Community Development for Bote in Chitwan National Park, Nepal: A Political Ecology of Development Logic of Erasure

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper is full of interesting information, but much of it is descriptive and it covers many different topics. It needs a major revision. I hope the following comments will be helpful as you set out to do that.

Overall, the paper needs a clearer statement of the research questions and the material presented in the results needs to be much more concise and restricted to information that address the research questions.

Here are some more specific points:

- I think some of the very general material on different disciplines could be greatly shortened (for example it is enough to say you are taking an ethno-ecology perspective or a political ecology perspective, and give references).

- There is a lot of technical detail about some specific traditional practices. IF you limit this to aspects that are relevant to your analysis of the effects of the PArk on people's livelihoods I think it will be a much stronger article. For example it's not clear how the details of traditional gold-panning techniques are relevant.

- When you describe livelihoods changes, please make it clearer which of these are connected to the NP (and how) and which are part of broader socio-economic changes (for example see p. 7). 

The map on p. 7 needs to show the park boundary more clearly - I couldn't work out where it is because rivers are blue, too.

Some extra details are needed in the methods. You interviewed 4 youths and two elders from each village giving a total of six, so who were the other four people you interviewed? (you gave the total as ten from each village). And hHow many interviews were conducted with other stakeholders, or what kind, covering what topics, and who was targeted? How did you choose people to include in the focus groups and what did they consist of?

In the ethics statement, you say got FPIC, which is appropriate. However I don't know what it would mean to 'get' the right to self-determination during interviews - I think this is probably inappropriate here.

In the results, you state several times that traditional fishing was sustainable. What are these statements based on - is this the perspective of your informants or have there been ecological studies that show this?

You mention conflict between the Bote and official organisatons, which may be crucial to your political ecology account. However a single newspaper article isn't sufficiently robust evidence, on its own, to include here (and you haven;t told us what it says). So you need either to expand this, if you have other sources available, or leave it out.

Who is the author referred to on p. 14 ln 9? And throughout this section, could you make it clearer what the sources are?

On p.16 ln 5, and again later in this section, you name an informant. Do you have their permission to do so?

The section starting on p. 17 gives some very useful extra history of the site. Some of this material would be better placed in section 4 (on the study site).  It would be useful also to add a diagram showing the different events in the form of a timeline.

You need to make sure throughout the results that it's clear which pieces of information are based on your fieldwork and which are from the literature, and when you give value judgements you need to say whose values you are reporting and based on what evidence (eg. p. 2 ln 26 'perceived mistrust'; p. 17 ln 32:  purpose to 'detach IPs from their customary lifeways'.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1

On the basis of the comments for a major revision, we have completely revised the mss and followed up on your comments and suggestions for clarity. Our position and the argument have been made clearer - we are grateful for your comments. Overall, we argue with a growing number of scholars for a new approach to indigenous conservation and development programs that takes into account the environmental ethics and rights of such groups

• Ethics and methods developed and further clarified
• Clearer statement of research and applied goals
• Full revision undertaken

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see my comments in the PDF file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2

On the basis of the comments for inclusion of post-colonial approaches and thinking to indigenous development, we have included some of the recommended references and completely revised the mss and followed up on your comments and suggestions for clarity. Our position and the argument have been made clearer - we are grateful for your comments. Overall, we argue with a growing number of scholars for a new approach to indigenous conservation and development programs that takes into account the environmental ethics and rights of such groups

• Ethics and methods developed and further clarified
• Clearer statement of research and applied goals
• Full revision undertaken