The Value of Trail Corridors for Bold Conservation Planning
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
I have read this manuscript with interest, and I must say that it is clearly written and contains all the essentials. However, I can't shake the feeling that the analysis moves in circles and is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Unsurprisingly, the routing of the trails is of high conservation value as they were designed to pass through just such places. Probably this impression of mine stems from a not-so-clear description of the state of trail building and conservation in the US. I recommend optimizing this aspect of the manuscript before adoption, or adding potential additional options to guide such trails from south to north in the American West.
Tables S1and S2 are not part of the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you very much for the opportunity to read this text. The article is very interesting and inspiring for me. I hope it will be the same for other readers. The manuscript is written in an accessible way, the methodological assumptions are fully understandable and the illustrations help to understand the authors' intentions. I have only a few minor comments.
- The paper deals with two important national scenic trails/ scenic roads. In my opinion, the title of the paper should be slightly modified. At first, I thought the paper would be about „ordinary” recreational trails, which include both hiking trails and recreational paths (horseback riding, educational paths, biking trails, etc., but not driving/ car trails!). Therefore I propose to replace the term „recreation trails” with „scenic (or landscape) roads” or „greenways" and add that it means American scenic roads. This is quite important because for European readers the title in its current form may be misleading.
- My next comment concerns the research questions. The first is definitely scientific in nature. The second question is purely cognitive. In my opinion they should be modified. From the scientific point of view, it is not so much the structure of protected areas in the buffer that is important, but the answer to the question whether the designation of these scenic roads entailed the development of land protection activities. Can the development of road infrastructure promote conservation? I think the second question should have a more scientific tone.
- Another comment refers to green bridges running across these trails. There is nothing in the article about this unless it is a component of some indicator. In my opinion, a short statement on this could be included in the description of the study site. What is the number and what is the spatial distribution of green bridges? Alternatively, please bring this topic into the discussion section. Do the green bridges, across these roads have any significance in terms of the natural functioning of the buffer zone? Is anything known about this topic?
- In the discussion, please also expand the section line 292- 296.
- The last comment is purely technical - the first table is numbered 2, it should be 1.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
I have some doubts about the scientific strength of the paper. Let me explain: the novelty factor is nowhere evident and the methodological process followed is unclear. The results should be discussed at greater length, also in view of what is said in the introduction about the importance of green infrastructure for climate change. I recommend a careful review of the paper with more detail on these sections.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
This manuscript explores routes for the recreation trails based on the national conservation and connectivity, wildness, and biodiversity values. The main contribution of the paper looks like to propose conservation planning and value the recreation trails regarding land management status. However, in my opinion the paper has shortcoming in the text regards to structure's on the paper. And I think that the manuscript seems that the contents and intentions of the study are not sufficiently explained. Comments: 1. Title: I'm not sure if the title adequately describes the purpose of the study. I recommend, It is necessary to first clarify what the purpose of the study is.In the abstract and Introduction, I could not find a clear purpose of the study or goal of this study. 2. Abstract: You don't need to describe 1)Background, Method, Results, ...4) Conclusion. You just describe one paragraph instead of breaking it into the sections. And you have to explain the purpose of the study. In your Abstract, There is only what you did. You just described detailed objectives of the study. and you explained the research flow, I think. In the abstract, You have to put the importance of the study (needs), purpose of the study, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusion including implications of the study a little bit, instead of limitations. Introduction: When writing a research manuscript, in most cases, the subject of the sentence should be the object of explanation, not "we". but you can use "we" in the sentences when you describe how a research method was done sometimes. I think more literature reviews will explain the importance and need of this study regarding "connectivity", "wildland conservation value", "green infrastructure", and "Nature-based recreation" .And from the literature review, How can you make research questions? I understand the main research questions, however what is the purpose of the study? After finding the answer to the research questions, what is the next step? What is the research conducted for? Materials and Methods: I recommend you have to explain the methodology point by point according to the research flow. So, First, you should describe where the study site is. Why did you select the study site? Second, What are the materials? How did you collect the data set (materials) and why do you need the data set?Thirs, you explained the method step by step. I don't believe your research methodology is valid. You need to explain why you use this methodology instead of any other models. you need to explain the method validity and adaptation. Additionally, What are Question 1 and 2? Instead of Question 1/ 2, I recommend a meaningful title that briefly describes the research question. Results: According to the step of the method, you can describe the study results. Discussion: The Discussion should compare your results to other studies. Sometimes you just jump right into an idea without providing context or explanation. Green infrastructure is a concept that can have a very special and different meaning depending on how it is applied to a specific field. Before starting the discussion, I can't find any meaning of the green infrastructure in the manuscript. In this manuscript, it is necessary to logically explain the object of analysis, its meaning, and the reason for the analysis based on theory, and to interpret the results of the study.Author Response
Point 1: This manuscript explores routes for the recreation trails based on the national conservation and connectivity, wildness, and biodiversity values. The main contribution of the paper looks like to propose conservation planning and value the recreation trails regarding land management status. However, in my opinion the paper has shortcoming in the text regards to structure's on the paper. And I think that the manuscript seems that the contents and intentions of the study are not sufficiently explained.
Response 1: Thank you for reviewing our manuscript. Yes, we were interested in evaluating two scenic trails, the PCT and the CDT to see if the adjacent lands could be used for wildlife corridors. Lines 104-120 give more background to the trails and their current use. Then we introduce on line 121 the purpose of the study which is evaluate the trail corridor around the trail tread for wildlife movements. I think our added detail in this section helps to clarify that recreational trails (their footpath or tread) currently connects protected areas in the American West; however the adjacent lands have not been evaluated for a wildlife corridor. We think a quantitative geospatial analysis of these lands is important since the trails already connect protect areas and since there are already deemed wild and scenic. Lines 143-227 give further clarity to our research questions and aims.
Point 2
Title: I'm not sure if the title adequately describes the purpose of the study. I recommend, It is necessary to first clarify what the purpose of the study is.
Response 2:
Thank you! We’ve updated the title to be more precise and match the trail corridor analysis we did.
Point 3:
In the abstract and Introduction, I could not find a clear purpose of the study or goal of this study.
Response 3:
We felt like the goal of the study was communicated in the two questions. However, to add further clarity we edited lines 121-227.
Point 4:
Abstract: You don't need to describe 1)Background, Method, Results, ...4) Conclusion. You just describe one paragraph instead of breaking it into the sections. And you have to explain the purpose of the study. In your Abstract, There is only what you did. You just described detailed objectives of the study. and you explained the research flow, I think. In the abstract, You have to put the importance of the study (needs), purpose of the study, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusion including implications of the study a little bit, instead of limitations.
Response 4:
Thank you for this edit. When I downloaded the author template I did not realize that the sub headings 1) background…etc. should be removed. I have removed them and the limitation on line 17. Also, I added line 10 which better defines the purpose of the study.
Point 5
Introduction: When writing a research manuscript, in most cases, the subject of the sentence should be the object of explanation, not "we". but you can use "we" in the sentences when you describe how a research method was done sometimes. I think more literature reviews will explain the importance and need of this study regarding "connectivity", "wildland conservation value", "green infrastructure", and "Nature-based recreation" .And from the literature review, How can you make research questions? I understand the main research questions, however what is the purpose of the study? After finding the answer to the research questions, what is the next step? What is the research conducted for?
Response 5:
I have further defined connectivity and the need for a protected area network on Lines 24-37. For wildland conservation value, it is defined on line 120 and then again in the methods with the map layers used to evaluate it. I’ve removed the green infrastructure term and gotten more specific with trail corridor. I defined this on line 129. I also defined the nature-based recreation for both trails on lines 111-119.
I’ve kept we on lines 120, because this is where we introduce the purpose of the study and lead into our research questions. If it is a sticking point still, after these other edits I am happy to re-write that section.
Point 6:
Materials and Methods: I recommend you have to explain the methodology point by point according to the research flow. So, First, you should describe where the study site is. Why did you select the study site? Second, What are the materials? How did you collect the data set (materials) and why do you need the data set?Thirs, you explained the method step by step. I don't believe your research methodology is valid. You need to explain why you use this methodology instead of any other models. you need to explain the method validity and adaptation.
Response 6:
Point taken. We’ve reworked this section lines 230-245. Secondly, we’ve added more information on the location of each trail on lines 103-119. We have not included it in the methods because it is repetitive. The materials are map layers in ArcGIS and table 1 lists them with the source. Geospatial analysis of raster files to quantitatively evaluate individual raster squares is a very popular and repeated method.
Point 7:
Additionally, What are Question 1 and 2? Instead of Question 1/ 2, I recommend a meaningful title that briefly describes the research question.
Response 7:
We’ve added clarity to both questions to help further describe the research questions.
Point 8
Results: According to the step of the method, you can describe the study results.
Response 8:
We have kept the order of the methods and the results in the same order, so the flow is easy to follow. Question 1 and the Question 2, Methods 1 and 2, Results 1 and 2. And added more detail to the methods and questions sections to help with clarity in the results.
Point 9
Discussion: The Discussion should compare your results to other studies.
Response 9
Thank you for suggesting comparing our results to other studies. Unfortunately, we don’t have other trail corridors to compare our study, too. Instead we try to compare our study to other studies on corridors. As well, we try
Point 10
Sometimes you just jump right into an idea without providing context or explanation. Green infrastructure is a concept that can have a very special and different meaning depending on how it is applied to a specific field. Before starting the discussion, I can't find any meaning of the green infrastructure in the manuscript. In this manuscript, it is necessary to logically explain the object of analysis, its meaning, and the reason for the analysis based on theory, and to interpret the results of the study.
Response 10
Green infrastructure was mentioned in the introduction, however since another reviewer mentioned similarly that the term can be nebulous, we have removed it. Instead, our focus was on wildlife corridors (which we deemed a type of green infrastructure). To be clearer we have simply called it a trail corridor since it is the lands adjacent to trail that we modeled as a wildlife corridor. We now defined that in the introduction.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear author,
thank you very much for carefully reviewing the paper and for taking my suggestions into strong consideration. I believe the paper has been improved and is therefore ready for publication.
Reviewer 4 Report
The author tried to revise the manuscript according to the reviewer’s comments.
The methods section was well written. It was clearly described.
In conclusion, you summarized in detail the results. Nevertheless, there still needs to be a separate discussion about the limitation of this study and future research direction particularly from the methodological perspective, as I suggested.
