Unpacking Decades of Multi-Scale Events and Environment-Based Development in the Senegalese Sahel: Lessons and Perspectives for the Future

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Some of my previously stated concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Nevertheless, I still find some issues that should be considered.

1. I do not know if I am missing something, but I do not see clear objectives in the paper. It says that the aim is to advance some frontiers related to the “need for more studies on the implementation of specific SDGs in all regions and for more comparative analyses of (i) the problems hindering progress with respect to SDGs and (ii) the resources countries are making available for the achievement of SDGs.” I would appreciate if the authors made the achievement of this aim more evident in the results or conclusions. I recommend a clear link between objectives, methods and results/conclusions. I do not say that this link does not exist, I just want it to be more clearly stated. The same is true for the hypotheses: you state them at the beginning, but do not explicitly mention them in the conclusions.
2. The multiscale historical events analysis is very interesting, but I would appreciate that its usefulness is made more evident during the discussion. Is it necessary to provide all that information? I suggest linking the learnings from this analysis (especially of the first periods, the last period’s usefulness is clearer) with your main findings. You say “[…] a multiscale historical perspective […] is certainly helpful in understanding systems behavior and guiding present ambitious environmental development actions.” I miss that this is made more evident in the paper.
3. I would like to have more information about the interviews. Did you make the same questions to all interviewees? Perhaps a table with the institutional profiles and some kind of analysis would be useful: did you find differences among them?, etc.
4. Regarding the section on An exclusive focus on pastoralism in the Ferlo: a double-edged sword?, perhaps you could provide more information about the links between pastoralism and environment (impacts, positive and negative, etc.).
5. Minor mistakes: on line 367 you wrote “3.2. Characterization and dynamics of development projects in the Ferlo (1995-2020)”. Then, on line 317 you wrote “3.1.3. Towards polycentric development with growing environmental concerns (1996-2020)” and on line 1103 you wrote “Figure 3. Objectives of environment-related development projects: 1995-2019.” I do not know if the three time periods actually make reference to the same. Please clarify this. Also, on line 653 you wrote “lie span” and I understand it is “life span”.

Author Response

Some of my previously stated concerns have been satisfactorily addressed. Nevertheless, I still find some issues that should be considered.

1. I do not know if I am missing something, but I do not see clear objectives in the paper. It says that the aim is to advance some frontiers related to the “need for more studies on the implementation of specific SDGs in all regions and for more comparative analyses of (i) the problems hindering progress with respect to SDGs and (ii) the resources countries are making available for the achievement of SDGs.” I would appreciate if the authors made the achievement of this aim more evident in the results or conclusions. I recommend a clear link between objectives, methods and results/conclusions. I do not say that this link does not exist, I just want it to be more clearly stated. The same is true for the hypotheses: you state them at the beginning, but do not explicitly mention them in the conclusions.

These sentences about SDGs were indeed misleading, and thank you for making us see that. We reformulated the end of this paragraph to eliminate any ambiguities that these were the objectives of the paper (that we feel are quite clear in this version).

As suggested, we reiterate our hypotheses in the context of the discussion and conclusion sections.

1. The multiscale historical events analysis is very interesting, but I would appreciate that its usefulness is made more evident during the discussion. Is it necessary to provide all that information? I suggest linking the learnings from this analysis (especially of the first periods, the last period’s usefulness is clearer) with your main findings. You say “[…] a multiscale historical perspective […] is certainly helpful in understanding systems behavior and guiding present ambitious environmental development actions.” I miss that this is made more evident in the paper.

We have now added several lines addressing the usefulness of the multiscale historical analysis (focusing on the first two periods of development) in the first paragraph of the discussion.

1. I would like to have more information about the interviews. Did you make the same questions to all interviewees? Perhaps a table with the institutional profiles and some kind of analysis would be useful: did you find differences among them?, etc.

Concerning the methodology used during semi-structured interviews, we now provide details as to the central themes addressed with all of the interviewees.

We have decided not to indicate the institutional profiles of the respondents for ethical reasons in order to preserve their anonymity. Indeed, some people could easily be identified by their position, especially since we already indicate the types of stakeholders encountered. Moreover, we did not attempt to analyze differences in responses in terms of institutional profiles; first because it was not the focus of this study, and second, based on the number of interviews, we could not reasonably claim that the responds were representative of the different interviewee profiles. Finally, this addition also addresses a comment made by reviewer 3.

Regarding the section on An exclusive focus on pastoralism in the Ferlo: a double-edged sword?, perhaps you could provide more information about the links between pastoralism and environment (impacts, positive and negative, etc.)

The “double edge sword” section in the discussion was modified to address your comment. We provide information in relation to the common debate around pastoralism/environment, albeit without choosing sides. As we wrote, the idea here is not to say whether or not pastoralism is what’s best for the area and its environmental status, but to suggest that because the area is changing (and in the context of global changes), this “naturalization of socio-political choices” should be questioned.

1. Minor mistakes: on line 367 you wrote “3.2. Characterization and dynamics of development projects in the Ferlo (1995-2020)”. Then, on line 317 you wrote “3.1.3. Towards polycentric development with growing environmental concerns (1996-2020)” and on line 1103 you wrote “Figure 3. Objectives of environment-related development projects: 1995-2019.” I do not know if the three time periods actually make reference to the same. Please clarify this.

This has been clarified. We have made this more coherent: there was simply a difference between the start of the second development period we identified, and the start date of the oldest project in our database. We harmonized this by choosing the second period boundaries (1996-2019).

Also, on line 653 you wrote “lie span” and I understand it is “life span”.

Done

We thank you for insightful comments and we hope you now feel that the article is suitable for publication in Land.

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for your thoughtful responses and the changes made in the manuscript. The manuscript is an interesting analysis of the foreign aid given to the developing countries. 

Regards

Author Response

Thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Unpacking decades of multi-scale events and environment-based development in the Senegalese Sahel: Lessons and perspectives for the future" raises very important issues for the region concerned. In my opinion, this paper suits well into the scope of the Journal.

My comments mainly concern the structure of the article and its visual aspect (presentation of figures and tables). In terms of methodology, presentation of results and conclusions, the manuscript does not raise major objections.

I hope the consideration of them will make the manuscript better readable and more transparent when it comes to interesting topic that presents.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Keywords:

• L66 - the abbreviation SDG should be explained where it occurs for the first time in the text. The explanation of this abbreviation is placed much later - in L343
• FIGURES:
  1. Figures should be placed in the text to facilitate smooth analysis and verification of their content in relation to the content described in the manuscript
  2. All figures are of poor quality - too low resolution of the exported image
  3. Figure 1 – lack of the symbol of country border in the key (this element is marked on the map)
  4. All additional descriptions below figures (except explanations of abbreviations in figure 2) should be placed directly in the text of the manuscript - not below the figure (this note also applies to tables)

3) TABLES: Tables A1 and A2, which contain the key data summary for the study, have not been added to the manuscript in any way. This makes it difficult for the reviewer to verify these elements of the study. This furthermore raises questions:

-L151- what specific databases, reports, sites etc. were included?

- L153 - how many projects were found as a result of the research? Were the 25 mentioned or were there more? If more, on what basis were these 25 projects selected?

- Did the tables indicate information about the projects such as year, geographical location, type of project, etc.? (these data should necessarily be included in the manuscript in order to give an idea of the characteristics of the projects analysed)

4) Please specify the questions that were asked in the in-depth interview and elaborate on this in the appropriate place in the manuscript.

5) DISCUSSION

- standardise the way in which subchapter titles are written (adding the appropriate numbering of subchapters)

- L584-586 - develop this thread. Refer to a wider scale - the whole country, the continent. This will give the manuscript more than just a local (regional) feel

Author Response

The manuscript “Unpacking decades of multi-scale events and environment-based development in the Senegalese Sahel: Lessons and perspectives for the future" raises very important issues for the region concerned. In my opinion, this paper suits well into the scope of the Journal.

My comments mainly concern the structure of the article and its visual aspect (presentation of figures and tables). In terms of methodology, presentation of results and conclusions, the manuscript does not raise major objections.

I hope the consideration of them will make the manuscript better readable and more transparent when it comes to interesting topic that presents.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS:

Keywords:

• L66 - the abbreviation SDG should be explained where it occurs for the first time in the text. The explanation of this abbreviation is placed much later - in L343

Done

• FIGURES:
1. Figures should be placed in the text to facilitate smooth analysis and verification of their content in relation to the content described in the manuscript
2. All figures are of poor quality - too low resolution of the exported image
3. Figure 1 – lack of the symbol of country border in the key (this element is marked on the map)
4. All additional descriptions below figures (except explanations of abbreviations in figure 2) should be placed directly in the text of the manuscript - not below the figure (this note also applies to tables)

Concerning points 1 and 4 (figure placement and descriptions), we believe we have formatted the manuscript for reviewing purposes according to authors’ instructions (i.e. both at the end of manuscript, but also as a separate file). Hopefully, you have be able to access the separate file, too.

Concerning the quality of figures (point 2), we made our best to respect the guidelines given by the journal.

As suggested in point 3, we added the Senegal boundary in the key on Figure 1.

3) TABLES: Tables A1 and A2, which contain the key data summary for the study, have not been added to the manuscript in any way. This makes it difficult for the reviewer to verify these elements of the study.

The tables A1 and A2 were uploaded as separated files on the journal website, and we really hope you were able to access them. We are questioning this as the concerns below are addressed in these table annexes.

This furthermore raises questions:

-L151- what specific databases, reports, sites etc. were included?

Indicated in Table A1.

- L153 - how many projects were found as a result of the research? Were the 25 mentioned or were there more? If more, on what basis were these 25 projects selected?

As indicated in the methodology section and the conclusion, it was challenging to identify a development projects with another data to allow for an in-depth analysis. 50 projects were originally identified by the methodology described, but only 25 met the criteria mentioned in the Methods section.

- Did the tables indicate information about the projects such as year, geographical location, type of project, etc.? (these data should necessarily be included in the manuscript in order to give an idea of the characteristics of the projects analysed)

Indicated in Table A2.  As this is bulky, we chose to put it as an annex, and not in the core of the paper.

4) Please specify the questions that were asked in the in-depth interview and elaborate on this in the appropriate place in the manuscript.

Precisions about the questions asked during semi-structured interviews have been provided in the Methods section.

5) DISCUSSION

- standardise the way in which subchapter titles are written (adding the appropriate numbering of subchapters)

We have now standardized our subchapter titles.

- L584-586 - develop this thread. Refer to a wider scale - the whole country, the continent. This will give the manuscript more than just a local (regional) feel

We added some precisions and other references in order to develop the complex relationships between decentralization and development, not only in Ferlo or Senegal, but also in other developing countries.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accepted in its present form

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper identifies three development periods (from 1948 to the present moment) in the Ferlo area, a silvopastoral zone in the Senegalese Sahel, and analyses the main development initiatives related to the environment that took place there. From that point of view, the description is clear and sound. 

Nevertheless, from the scientific point of view, the paper has many flaws. In general terms, it is difficult to understand the need of this type of analysis to draw the stated conclusions. 

Specifically, first, it does not state its objectives, research questions or hypotheses, so it is difficult to understand its purpose. The paper seems to be merely descriptive.

Second, you do not seem to have performed a literature review to identify similar studies and/or methodologies that could help you in your task.

Third, the methodology is not properly described, and it lacks soundness; for example, how many beneficiaries were interviewed?; how were they selected? The selection of projects was performed in a rather unsystematic way: was it impossible to contact national, regional or local authorities to identify the main projects performed in the area? The way you chose the three in-depth studies ("similar objectives and actions") was likely to produce the result you criticise, redundancy. You could have also performed in-depth analyses of a sample of initiatives representing the different typologies you created, to identify complementarities, synergies... Although you state the following limitation, you have not explained it sufficiently: why did you not consult evaluation reports?

Fourth, the conclusions are irrelevant, somehow they seem just to state the already known main flaws of development projects (Paris Declaration...), namely, lack of alignment, ownership and harmonisation, for instance. You are not able to extend the conclusions out of the area analysed, to make them interesting to a wider public.

In conclusion, perhaps the paper could be interesting as a good description of what has happened in this period of time in this specific area, and under such assumption, it could be published in another type of journal, but, under my point of view, it lacks the scientific soundness to be publish in Land.

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a good empirical paper on a historical unpacking of multi-scale events and environment based development in the Senegalese Sahel. The paper is informative for the Senegal case, but some major revision is needed basing on the following issues:

1) The abstract needs to be restructured on the following aspects: a general statement about the existing theories on envirionmental based development; what are the aims of this paper; the methods used; the aims; the results of the paper;

2) The introduction should better position this study in the current literature on environmental based development and show what is the added value of this paper to the existing literature; even the aims of the study needs to be sharpened and to be more informative to the readers;

3) There is no specific worldwide literature review in this paper. I would suggest that after the introduction to be included about four-five paragraphs (the last paragraph has to include some current debates on the Sahel region and Senegal) presenting some discussions or findings in the exisiting environmental based development studies. Authors have a large reference list, so they can use those works and shortly present them. Also, there could be added many aspects related to other recent environmental based development studies, see Courtney Fidler's study in journal Environment, Development and Sustainability, 2010; see also Nicoleta Risteiu et al. (doi: 10.1080/15387216.2021.1913205) and Vesalon's works on how using cyanide in mine development and the population displacement of Rosia Montana people harmed local people's environmental development. Many other similar cases worldwide (see the works of Anthony Bebbington, John Barry and other major environmental development specialists) could be linked in order to show how environmental development is important for every community, region and state in the world.

3) Discusions of the paper should be linked more to worldwide literature.

4) Conclusions could briefly state the limitations of this study and how other researchers could develop further the outcomes of this paper.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

Please see my comments in the attached pdf

Thanks

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf