A Case Study of the Snow Leopard in Sanjiangyuan National Park Boundaries regarding Park Boundary Divergence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction needs to present why Sanjianguuan is interesting area. 
Section 2 needs to be changed as theoretical foundaiton 
The section for politics and boundary divergence needs to be presented as section 2. 
For using acronym such as DEM, full name needs to be presented first.
At the method, how the collected data was analyzed needs to be presented.
Conclusion needs to be strengthend including limitaiton and theoretical and practical implications of this research.

Author Response

Responses to the Comments of the Reviewers

We wish to thank you all for your constructive comments in the review. Your comments provided valuable insights to refine its contents and analysis. Our responses to the comments (in blue fonts) are provided below. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Comment A: Introduction needs to present why Sanjiangyuan is interesting area.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added in line 64 of the introduction the following expressions:

In particular, SNP is the largest national park in China with the most complex ecosystem, and the divergences between protected area boundaries and the distribution of natural habitats are typical and have guiding significance for the future development and planning of national parks. Moreover, the specific location of SNP on the world's third pole, the Tibetan Plateau, adds the necessity to study the protection of endangered species.

Comment B: Section 2 needs to be changed as theoretical foundation. The section for politics and boundary divergence needs to be presented as section 2.

Response: Section 2 was laid out as a literature review, analyzing the literature in the domains of ‘National parks and their delineation’, ‘Global climate change and its effects on landscapes and subsequently habitats’, and ‘Potential conflicts between anthropogenic sources and animals’ respectively. It serves as the theoretical foundation of this study. In addition, elaborations concerning the ‘politics and boundary divergence’ stay in the second paragraph of ‘National parks and their delineation’ (lines 115-134).

Comment C: For using acronym such as DEM, full name needs to be presented first.

Response: Thank you for pointing this out. We have added the full name 'Digital Elevation Model' to the first occurrence of the DEM in Section 3.3, line 264. In addition, a full-edge scan has been applied to make sure full names are presented first before all acronyms in the paper.

Comment D: At the method, how the collected data was analyzed needs to be presented.

Response: Most of the specific steps and methods for data analysis have expressed in Sections 3.2 and 3.3. As suggestions by the reviewer, we have added further steps to data processing, in particular, we have added specific procedures for processing slope, ruggedness, road, river and meteorological data to obtain raster results. The following additions were made in line 268: 'We calculated the slope and ruggedness of the study area by DEM using ArcGIS 10.0 respectively, and got the scored raster layers of DEM, slope and ruggedness after reclassification. 500m and 2000m buffers were made for the road and river, and then overlayed them with the study area boundary, vectorized the rasterization after reclassification to get the scored raster layers for the road and river.', and 'The interpolated results were exported to Tagged Image File Format (TIF) format, and resampled with the same resolution as the DEM, reclassified to get the scored raster layers of temperature and precipitation.' in line 289.

Comment E: Conclusion needs to be strengthened including limitation and theoretical and practical implications of this research.

Response: We have followed the suggestions presented by the reviewer and have revised them as follows:

In line 440, we have added ‘Through boundary divergence, we presented the future arena for the national park study to provide some theoretical basis for national park development and biodiversity conservation. Taking SNP as a case, we mapped snow leopard habitats to clarify the conflict between SNP boundaries and snow leopard habitats, and highlighted the impacts of climate changes and human activities on natural habitats to promote sustainable development of SNP.’

In line 466, we have added the limitations of this study: ‘The research presented here is exploratory and can be improved and extended in many ways in future research. First, the analysis is circumscribed by the model. Only a linear regression model was fitted to simulate future natural habitat changes under global warming because of a realistic situation. This implies that the results may differ from those required by the complexity and diversity of the ecosystem. Future research could try to construct a comprehensive model integrating most of the influencing factors. Second, the target of this paper is large carnivores among the flagship species. However, biodiversity conservation is not limited to flagship species but relates to the entire biosphere. It will be tried to expand to other fields in wildlife conservation to serve a broader biodiversity objective in the future. Third, and finally, divergences between national park boundaries and natural habitats need to be further captured in the framework of cooperative conservation, and exploring sustainable development pathways besides adjusting park boundaries for further research.’

Once again, we thank you for the time you put into reviewing our paper and look forward to meeting your expectations. Since your inputs have been precious, in the eventuality of a publication, we would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with

 

The only suggestion regards section "2.2 Global climate change and its effects on landscapes and subsequently habitats".

Here I strongly suggest to add the dimension of Covid-19 just to put emphasis on the fact that the pandemic has urged to deal with climate change effect by proposing new solutions for urban and natural environment. These recent papers deserve to be included in this section:

(2021), Access to Nature in a Post Covid-19 World: Opportunities for Green Infrastructure Financing, Distribution and Equitability in Urban Planning, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18(4), 1527

(2022). Walkable City and Military Enclaves: Analysis and Decision-Making Approach to Support the Proximity Connection in Urban Regeneration. Sustainability, 14(1), 457

Author Response

Responses to the Comments of the Reviewers

We wish to thank you all for your constructive comments in the review. Your comments provided valuable insights to refine its contents and analysis. Our responses to the comments (in blue fonts) are provided below. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Comment: The only suggestion regards section "2.2 Global climate change and its effects on landscapes and subsequently habitats".

Here I strongly suggest to add the dimension of Covid-19 just to put emphasis on the fact that the pandemic has urged to deal with climate change effect by proposing new solutions for urban and natural environment. These recent papers deserve to be included in this section:

(2021), Access to Nature in a Post Covid-19 World: Opportunities for Green Infrastructure Financing, Distribution and Equitability in Urban Planning, Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18(4), 1527

(2022). Walkable City and Military Enclaves: Analysis and Decision-Making Approach to Support the Proximity Connection in Urban Regeneration. Sustainability, 14(1), 457

Response: We thank you for your constructive suggestion, the Covid-19 is indeed a major concern at this stage. We have carefully read the literature provided by the reviewer and added the relevant content to the summary and discussion section in Section 4.2 (line 167).

The content was revised to read: ‘Covid-19 emphasizes the fact that the pandemic has urged to deal with climate change effect by proposing new solutions for the urban and natural environment. It changed the way many people viewed and interacted with the natural environment [39]. Resilient and sustainable cities provide a healthier and human-centered environment to deal with environmental issues and address the impacts of climate change [40].’

In addition, the references have been adjusted accordingly:

39. Mell, I., Whitten, M. Access to nature in a post Covid-19 world: Opportunities for green infrastructure financing, distribution and equitability in urban planning. Int. J. Environ. Res. Publ. Health. 2021, 8, 1527.
40. Balletto, G., Ladu, M., Milesi, A., Camerin, F., Borruso, G. Walkable city and military enclaves: analysis and decision-making approach to support the proximity connection in urban regeneration. Sustainability. 2022, 14, 457.

Once again, we thank you for the time you put into reviewing our paper and look forward to meeting your expectations. Since your inputs have been precious, in the eventuality of a publication, we would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Land 1726018

Divergences between political boundaries of national parks and the distribution of natural habitats.

 

This article needs major work in the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion. Also since this is a case study of really one flagship species in one subregion of the Sonjangyuan National Park- I would change the title to: A case study the Snow Leopard in Sonjangyuan National Park Boundaries regarding Park Boundary Divergence

 

Abstract

Line 21- the role of cooperative governance between different stakeholders is mentioned on one line in the discussion. If this is not expanded – it should be deleted from the abstract.

 

Introduction

Lines 27-55 -The authors should expand why these Chinese National Parks were declared as Parks rather than Biosphere Reserves. These so-called national parks are not really modeled on US or Canadian National Parks with major multi-recreational use – but rather biodiversity protection with zones of human influenced land use within the parks-like an international IUCN Biosphere Reserve.

 

Methods and Materials

Lines 223-224- what is the basis for these eight bioclimatic variables? Are they mainly based on literature, other studies, field work or a combination?

Also, what is the basis for the scoring amounts and ranges for each variable?

 

Results

Lines 313-314 – Even though Snow leopards were found outside national park boundaries- are there other wildlife management measures other than adjusting park boundaries? What about the other species that are not flagship species? Would serve a broader biodiversity objective?

Also, what about combining park areas into a regional biosphere reserve/

 

Discussion

Lines 374-376- same comment as above

Lines 379-380- note that buffer zones are more typical of biosphere reserves which usually have at least three zones.

Lines 381-387- This is the only mention of cooperative conservation. So how would this work in China National Parks. Who are the stakeholders? This could be greatly expanded.

Conclusion

This needs to be greatly expanded as a minimum should include:

• What is the generalizability of this case study of one flagship species in one National Park to other Chinese Parks or protected areas in similar mountainous landscapes?
• What were the major limitations of the case study approach as applied for this study and what future research needs arise?
• How can cooperative conservation be operationalized besides adjusting park boundaries? There is a whole literature on protected area co-management and/or community-based conservation. Please see anything written by Fikret Berkes such as;
• Berkes, F. 2021. Advanced Introduction to Community-Based Conservation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham OK and Northampton MA USA

 

Author Response

Responses to the Comments of the Reviewers

We wish to thank you all for your constructive comments in the review. Your comments provided valuable insights to refine its contents and analysis. Our responses to the comments (in blue fonts) are provided below. All page numbers refer to the revised manuscript file with tracked changes.

Comment A: Divergences between political boundaries of national parks and the distribution of natural habitats. This article needs major work in the Introduction, Discussion and Conclusion. Also since this is a case study of really one flagship species in one subregion of the Sanjiangyuan National Park- I would change the title to: A case study of the Snow Leopard in Sanjiangyuan National Park Boundaries regarding Park Boundary Divergence

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. As suggested by the reviewer, we have expanded the introduction, discussion and conclusion respectively. Specific contents are replied to later in the responses.

In addition, we have accepted the reviewer's recommendation to change the title to ‘A case study of the Snow Leopard in Sanjiangyuan National Park Boundaries regarding Park Boundary Divergence’.

Comment B: Abstract Line 21- the role of cooperative governance between different stakeholders is mentioned on one line in the discussion. If this is not expanded – it should be deleted from the abstract.

Response: We considered that the presentation in the abstract may not be clear enough, but cooperative governance and the establishment of cooperative conservation areas is an important recommendation of this study, thus we have changed the text to read in line 25: ‘Finally, the proposal for the establishment of cooperative conservation areas is presented, emphasizing the role of cooperative governance in/around national parks.’ Related contents were covered in the discussion (line 403) and were added in more detail: ‘Firstly, country and local authorities should attach importance to this issue, reorient the scope of national parks for potential habitats and minimize human interference with the flagship species. Secondly, indigenous peoples are important for global biodiversity conservation as they occupy and use such lands and waters that harbor biodiversity [65]. Due to the wide distribution of the flagship species, it is also undesirable to blindly expand the range of core protected areas, which is equivalent to depriving local herdsmen of the power to use land resources. Therefore, it is necessary to awaken the local people's awareness of environmental and biodiversity conservation and promote their environmental autonomous governance. Thirdly, businesses and third-party organizations (environmental organizations and scientific research institutions, etc.) make rational utilization of the natural and cultural resources in parks, establish a co-win partnership, and strengthen publicity and education in the border areas of national parks. In general, nested management of institutions on different scales makes the boundary areas prone to regulatory gaps and management loopholes, and it is imperative to strengthen co-operation in/around national parks.’

In addition, related references were added:

65. Smardon, R. Advanced introduction to community-based conservation. J. Environ. Stud. Sci. 2021, 11, 750-751.

Comment C: Introduction Lines 27-55 -The authors should expand why these Chinese National Parks were declared as Parks rather than Biosphere Reserves. These so-called national parks are not really modeled on US or Canadian National Parks with major multi-recreational use – but rather biodiversity protection with zones of human influenced land use within the parks-like an international IUCN Biosphere Reserve.

Response: Responding to the reviewer, Ma X.L. (2009), Wang G. (2012), He S. (2018), and Tang, F. (2019) et al. have proposed the concept of national parks in China as repositories of outstanding natural scenery and regions for sight-seeing and carrying out scientific and cultural activities from an academic perspective, which is consistent with the regional characteristics. And these areas are defined as ‘national parks’ in China as a recognized concept from an administrative perspective. Therefore, these Chinese National Parks were declared as Parks rather than Biosphere Reserves.

So, we have added the definition of the national park in line 39: ‘In this paper, national parks specifically refer to repositories of outstanding natural scenery and regions for sight-seeing and carrying out scientific and cultural activities [10-13]. Distinguished from the national park model in the United States or Canada [14,15], China's national parks represent the natural and cultural connotations of the country, integrating functions including protecting the ecological environment, developing natural resources, maintaining biodiversity, and providing recreational services.’

In addition, the following references have been added:

10. Ma, X.L., Ryan, C., Bao, J.G. Chinese national parks: Differences, resource use and tourism product portfolios. Tour. Manage. 2009, 30, 21-30.
11. Tang, F., Yan, Y., Liu, W. Construction progress of national park system in China. Biodivers. Sci. 2019, 27, 123-127.
12. Wang, G., Innes, J.L., Wu, S.W., Krzyzanowski, J., Yin, Y., Dai, S., Zhang, X., Liu, S. National Park Development in China: Conservation or Commercialization? Ambio. 2012, 41, 247-261.
13. He, S., Su, Y., Wang, L., Gallagher, L., Cheng, H. Taking an ecosystem services approach for a new national park system in China. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2018, 137, 136-144.
14. Timko, J.A., Innes, J.L. Evaluating ecological integrity in national parks: Case studies from Canada and South Africa. Biol. Conserv. 2009, 142, 676-688.
15. Byrne, J., Wolch, J., Zhang, J. Planning for environmental justice in an urban national park. J. Environ. Plann. Manage. 2009, 52, 365-392.

Comment D: Methods and Materials Lines 223-224- what is the basis for these eight bioclimatic variables? Are they mainly based on literature, other studies, field work or a combination? Also, what is the basis for the scoring amounts and ranges for each variable?

Response: The eight bioclimatic variables were mainly based on literature, and in line 241 of this article, we have listed the specific references ([54-58]). On top of the literature, field works and interviews with farmers were combined to obtain the final scoring criteria.

Comment E: Results Lines 313-314 – Even though Snow leopards were found outside national park boundaries- are there other wildlife management measures other than adjusting park boundaries? What about the other species that are not flagship species? Would serve a broader biodiversity objective?

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion, these questions are also what we need to think about in the next step of our research. In response to your question, we have placed it at the end of the article (line 471) as a suggestion for future research, as well as a limitation of this paper. The content is as follows: ‘Second, the target of this paper is large carnivores among the flagship species. However, biodiversity conservation is not limited to flagship species but relates to the entire biosphere. It will be tried to expand to other fields in wildlife conservation to serve a broader biodiversity objective in the future. Third, and finally, divergences between national park boundaries and natural habitats need to be further captured in the framework of cooperative conservation, and exploring sustainable development pathways besides adjusting park boundaries for further research.’

Comment F: Also, what about combining park areas into a regional biosphere reserve

Response: This is a good suggestion and an ideal state of affairs, but it is not feasible in China under the current national conditions. Since natural habitats, especially those of large carnivores, are widely distributed and fragmented, combining them into a single protected area may undermine development plans and affect the livelihoods of local people. We believe that while biodiversity conservation is essential, it also needs to be improved in a targeted manner, taking into account regional differences.

Comment G: Discussion Lines 374-376- same comment as above

Response: The same answer to comment F as above.

Comment H: Lines 379-380- note that buffer zones are more typical of biosphere reserves which usually have at least three zones.

Response: Thank you for making a point that is easily misunderstood. Buffer zones here are not a proper name, but refer to the boundary overlap between national parks and human settlement areas, which were named as 'collaborative protected areas' in the paper, i.e., all parties work together to formulate policies and develop partnerships to balance the relationship between natural habitats and human activity areas, and mitigate conflicts between humans and flagship species. To avoid misunderstanding and to make it clearer, we have changed the ‘buffer zones’ in the paper to ‘buffers’.

Comment I: Lines 381-387- This is the only mention of cooperative conservation. So how would this work in China National Parks. Who are the stakeholders? This could be greatly expanded.

Response: As suggested by the reviewer, we have added ‘A multi-subject cooperative governance framework with government-led (represented by the park management agency) involving enterprises, community residents and non-governmental organizations was formed in this region [13], to solve the problems of management disorder and governance fragmentation in the national park system and achieve the sustainability of protection and development.’ in line 420 to explain how would this work in China National Parks. Specific details about stakeholders have been expressed in lines 403-415.

Comment J: Conclusion This needs to be greatly expanded as a minimum should include: What is the generalizability of this case study of one flagship species in one National Park to other Chinese Parks or protected areas in similar mountainous landscapes?

Response: We have revised the title as your suggestion and have focused the main content on the ‘a case study’ to make the objective clearer. In addition, although we only studied the distribution of snow leopard habitat in SNP, the research has reference values for other national parks in terms of flagship species conservation because of the convenience of parks in terms of division basis, management policies, and major issues. It also has implications for biodiversity conservation at the macro level. So, we believe that while this paper is only a case study, it still provides analytical guidance that could be adapted and scaled up to other protected areas in similar mountainous landscapes for establishing policies for biodiversity conservation in national parks.

Comment K: What were the major limitations of the case study approach as applied for this study and what future research needs arise?

Response: Based on your suggestion, we have learned that a case study does have some limitations in generalizability. We have explained this in the last section of this paper (line 464) and have given some suggestions for future research.

Comment L: How can cooperative conservation be operationalized besides adjusting park boundaries? There is a whole literature on protected area co-management and/or community-based conservation. Please see anything written by Fikret Berkes such as;

Berkes, F. 2021. Advanced Introduction to Community-Based Conservation. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham OK and Northampton MA USA

Response: Because of the goal of making an in-depth case study of national park boundary delineation, this paper focused on the approach of establishing collaborative protected areas in national park boundary adjustment. However, as Fikret Berkes asserts, co-management as a partnership also involves knowledge generation, bridging organizations, social learning, etc. [68] Accessing resources, bringing together different actors, building trust, resolving conflict, and networking are all important steps [69,70]. This also sets up more runways for our future research, which we will refer to in the next studies. Based on the reviewer's suggestion, we have added this part in line 432.

In addition, the following references have been added:

68. Berkes, F. Evolution of co-management: Role of knowledge generation, bridging organizations and social learning. J. Environ. Manage. 2009, 90, 1692-1702.
69. Hughes, T.P., Gunderson, L.H., Folke, C., Baird, A.H., Bellwood, D., Berkes, F., Crona, B., Helfgott, A., Leslie, H., Norberg, J., Nystrom, M., Olsson, P., Osterblom, H., Scheffer, M., Schuttenberg, H., Steneck, R.S., Tengoe, M., Troll, M., Walker, B., Wilson, J., Worm, B. Adaptive management of the great barrier reef and the Grand Canyon world heritage areas. Ambio. 2007, 36, 586-592.
70. Hoole, A., Berkes, F. Breaking down fences: Recoupling social-ecological systems for biodiversity conservation in Namibia. Geoforum. 2010, 41, 304-317.

Once again, we thank you for the time you put into reviewing our paper and look forward to meeting your expectations. Since your inputs have been precious, in the eventuality of a publication, we would like to acknowledge your contribution explicitly.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Authors have adequately responded to reviewer's comments.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your feedback on this article.