Sense of Community and the Bears Ears National Monument

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Suggest that in lines 150, 156, 162, and 169, the first sentences either become sub-subheadings, or end with a colon rather than a period, )or indeed simply italicised as in Section 5.3), as at the moment they are sentence fragments.

Line 151 has an orphan bracket and something appears to have happened here to this sentence - it no longer makes sense as is. 

Line 175 - suggest replacing 'usually' with 'often' - some of the source material used is already quite dated, and care needs to be taken to reflect social changes. Around the world many gateway communities such as those described here have an affiliation to place which would be described as spiritual but not religious.

Line 307: I think it's necessary here to explain why designation is seen as a 'land grab' and why it is seen as 'disingenuous' - there seems to be some kind of accepted understanding here of a benefit to environmentalists which is opaque and needs unpicking. 

Line 319: please be clear about what the stance is on communities changing 'for the worse'.

Line 337: protecting?

Line 341: 'The survey Iied questions' - do you mean linked?

Line 353: oppositen?

Line 404: 'was reverse-coded to make the regression outputs were easier to interpret' - please edit to make sense

General: The source material around sense of community and community change are quite dated, and reflect perhaps a conservative approach to the study design. In other words, the conclusions are supported by the results, but elements of the research design are not as rigorous as they might be. 

There needs to be more contextualisation to the study components and participants, with recognition that communities that have certain already-existing cohering factors - which might include an experience of feeling not understood by those outside the established community, a sense of change itself being unpalatable or dangerous to the community, and/or a sense of 'ownership' of land which manifests in particular ways, will react in ways which skew responses to change in communities.

There is some mention of this in the Limitations section, but the Limitations section is too brief on what are indeed quite important limitations. The conclusion that 'the results capture changes specifically for white rural gateway communities' needs to note that the Bears Ears gateway communities may be specific in particular ways. 

There was no detail provided about the nature of the resistance to the BENM, which would have been very useful to help the reader understand the context more fully. It is clear that there is resistance to change, but what is the (feared) nature of the change? What is the reason for the resistance? Without this information, the results are too vague. The specificity of the context of the result is established in the Discussion.

The background and reference material (aside from being dated in some of the literature cited) is good and well-drawn, but the study is limited in how its results integrate with the wider debates on land use and change identified in these sections. 

 

 

 

Author Response

Reviewer 1

• Reviewer’s comment: Suggest that in lines 150, 156, 162, and 169, the first sentences either become sub-subheadings, or end with a colon rather than a period, )or indeed simply italicised as in Section 5.3), as at the moment they are sentence fragments.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have italicised the phrases and added a colon at the end instead of a period.
• Reviewer’s comment: The reviewer noted that on Line 151 there is an orphan bracket and that the following sentence does not make sense.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have removed the orphan bracket and revised the beginning of the sentence to clarify the argument of the sentence.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 175 - suggest replacing 'usually' with 'often' - some of the source material used is already quite dated, and care needs to be taken to reflect social changes. Around the world many gateway communities such as those described here have an affiliation to place which would be described as spiritual but not religious.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have made the suggested change from “usually” to “often” in the sentence.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 307: I think it's necessary here to explain why designation is seen as a 'land grab' and why it is seen as 'disingenuous' - there seems to be some kind of accepted understanding here of a benefit to environmentalists which is opaque and needs unpicking.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we explain why the designation is seen as a “land grab” that is “disingenuous” and better explain the accepted understanding that is the context for this statement. However, given recommendations from other reviewers, we have removed this statement entirely given the politicized framing of the remarks by Commissioner Lyman, who was referenced by name in the article. As such, we hope that the problems associated with this comment have been adequately addressed.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 319: please be clear about what the stance is on communities changing 'for the worse'.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have changed several sentences in the paragraph to reflect greater clarity in reference to the points of the literature already presented. We have also edited the sentence to include that boundary change could have a variety of effects on the community experience and perceptions.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 337: protecting?
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have updated the spelling to be correct.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 341: 'The survey Iied questions' - do you mean linked?
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we corrected “The survey Iied questions” to “The survey asked questions” as it was originally meant to be.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 353: oppositen?
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have corrected both instances of this in the paper.
• Reviewer’s comment: Line 404: 'was reverse-coded to make the regression outputs were easier to interpret' - please edit to make sense
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have deleted the word “were” so that the sentence makes sense.
• Reviewer’s comment: General: The source material around sense of community and community change are quite dated, and reflect perhaps a conservative approach to the study design. In other words, the conclusions are supported by the results, but elements of the research design are not as rigorous as they might be.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s suggestion in mind, we have made revisions throughout the manuscript to help highlight that our case study analysis is concerned with capturing the sense of community in the context of discussions concerning potential community changes related to land designation. These edits, among other things, also include a call for additional case studies and other approaches to research that are needed in other times and places beyond the BENM context. Such studies can contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the social phenomena that occur as new land designation sites are considered and created, as such changes have the potential to affect the people and communities tied to these areas profoundly.
• Reviewer’s comment: There needs to be more contextualisation to the study components and participants, with recognition that communities that have certain already-existing cohering factors - which might include an experience of feeling not understood by those outside the established community, a sense of change itself being unpalatable or dangerous to the community, and/or a sense of 'ownership' of land which manifests in particular ways, will react in ways which skew responses to change in communities. There is some mention of this in the Limitations section, but the Limitations section is too brief on what are indeed quite important limitations. The conclusion that 'the results capture changes specifically for white rural gateway communities' needs to note that the Bears Ears gateway communities may be specific in particular ways.
  • Authors’ response: we thank the reviewer for these comments and agree that the context of the BENM allows for a unique opportunity to explore and better understand the very things mentioned by the reviewer. To that end, because the context presented in our study does not allow for a large sample of communities to assess the sense of community in relation to general processes of community change, we rely on a case study research strategy to help identify how elements of sense of community for specific communities relate to a specific set of identifiable changes (i.e., land designations). With the reviewer’s comment in mind, we have revised the manuscript to better highlight that we are presenting a case study. Moreover, the revised manuscript now includes information to help elucidate community characteristics. Additionally, while an in-depth exploration of the noted “already-existing cohering factors” is beyond the scope of this study, the revised manuscript calls for future case studies and other approaches to research to help provide a more nuanced understanding of the social phenomena that occur as new land designation sites are considered and created (see response to item above).
• Reviewer’s comment: There was no detail provided about the nature of the resistance to the BENM, which would have been very useful to help the reader understand the context more fully. It is clear that there is resistance to change, but what is the (feared) nature of the change? What is the reason for the resistance? Without this information, the results are too vague. The specificity of the context of the result is established in the Discussion.
  • Authors’ response: While we feel that a detailed elaboration on the nature of the resistance to the BENM is beyond the scope of this paper, we have made edits throughout the paper, particularly in the front half, to (1) help highlight some of the different points of view and (2) to cite literature where additional information can be found.
• Reviewer’s comment: The background and reference material (aside from being dated in some of the literature cited) is good and well-drawn, but the study is limited in how its results integrate with the wider debates on land use and change identified in these sections.
  • Authors’ response: We thank the reviewer for the input and hope that the edits made clarifying our use of a case study approach help to alleviate some of the concerns regarding the known limitations of using a case study approach.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for an interesting, well-written and relevant article. I find it quite captivating. I am looking forward to reading the final version. I have three more fundamental comments:

a) Please state from the beginning when you are talking about the US context and where you generalize from that, i.e. first paragraph.

b) Study setting: Please elaborate on the social and economic conditions of the study area. Also, a map would be very helpful (I know that this is a frequent comment and can be a bit of a nuisance, but it really helps the reader here).

c) If you refer to the outdoor companies lobbying for BENM, you could also name the fossil fuels companies who have stakes in continued exploitation of the area, and wether or not they are a source of employment – you mention as much (ln. 202-203). Maybe this is the central conflicting point, as it was framed by environmentalists?

There are a few specific comments:

ln. 105: Signposting: The introduction of path dependency theory here comes quite abrupt. Please provide a hint why you now turn to this theory.

ln. 150, 156, 162, 169. Set the keywords in italics to increase readability, and preferably put a colon not a fullstop after. Otherwise readers wonder why this is not a full sentence.

ln. 341 "The survey Iied questions" … is this an accepted phrase or a typo?

ln. 206. "Rich in history" – avoid stereotypical language devoid of meaning. Most places of human habitation will be "rich in history". Please rephrase or delete.

ln. 219 why is "indigenous peoples" capitalized here? Later you don't (ln (ln.229). If you find reason to capitalize "Indigenous" (I would not), please be consistant.

ln. 245 for consistency, also introduce USFS as acronym of the Forest Service and NPS for the National Park Service

ln. 256 "livestock grazing". Otherwise calling grazing "human use" sounds a bit akward to me.

ln. 373 do not capitalize "indicating"

ln. 404 delete "were" or change sentence structure

ln. 425/435/444 Be consistent in capitalizing table headers (as in table 1) and capitalizing your variables or not (you do not in Table 2, but in table3 "Membership")

leave a blank line before table headings, otherwise the text appears "squeezed"

ln 518-519. Do not, not even for emphasis, quote the same line twice. Make up your mind where you want to quote it.

 

 

 

 

 

Author Response

• Reviewer’s comment: a) Please state from the beginning when you are talking about the US context and where you generalize from that, i.e. first paragraph.
  • Authors’ response: we thank the reviewer for these comments and have, accordingly, we have added reminders that the context of this study is in the United States on lines 35, 37, and 184.
• Reviewer’s comment: b) Study setting: Please elaborate on the social and economic conditions of the study area.
  • Authors’ response: For confidentiality purposes, we have redacted the names of the communities involved in this research, but to address the reviewer’s concerns we have included general demographic characteristics of San Juan County in section 3.1. We recognize that this provides a broader context as opposed to a specific context for the communities, but this was done in good faith to protect the respondents from the communities
• Reviewer’s comment: a map would be very helpful (I know that this is a frequent comment and can be a bit of a nuisance, but it really helps the reader here).
  • Authors’ response: we thank the reviewer for pointing out this oversight. We have created a map and included it the study setting section.
• Reviewer’s comment: c) If you refer to the outdoor companies lobbying for BENM, you could also name the fossil fuels companies who have stakes in continued exploitation of the area, and whether or not they are a source of employment – you mention as much (ln. 202-203). Maybe this is the central conflicting point, as it was framed by environmentalists?
  • Authors’ response: we have chosen to redact the names included in a prior version of the paper. This paper is part of a larger project, and the names that were included in this version were names specifically mentioned by residents in other forms of data collection. However, there were no companies lobbying against BENM mentioned by name by the residents. With the reviewer’s comment in mind, while seeking to achieve a better balance of perspectives as requested by the reviewer, we have revised this paper to show the efforts made on both sides of the issue.
• Reviewer’s comment: 105: Signposting: The introduction of path dependency theory here comes quite abrupt. Please provide a hint why you now turn to this theory.
  • Author’s response: we have added a transition line for the beginning of the path dependency section in the literature review.
• Reviewer’s comment: 150, 156, 162, 169. Set the keywords in italics to increase readability, and preferably put a colon not a fullstop after. Otherwise readers wonder why this is not a full sentence.
  • Author’s response: We have made the recommended edits.
• Reviewer’s comment: 341 "The survey Iied questions" … is this an accepted phrase or a typo?
  • Author’s response: We corrected “The survey Iied questions” to “The survey asked questions” as it was originally meant to be.
• Reviewer’s comment: 206. "Rich in history" – avoid stereotypical language devoid of meaning. Most places of human habitation will be "rich in history". Please rephrase or delete.
  • Author’s response: we chose to delete the phrase as the sentence makes sense without the phrase the reviewer pointed to as stereotypical language.
• Reviewer’s comment: 219 why is "indigenous peoples" capitalized here? Later you don't (ln (ln.229). If you find reason to capitalize "Indigenous" (I would not), please be consistent.
  • Author’s response: we have changed all instances of “indigenous peoples” to be capitalized according to recommendations on capitalization from the Native Governance Center.
• Reviewer’s comment: 245 for consistency, also introduce USFS as acronym of the Forest Service and NPS for the National Park Service
  • Author’s response: We have made the recommended edits.
• Reviewer’s comment: 256 "livestock grazing". Otherwise calling grazing "human use" sounds a bit awkward to me.
  • Author’s response: we have used the phrase “livestock grazing” instead of the single word “grazing” in the sentence to alleviate the tension in the wording.
• Reviewer’s comment: 373 do not capitalize "indicating"
  • Author’s response: We have made the recommended edits.
• Reviewer’s comment: 404 delete "were" or change sentence structure
  • Author’s response: We have made the recommended edits.
• Reviewer’s comment: 425/435/444 Be consistent in capitalizing table headers (as in table 1) and capitalizing your variables or not (you do not in Table 2, but in table3 "Membership")
  • Author’s response: We have made the recommended edits.
• Reviewer’s comment: leave a blank line before table headings, otherwise the text appears "squeezed"
  • Author’s response: We have made the recommended edits.
• Reviewer’s comment: ln 518-519. Do not, not even for emphasis, quote the same line twice. Make up your mind where you want to quote it.
  • Author’s response: We apologize for this oversight. The repeated use of the quote is an artifact of an early draft in which, embarrassing enough, we failed to notice when we finalized our submission for Land. Thank you for pointing this out. We have made the recommended edits.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. It is suggested that authors can supplement the background and importance of the research in the introduction.

2. It is suggested that "4. Analysis" should not be a separate chapter, which can be put into the next chapter.

3. Is data from 2017? It is suggested that authors should explain more about the data why it's representative.

4. It is recommended that authors add the limitations of the study(in particular, the characteristics of the case subjects.)

Author Response

Reviewer 3

• Reviewer’s comment: It is suggested that authors can supplement the background and importance of the research in the introduction.
  • Authors’ response: with the reviewer’s comment in mind, we have added several sentences into the introduction that position this case study as uniquely able to give us insight into the effects of a change in land designation — happening increasingly often over the last few decades — on nearby resident’s psychological sense of community.
• Reviewer’s comment: It is suggested that "4. Analysis" should not be a separate chapter, which can be put into the next chapter.
  • Authors’ response: we have moved the explanation of our analysis from section four to become section 4.5, with sections 5, 6, 7, and 8 becoming sections 4, 5, 6, and 7 respectively.
• Reviewer’s comment: Is data from 2017? It is suggested that authors should explain more about the data why it's representative.
  • Authors’ response: we have added a section in our discussion to further address the limitations for this research, noting that there are time limitations for the data as they capture a specific moment in time specifically related to the purpose of this case study only. We then provide the following justification for this use as a case study: the location and the Bears Ears National Monument are intended as a case study only to test the psychological sense of community in gateway communities and focus on capturing changes in the sense of community based on discussions concerning potential changes to the community.
• Reviewer’s comment: It is recommended that authors add the limitations of the study (in particular, the characteristics of the case subjects.)
  • Author’s response: we have added two paragraphs at the bottom of the discussion section discussing the limitations of this study and a prompt for future research into the topic.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper examines the impact of land management changes on gateway communities, focusing on shifts in psychological community perceptions—an important and timely research area. Using Bears Ears National Monument as a case study, the research offers an original and practical exploration of how land policy changes affect community dynamics. Through questionnaires and regression analysis, the authors employ a suitable methodology to assess community perception changes, providing a detailed analysis of the data, especially concerning the perceptions of residents opposed to the establishment of Bears Ears National Monument. The findings reveal that opposition to the monument correlates with heightened community perception, an intriguing result. The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of these findings' significance and acknowledges the study's limitations. The conclusion succinctly summarizes the study's main insights and suggests directions for future research.

However, while the study design and analysis are generally rigorous, the thesis could benefit from further strengthening in some areas. For instance, the relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings, and expanding the sample or further clarifying sample limitations in the discussion could improve robustness. Additionally, the reasons behind the correlation between monument opposition and enhanced community perceptions warrant further investigation. Notably, perspectives from non-white communities appear limited, and addressing this in future research could enhance the study’s representativeness. Furthermore, the specific data collection time points may affect the timeliness of the results. Including this limitation in the discussion and considering the option of a long-term follow-up study would add valuable depth.

In summary, this paper offers valuable insights into the effects of land management policies on gateway communities, particularly regarding psychological community perceptions. The research methodology is well-chosen, with rigorous analysis and thoughtful discussion. Despite some limitations, the paper is of high quality and provides useful insights for both academics and policymakers.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

• Reviewer’s comment: This paper examines the impact of land management changes on gateway communities, focusing on shifts in psychological community perceptions—an important and timely research area. Using Bears Ears National Monument as a case study, the research offers an original and practical exploration of how land policy changes affect community dynamics. Through questionnaires and regression analysis, the authors employ a suitable methodology to assess community perception changes, providing a detailed analysis of the data, especially concerning the perceptions of residents opposed to the establishment of Bears Ears National Monument. The findings reveal that opposition to the monument correlates with heightened community perception, an intriguing result. The discussion section provides a thorough analysis of these findings' significance and acknowledges the study's limitations. The conclusion succinctly summarizes the study's main insights and suggests directions for future research.

 

However, while the study design and analysis are generally rigorous, the thesis could benefit from further strengthening in some areas. For instance, the relatively small sample size may limit the generalizability of the findings, and expanding the sample or further clarifying sample limitations in the discussion could improve robustness. Additionally, the reasons behind the correlation between monument opposition and enhanced community perceptions warrant further investigation. Notably, perspectives from non-white communities appear limited, and addressing this in future research could enhance the study’s representativeness. Furthermore, the specific data collection time points may affect the timeliness of the results. Including this limitation in the discussion and considering the option of a long-term follow-up study would add valuable depth.

 

In summary, this paper offers valuable insights into the effects of land management policies on gateway communities, particularly regarding psychological community perceptions. The research methodology is well-chosen, with rigorous analysis and thoughtful discussion. Despite some limitations, the paper is of high quality and provides useful insights for both academics and policymakers.

 

• Author’s response: with the reviewer’s comments in mind, we have made revisions throughout the paper to (1) help clarify that we are using a case study approach, (2) better highlight the limitations of our study, and (3) call for future research that can, hopefully, contribute to a more nuanced understanding of the social phenomena that occur as new land designation sites are considered and created and which have the potential to profoundly affect the people and communities tied to these areas.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. . Remove political connotations or references to individuals to make the work objective. References to presidents should be replaced by the dates of events rather than the actions of any individual. (For example, lines 234-241). Another example would be the reference to Mark Maryboy in line 275. I emphasize that, to maintain scientific objectivity, personal references should not be included. The text should be revised accordingly.

2. The topic is very interesting, but as the authors mention, the conclusions have many limitations, which could significantly alter the data analysis outcomes. Therefore, it would be advisable to restructure the entire work, starting from the limitations and acknowledging them from the outset. This shift means establishing clear objectives that can form the foundation of a scientific work with solid conclusions.

For this 2nd point I mean: Normally, limitations are discussed near the end of a study or project, as a way of recognizing what wasn’t fully addressed or accounted for. Here, the idea is to begin by identifying and being transparent about these limitations. I believe readers should be informed about the limitations, as these can significantly influence the scope and interpretation of the work. Starting from the limitations forces a more honest and grounded approach to the research, allowing to establish clear boundaries around what the work can and cannot accomplish. By understanding the limitations from the beginning, you’re better positioned to set achievable goals and objectives.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 5

• Reviewer’s comment: Remove political connotations or references to individuals to make the work objective. References to presidents should be replaced by the dates of events rather than the actions of any individual. (For example, lines 234-241). Another example would be the reference to Mark Maryboy in line 275. I emphasize that, to maintain scientific objectivity, personal references should not be included. The text should be revised accordingly.
  • Authors’ response: we have changed the wording in our section on the creation and modification of BENM to avoid mention of the presidencies associated with the actions, instead including the dates that the monument was created and altered. We have also removed the section that specifically references comments by Mark Maryboy, instead replacing it with a more general overlook at the goals of the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and the supporting Utah Diné Bikéyah group.
• Reviewer’s comment: The topic is very interesting, but as the authors mention, the conclusions have many limitations, which could significantly alter the data analysis outcomes. Therefore, it would be advisable to restructure the entire work, starting from the limitations and acknowledging them from the outset. This shift means establishing clear objectives that can form the foundation of a scientific work with solid conclusions.

 

For this 2nd point I mean: Normally, limitations are discussed near the end of a study or project, as a way of recognizing what wasn’t fully addressed or accounted for. Here, the idea is to begin by identifying and being transparent about these limitations. I believe readers should be informed about the limitations, as these can significantly influence the scope and interpretation of the work. Starting from the limitations forces a more honest and grounded approach to the research, allowing to establish clear boundaries around what the work can and cannot accomplish. By understanding the limitations from the beginning, you’re better positioned to set achievable goals and objectives.

• Authors’ response: We have added emphasis in the introduction on information and results of this study as a case study which gives us a snapshot of a specific research context relevant to the purpose of the study instead of generalizable data. We have done what we can to strengthen the emphasis on the role of this research as a case study at the beginning of the article. However, given the comments by the other reviewers, we have elected to have an expanded limitations section at the end of the discussion section. While this is not a perfect solution, we hope that the changes we have made will help alleviate your concerns about what we can do to help present the current study's limitations from the beginning.