Review Reports - Indigenous Knowledge for Sustainable Communications and Mobility: Perspectives from the Kolyma Road, Northeast Russia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted research brings sustained and insightful attention to the convergence of indigenous and local knowledge in—and along—a major historic infrastructural route in a region of Russia that tends to be understudied by western scholars. The sustained field research that went into the manuscript's preparation and the expertise brought by the research collective is excellent.

States generally and Arctic states specifically—more relevant for this manuscript—have too often neglected Indigenous voices, preferences, and knowledge when making decisions that directly impact traditional Indigenous lands and waters. This has resulted in continuing significant economic, cultural, and environmental impacts on Indigenous communities across the circumpolar north. This formal exclusion undermines territorial autonomy, contributes to negative environmental impacts, and suppresses Indigenous contributions to international and domestic politics and policy formation. The Indigenous peoples of the Arctic, and more specifically for this submission the Indigenous peoples of Russia’s north—have a historically established understanding of fragile Arctic ecosystems and northern lifeways. Continued exclusion threatens these northern communities, their languages, and cultures. As the authors acknowledge and their research supports, there is a vital need for integration of Indigenous and local knowledge with Western science to support Arctic Indigenous communities and their continued livelihoods. Where the authors find their particular contribution is to reveal the shortcomings of existing communication and transportation infrastructure in Northeast Russia, and through participant interviews then to offer possible resolution.

Consequently, in order to address their main research question—which with a little revision would read more clearly— “How Indigenous and local knowledge intersect with questions of mobilities and communication affected by the road creation and functioning,” the authors promise to build an ambitious “Framework.”

This framework, the authors contend, “embeds Indigenous knowledge into infrastructure development for enhancing wellbeing of people living in the region, reducing inequalities, building resilient infrastructure and making sustainable communities.” Indeed, it is widely recognized that combining natural infrastructure and human infrastructure that embeds Indigenous knowledge can play a pivotal role in sustaining Indigenous communities. Such deliberately “human-environment” altered infrastructure promises to encompass ecosystems and environments, traditional lifeways and communities’ evolving needs in order to provide multiple benefits for the environment and human well-being. However, although the authors promise this framework, the manuscript so far seems to offer little more than perhaps an implicit skeleton for such a framework. This observation points to the principal issue with the current submission: In its current stage, the authors have not yet aligned their excellent field work with their stated objectives, and consequently the manuscript remains a “Work in progress.” In addition to a number of aspirations that have yet to be fulfilled, the manuscript would be further strengthened by softening claims-making, resolving syntax concerns, and by offering well-considered excerpts from the voices of the individuals who were interviewed for this project, as this would give the manuscript more specific examples of and clearer form to “Indigenous and local knowledge.”

Indeed, despite frequent indications that Indigenous and local knowledge “could help advance the just and sustainable future in[sic] the region,” the manuscript does not disaggregate nor in a sustained manner discuss “Indigenous and local knowledge;” neither do the authors clearly demonstrate how “Future of the region” would be “Sustainable;” and nor what a “Sustainable future” would look like and how this would differ from the region’s current development trajectory.

The following comprises a representative—but not exhaustive—list of excerpts to illustrate opportunities where the authors could consider revising syntax, eliminate redundancies, support or soften claims, and in other ways enhance and improve the submission.

“Indigenous knowledge systems are intricate networks comprising knowledge, know-how, practices, and representations that steer human societies.” In other words, the authors seem to say that “Knowledge systems are comprised of knowledge and know-how.” Although true, such an observation is somewhat unremarkable as well as a tautology.

“Indigenous knowledge is a dynamic process rather than a static outcome, continually evolving in our globalized world.” Whether Indigenous or otherwise, “Knowledge” is not actually a process as it is a noun, although absolutely it evolves. “Understanding,” “Knowledge generation,” “Learning” and “Teaching” are all, for example, dynamic processes.

The authors indicate that Indigenous knowledge encompasses “wisdom cultivated in urban settings.” Because Indigenous knowledge—and indigeneity more broadly—tends to be associated with subsistence lifestyles and non-urban settings, the authors’ observation can contribute to removing common misassumptions. Consequently, an example or two, or further explication, would lend support and further credence to the authors’ assertion regarding “wisdom cultivated in urban settings.”

The authors specify “…the [emphasis added] interdisciplinary approach to studies of mobility, territory, communication, and transport,” but in fact there are multiple such interdisciplinary approaches, indeed given interdisciplinarity. But having indicated a particular approach to investigating mobility, territory, communication, and transport the authors conflate their “Approach” (which is epistemological) as then a “Field” (which is ontological). From there, having identified their work as a “field” that includes “notions of virtual and embodied mobility, network geographies, deterritorialization, sedentarism, nomadology, connectivity, containment, and exclusion” they suggest that complexities of life and environments in the High North comprise a singular—albeit complex—"system.” Their argument would be strengthened by simply changing from singular "System" to plural “Systems.”

The authors claim that “Mobility has been crucial in the lives of Arctic inhabitants, facilitating relationships with lands and kin.” Quite unintentionally, this seems on one hand to standardize who are “Arctic inhabitants” (and I would be hard pressed to identify non-Arctic communities where “Mobility” is not also crucial). On the other hand, this statement appears—again inadvertently—to exclude Aleut, Anishinaabe, Inuit, Inupiaq, Sugpiaq, Yupik, and other Arctic and near-Arctic inhabitants whose cultures and lifeways are inextricably entwined with water and ice. The next sentences continue to valorize land as an elemental category that subsumes water, notwithstanding the inclusion of “Fishing”: “Indigenous relationships with lands are characterized by connections rather than ownership, necessitating free access to natural resources for herding, fishing, and hunting.”

Non-Arctic peoples tend to remain somewhat flummoxed by how to think about "Frozen Matter," and consequently typically are constrained by a “Land” vs “Ocean” geophysical binary. Geophysical binaries are clearly superficial: often the distinctions between land and sea, wetlands and marshes, and barrier islands are blurred. Considering the Arctic, ice often has land-like qualities and Arctic waters don’t have all waterlike properties. Frozen water exhibits more land like properties than liquid water, but this is increasingly in flux and undependable. Consequently, the Arctic’s mutability and impermanency reflects, echoes, and complements the authors’ observation that Indigenous “people are not bound to the past, keep adapting and changing, and engaging in new forms of mobilities as well.” Consequently, perhaps the authors can consider “Waters” and those communities whose relationships with water “are characterized by connections rather than ownership, necessitating free access to natural resources for fishing and hunting.”

The authors offer an optimistic remark: “The spread of information and communication technologies, along with global interconnectedness, holds the potential to accelerate human progress.” This claim is one with which I agree as would many others. But I could offer a more pessimistic, yet no less valid observation: The spread of “disinformation” and communication technologies, together with global interconnectness, also have far-reaching implications for human rights and democratic norms worldwide. So, although the authors call for “Human progress” tied to the “spread of information and communication technologies,” the same processes also hold potential to threaten freedom of thought, the right to privacy and the right to democratic participation, as well as endangering a range of economic, social, and cultural rights in and beyond the Arctic. The point, of course, is not a discussion over the pitfalls of increasing access to unvalidated and fake information nor whether information should be regulated, but to gently remind the authors to be cautious in making unsupported categorical declarations.

The authors offer another hopeful, yet unproblematized observation: “The Internet and communication technologies play a significant role in Indigenous lives in the Arctic, integrating into nomadic culture without undermining it.” As “Infrastructure” is a key focus of the manuscript, the authors might consider a little more attention and discussion regarding this comment. The ability to use the Internet is useful to indigenous peoples in their political struggles, in building and maintaining relations, and accessing information generally, but how about their social struggles? Is there concern that an intensification of communication with the wider world may actually undermine the distinctive cultures that indigenous peoples cherish and try to protect? Indeed, there is some concern, but this is not a peculiar problem deriving from the Internet. It is rather part of the dilemma which all Indigenous peoples and other minorities encounter: How to balance their interaction with, and participation in the wider society with their hope to maintain a vibrant and separate culture. Indigenous peoples face dilemmas as they consider the use of the Internet. The Internet intensifies opportunities for cultural affirmation, on one hand, but it facilitates the tendencies that might lead to cultural breakdown, on the other hand. It obviously assists communities, family members, and individuals to more consistently and frequently communicate with each other and to coordinate movements and mobilities. The Internet can help a scattered people maintain a sense of culture and community. But the point is that, hopefully, the authors might consider the use and influence of the Internet in a slightly more tempered manner.

The authors observe that, “Given the spatial nature of traditional cultural and environmental knowledge, GIS technology can facilitate the integration of Indigenous knowledge into decision-making processes.” This is an insightful observation, and quite right. As I read this section, I was reminded that cartographic processes have also historically and continue to be used as a weapon against Indigenous communities in the service of land claims, to promote extractive development, and erase signs of their presence, traditions, language, and culture. Yet at the same time, as discussed by the authors, joining Indigenous knowledge with contemporary tools can serve the needs of Indigenous peoples as they undermine and move beyond the legacies of colonization, forced assimilation, modernization, and environmental change. I only add these and previous comments to encourage the authors to further problematize many of their observations, and by so doing further strengthen and sharpen their submission.

I will end this review with a final selection of excepts to indicate other areas the authors might consider attending to further enhance their manuscript.

Consider, for example, areas of the manuscript where redundancies can be removed and syntax smoothed:

“Firstly, data supported the assumption that women tend to use public transport more frequently than men in the study areas, women use public transport much more often than men.”

“However, an interesting finding emerged that women are much more likely to travel

by plane often associated with work trips or family responsibilities, areas where women

are more likely to take charge due to their higher levels of education and employment in

roles requiring travel.”

In these brief additional excerpts, note singular/plural misalignment, missing prepositions and other words, typos, and awkward syntax:

“Indigenous knowledge…have been neglected” “…coupled low population density….” “these events in Magadan increasingly cater visitors’ interests…” “but the lack the local”

Consider consistent use of quotation marks—these three examples use three different formats:

“primitive activity” and ‘primitive’ and «Interregional and intraregional communications of the Indigenous peoples of the North in the context of global challenges: history and modernity»

Agauin, in the following, note inconsistent use of “Systems” and “System” when referring to same example:

“The existing systems are tailored…” “This system perceives Indigenous communities….”

In addition to the inadvertent shift from plural to singular in the previous excerpt, there is an unintended replacement of people with a “System": Systems no more “perceive” than do they “Think” or “Decide.” In the following statement, “Systems” is anthropomorphized, but slightly humorously so too are “Herds”:

“The current systems…assume… herds do not require modern ICTs and other technologies.”

The authors indicate the traditional Even celebrations of Bakaldydyak and Hebdenek, and then note “Reindeer Herder Day.” Could the authors, as they did with the other Even celebrations, consider the more traditional name, or at least the Russian version?

Note the authors’ argument in the following excerpts:

“We argue that viewing traditional activities like reindeer herding as ‘primitive’….” “Despite being seemingly confined to “primitive activity”[sic] ….” “Our objective has been to illustrate that the complex system of the modern reindeer herding economy in Russia should not be misconstrued as a primitive activity….”

The authors indicate they argue against labeling traditional activities as “Primitive,” yet they do not actually offer a clear and focused "argument." And similarly, while their objective is laudable, they have not explicitly provided evidence in support of their “Objective.” Lastly, could the authors consider offering examples that demonstrate how commentators continue to label traditional careers and lifeways as “Primitive”?

In the following statement, “The current state is deemed unsustainable due to its failure to incorporate Indigenous and local knowledge for the promotion of sustainable communications and mobility,” the authors do not identify who “Deems” the current system unsustainable. Relatedly, could the authors demonstrate which applications of “Indigenous and local knowledge” would resolve the issue? Perhaps in-text reference to and a discussion of Table 2 might be an option in this regard. But in any manner the authors choose, more attention should be offered to existing inadequacies; some elaboration on how the “current state” developed and then indication for how current needs either outgrew, moved beyond, or were never adequately served by the existing communication systems and physical infrastructure. Continuing, the authors’ argument would be further strengthened by offering examples for their enhancement, adjustment, and replacement with alternatives derived from Indigenous and local knowledge. However, after the authors indicate that the current state of communications and mobility fails to meet Indigenous needs—largely due to inadequate incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and local experience—they then offer a somewhat surprising resolution in their conclusion that appears to support perpetuating and building on the existing, "Non-Indigenous/Unsustainable" system:

“In particular, based on our experience, communications and mobility systems should be… ensuring connectivity via both cable and wireless systems, building infrastructure for both commercial and private, movement of both goods and people.”

Again, the field research that underlies this submission is excellent and significant. The expert research collective who undertook the fieldwork is highly trained, uniquely qualified, professional, and exceptionally positioned to conduct and to present this work. Their scholarship deserves to be published and will find a very receptive readership. The comments and suggestions shared in this review are simply offered to assist the author collective ensure that their work is presented and read in the best possible way, as their work deserves attention and respect.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Please refer to the "Comments and Suggestions," as this is addressed.

Author Response

We would like to thank Reviewer 1 for their comments on our paper “Indigenous knowledge for sustainable communications and mobility: perspectives from the Kolyma Highway, northeast Russia”. Based on the reviewer’s comments, we have made necessary edits, which we believe improved the manuscript significantly:

Comment	Response
The submitted research brings sustained and insightful attention to the convergence of indigenous and local knowledge in—and along—a major historic infrastructural route in a region of Russia that tends to be understudied by western scholars. The sustained field research that went into the manuscript's preparation and the expertise brought by the research collective is excellent.	Thank you
Consequently, in order to address their main research question—which with a little revision would read more clearly— “How Indigenous and local knowledge intersect with questions of mobilities and communication affected by the road creation and functioning,” the authors promise to build an ambitious “Framework.”	Thank you for the revision, we changed it to “How do Indigenous and local knowledge intersect with mobility and communication in the context of the Kolyma Road?”(lines 46-49)
However, although the authors promise this framework, the manuscript so far seems to offer little more than perhaps an implicit skeleton for such a framework.	Yes, we fully agree, we changed it to “lay foundation for a future framework that would embed Indigenous knowledge into infrastructure development for enhancing wellbeing of people living in the region, reducing inequalities, building resilient infrastructure and making sustainable communities” (lines 522-526)
This observation points to the principal issue with the current submission: In its current stage, the authors have not yet aligned their excellent field work with their stated objectives, and consequently the manuscript remains a “Work in progress.”	Yes, we agree with this comment, we changed the objective and also will think about developing it in our future paper on this topic.
In addition to a number of aspirations that have yet to be fulfilled, the manuscript would be further strengthened by softening claims-making, resolving syntax concerns, and by offering well-considered excerpts from the voices of the individuals who were interviewed for this project, as this would give the manuscript more specific examples of and clearer form to “Indigenous and local knowledge.”	Yes, we agree, we added some respondent comments (in the table 2)
Indeed, despite frequent indications that Indigenous and local knowledge “could help advance the just and sustainable future in[sic] the region,” the manuscript does not disaggregate nor in a sustained manner discuss “Indigenous and local knowledge;” neither do the authors clearly demonstrate how “Future of the region” would be “Sustainable;” and nor what a “Sustainable future” would look like and how this would differ from the region’s current development trajectory.	Yes, we agree with this comment, we added “… more sustainable future where Indigenous residents of the study area can thrive in their restored relationships to lands, waters, and kin (lines 524-526).
In other words, the authors seem to say that “Knowledge systems are comprised of knowledge and know-how.” Although true, such an observation is somewhat unremarkable as well as a tautology.	We agree with the comment, we rewrote it as: Indigenous knowledge systems are intricate networks comprising knowledge, skills, practices, and representations that steer human societies through myriad interactions with the natural environment (line 51)
Whether Indigenous or otherwise, “Knowledge” is not actually a process as it is a noun, although absolutely it evolves.	We agree with the comment, we rewrote it as: Indigenous knowledge represents a dynamic process rather than a static outcome, continually evolving in a globalized world (line 71)
Because Indigenous knowledge—and indigeneity more broadly—tends to be associated with subsistence lifestyles and non-urban settings, the authors’ observation can contribute to removing common misassumptions. Consequently, an example or two, or further explication, would lend support and further credence to the authors’ assertion regarding “wisdom cultivated in urban settings.”
The authors specify “…the [emphasis added] interdisciplinary approach to studies of mobility, territory, communication, and transport,” but in fact there are multiple such interdisciplinary approaches, indeed given interdisciplinarity. But having indicated a particular approach to investigating mobility, territory, communication, and transport the authors conflate their “Approach” (which is epistemological) as then a “Field” (which is ontological). From there, having identified their work as a “field” that includes “notions of virtual and embodied mobility, network geographies, deterritorialization, sedentarism, nomadology, connectivity, containment, and exclusion” they suggest that complexities of life and environments in the High North comprise a singular—albeit complex—"system.” Their argument would be strengthened by simply changing from singular "System" to plural “Systems.”	Thank you for the comment, we agree with it, changed it to “Our analysis is rooted in an interdisciplinary approach to studies of mobility, territory, communication, and transport [18]. This involves various forms of mobility, including information, people, and commodities. According to Morley [18], this approach…” (lines 77-83)
The authors claim that “Mobility has been crucial in the lives of Arctic inhabitants, facilitating relationships with lands and kin.” Quite unintentionally, this seems on one hand to standardize who are “Arctic inhabitants” (and I would be hard pressed to identify non-Arctic communities where “Mobility” is not also crucial). On the other hand, this statement appears—again inadvertently—to exclude Aleut, Anishinaabe, Inuit, Inupiaq, Sugpiaq, Yupik, and other Arctic and near-Arctic inhabitants whose cultures and lifeways are inextricably entwined with water and ice. The next sentences continue to valorize land as an elemental category that subsumes water, notwithstanding the inclusion of “Fishing”: “Indigenous relationships with lands are characterized by connections rather than ownership, necessitating free access to natural resources for herding, fishing, and hunting.”	Thank you for the comment, we agree with it, we added “… and waters” (line 90)
Non-Arctic peoples tend to remain somewhat flummoxed by how to think about "Frozen Matter," and consequently typically are constrained by a “Land” vs “Ocean” geophysical binary. Geophysical binaries are clearly superficial: often the distinctions between land and sea, wetlands and marshes, and barrier islands are blurred. Considering the Arctic, ice often has land-like qualities and Arctic waters don’t have all waterlike properties. Frozen water exhibits more land like properties than liquid water, but this is increasingly in flux and undependable. Consequently, the Arctic’s mutability and impermanency reflects, echoes, and complements the authors’ observation that Indigenous “people are not bound to the past, keep adapting and changing, and engaging in new forms of mobilities as well.” Consequently, perhaps the authors can consider “Waters” and those communities whose relationships with water “are characterized by connections rather than ownership, necessitating free access to natural resources for fishing and hunting.”	Thank you for the comment, we fully agree with it
The authors offer an optimistic remark: “The spread of information and communication technologies, along with global interconnectedness, holds the potential to accelerate human progress.” This claim is one with which I agree as would many others. But I could offer a more pessimistic, yet no less valid observation: The spread of “disinformation” and communication technologies, together with global interconnectness, also have far-reaching implications for human rights and democratic norms worldwide. So, although the authors call for “Human progress” tied to the “spread of information and communication technologies,” the same processes also hold potential to threaten freedom of thought, the right to privacy and the right to democratic participation, as well as endangering a range of economic, social, and cultural rights in and beyond the Arctic. The point, of course, is not a discussion over the pitfalls of increasing access to unvalidated and fake information nor whether information should be regulated, but to gently remind the authors to be cautious in making unsupported categorical declarations. The authors offer another hopeful, yet unproblematized observation: “The Internet and communication technologies play a significant role in Indigenous lives in the Arctic, integrating into nomadic culture without undermining it.” As “Infrastructure” is a key focus of the manuscript, the authors might consider a little more attention and discussion regarding this comment. The ability to use the Internet is useful to indigenous peoples in their political struggles, in building and maintaining relations, and accessing information generally, but how about their social struggles? Is there concern that an intensification of communication with the wider world may actually undermine the distinctive cultures that indigenous peoples cherish and try to protect? Indeed, there is some concern, but this is not a peculiar problem deriving from the Internet. It is rather part of the dilemma which all Indigenous peoples and other minorities encounter: How to balance their interaction with, and participation in the wider society with their hope to maintain a vibrant and separate culture. Indigenous peoples face dilemmas as they consider the use of the Internet. The Internet intensifies opportunities for cultural affirmation, on one hand, but it facilitates the tendencies that might lead to cultural breakdown, on the other hand. It obviously assists communities, family members, and individuals to more consistently and frequently communicate with each other and to coordinate movements and mobilities. The Internet can help a scattered people maintain a sense of culture and community. But the point is that, hopefully, the authors might consider the use and influence of the Internet in a slightly more tempered manner.	Thank you for this highly valuable comment, we added: “…there are serious concerns about their impact on Indigenous cultures, which are often minority groups in their respective countries. However, it is important to recognize that people not only consume information but also produce it. The emergence of Indigenous content creators and social media influencers demonstrates that Indigenous individuals should not merely be seen as passive subjects in these processes but also as active participants and creators” (lines 102-109)

The authors observe that, “Given the spatial nature of traditional cultural and environmental knowledge, GIS technology can facilitate the integration of Indigenous knowledge into decision-making processes.” This is an insightful observation, and quite right. As I read this section, I was reminded that cartographic processes have also historically and continue to be used as a weapon against Indigenous communities in the service of land claims, to promote extractive development, and erase signs of their presence, traditions, language, and culture. Yet at the same time, as discussed by the authors, joining Indigenous knowledge with contemporary tools can serve the needs of Indigenous peoples as they undermine and move beyond the legacies of colonization, forced assimilation, modernization, and environmental change. I only add these and previous comments to encourage the authors to further problematize many of their observations, and by so doing further strengthen and sharpen their submission.	Thank you for the insightful comment, we added: “At the same time, GIS technologies play a vital role in mapping and studying the areas of traditional resource use. It raises serious concerns about land rights and conservation, as GIS is used to manage and exploit the natural resources on these territories” (lines 356-359)
Consider, for example, areas of the manuscript where redundancies can be removed and syntax smoothed: “Firstly, data supported the assumption that women tend to use public transport more frequently than men in the study areas, women use public transport much more often than men.”	Thank you, we changed it to: Firstly, data confirmed that women in the study area utilize public transport more frequently than men, often due to limited access to personal transportation resulting from ownership structures or a lack of driving skills or licenses (lines 460-461)
“However, an interesting finding emerged that women are much more likely to travel by plane often associated with work trips or family responsibilities, areas where women are more likely to take charge due to their higher levels of education and employment in roles requiring travel.”	Thank you, we changed it to: Interestingly, women show a higher tendency to travel by plane, often for work or family obligations. This is linked to their higher education level and employment in positions requiring travel responsibilities (462-463)
In these brief additional excerpts, note singular/plural misalignment, missing prepositions and other words, typos, and awkward syntax: “Indigenous knowledge…have been neglected” “…coupled low population density….” “these events in Magadan increasingly cater visitors’ interests…” “but the lack the local”	Thank you, corrected
Consider consistent use of quotation marks—these three examples use three different formats: “primitive activity” and ‘primitive’ and «Interregional and intraregional communications of the Indigenous peoples of the North in the context of global challenges: history and modernity»	Thank you, corrected
Again, in the following, note inconsistent use of “Systems” and “System” when referring to same example: “The existing systems are tailored…” “This system perceives Indigenous communities….”	Thank you, corrected
In addition to the inadvertent shift from plural to singular in the previous excerpt, there is an unintended replacement of people with a “System": Systems no more “perceive” than do they “Think” or “Decide.” In the following statement, “Systems” is anthropomorphized, but slightly humorously so too are “Herds”: “The current systems…assume… herds do not require modern ICTs and other technologies.”	Thank you, corrected
The authors indicate the traditional Even celebrations of Bakaldydyak and Hebdenek, and then note “Reindeer Herder Day.” Could the authors, as they did with the other Even celebrations, consider the more traditional name, or at least the Russian version?	There is no traditional name for this festival as it was introduced in the Soviet Union as a professional holiday, it was common for all people engaged in reindeer herding, reindeer herder was regarded as a profession rather than lifestyle
Note the authors’ argument in the following excerpts: “We argue that viewing traditional activities like reindeer herding as ‘primitive’….” “Despite being seemingly confined to “primitive activity”[sic] ….” “Our objective has been to illustrate that the complex system of the modern reindeer herding economy in Russia should not be misconstrued as a primitive activity….” The authors indicate they argue against labeling traditional activities as “Primitive,” yet they do not actually offer a clear and focused "argument." And similarly, while their objective is laudable, they have not explicitly provided evidence in support of their “Objective.” Lastly, could the authors consider offering examples that demonstrate how commentators continue to label traditional careers and lifeways as “Primitive”?	It was a comment we received as feedback for our research grant application, it said “there is no career growth in reindeer husbandry” which made us think about it in terms of boundaryless career (Athur 1996)
In the following statement, “The current state is deemed unsustainable due to its failure to incorporate Indigenous and local knowledge for the promotion of sustainable communications and mobility,” the authors do not identify who “Deems” the current system unsustainable. Relatedly, could the authors demonstrate which applications of “Indigenous and local knowledge” would resolve the issue? Perhaps in-text reference to and a discussion of Table 2 might be an option in this regard. But in any manner the authors choose, more attention should be offered to existing inadequacies; some elaboration on how the “current state” developed and then indication for how current needs either outgrew, moved beyond, or were never adequately served by the existing communication systems and physical infrastructure. Continuing, the authors’ argument would be further strengthened by offering examples for their enhancement, adjustment, and replacement with alternatives derived from Indigenous and local knowledge.	Thank you for the comment, we added information in table 2, as well as paragraph 4.1. shows, as we believe, how the current state developed
However, after the authors indicate that the current state of communications and mobility fails to meet Indigenous needs—largely due to inadequate incorporation of Indigenous knowledge and local experience—they then offer a somewhat surprising resolution in their conclusion that appears to support perpetuating and building on the existing, "Non-Indigenous/Unsustainable" system: “In particular, based on our experience, communications and mobility systems should be… ensuring connectivity via both cable and wireless systems, building infrastructure for both commercial and private, movement of both goods and people.”	Thank you, we think that “unsustainable” systems do not need to be demolished entirely to bring in the “sustainable” version, it needs to be changed and improved in order to adequately address the needs… The problem is that it fails to meet but it is not entirely useless or harmful
Again, the field research that underlies this submission is excellent and significant. The expert research collective who undertook the fieldwork is highly trained, uniquely qualified, professional, and exceptionally positioned to conduct and to present this work. Their scholarship deserves to be published and will find a very receptive readership. The comments and suggestions shared in this review are simply offered to assist the author collective ensure that their work is presented and read in the best possible way, as their work deserves attention and respect.	Thank you so much for valuable comments and kind words. It has been quite a challenge to sum up what we learnt traveling on the Kolyma Road. We hope that our paper will contribute to body of knowledge about this part of the world.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, congratulations on the study presented.

In my opinion, the topic is relevant, the methodology is appropriate and the work has scientific rigor that justifies its publication.

- The literature review is relevant, adequate and recent.

- The methodology is the strong point of the work – congratulations on the exhaustive work at this level.

- The presentation and discussion of results is in line with the initially identified objectives.

- It is important to clarify the contribution of the article, to theory and practice, in order to provide this work with greater relevance and impact.

- The article should not end without presenting clues or suggestions for future studies that impact this issue.

Good luck for future work.

Author Response

Dear authors, congratulations on the study presented.	Thank you
It is important to clarify the contribution of the article, to theory and practice, in order to provide this work with greater relevance and impact.	Thank you for the comment, we agree and added more details in the end of the first chapter.
The article should not end without presenting clues or suggestions for future studies that impact this issue.	Thank you for the comment, we agree and added more information in the end of the conclusion chapter.
Good luck for future work.	Thank you

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Problems associated with improving the quality of life in the northern territories are a priority in modern conditions, since climate change will also be associated with changes in the indigenous people’s way of life. Solving the problems of creating a comfortable environment for the life of indigenous peoples is associated with the construction of infrastructure facilities: roads, villages, etc. The article under review is of scientific and practical interest, since it provides data from surveys of local residents conducted by the authors during an expedition to the settlements of indigenous residents of the region with using questionnaires developed by the authors. The article title and keywords adequately reflect its content. In the abstract, the authors provide the problem essence, its actuality and condition, and briefly describe the study goal and tasks.

The introduction is devoted to the justification of the relevance and analysis of the problem; the authors provide a brief overview of studies that highlighted the problem associated with the peculiarities of the residence of indigenous peoples in the region under consideration, including as part of solving the problem of connectivity of territories and communication. Section 2 briefly presents the materials and methods of the study. Section 3 introduces the research area. The fourth section is devoted to a description of the results of field research: the features of nomadic reindeer herding, problems of mobility of indigenous peoples, problems of transport and communication are described. The “Discussion and Conclusion” section contains the formulation of proposals for solving the identified problems and conclusions on the work. The article has been prepared in accordance with the instructions for authors and is relevant to the topic it is researching and publishing. In our opinion, the article corresponds to the topic “improving mobility planning methods for communities of indigenous peoples of the North” and corresponds in type to Preliminary research.

Comments:

1. Despite the fact that the topic is interesting, the research, in our opinion, is not “scientific” enough. So, although the practical aspect is present, the authors did not clearly formulate the purpose and objectives of the study, as well as scientific novelty. Therefore, it is not clear what exactly distinguishes the authors’ research from similar studies in which questionnaires are conducted and the results are processed. Moreover, it is not reflected how the results can be assessed and applied in practice. It is necessary to more clearly describe the listed points in the abstract and introduction.

2. It is necessary to take a more careful approach to the formation of a literature review: the list clearly lacks sources written by authors living near the areas under study. In addition, despite the fact that the literature review is quite broad, it contains a small proportion of studies carried out in the last five years, which may indicate a lack of relevance of the research topic.

3. At the first chapter end, the authors should describe the goal, tasks and stages of the study. This is necessary because it is not clear what criteria can be used to assess whether the study goal has been achieved and whether the results obtained are adequate. In addition, it is unclear how the application of research findings (if possible) will affect the indigenous peoples living conditions.

4. The authors do not indicate this study limitation, so it is not clear whether the described methods can and should be applied when planning the construction of infrastructure and the development of other territories where indigenous peoples live. That is, it is necessary to indicate in which cases the proposed approach may give inadequate results.

Author Response

Despite the fact that the topic is interesting, the research, in our opinion, is not “scientific” enough. So, although the practical aspect is present, the authors did not clearly formulate the purpose and objectives of the study, as well as scientific novelty. Therefore, it is not clear what exactly distinguishes the authors’ research from similar studies in which questionnaires are conducted and the results are processed. Moreover, it is not reflected how the results can be assessed and applied in practice. It is necessary to more clearly describe the listed points in the abstract and introduction	We would like to thank Reviewer 3 for their comments on our paper. Although we do not agree with research being not “scientific” enough (what is “scientific” is itself a matter of discussion, it is put in brackets for this exact purpose) we agree that abstract and introduction can be improved with providing more clarity. We added details in the abstract and hope that it has improved (22-28).
It is necessary to take a more careful approach to the formation of a literature review: the list clearly lacks sources written by authors living near the areas under study. In addition, despite the fact that the literature review is quite broad, it contains a small proportion of studies carried out in the last five years, which may indicate a lack of relevance of the research topic.	Thank you for the comment; though in fact the local Yakutia-based and Indigenous authors do not prevail in the list, we believe that there are enough of them to support our claims; it is unclear though what does the reviewer mean and how they assess the criteria “near the areas under study”, we kindly request more details on that. We also think that small proportion of studies may also indicate a lowered publication rates during COVID when travels were severely limited
At the first chapter end, the authors should describe the goal, tasks and stages of the study. This is necessary because it is not clear what criteria can be used to assess whether the study goal has been achieved and whether the results obtained are adequate. In addition, it is unclear how the application of research findings (if possible) will affect the indigenous peoples living conditions.	Thank you for the comment. We added more details describing goal and results obtained in the last paragraph of the first chapter (130-132). The way the research findings can affect the lives of Indigenous people is described in the last paragraph (562-572).
The authors do not indicate this study limitation, so it is not clear whether the described methods can and should be applied when planning the construction of infrastructure and the development of other territories where indigenous peoples live. That is, it is necessary to indicate in which cases the proposed approach may give inadequate results.	Thank you for the comment, we agree and added more details on study limitations (line 519).

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article entitled „Indigenous knowledge for sustainable communications and mobility: perspectives from the Kolyma Highway, northeast Russia” addresses an interesting topic. However, certain issues must be improved.

Abstract – In the present form, the abstract is too general and descriptive. The authors have to clarify the objectives, methods and results of the study

Introduction – The importance of the general topic of the article is prettily well documented…what about the study area? Have previous studies been carried out before? Also…do you have any hypotheses of study?

The Materials and Methods section should be better implemented by specifying what type of data you obtained and also the programs used in order to draw the figures.

Results – The practical side of this part should be more obvious. I think that 2 mental maps are not enough to support the entire work.

Discussion and conclusions – Do the solutions in Table 2 have any limitations? The Conclusions are extremely vague, they should get more consistency, underlining the added value of the paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English style is generally good, the article contains only minor mistakes.

Author Response

The article entitled „*Indigenous knowledge for sustainable communications and mobility: perspectives from the Kolyma Highway, northeast Russia*” addresses an interesting topic. However, certain issues must be improved.	We would like to thank the reviewer 4 for the comments that helped improve our paper.
Abstract – In the present form, the abstract is too general and descriptive. The authors have to clarify the objectives, methods and results of the study	Thank you, though objectives, methods and results might not be clearly identified in the abstract it however states that “based on data collected through fieldwork, personal observations, and online conversations, this paper demonstrates how Indigenous knowledge on ways of living, moving and communicating along and on the highway is the key to sustainability in the region, therefore, it has to be included in the research agenda” (lines 25-27).
Introduction – The importance of the general topic of the article is prettily well documented…what about the study area? Have previous studies been carried out before? Also…do you have any hypotheses of study?	There is no known study done on the same exact topic in the study area; there is no hypothesis;
The Materials and Methods section should be better implemented by specifying what type of data you obtained and also the programs used in order to draw the figures.	We chose not to indicate the program used as it is not a central method of our research;
Results – The practical side of this part should be more obvious. I think that 2 mental maps are not enough to support the entire work.	Yes, we agree, therefore we rely on our observations and conversations we held with community members in the study area; mental maps provide an insight that helps understand the situation in the study area better;
Discussion and conclusions – Do the solutions in Table 2 have any limitations? The Conclusions are extremely vague, they should get more consistency, underlining the added value of the paper.	Yes, we agree, solutions do have limitations, as would any solutions to such complicated problems as those indicated in the paper, we added more details on that (line 568).

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have excellently revised their manuscript, both incorporating and addressing reviewers’ comments, and in other areas thoughtfully honing and sharpening their arguments and insights.

Consequently, the following suggestions are offered in order to further assist the authors move their submission from “Manuscript” to “Published article.”

· Note that because the full name is “Magadan Oblast,” “Oblast” should be capitalized. This is also the case for “Khabarovsky Krai.” The authors use both the “Khabarovsky” and “Khabarovskiy” spelling; for consistency, it would be best to choose just one spelling.

· Note a few needed revisions in the abstract:

“One strategic approach to ensure it is to acknowledge the role of…”The use of “It” is ambiguous. Perhaps. “One strategic approach to ensure its reliability is to acknowledge the role of…”

“…this paper aims to demonstrate that Indigenous knowledge on ways of living….” Here, the preposition “On” is awkward. Instead, perhaps “this paper aims to demonstrate that Indigenous knowledge regarding ways of living….” And because the authors have carefully changed “Highway” in the original submission to “Road” in the current version, they may wish to do the same for the following: “…moving and communicating along and on the highway is the key to sustainability in the region.”

“As a result, we claim that this realization is manifested in designing and implementing communication….”Here, because the authors are offering insight, based on their research, for an expected or hoped for improvement, they may wish to change to read: “As a result, we claim that this realization should be manifested in designing and implementing communication….”

The missing article “A” should be added to read, “…it is necessary to develop a sustainable road management system….”

· Change “Camps” to singular, to read, “…by labor camp prisoners….”

· Likely better to change from “In” to “For” as a clearer way to express “Benefit”: “for the entire northeast region.”

· The authors have carefully revised “Highway” to “Road,” for example, “…the Kolyma Road plays a crucial role in ensuring the well-being of the local residents” (page one, line 39). Yet, note the following sentence (page one, line 40): “To achieve this, it is imperative for the highway to remain reliable and stable throughout the year.”

· The missing word “Do” should be added to read: “How do these characteristics differ….”

· The missing word “As” should be added to read, “…projects is seen as essential for….”

· An unneeded “The” can be deleted to read instead,”… especially relevant in Russia’s Arctic where tourism development….”

· “…the informed policy decisions for the wellbeing and sustainable future in the study area.” Here, changing “In” to “Of” will strengthen the statement.

· The missing word “On” should be added to read, “…with a particular emphasis on Indigenous community.”

· (Page 5, line 214) “The” should be changed to “They” to read, “…they highlight areas of importance to communities.”

· The authors might consider use of a gender neutral alternative to “Fishermen,” unless the authors do want to emphasize that only “Men” are involved. If women perhaps are also involved, then maybe “Fishers,” “Fisherfolk,” “Fish harvesters,” or “Fishermen and women.”

· (Line 234, page 5). In terms of syntax, it is unclear to what does “They” refer in the following sentence: “Pushed aside by outsiders’ views and narratives they remain untold to broader audience,” and “Audience” should be made plural to read “Audiences.”

· The following statement, page six line 268 just prior to “Results,” may find a better place either closer to the article’s beginning or perhaps placed in the conclusion: “The paper sheds light on the complexities and challenges faced by the diverse communities along the Kolyma Road, challenging stereotypes and offering a more nuanced understanding of this historically significant region.”

· (Line 341, page 8) The authors’ choice of the word “natural" may need to be reconsidered: “The lifestyle is not limited by administrative borders but may be influenced by natural ones, defined by relationships, kin networks, oral agreements, and shared knowledge.” I am not convinced, for example, that an “Oral agreement” constitutes a “Natural” border, as “Administrative borders” are also generally based on a form of agreement, albeit codified in writing rather than orally. Perhaps instead of “Natural ones,” “Socio-cultural ones” could be less controversial?

· (Line 346, page 8). To what does “It” refer? “Additionally, it considers the location of cultural and archaeological sites….”

· (Line 406 page 9). I suggest for syntax and readability, a revision could be made to the current sentence plus correction of a misspelling:

“In reindeer herding families, both women and men eatablish non-commercial organizations to apply for government grants, form obschina (Ru. tribal community) as an organizational structure to assert their rights to natural resource use, hunting, fishing quotas, etc.” Perhaps instead this could be two sentences, clearer syntax, and a corrected misspelling: “In reindeer herding families, both women and men establish non-commercial organizations to apply for government grants. The obschina (from Russian, suggesting a participatory tribal community) is an organizational structure to assert their rights to natural resource use, hunting, fishing quotas, etc.” In the same paragraph, either the article “A” needs to be added, or the singular “Level” should be changed to plural: “Having higher levels of education…” or “Having a higher level of education….”

· (Page 10, line 422)…”… where roads are perceived as a job….” Given the meaning of the sentence, perhaps a clearer phrasing would be”… where roads are perceived as fundamental to their a job….”

· (Line 439, page 10) The additional full stop after “Mb/s.[sic]” should be deleted to read, “…values of 15-100 Mb/s in the town of Susuman.”

· (line 474 page 11) The unnecessary hyphens should be removed to read, “…among extreme auto, bicycle, and motorcycle tourists.”

· (Line 481 page 10) A comma should be added after “Tours” to read, “…including car tours, visiting museums, ….”

· (Line 525 page 11) “Our findings can help guide the development of more sustainable future where Indigenous residents of the study area can thrive in their restored relationships to lands, waters, and kin.” The article “A” should be added before “More.” When I reached the claim, “…in their restored relationships to lands, waters, and kin” I was a little surprised. After reading the manuscript, I did not come away with a sense that familial relationships were somehow suffering and in need of “Restoration.” And nor did I have a clear sense that current relations with water would be enhanced, even “Restored,” by incorporating Indigenous knowledge along the Kolyma Road.

· (Line 531 page 12) The current semicolon should be changed to a comma, to read, “Despite being seemingly confined to ‘primitive activity’ characteristic of a hunter-gatherer society, modern reindeer herder communities demonstrate extensive knowledge in crafting their career paths.”

· The word “Activities” should be added, and “And” should be added after “Activities,” to read, “…building infrastructure for both commercial and private activities, and movement of both goods and people.”

· Finally, the last sentence currently reads: “However, only consulting with communities and working together on each stage of the infrastructure planning, development, and maintenance we can make ensure sustainability of infrastructure and the region in general.” I would suggest revising to read instead: “However, only consulting with communities and working together on each stage of the infrastructure planning, development, and maintenance can we ensure sustainability of infrastructure and the region in general.”

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The revised submission demonstrates careful attention to syntax, phrasing, word choice, and grammar. Nonetheless, to further assist the authors, I have offered a bullet list of grammatical, syntax, and idiomatic changes necessary in order to ensure that authors' are read and appreciated at the high level their work deserves.

Author Response

The authors have excellently revised their manuscript, both incorporating and addressing reviewers’ comments, and in other areas thoughtfully honing and sharpening their arguments and insights.

Thank you so much for the valuable comments and corrections. The paper has been improved significantly

Note that because the full name is “Magadan Oblast,” “Oblast” should be capitalized. This is also the case for “Khabarovsky Krai.” The authors use both the “Khabarovsky” and “Khabarovskiy” spelling; for consistency, it would be best to choose just one spelling.

Thank you, we corrected the spelling

We agree with the comment, we changed the sentence:

One strategic approach to ensure its reliability is to acknowledge the role of Indigenous knowledge, which have been neglected despite being established long before the emergence of existing formal systems of communication.

We agree with the comment, we changed the sentence:

Based on data collected through fieldwork, personal observations, and conversations, this paper aims to demonstrate that Indigenous knowledge regarding ways of living, moving and communicating along and on the road is the key to sustainability in the region

And because the authors have carefully changed “Highway” in the original submission to “Road” in the current version, they may wish to do the same for the following: “…moving and communicating along and on the highway is the key to sustainability in the region.”

Kolymskaya trassa (Ru) can be translated as either “highway” or “road”, we decided to change it to “road” since it better represents it as a rural and lesser traveled way; we changed highway to road in the text where it was overlooked

Thank you, we changed it to:

As a result, we claim that this realization should be manifested in designing and implementing communication and mobility systems based on the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

The missing article “A” should be added to read, “…it is necessary to develop a sustainable road management system….”

Thank you, we added the article A:

In the long term, it is necessary to develop a sustainable road management system for the Kolyma Road to ensure the security and well-being of local communities and for everyone visiting and working on the road

Change “Camps” to singular, to read, “…by labor camp prisoners….”

Thank you, we changed it to singular:

Initially constructed by labor camp prisoners, today it serves as a vital lifeline for thousands of residents in the region, catering to their transportation, goods and life support needs.

Likely better to change from “In” to “For” as a clearer way to express “Benefit”: “for the entire northeast region.”

Thank you, we changed it to:

Functioning as the primary mode of communication for the entire northeast region, the Kolyma Road plays a crucial role in ensuring the well-being of the local residents.

The authors have carefully revised “Highway” to “Road,” for example, “…the Kolyma Road plays a crucial role in ensuring the well-being of the local residents” (page one, line 39). Yet, note the following sentence (page one, line 40): “To achieve this, it is imperative for the highway to remain reliable and stable throughout the year.”

Thank you, we overlooked it so it is now changed to:

To achieve this, it is imperative for the road to remain reliable and stable throughout the year

The missing word “Do” should be added to read: “How do these characteristics differ….”

We added the missing word:

How do these characteristics differ across Indigenous and non-Indigenous communities, gender and occupation?

The missing word “As” should be added to read, “…projects is seen as essential for….”

We added the missing word:

… and its incorporation into development projects is seen as essential for ensuring their sustainability and justice

An unneeded “The” can be deleted to read instead,”… especially relevant in Russia’s Arctic where tourism development….”

We changed the sentence:

It becomes especially relevant in Russia’s Arctic where tourism development puts even more pressure on limited infrastructures, including communication.

“…the informed policy decisions for the wellbeing and sustainable future in the study area.” Here, changing “In” to “Of” will strengthen the statement.

We changed it:

Our contribution is to help advance the informed policy decisions for the wellbeing and sustainable future of the study area.

The missing word “On” should be added to read, “…with a particular emphasis on Indigenous community.”

We added the missing word:

The study relies on data gathered during fieldwork conducted in two adjacent administrative regions along the Kolyma Road, with a particular emphasis on Indigenous community.

(Page 5, line 214) “The” should be changed to “They” to read, “…they highlight areas of importance to communities.”

We changed it:

While these maps may not provide a comprehensive overview of the current use of traditional resources, they highlight areas of importance to communities.

The authors might consider use of a gender neutral alternative to “Fishermen,” unless the authors do want to emphasize that only “Men” are involved. If women perhaps are also involved, then maybe “Fishers,” “Fisherfolk,” “Fish harvesters,” or “Fishermen and women.”

We changed it:

The mapping of traditional knowledge was conducted with the participation of elders, members of nomadic tribal communities, and rural residents, including reindeer herders, hunters, fishers.

(Line 234, page 5). In terms of syntax, it is unclear to what does “They” refer in the following sentence: “Pushed aside by outsiders’ views and narratives they remain untold to broader audience,” and “Audience” should be made plural to read “Audiences.”

We changed “they” to “these stories”:

Pushed aside by outsiders’ views and narratives these stories remain untold to broader audiences

The following statement, page six line 268 just prior to “Results,” may find a better place either closer to the article’s beginning or perhaps placed in the conclusion: “The paper sheds light on the complexities and challenges faced by the diverse communities along the Kolyma Road, challenging stereotypes and offering a more nuanced understanding of this historically significant region.”

Thank you so much for the suggestion, we moved the paragraph to the Introduction, lines 127-129

(Line 341, page 8) The authors’ choice of the word “natural" may need to be reconsidered: “The lifestyle is not limited by administrative borders but may be influenced by natural ones, defined by relationships, kin networks, oral agreements, and shared knowledge.” I am not convinced, for example, that an “Oral agreement” constitutes a “Natural” border, as “Administrative borders” are also generally based on a form of agreement, albeit codified in writing rather than orally. Perhaps instead of “Natural ones,” “Socio-cultural ones” could be less controversial?

Thank you for the suggestion, we changed it accordingly:

The lifestyle is not limited by administrative borders but may be influenced by socio-cultural ones, defined by relationships, kin networks, oral agreements, and shared knowledge.

(Line 346, page 8). To what does “It” refer? “Additionally, it considers the location of cultural and archaeological sites….”

We changed the sentence:

Additionally, the location of cultural and archaeological sites is considered, highlighting the importance of a non-centralized, holistic understanding of the community’s dynamics.

We made necessary changes:

In reindeer herding families, both women and men establish non-commercial organizations to apply for government grants. The obschina(from Russian, suggesting a participatory tribal community) is an organizational structure to assert their rights to natural resource use, hunting, fishing quotas, etc. Individuals assume various roles within these diverse organizational forms. Women, in addition to engaging in formal civil jobs in healthcare, culture, education, and social care within settlements, take on additional responsibilities. Having a higher level of education, women usually handle tasks such as accounting, resource management, filing annual reports, taxes, and other related functions.

(Page 10, line 422)…”… where roads are perceived as a job….” Given the meaning of the sentence, perhaps a clearer phrasing would be”… where roads are perceived as fundamental to their a job….”

We changed it:

The formal places a focus on local public transport, mainly for freight, where roads are perceived as fundamental to their job, predominantly used by professional long-haul drivers and shift workers, most of whom are male and non-Indigenous, often outsiders.

(Line 439, page 10) The additional full stop after “Mb/s.[sic]” should be deleted to read, “…values of 15-100 Mb/s in the town of Susuman.”

We deleted full stop:

Internet data transmission, in most settlements, is carried out by Rostelecom PJSC, with data transfer speeds ranging from 32-56 Kb/s in small settlements to maximum values of 15-100 Mb/s in the town of Susuman

(line 474 page 11) The unnecessary hyphens should be removed to read, “…among extreme auto, bicycle, and motorcycle tourists.”

We deleted the hyphens:

The route’s complexity, remoteness, and natural diversity make it particularly popular among extreme auto, bicycle, and motorcycle tourists

(Line 481 page 10) A comma should be added after “Tours” to read, “…including car tours, visiting museums, ….”

We added the comma:

Tour operators in areas along the Kolyma Road offer a diverse range of experiences, including car tours, visiting museums, natural sites, and attractions, trips to mines and camps of the Dalstroy era

(Line 525 page 11) “Our findings can help guide the development of more sustainable future where Indigenous residents of the study area can thrive in their restored relationships to lands, waters, and kin.” The article “A” should be added before “More.” When I reached the claim, “…in their restored relationships to lands, waters, and kin” I was a little surprised. After reading the manuscript, I did not come away with a sense that familial relationships were somehow suffering and in need of “Restoration.” And nor did I have a clear sense that current relations with water would be enhanced, even “Restored,” by incorporating Indigenous knowledge along the Kolyma Road.

Thank you for the comment, indeed, it is a new idea that was not discussed before so we changed the word to “established”:

Our findings can help guide the development of a more sustainable future where Indigenous residents of the study area can thrive in their established relationships to lands, waters, and kin.

(Line 531 page 12) The current semicolon should be changed to a comma, to read, “Despite being seemingly confined to ‘primitive activity’ characteristic of a hunter-gatherer society, modern reindeer herder communities demonstrate extensive knowledge in crafting their career paths.”

We deleted the semicolon put by mistake:

Despite being seemingly confined to “primitive activity” characteristic of a hunter-gatherer society, modern reindeer herder communities demonstrate extensive knowledge in crafting their career paths.

The word “Activities” should be added, and “And” should be added after “Activities,” to read, “…building infrastructure for both commercial and private activities, and movement of both goods and people.”

We made necessary changes:

In particular, based on our experience, communications and mobility systems should be inclusive of different ways of life, conforming to both sedentary and nomadic lifestyles, movements both within and between the regions, ensuring connectivity via both cable and wireless systems, building infrastructure for both commercial and private activities, and movement of both goods and people.

Finally, the last sentence currently reads: “However, only consulting with communities and working together on each stage of the infrastructure planning, development, and maintenance we can make ensure sustainability of infrastructure and the region in general.” I would suggest revising to read instead: “However, only consulting with communities and working together on each stage of the infrastructure planning, development, and maintenance can we ensure sustainability of infrastructure and the region in general.”

Thank you, we changed the sentence:

However, only consulting with communities and working together on each stage of the infrastructure planning, development, and maintenance can we ensure sustainability of infrastructure and the region in general.