Anthropogenic Disturbances in Northwestern Virunga Forest Amid Armed Conflict

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After reviewing the manuscript entitled "Anthropogenic Factors Disturbing the Forest Landscape in Northwestern Virunga, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, in the Context of Armed Conflict" I have the following changes and suggestions, subject to the editor-in-chief's criteria

Ln 108 The authors cite that the work is developed with three 3 hypotheses and the text lists and describes 4, please review

Ln 408 In the graph they put "Carmonization" please review

It would be very helpful if you included in a table the results of the multitemporal study of the cover in each of the investigated sites, so that the forest-non-forest; non-forest-forest changes would have more support in the figures presented.

Figure 7: I suggest putting in each graph if the relationship is significant or not, if that does not oppose the design part of the journal, or look for an alternative to quickly access that information visually

Without having other considerations, my suggestion is that it be accepted with minor changes

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive comments. We have incorporated the improvements into the revised manuscript. The file with the answers to the various recommendations is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper analyzes the anthropogenic factors that disrupt the forest landscape in Northwest Virunga, eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, in the context of armed conflict. However, the paper has some weaknesses that need to be improved. Following are some suggestions:

(1) Line143-146: This section states that, “The pre-identified sites were validated through interviews with local stakeholders. These interviews were also used to assess the level of security in the region, which was identified in this study as a key indicator of the intensification of human activities in a forest area” It indicates the importance of the interview content. However, the paper lacks a presentation of the interview outline, making it difficult for readers to understand the detailed questioning ideas and questions of the interview. It is suggested to add an interview outline in the appendix to help readers better understand the research process.

(2) The title of this paper is “Anthropogenic Factors Disturbing the Forest Landscape in Northwestern Virunga, Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, in the Context of Armed conflict”. However, the paper currently lacks sufficient representation of the “armed conflict context”. It is suggested to better explain this context by adding relevant indicators to the selected influencing factors.

Author Response

We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive comments. We have incorporated the improvements into the revised manuscript. The file with the answers to the various recommendations is attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. This is a well argued, well structured and interesting manuscript.
2. Introduction is well argued except for line 108 – what objectives are the authors trying to achieve? Objectives are not research questions or hypotheses. Secondly, in line 108 the authors propose 3 hypotheses but 4 are proposed. Hypothesis 4 is not stated clearly and it is not clear whether this hypothesis is therefore addressed in the manuscript. Finally in the sentence starting in line 120 with Consequently - this sentence is not linked to the rest of the argument in the paragraph.
3. For each of the Results discussions consider ending each section/hypothesis argument with a one paragraph summary of the findings which prove the specific hypothesis and shows the argument . Do not just let the reader have to deduce this from the graphics.
4. 4 hypotheses are proposed in the introduction but only 3 are discussed under results.
5. Line 514 – non -academic use of reference
6. Lines 517-520 need to be re-written for clarity.
7. Line 532 – how does a tree give long term security of tenure?
8. Line 576 needs clarifying.
9. As often readers only read the conclusion of a paper to see whether it is useful, the conclusion needs to be strengthened to better reflect the findings of this important paper. Also additional information not discussed in the manuscript needs to be excluded from the Conclusion such as lines 620-4.

Author Response

Dear sir

We sincerely thank you for reviewing our manuscript and for your constructive comments. We have incorporated the improvements into the revised manuscript. The file with the answers to the various recommendations is attached.

Sincerely

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf