The Impact of Collective Forest Tenure Reform on Forest Carbon Sequestration Capacity—An Analysis Based on the Social–Ecological System Framework

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1)      The term reform must be replace with reforms

2)      Line 40-54, this should be the part of your justification section ,

3)      Please rephrase line 85-86

4)      Line 118-120 is a repetition, already mention in introduction section

5)      Line 170-174, again a repetition , already discuss in the introduction section

6)      Hypothesis 1 and 2 , seems like complicated, keep it simple, short and to the point, please avoid unnecessary explanation, concentrate on logical points only.

7)      Section 3 Sample and data , please avoid unnecessary details keep it simple

8)      Section 2 to 5 is very confusing, I think this must be clearly divided into methods and data analysis and results section; also if possible a discussion section may be included.

9)      Line 658-664 repetition

10)   Does Collective Forest Tenure Reform mean forest management regimes? Please give a clear explanation of Collective Forest Tenure Reform. Please go through “trends Trends in Deforestation as a Response to Management Regimes and Policy Intervention in the Hindu Kush Himalaya of Pakistan and Effects of national forest-management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya.

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Can be improved. please check 

Author Response

1.The term reform must be replaced with reforms.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Here, the term "reform" mainly refers to the forest tenure reform that began comprehensively in 2008. Although this reform lasted for a long time, from its inception to its basic completion and subsequent supporting measures, it all belongs to the content of this one reform. Therefore, I mainly used "reform" instead of "reforms." I have also checked all instances of "reform" in the article and changed them to "reforms" where necessary.

 

2.Line 40-54, this should be part of your justification section.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. Line 40-54 belongs to the latter part of the first paragraph of the Introduction. In the first half of the paragraph, I mainly introduced the basic history of China's collective forest tenure reform, especially the basic situation and shortcomings of this round of reform. The latter part points out that due to these shortcomings, the Chinese government further supplemented the collective forest tenure reform at this stage but faced new problems, one of which is how to deal with ecological or climate change issues. This is an important background for this article's theme of studying the impact of forest tenure reform on carbon sequestration, which is the part you mentioned. Based on this consideration, I did not change the location of the Line 40-54 section.

 

3.Please rephrase line 85-86.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been rewritten.

 

4.Line 118-120 is a repetition, already mentioned in the introduction section.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been rewritten.

 

5.Line 170-174, again a repetition, already discussed in the introduction section.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been rewritten.

 

6.Hypothesis 1 and 2, seems like complicated, keep it simple, short and to the point, please avoid unnecessary explanation, concentrate on logical points only.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been rewritten.

 

7.Section 3 Sample and data, please avoid unnecessary details keep it simple.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been modified.

 

8.Section 2 to 5 is very confusing, I think this must be clearly divided into methods and data analysis and results section; also if possible a discussion section may be included.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have made modifications according to your advice, especially adding a discussion section.

 

9.Line 658-664 repetition.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. It has been modified.

 

10.Does Collective Forest Tenure Reform mean forest management regimes? Please give a clear explanation of Collective Forest Tenure Reform. Please go through “trends Trends in Deforestation as a Response to Management Regimes and Policy Intervention in the Hindu Kush Himalaya of Pakistan and Effects of national forest-management regimes on unprotected forests of the Himalaya.

Here is my answer:

(1).Explanation of Collective Forest Tenure Reform

Collective Forest Tenure Reform (CFTR) in China, initiated as a pilot in 2003, represents the latest round of reform specifically targeting collective forest lands, excluding those owned by the state. This reform aims to clarify and secure the property rights of collective forests, enhancing the efficiency of forest resource management and utilization. The measures include the separation of ownership, management, and use rights, and the transfer of forest land use rights to promote flexible management. Initially, the reform emphasized increasing farmers' income, but the direction of the reform has increasingly recognized the importance of ecological issues. In the context of new era goals like common prosperity, rural revitalization, and carbon neutrality, the reform now faces the dual task of not only improving forest management efficiency but also balancing economic benefits with ecological sustainability.

(2).Comparison with Forest Management Regimes

It's worth noting that Collective Forest Tenure Reform differs from general forest management regimes. Forest management regimes typically involve rules and procedures for the protection, utilization, and restoration of forest resources. For example, in the Hindu Kush Himalaya of Pakistan, various forest management regimes and policy interventions have been employed to respond to trends in deforestation. In contrast, Collective Forest Tenure Reform in China focuses more on the property structure and the ownership and control of forest resources, specifically within collective ownership. It aims to promote sustainable management and utilization, reflecting a shift from an initial emphasis on income enhancement to a broader consideration of ecological sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

The present study involved a macro-level quantitative analysis of the impact of forest analysis of forest reform carried out in China on forest carbon sequestration. It is a nicely written article. However, the income mentioned in the Chinese currency needs to be converted into US $ for the convenience of most international readers.

1. What does the research address the main question?
The paper provides the socio-ecological framework to study the combined impact of the economic and ecological factors on the forest Carbon sequestration capacity.

2. Do you consider the topic original or relevant in the field? Does it address a specific gap in the field?

The topic is original and very informative in the context of various problems being faced the world over due to the impact of global warming.

3. What does it add to the subject area compared with other published

The paper provides sufficient information about the impact of forest tenure reforms on the ecology. This information was missing in the previous studies.

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The statement mentioned in line number 65-67 is part of the material method. Contrarily, at a number of places the text mentioned in the material and method have to be integrated in the introduction section.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

Slight revision is required to make it more effective by giving specific recommendations based on the study conducted. Also, give the limitation of the study.

6. Are the references appropriate?

yes
7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

The tables and figures are ok. But, the result and discussion part can be separated.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The author has written the issues that need to be modified and their answers below：

4. What specific improvements should the authors consider regarding the methodology? What further controls should be considered?

The statement mentioned in line number 65-67 is part of the material method. Contrarily, at a number of places the text mentioned in the material and method have to be integrated in the introduction section.

Thank you very much for your suggestion. The content related to material and method that I mainly involved has been integrated into the introduction section, and basically, what is mentioned later has been written into the introduction.

5. Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and do they address the main question posed?

 

Slight revision is required to make it more effective by giving specific recommendations based on the study conducted. Also, give the limitation of the study.

 

7. Please include any additional comments on the tables and figures.

 

The tables and figures are ok. But, the result and discussion part can be separated.

 

Thank you very much for your suggestion. In response to the above two issues, I added a discussion section, and also described the limitations of this paper, etc.

Reviewer 3 Report

Congratulations for the manuscript, it is so interesting and could be attractive to forestry readers. The manuscript is so interesting, but it is so long and hard to understand in some sections. Please, explain in more detail all used models and the results presented in tables.

Line 3. Please, remove SES of title.

L17. “…capacity; (2) …”

L19. “… effect; and (3) …”

L24. “Social-Ecological System” instead of “SES”.

L39. Please add a space between “forestry” and “[1]”. Please, do the same in the entire manuscript.

L58. space.

L61. Space.

L73. Space.

L89. Add a space between “ecosystem” and “[11]”.

L90. Please, add the full name for IPCC.

L99. Space.

L118—136. Please add spaces in this paragraph in different locations. And do the same in the entire manuscript.

Section 2 is so long. Please reduce this section and be more emphatic.

L89. Add a space between the “ecosystem” and “[11]”.

P3. Please, avoid to join words.

L177. Please, improve th reference.

Please, improve the Figure 1. It is so short.

All hypotheses should be expressed in H0 and H1, or Ho and Ha.

Please, explain the Equation 1 and 2. Are they the same equation or are separated?

Is the equation 2 part of equation1?

Please, explain in more detail used models in Table 3. Which model is used? Equation 1 or Equation 2?

Explain models as a description in Table 3.

Please, improve Figure 2. Minus sign should be used in the y-axis.

Please. Explain models in Table 4. For example, which equation was used for model 7?

The same in Table 6 and Table 7.

Please, improve Figure 5.

Author Response

Line 3. Please, remove SES of title.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L17. “…capacity; (2) …”

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L19. “… effect; and (3) …”

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L24. “Social-Ecological System” instead of “SES”.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L39. Please add a space between “forestry” and “[1]”. Please, do the same in the entire manuscript.

Thank you for the reminder, I have checked the entire manuscript.

L58. space.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L61. Space.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L73. Space.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L89. Add a space between “ecosystem” and “[11]”.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L90. Please, add the full name for IPCC.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L99. Space.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L118—136. Please add spaces in this paragraph in different locations. And do the same in the entire manuscript.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

Section 2 is so long. Please reduce this section and be more emphatic.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L89. Add a space between the “ecosystem” and “[11]”.

Thank you for the reminder, it has been changed.

L177. Please, improve the reference.

Thank you for the reminder, this is an early article involving Social-Ecological Systems, and it is a suitable choice for this reference. Subsequent sections will involve multiple related references.

Please, improve Figure 1. It is so short.

Thank you for your suggestion, it has been changed.

All hypotheses should be expressed in H0 and H1, or Ho and Ha.

Thank you very much for your suggestion, as my paper still leans towards studying environmental issues from a social science perspective, and this kind of hypothesis is common in the journal Land, but I have still simplified the relevant hypotheses

Please, explain the Equation 1 and 2. Are they the same equation or are separated?

Thank you for your suggestion, Equation 2 is part of Equation 1, used for calculating ??j.

Please, explain in more detail used models in Table 3. Which model is used? Equation 1 or Equation 2?

Thank you for your suggestion, Table 3 mainly involves the baseline regression model, Equation 3, where the dependent variable is obtained through Equation 1 and Equation 2.

Explain models as a description in Table 3.

Thank you for your suggestion. The explanation for this part is in lines 445-463, but the paper mainly focuses on explaining the core explanatory variables, without elaborating too much on the control variables. Here, I will supplement it by taking model (3) as an example, as it considers natural and social factors as control variables. The results show that in addition to the latest round of forest tenure reform having a positive impact on forest carbon sequestration capacity, excessive temperature and precipitation have a negative impact. In social factors, the forest output value has a positive impact on forest carbon sequestration capacity, while other control variables' impacts are not significant in this paper.

Please, improve Figure 2. Minus sign should be used in the y-axis.

Thank you for your suggestion, the Minus sign has been used in the figure.

Please. Explain models in Table 4. For example, which equation was used for model 7?

Thank you for your suggestion. Table 4 is for robustness testing, controlling various factors that may affect carbon sequestration capacity, to test whether the impact of forest tenure reform on forest carbon sequestration capacity is robust. Model 7 mainly uses Equation 3, but the dependent variable is obtained using the Global Forest Products Model, replacing the dependent variable, as explained in line 371.

The same in Table 6 and Table 7.

Thank you for your suggestion. Table 6 mainly uses the mediation effect model results. Model (10) shows that forest tenure reform promotes forestry income, while models (11)-(14) are the results of mediation effects. Models (11)-(12) are for the labor factor, and the results are not significant, while models (13)-(14) are for the capital factor, showing that the impact of forest tenure reform on carbon sequestration capacity can be explained through it.

Please, improve Figure 5.

Thank you for your suggestion, it has been improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Please have  a look for spelling and grammar  

Minor correction on spelling and grammar is suggested