How Rural Communities Relate to Nature in Sub-Saharan Regions: Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Wetlands in South-Kivu
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study is comprehensive and covers the importance, challenges, and the need for studying wetlands and their ecosystem services in South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo.
Some sentences are long and complex, which can make them difficult to read. Breaking these into shorter, more concise sentences would improve the text.
Some information is repeated, such as the various factors affecting perceptions of wetland services. Consolidate similar points to avoid these repetitions.
Statistical analyses are adequate and well explained and interpreted.
I could not find the supplementary materials.
Author Response
The study is comprehensive and covers the importance, challenges, and the need for studying wetlands and their ecosystem services in South-Kivu, Democratic Republic of Congo. Some sentences are long and complex, which can make them difficult to read. Breaking these into shorter, more concise sentences would improve the text. Some information is repeated, such as the various factors affecting perceptions of wetland services. Consolidate similar points to avoid these repetitions. Statistical analyses are adequate and well explained and interpreted.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We appreciate your feedback.
I could not find the supplementary materials.
Response: thank you for this comment. The supplementary materials was added
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article presents a very innovative and important topic. It integrates ecosystem services with public perception in specific DR Congo study areas. The topic is refreshing after seeing so many publications only on quantitative analyses of ES, because this study links people’s perceptions and ES in real life and today.
In essence, ecosystem service research is crucial for landscape planning (and integrating economic, community involvement and regional development), particularly in Sub-Saharan regions where local communities depend heavily on wetlands. This study, the first of its kind, assessed perceptions of wetland ecosystem services in eastern DR Congo combining fieldwork and a survey of 510 households that identified provisioning (and regulating (24%) services as most frequently reported. While wetlands are valued for goods, they are also considered disease sources. A structural equation model revealed four key factors driving these perceptions.
The strong points of the paper are:
- Research gap is very well identified in the introduction and the aims of the article are clear.
- Research area is adequately described and the community profile is well presented.
- The methodological steps are clear and the correlations are understandable. The literature supports the main arguments.
- The research is one of the pioneering on the topic about ecosystem services in the area.
Some general ideas to improve the readability of the paper are: it is suggested to shorten the text and omit repetitions. The text is rather extensive in all of its chapters (except for the Conclusion). Is it possible to shorten the methods, results and especially the discussion section in some way? When speaking of your findings, try to match them to other newer existing literature from other study areas.
Approximately half of the sources (44/86) are older than five years. Is there any way, you could add newer sources to support your arguments? That would make your research even more up-to-date.
In the continuation, I list line-by-line recommendations to possibly further improve the article:
- 12: Are inland valleys and floodplains synonymous? Or should it be valley floors?
- 13: With direct questions, there is a number, but with open-ended there isn’t. Make it consistent.
- 16-18: Content-wise these sentences are true, but don’t show the results. Don’t be over-descriptive in the abstract, but concise.
- 19-23: ok, good continuation.
- 24: Does the last sentence belong to an abstract? I suggest moving it to the conclusion and deleting it here.
- 26: I suggest adding DR Congo to the keywords.
- 32: These – which ‘these’? Try rephrasing it.
- 33-36: provide sources for all statements and truths. That instruction goes throughout the article (e.g. in lines 45, 46, 62 (areas),
- 40: when mentioning a location, show it on a location map.
- 49, 55: both lines have nearly the same text – the classes of ES. Merge the information in this paragraph.
- 61: a location map is necessary here.
- 75: is there any other literature on linking the ES and perceptions elsewhere, so that you could refer to it?
- 87: that generally incorporates: sources?
- 113: ongoing debates – among whom? Sources that would add credibility to your statement?
- 119-121: this has already been said earlier. Erase or upgrade it. The whole paragraph is too repetitious.
- 141: repetition of the area again.
- 143: which Koeppen categories are that? I suggest adding maps of various characteristics (climate, natural resources etc.).
- 149-150: Separate physical and human geography into two paragraphs.
- 154-155: as elsewhere in the world. Erase it or revise it to make it local.
- Figure 1: revise the maps, so that the font is visible, one north arrow is enough, what do colours represent in the top right map? The bottom maps need revision – peatlands, marshlands and valleys are polygons not points usually, so the legend needs to be made to write that these are the farms and not the landforms.
- Could you provide a work diagram/flowchart of your research? In that way, it would be much more understandable to follow the text.
- 183-197: put all theory in a table to make it more readable.
- 198: there is a problem with the title ‘Materials and methods’ – it is written for the second time here.
- 204-205: …performing THE interviews…
- 198-297: the methodology is well prepared, but sometimes repetitive. Be concise, add a work diagram and shorten the text so that someone who wants to reproduce the survey, can simply follow the steps.
- 261: it is widely evidenced: sources?
- Table 1 should be placed immediately after mentioning it.
- 330: a spacing too many after Figure 4.
- 346: ‘recently attracted scientific interest’ – provide sources and quotations. How and why did they attract them?
- 355: Their water quality is good and 355 perceive to create good weather. – this is very vague. If it is a result, then elaborate on it. If it is a scientific claim, revise it
- Figure 4 – very nice, but I can't read anything because the font is too small. Is this form of presentation appropriate for these results?
- 368: Dictions as ‘majority of respondents strongly agree' need scientific input (correlations etc.). That goes throughout the text.
- 432: Any source for determining these geographical factors? Is this label generally used or new? Because geographical factors can be a lot of other things too.
- 444-448: unclear, repetitive. Revise it or show it in some other way.
- 478: ‘All these steps lead to significant 478 degradation of these ecosystems' – I agree, but quote scientific sources in such cases.
- 466, 481: do quotations go to Discussion or Results? Explain in the text, why you included them here.
- 494: ‘increasing pressures on wetlands from human activities and environmental changes' – sources again.
- 699: sources?
- Figure 8: revise the font and quality of the image.
- 781: can you repeat the reads the types?
All the above suggestions are written to improve the text, which is going to bring lots of attention to both the journal and to the authors. There is no lack of experiment, but a moderate revision and shortening of the text in some parts.
Author Response
REVIEWER 2:
The article presents a very innovative and important topic. It integrates ecosystem services with public perception in specific DR Congo study areas. The topic is refreshing after seeing so many publications only on quantitative analyses of ES, because this study links people’s perceptions and ES in real life and today. In essence, ecosystem service research is crucial for landscape planning (and integrating economic, community involvement and regional development), particularly in Sub-Saharan regions where local communities depend heavily on wetlands. This study, the first of its kind, assessed perceptions of wetland ecosystem services in eastern DR Congo combining fieldwork and a survey of 510 households that identified provisioning (and regulating (24%) services as most frequently reported. While wetlands are valued for goods, they are also considered disease sources. A structural equation model revealed four key factors driving these perceptions.
The strong points of the paper are:
- Research gap is very well identified in the introduction and the aims of the article are clear.
- Research area is adequately described and the community profile is well presented.
- The methodological steps are clear and the correlations are understandable. The literature supports the main arguments.
- The research is one of the pioneering on the topic about ecosystem services in the area.
Some general ideas to improve the readability of the paper are: it is suggested to shorten the text and omit repetitions. The text is rather extensive in all of its chapters (except for the Conclusion). Is it possible to shorten the methods, results and especially the discussion section in some way? When speaking of your findings, try to match them to other newer existing literature from other study areas. Approximately half of the sources (44/86) are older than five years. Is there any way, you could add newer sources to support your arguments? That would make your research even more up-to-date.
Response: thank you dear reviewer for this comment. We try to add few new sources to support our arguments. See line 35, 501, 593, 614, etc.
In the continuation, I list line-by-line recommendations to possibly further improve the article:
- 12: Are inland valleys and floodplains synonymous? Or should it be valley floors?
Response: Thank you for this question. In the classification made in nearby country, inland valleys are combined with floodplains. Both are similar
- 13: With direct questions, there is a number, but with open-ended there isn’t. Make it consistent.
Response: Thank you for this comment. The questionnaire used is available on the link mentioned in the paper.
- 16-18: Content-wise these sentences are true, but don’t show the results. Don’t be over-descriptive in the abstract, but concise.
- 19-23: ok, good continuation.
- 24: Does the last sentence belong to an abstract? I suggest moving it to the conclusion and deleting it here.
Response:
- 26: I suggest adding DR Congo to the keywords.
Response: thank you for this suggestion. Corrected accordingly
- 32: These – which ‘these’? Try rephrasing it.
Response: these referred to the wide range of ecosystem services provided by wetlands
- 33-36: provide sources for all statements and truths. That instruction goes throughout the article (e.g. in lines 45, 46, 62 (areas),
75: is there any other literature on linking the ES and perceptions elsewhere, so that you could refer to it?
- 87: that generally incorporates: sources?
Response: corrected accordingly
- 113: ongoing debates – among whom? Sources that would add credibility to your statement?
- 119-121: this has already been said earlier. Erase or upgrade it. The whole paragraph is too repetitious.
- 141: repetition of the area again.
- 40: when mentioning a location, show it on a location map.
- 49, 55: both lines have nearly the same text – the classes of ES. Merge the information in this paragraph. 61: a location map is necessary here.
- 143: which Koeppen categories are that? I suggest adding maps of various characteristics (climate, natural resources etc.).
Response: Thank you, dear reviewer, for these comments. Regarding the two suggestions, we chose not to include maps showing the country's location and climate in the introduction, as these maps take up space and would increase the length of the paper. However, we opted to include the map (Figure 1) we did because it is more detailed and straightforward. We could possibly include the other maps as supplementary data, similar to what has been done before (See Supplementary Figure 1). We also add the source and type of the overlay raster image of the South-Kivu province (See line 176).
- 149-150: Separate physical and human geography into two paragraphs.
- 154-155: as elsewhere in the world. Erase it or revise it to make it local.
Response: Corrected accordingly
- Figure 1: revise the maps, so that the font is visible, one north arrow is enough, what do colours represent in the top right map? The bottom maps need revision – peatlands, marshlands and valleys are polygons not points usually, so the legend needs to be made to write that these are the farms and not the landforms.
Response: Thank you for this comment. Since we surveyed users in different wetland areas, we proposed representing them as points with different colors. On the map, one can see the location of the country and the province, while the various wetland users are color-coded according to the type of wetland. The image is a raster from ALOS PALSAR showing elevation (in meters) within the province as mentioned in the legend. As it is not the same spatial resolution, same, location and orientation, we proposed to add all these elements on the map.
- Could you provide a work diagram/flowchart of your research? In that way, it would be much more understandable to follow the text.
- 183-197: put all theory in a table to make it more readable.
Response: thank you for that suggestion. We have added the flowchart as supplementary materials to maintain the length of the paper (see Figure S1).
- 198: there is a problem with the title ‘Materials and methods’ – it is written for the second time here. 204-205: …performing THE interviews…
Response: corrected accordingly
- 198-297: the methodology is well prepared, but sometimes repetitive. Be concise, add a work diagram and shorten the text so that someone who wants to reproduce the survey, can simply follow the steps.
- 261: it is widely evidenced: sources?
- Table 1 should be placed immediately after mentioning it.
Response: We avoid putting the table at the end of the paper to avoid splitting it
- 330: a spacing too many after Figure 4.
- 346: ‘recently attracted scientific interest’ – provide sources and quotations. How and why did they attract them?
- 355: Their water quality is good and 355 perceive to create good weather. – this is very vague. If it is a result, then elaborate on it. If it is a scientific claim, revise it
- Figure 4 – very nice, but I can't read anything because the font is too small. Is this form of presentation appropriate for these results?
- 368: Dictions as ‘majority of respondents strongly agree' need scientific input (correlations etc.). That goes throughout the text.
- 432: Any source for determining these geographical factors? Is this label generally used or new? Because geographical factors can be a lot of other things too.
- 444-448: unclear, repetitive. Revise it or show it in some other way.
- 478: ‘All these steps lead to significant 478 degradation of these ecosystems' – I agree, but quote scientific sources in such cases.
- 466, 481: do quotations go to Discussion or Results? Explain in the text, why you included them here.
Response: these are words from responders used as evidence of clarification.
- 494: ‘increasing pressures on wetlands from human activities and environmental changes' – sources again.
Response: Sources were added accordingly
- 699: sources?
- Figure 8: revise the font and quality of the image.
Response: Thank you for this comment. We certify that the figure has a resolution advised by the journal. Once zoomed the front is well maintained and able to be read.
- 781: can you repeat the reads the types?
All the above suggestions are written to improve the text, which is going to bring lots of attention to both the journal and to the authors. There is no lack of experiment, but a moderate revision and shortening of the text in some parts.
Response: Thank you for these suggestions. We considered most of them. Other that suggest adding more Figures (of the country of the province climate were added in the supplementary materials to not increase the length of the paper.
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsWe have read an interesting and rarely studied study on this topic.
It examines attitudes towards the ecosystem services provided by wetlands in the South Kivu region.
The study is well structured and meets expectations. The literature reviewed is relevant and relevant.
The Introduction outlines the topic and introduces the theoretical framework used by the authors in the analysis.
The second chapter clearly clarifies the methodological framework. The presentation of the study area is thorough and the separation of the sample area categories is clear.
The methods used are relevant (the questionnaire survey is a well-used method) and well presented. The methods of data processing and analysis are also well presented. The use of the Structural Equation Model is a particular strength of the study. It is also a virtue that the authors are aware of the limitations of their studies (Chapter 4.6).
However, it is recommended to clarify the title of chapter 2.3 Material and Methods, as it is identical to the title of main chapter 2.
The presentation of the results is very thorough and detailed. This makes clear the social, economic and environmental factors that influence the attitudes of local communities towards wetland ecosystem services, although mechanical descriptions of the data often dominate.
However, the Discussion chapter will also evaluate the results. Factors that differentiate social attitudes according to different landscape types or even social indicators are clearly identified.
The strong influences of education, occupation and direct exposure are clearly highlighted.
They also point out that, according to their studies, it is primarily the directly perceived benefits or problems of wetlands that are felt most by respondents. In contrast, global problems (e.g. role in climate change, aesthetic value) are not perceived by wetland dwellers. The conclusions built on this (increased knowledge transfer and methodological broadening) are of value for the practical application of the study.
However, it would certainly be enhanced by the addition of a list of possible tasks for specific stakeholders in Chapter 4.5. Who could be involved in the process of awareness-raising and knowledge transfer? Who could be responsible for which task - at global, national or local level?
The answers to these questions should be included in the discussion chapter will be strengthen of the study.
Author Response
We have read an interesting and rarely studied study on this topic. It examines attitudes towards the ecosystem services provided by wetlands in the South Kivu region. The study is well structured and meets expectations. The literature reviewed is relevant and relevant. The Introduction outlines the topic and introduces the theoretical framework used by the authors in the analysis.
The second chapter clearly clarifies the methodological framework. The presentation of the study area is thorough and the separation of the sample area categories is clear. The methods used are relevant (the questionnaire survey is a well-used method) and well presented. The methods of data processing and analysis are also well presented. The use of the Structural Equation Model is a particular strength of the study. It is also a virtue that the authors are aware of the limitations of their studies (Chapter 4.6).
Response: Thank you, dear reviewer, for those comments
However, it is recommended to clarify the title of chapter 2.3 Material and Methods, as it is identical to the title of main chapter 2. The presentation of the results is very thorough and detailed. This makes clear the social, economic and environmental factors that influence the attitudes of local communities towards wetland ecosystem services, although mechanical descriptions of the data often dominate.
However, the Discussion chapter will also evaluate the results. Factors that differentiate social attitudes according to different landscape types or even social indicators are clearly identified. The strong influences of education, occupation and direct exposure are clearly highlighted. They also point out that, according to their studies, it is primarily the directly perceived benefits or problems of wetlands that are felt most by respondents. In contrast, global problems (e.g. role in climate change, aesthetic value) are not perceived by wetland dwellers. The conclusions built on this (increased knowledge transfer and methodological broadening) are of value for the practical application of the study. However, it would certainly be enhanced by the addition of a list of possible tasks for specific stakeholders in Chapter 4.5. Who could be involved in the process of awareness-raising and knowledge transfer? Who could be responsible for which task - at global, national or local level? The answers to these questions should be included in the discussion chapter will be strengthen of the study.
Response: thank you dear reviewer for these comments. This is very relevant to our results and to make it more detailed we proposed to write another paper where all the findings on stakeholders involved in the process are presented and at which level of intervention in awareness raising and knowledge transfer are presented. This to reduce the length of the paper as adding those results will make the paper very long.
