
Line 197-198: How many state managers and directors were considered for the first focus group?
Line 225-226: Explain the notion of “Bid levels”, how it works and how it is calibrated
Line 238-239: The formula needs to be readjusted.
Line 245: Why is the number of people investigated the same for the five communes? (145??)
Line 262-264 “Nếu không ngăn chặn những nguy cơ này thì rừng ngập mặn tại Cần Giờ sẽ tiếp tục suy giảm. Vì vậy, cần có một chương trình bảo tồn rừng ngập mặn với sự tham gia của người dân. Với chương trình bảo tồn, rừng ngập mặn sẽ được duy trì, phục hồi và phát triển” Which language is this one? Difficult for foreigners to understand. I presume it is the scenario you are talking about. Translate it in English.
Line 278: “we dy applied” What does the “dy” mean?
Line 280: “With strategic bias” Bias should be in plural, “biases.”
In the biases section, you made mention of strategic bias, information bias and starting point bias without explaining them. What do they mean? Explain them with references.
Results
Line 355: “The largest 335 family has 7 people and at least 1 person” What does it mean? Clarify it in the paper.
The authors didn’t clearly state the objectives of the study. It was therefore difficult to align the results to the specific objectives measured in the study. Correct it please.
Line 348: “There are 5 points of view that are ranked in order in the questionnaire:” How did you rank the five points? State it in the methodology
Line 356: “….almost all of the respondents”, remove the “of” from the sentence
Line 367 to 369 “With 700 people interviewed, 499 people think that the mangrove forest in the 367 area plays an important role in maintaining their livelihood, accounting for 71.3%. 130 368 people rated this role as particularly important (18.6%) and 67 people found this role nor-369 mal (9.57%).” Either the authors report the percentage (Relative frequencies) or the absolute frequencies. Don’t miss the two together. It is redundant.
Line 397-400 “In this study, we used 3 estimated models corresponding to 3 different data 400 sets to find the range of expected WTP in specific conditions (Table 4).” You cited Table 4 while describing Table 5.
Line 411: ‘Summary of 411 protest responses divided by commune is presented in Table 5.” You cited Table 5 while describing Table 6”.
From Line 397 to line 414 including Table 5 and 6 should be removed from the results section and sent to methodology
Line 420-422 “The result shows that in 3 models, coefficients of BID variables are negative and significant at the 1% error which is consistent with literature that as the BID level increases, the likelihood of WTP at a certain BID will decreases”, Add the source please.
Line 323: “RESULTS”. This section is “Results and discussion”, not result alone. But unfortunately, the results are not really discussed. All the sections of the results need to be thoroughly discussed with more references CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 460
Line 460: “CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS”. No clear recommendation is provided in this section.
What is the contribution of the work in mangrove conservation and sustainable use in the area?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author is very grateful to the Reviewer for appropriate and constructive suggestions and for their proposed corrections to improve the paper. We have addressed all the issues raised and have modified the paper accordingly. Below is a summary of the changes we performed and our responses to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The modifies have been placed and marked in red color text in the revision of manuscript.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The article “Payment for Urban Mangrove Forest Conservation in Vietnam: A Community Case Study of Can Gio Biosphere Reserve, Ho Chi Minh City”, deals with the deterioration of mangrove plant communities in Vietnam, due to agriculture, industry and tourism. In one of their sections, the authors talk about the Can Gio mangrove swamp, which is located in environments where brackish water and fresh water mix, which is obviously due to human action. This is a section of great importance since it is an indicator of the state of conservation. Throughout the text, the authors name the mangrove species by their common or local name, and do not use the scientific name. We suggest that the authors incorporate the scientific name of the species typical of the mangrove swamp and of those others that are not typical of this ecosystem.
This work is almost exclusively of a socioeconomic nature, so I have serious doubts that it adapts to the theme of the journal. However, when dealing with the subject as an ecosystem service, its publication could be interesting.
However, I suggest improving the section on threats and proposing mechanisms for improvement. The authors could add a discussion section to the study where they can argue what I propose. I also suggest incorporating some articles on mangroves such as:
CANO-ORTIZ, A., MUSARELLA, C.M., PIÑAR FUENTES, J.C., PINTO GOMES, C.J., CANO, E. (2018). Analysis of the conservation of Central American mangroves using the phytosociological method in Mangrove Ecosystem Ecology and Function. INTECH PLUBISHER. University Campus, Croatia. pp. 189-206. https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/62214
CANO, E., VELOZ, A., CANO-ORTIZ, A., ALATORRE , J., OTERO, R. (2012). Comparative analysis of the mangrove swamps of the Dominican Republic and those of the state of de Guerrero. Mexico. Plant Biosystems146, suplemento 1:112-130. DOI: 10.1080/11263504.2012.704885
CANO-ORTIZ A., MUSARELLA, C.M., PIÑAR FUENTES J.C., PINTO GOMES C.J., DEL RÍO, S., CANO, E. (2018). Diversity And Conservation Status of Mangrove Communities In Two Large Areas In Central America. Current Science, 115(3):534-540.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
The author is very grateful to the Reviewer for appropriate and constructive suggestions and for their proposed corrections to improve the paper. We have addressed all the issues raised and have modified the paper accordingly. Below is a summary of the changes we performed and our responses to the reviewers’ comments and recommendations. The modifies have been placed and marked in red color text in the revision of manuscript.
Regards,
The authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Authors have correctly accounted for the comments. The revised manuscript now reads well.
