Charting Sustainable Land Management Futures by Looking to the Past: The Case of Bears Ears National Monument
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article makes a historical review of the circumstances related to the population that has inhabited BENM over time, as well as the different administrations under whose mandate decisions have been made, or have been able to be made, about it. On some occasions the authors collect aspects related to the use of the land, with the efforts that have been carried out in other similar areas located in different countries, etc. but I think that it does not focus on analyzing what would be the aspects related to the sustainability of the area in question, but rather on a compilation of historical, political data.
Author Response
- Reviewer’s comment: The article makes a historical review of the circumstances related to the population that has inhabited BENM over time, as well as the different administrations under whose mandate decisions have been made, or have been able to be made, about it. Author’s response: thank you for taking the time to carefully evaluate and summarize our communication manuscript.
- Reviewer’s comment: On some occasions the authors collect aspects related to the use of the land, with the efforts that have been carried out in other similar areas located in different countries, etc. but I think that it does not focus on analyzing what would be the aspects related to the sustainability of the area in question, but rather on a compilation of historical, political data. Author’s response: we agree with the reviewer that the initial draft of our communication review did not, per say, focus on “what would be the aspects related to the sustainability of the area in question.” Rather, our goal was to review the historical and sociocultural context. We contend that the social aspects of sustainability are a complex issue intrinsically linked to elements such as, for example, cultural significance, ancestral ties, natural resources, and recreational value. As such, we argue, successful sustainability efforts should be underpinned with such knowledge. With the reviewer’s comment in mind, we have made revisions throughout the manuscript to better clarify our intent. If we have misunderstood the reviewer’s comment or failed to sufficiently revise our communication manuscript, we are more than willing to make any necessary changes going forward.
Reviewer 2 Report
I think that the paper is a good approach for the communication purposes. Congratulations! :)
I have found two editorial deficiencies, however. Here they are:
Line 204: Indigenous --> indigenous
Line 311: 'heritage custodians,' --> 'heritage custodians',
Author Response
Reviewer’s comment: I think that the paper is a good approach for the communication purposes. Congratulations! :). Authors’ response: thank you for the encouragement and for taking the time to carefully our communication.
Reviewer’s comment: I have found two editorial deficiencies, however. Here they are: [1] Line 204: Indigenous --> indigenous [2] Line 311: 'heritage custodians,' --> 'heritage custodians'. Author’s response: thank you for your keen eye for detail. We have made the requested revisions.
Reviewer 3 Report
This article address a salient issues in the US, but one that has implications for the establishment of parks and protected areas around the world, especially in areas inhabited by and/or with cultural significance to Indigenous Peoples.
The beginning of the paper read well.
Section 3.1 starts abruptly for me, perhaps it is mention of Bears Ears as that is not an academic theme (like land use is). Mentions of Bears Ears is not a theme. It seems like the information in this section needed go somewhere, and mentions of bears ears was the best way to categorize it - however it does not work for this reviewer. Please rethink this subheading - could it be Bears Ears in Public and Policy Discourse? Public discourse is a legitimate academic theme.
That said, reorganizing and renaming themes may not be the issue. When it comes to Section 3, I find myself asking so what? So what that the area has been written about in this way? What is the reader to do with this summary? It seems that it would be better to go back and analyze how what has been written and pull out lessons that can be learned and could be useful for particular actors (NPS, NRHP, BLM, USFS, Congressional committees)?
It seems to me there are important learnings on
Participatory methods
Collaborative management
Decolonizing land governance and land management
Section 3 is supposed to be about current writing about Bears Ears, yet there is a case study about Tanzania. Again it seems that the authors see something useful from Tanzania (decolonizing processes) which should be useful for management of Bears Ears. Said and Ichumbaki write about Tanzania, so it is odd that this paper ends up in a section that aims to help "researchers interested in learning more about BENM." Again, it seems there are lessons from Tanzania that would have been useful to actors engaged in Bears Ears and land governance in BENM reading about Tanzania does not telling me about BENM.
The beginning of Section 4 is a bit confusing. The authors state that the area has been studied by numerous disciplines -- that should be scholars from numerous disciplines since a discipline cannot complete a study only a scholar/person can. Also, the academic literature section (Sec 3) is neither organized by discipline nor mentions the disciplinary aspect of the literature referenced. Therefore, it does not make sense it introduce disciplinary perspective now.
Re-crafting Section 3 is why I think this is a major revision.
Author Response
- Reviewer’s comment: This article address a salient issues in the US, but one that has implications for the establishment of parks and protected areas around the world, especially in areas inhabited by and/or with cultural significance to Indigenous Peoples. Author’s response: Thank you for taking the time to carefully evaluate and summarize our communication manuscript.
- Reviewer’s comment: The beginning of the paper read well. Authors’ response: thank you for the encouraging comment.
- Reviewer’s comment: Section 3.1 starts abruptly for me, perhaps it is mention of Bears Ears as that is not an academic theme (like land use is). Mentions of Bears Ears is not a theme. It seems like the information in this section needed go somewhere, and mentions of bears ears was the best way to categorize it - however it does not work for this reviewer. Please rethink this subheading - could it be Bears Ears in Public and Policy Discourse? Public discourse is a legitimate academic theme. Authors’ response: thank you for the keen eye for detail and reasonable recommendations. We have made the recommended change to the subheading. Additionally, we have made revisions in sections 3 and 3.1 to help make the transition between sections less abrupt.
- Reviewer’s comment: That said, reorganizing and renaming themes may not be the issue. When it comes to Section 3, I find myself asking so what? So what that the area has been written about in this way? What is the reader to do with this summary? It seems that it would be better to go back and analyze how what has been written and pull out lessons that can be learned and could be useful for particular actors (NPS, NRHP, BLM, USFS, Congressional committees)? It seems to me there are important learnings on Participatory methods, Collaborative management, Decolonizing land governance and land management. Authors’ response: thank you for your comment. Based on your feedback, we have made revisions throughout Section 3 of the revised manuscript. That said, we stopped short of analyzing “how what has been written and pull out lessons that can be learned and could be useful for particular actors (NPS, NRHP, BLM, USFS, Congressional committees).” We agree with the reviewer that unpacking this issue is warranted in future research, but believe that to so would be inconsistent with our review of the historical literature (Sec. 2) and, ultimately, we feel that such an approach is beyond the scope of the current communication paper (and is better suited for a more traditional empirical paper).
- Reviewer’s comment: Section 3 is supposed to be about current writing about Bears Ears, yet there is a case study about Tanzania. Again it seems that the authors see something useful from Tanzania (decolonizing processes) which should be useful for management of Bears Ears. Said and Ichumbaki write about Tanzania, so it is odd that this paper ends up in a section that aims to help "researchers interested in learning more about BENM." Again, it seems there are lessons from Tanzania that would have been useful to actors engaged in Bears Ears and land governance in BENM reading about Tanzania does not telling me about BENM. Authors’ response: thank you, again, for a keen observation. With the reviewer’s comment in mind, we have deleted the Tanzania example.
- Reviewer’s comment: The beginning of Section 4 is a bit confusing. The authors state that the area has been studied by numerous disciplines -- that should be scholars from numerous disciplines since a discipline cannot complete a study only a scholar/person can. Also, the academic literature section (Sec 3) is neither organized by discipline nor mentions the disciplinary aspect of the literature referenced. Therefore, it does not make sense it introduce disciplinary perspective now. Author’s response: thank you for pointing out this inconsistency in language. With the reviewer’s comment in mind, we have made revisions to Section 4.
- Reviewer’s comment: Re-crafting Section 3 is why I think this is a major revision. Author’s response: Thank you for your candid comments. We have endeavored to the best of our ability to address all the concerns raised in the review. If we have misunderstood a comment or failed to sufficiently revise our communication manuscript, we are more than willing to make any necessary changes going forward.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In this second revision, I believe that the authors have argued the initial text and have made enough clarifications and modifications to allow the article to be published in its second revision.
Reviewer 3 Report
Reframing the manuscript to focus on social and cultural complexity is much better.
Noting that your literature discussion is a starting point is much more relevant and accurate.
The editing in Section 3.1 is much better. The authors deleted sentences that might have been interesting but not necessarily relevant to the manuscript. This section does a much better job of highlights the role of news/discourse in shaping opinions and ideas.
Line 298: Change "the locals" to "local users" or something else. Not only does "the locals" sounds negative, but rock climbers I assume are only one type of user group so not all "the locals" are rock climbers anyway.
The changes on Lines 402-433 are better as the emphasis in on the particular location and the summative statements in Lines 427-433 make a strong connection to findings in Section 3.
