Review Reports - Farmers’ Perceptions of Climate Change and Its Socio-Ecological Consequences in Bhutan’s Biological Corridor Network

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study used a semi-structured questionnaire to evaluate farmers’ perceptions of climate change and its socio-ecological consequences in Bhutan's Biological Corridor Network. The work is interesting and useful. However, the current form has some obvious shortfalls. The introduction was not well organized and without a clear hypothesis. The data processing was too simple.

Specific comments:

1. The abstract seems too long, which should be refined substantially.

2. Most citations in the introduction were not listed at the end.

3. Lines 62-64: This part was not well described why the study focuses on farmers' perception of climate change. Moreover, perception is shaped by multiple factors, including individual, cultural, and geographical factors. How about farmers' perception of climate change in other regions/countries? Such information was directly linked to the following methods. However, the introduction was not well reviewed the key point.

4. Lines 64-66: Please show more direct data/evidence about how climate change is happening and how it will be in Bhutan.

5. Lines 81-83: This study is lacking a clear and testable scientific hypothesis.

6. Line 86: I can not find such a figure.

7. Line 91: superscript.

8. Lines 96-101: Citations needed.

9. Lines 102-109: Those texts were replicated.

10. Lines 111-112: Did you have the latest demography data?

11. Line 119: Italic.

12. Lines 130-131: Please provide such questionnaire as a supplementary material.

13. Lines 367-371: Some information is missing.

14. Please carefully check the completeness of all references.

Author Response

````````Open Review

Reviewer 1:

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

( ) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
(x) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Specific comments:

The abstract seems too long, which should be refined substantially.

Response 1: Thank you for invaluable comments. Abstract has been refined to a concise summary of the study with a focus on objective, methods, results and recommendations (lines 11- 41).

Most citations in the introduction were not listed at the end.

Response 2: Thank you so much for your observations. We have duly updated the reference list (lines 385 – 443).

Lines 62-64: This part was not well described why the study focuses on farmers' perception of climate change. Moreover, perception is shaped by multiple factors, including individual, cultural, and geographical factors. How about farmers' perception of climate change in other regions/countries? Such information was directly linked to the following methods. However, the introduction was not well reviewed the key point.

Response 3: Thank you so much for invaluable comments. We reasoned out the study focuses on farmers' perception of climate change from lines 65-93.

Lines 64-66: Please show more direct data/evidence about how climate change is happening and how it will be in Bhutan.

Response 4: Thank you very much. Existing climate impact scenario in Bhutan has been deliberated from lines 45 - 93. We have also refined our abstract accordingly as per your comment (Lines 11-41)

Lines 81-83: This study is lacking a clear and testable scientific hypothesis.

Response 5: Thank you so much. We have refined it in respect of your invaluable comments (lines 68 – 81 in introduction and lines 12-41 in abstract).

Line 86: I can not find such a figure.

Response 6: We apologize for missing figure. It has been inserted accordingly (lines 112 – 113).

Line 91: superscript.

Response 7: Thank you for observation. We superscripted it accordingly (line 89).

Lines 96-101: Citations needed.

Response 8: We provide the citation accordingly (line 99).

Lines 102-109: Those texts were replicated.

Response 9: Thank you again for observation. We deleted the repeated text.

Lines 111-112: Did you have the latest demography data?

Response 10: We provided the latest demography data –Line 103.

Line 119: Italic.

Response 11: We corrected it (line 111)

Lines 130-131: Please provide such questionnaire as a supplementary material.

Response 12: Raw data available with first author and ready for submission

Lines 367-371: Some information is missing.

Response 13: We filled in the missing information (lines 361-381).

Please carefully check the completeness of all references.

Response 13: We checked and completed the reference list (lines 383 – 442).

Reviewer 2 Report

I find it an interesting study.

Is the perception study complemented or linked to any experimental measures?

Did the perception study correlate statistically with previously existing data on the impact of climate change on agriculture in Buthan?

It would be important to explain why it is necessary to study people's "perception" of climate change."

Author Response

Open Review

Reviewer 2

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

(x) I am not qualified to assess the quality of English in this paper
( ) English very difficult to understand/incomprehensible
( ) Extensive editing of English language required
( ) Moderate editing of English language required
( ) Minor editing of English language required
( ) English language fine. No issues detected

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I find it an interesting study.

Is the perception study complemented or linked to any experimental measures?

Did the perception study correlate statistically with previously existing data on the impact of climate change on agriculture in Bhutan?

Response: Thank you very much for your valuable comment. The perception study was closely aligned with the data and findings from numerous recent and historical research endeavors focusing on the impact of climate on agriculture in Bhutan. To illustrate, Chhogyel and Kumar (2018) explored the connection between climate change and potential agricultural implications in Bhutan, as discussed in "Agriculture and Food Security," 7, 79. Chhogyel, Kumar, and Bajgai (2020) examined the outcomes of climate change and extreme weather events on crop production in Bhutan, as documented in "Sustainability," 12, 4319. Additionally, Wangchuk and Siebert (2013) investigated shifts in Bhutan's agriculture in relation to market opportunities, governmental policies, and climate change, as featured in "Society and Natural Resources: An International Journal." These studies and data are all from the same region where the corridors are located.

It would be important to explain why it is necessary to study people's "perception" of climate change."

Response: The significance of examining people's perceptions regarding climate change has been discussed in the introduction section of this paper, specifically from lines 65-93.

Reviewer 3 Report

The goal of research and the scientific tasks are not described. Please, add them in the introduction. Figure 1 is missing. There are not clear explain why these two corridors were the object of study. Please, give more arguments. Add more socio and economic facts for the objects of study (such as administrative regions that they covered, total number of hamlets, structure of lands - protected, agricultural land, structure of economy - a share of agriculture sector, households income, yields and their changes, and etc., ) and meteorologic facts for the corridors and Butan - average temperature, rainfalls and etc. and the changes for the last years. The part of results and discussions should be improve (such as - the structure of respondents by the corridors, sex, age and etc.; 70% of respondents of the BC 08 report increasing of rainfall (Figure 1) but less than 5% reports early rain, 15% - delay rain, less than 10% - prolonged rain, less than 5% - scanty rain (Figure 2) in compere of only 30% of respondents of the BC 07 report increasing of rainfall but much more in compare of BC 08 report early rain, prolonged rain). It is not clear explain in the text, according the results, 'Are there any differences between BC 07 and BC 08?' and 'What the corridor policies should be - the same or not?'

Author Response

Open Review

Reviewer 3

( ) I would not like to sign my review report

(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	(x)	( )	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Response: Thank you for your comments. We apologize for the missing Figure 1, and it has been added. Reasons for selecting the two corridors as our study sites are also given on page 2 from lines 65-85. We have also re-written the goal and scientific tasks of the paper as per your valuable comment (Lines 11-41 and 65-93)

Add more socio and economic facts for the objects of study (such as administrative regions that they covered, total number of hamlets, structure of lands - protected, agricultural land, structure of economy - a share of agriculture sector, households income, yields and their changes, and etc., ) and meteorologic facts for the corridors and Butan - average temperature, rainfalls and etc. and the changes for the last years.

Response: Thank you so much for your invaluable comments. This information are summarized in the method and result sections of paper. However, we couldn’t include all the details due to limitation of number of words for the paper. The additional data could be provided as supplementary information if required.

The part of results and discussions should be improve (such as - the structure of respondents by the corridors, sex, age and etc.; 70% of respondents of the BC 08 report increasing of rainfall (Figure 1) but less than 5% reports early rain, 15% - delay rain, less than 10% - prolonged rain, less than 5% - scanty rain (Figure 2) in compere of only 30% of respondents of the BC 07 report increasing of rainfall but much more in compare of BC 08 report early rain, prolonged rain). It is not clear explain in the text, according the results, 'Are there any differences between BC 07 and BC 08?' and 'What the corridor policies should be - the same or not?'

Response: Thank you for the very good observation and comment, your observation has strengthened our paper. Accordingly, we discerned the findings of people perceptions on rainfall, snowfall, temperature in details from lines 191-212. You are absolutely right, biological corridor’s policies are same across the country

Reviewer 4 Report

Check if it is figure 1 or 2

Check the location of the figure if it is correct?

Paragraphs are repeated, ordering this section of methodology has

In the discussion section information that corresponds to materials and methods.

Sort the discussion of the results, there are comments that correspond to methodology or materials and methods.

In the conclusions it is required to order them in a timely manner.

Information is generated that needs to be ordered in both methodology and discussion sections, it can be useful for public policies and research points.

Author Response

Open Review

Reviewer 4

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

Quality of English Language

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Is the content succinctly described and contextualized with respect to previous and present theoretical background and empirical research (if applicable) on the topic?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the research design, questions, hypotheses and methods clearly stated?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the arguments and discussion of findings coherent, balanced and compelling?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
For empirical research, are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the article adequately referenced?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are the conclusions thoroughly supported by the results presented in the article or referenced in secondary literature?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Check if it is figure 1 or 2

Check the location of the figure if it is correct?

Response: Thank you very much for your observations. We inserted the figure 1(lines 112-113) and corrected subsequent figure numbers.

Paragraphs are repeated, ordering this section of methodology has

In the discussion section information that corresponds to materials and methods.

Response: Thank you for your comments. We changed the order of the paragraph and repeated paragraph is deleted in methodology section.

Sort the discussion of the results, there are comments that correspond to methodology or materials and methods.

In the conclusions it is required to order them in a timely manner.

Thank you, we have re-written some part of the conclusion part as per your comment.

Information is generated that needs to be ordered in both methodology and discussion sections, it can be useful for public policies and research points.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Conclusion is revisited and wrote in order (lines 345-362).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have amended the flaws or given reasonable explanations in the manuscript. The manuscript has reached the level of publication.

Reviewer 3 Report

Although the authors responded to my comments, not all of them were taken into account in the text of the article (for example, on the economic and demographic characteristics of the study sites). I accept their answers and I respect their right to accept those they consider reasonable. All notes were made because they raised questions in my capacity as a reader. The notes were not meant to get a personal response, but to improve the quality of the article.