Impact of Human–Elephant Conflict Risk Perception on Farmers’ Land Use Efficiency in Yunnan, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Author,

 

I have completed the review of the manuscript titled " Impact of Human-Elephant Conflict Risk Perception on Farmers’ Land Use Efficiency in Yunnan, China"

 

Overall Evaluation:

Based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and the Risk Perception Theory, this study takes the survey data of 449 micro farmers in the Asian elephant distribution areas of Pu'er City, Yunnan Province as samples, and uses the Tobit model and the mediating effect model to empirically analyze the impact of human-elephant conflict on farmers' land use efficiency and its mechanism. This is a very meaningful study.

 

Main Comments:

1. Theoretical Framework: Part II is too weak. Generally speaking, the literature review and research hypotheses are placed together, or rather, the theoretical mechanisms and research hypotheses. Please enrich Part II and optimize the content of Part III. It is necessary to create a diagram of the research hypotheses, which can help readers more intuitively understand the relationship between the two factors.

 

2. Rigorous Methodology: There is a lack of introduction to the use of research methods. Please supplement the introduction to the econometric model and its operational procedures.

 

3. Data Integrity: There is a lack of introduction to the raw data. It is necessary to provide detailed information on the sources of the raw data, as well as the processing carried out on the raw data in the econometric analysis.

 

4. Research Outlook: The paper lacks a discussion of the limitations of the empirical analysis. In fact, as an empirical study, it has certain limitations. The author is advised to add a section on the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research at the end.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 1

Comments 1: Theoretical Framework: Part II is too weak. Generally speaking, the literature review and research hypotheses are placed together, or rather, the theoretical mechanisms and research hypotheses. Please enrich Part II and optimize the content of Part III. It is necessary to create a diagram of the research hypotheses, which can help readers more intuitively understand the relationship between the two factors.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We fully agree that the theoretical framework needs further development. Thus, we’ve greatly enriched Section Two by integrating extra relevant literature reviews and offering more detailed explanations of the theoretical mechanisms. This integration helps solidify the foundation for our research hypotheses. Moreover, we’ve created a research hypothesis diagram to aid readers in better understanding the relationships between factors. These revisions can be found on pages 3-6 (Lines 138-230) of the revised manuscript.

 

 

Comments 2: Rigorous Methodology: There is a lack of introduction to the use of research methods. Please supplement the introduction to the econometric model and its operational procedures.

 

Response 2: Agree. We have supplemented the methodology section by adding detailed descriptions of: (1) the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) method used for measuring human-elephant conflict (HEC) risk perception in Section “3.4.1. Principal Component Analysis”, which can be found on page 12 and 13 of the revised manuscript (Lines 379 - 423); (2) the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) model employed in mechanism analysis in Section “3.4.3. Ordinary Least Squares”, which can be found on page 13 and 14  (Lines 461 - 473) of the revised manuscript; and (3) the specific measurement procedures for HEC risk perception in Section “4.1. Measurement of HEC Risk Perception”, which can be found on page 14-16 (Lines 475 - 556) of the revised manuscript .

 

 

Comments 3: Data Integrity: There is a lack of introduction to the raw data. It is necessary to provide detailed information on the sources of the raw data, as well as the processing carried out on the raw data in the econometric analysis.

 

Response 3: Agree. Thank you for your reminder. We have carefully reviewed the description of the variables in the paper and noticed the lack of introduction to the original data on human-elephant conflict (HEC) risk perception and its processing procedures. Therefore, we have added a detailed explanation of the indicator construction for HEC risk perception, along with the descriptive statistics of its original data, in Section “3.3.2. Core Independent Variable”, which can be found on page 9 (lines 318-333) of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have supplemented the measurement process of HEC risk perception in Section “4.1. Measurement of HEC Risk Perception”, available on page 14-16 (lines 475-556) of the revised version. Furthermore, we have included an enhanced description of the instrumental variable in Section “3.3.5. Instrumental Variable”, which can be found on page 10 (lines 352 - 362) of the revised manuscript.

 

Comments 4: Research Outlook: The paper lacks a discussion of the limitations of the empirical analysis. In fact, as an empirical study, it has certain limitations. The author is advised to add a section on the limitations of the study and suggest directions for future research at the end.

 

Response 4: Agreed. Thank you for your reminder. We have added Section “5.3. Limitations and Prospects” which discusses the study’s limitations in variable measurement, dynamic change research, sample data scope, and mediating mechanism exploration. We also suggest future research directions, such as using more objective measurement methods, conducting dynamic studies, expanding research fields and sample types, and broadening mediating variables. These changes are on page 23 (lines 780 - 803).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Summary

The paper describes research to assess the impact of the human - elephant conflict on farming in central Yunnan Province in southern China. The study examined the extent to which this conflict reduced the land use efficiency of farming and the influence of social networks on this effect. Land use efficiency was defined as the output value per land unit area, and the human-elephant interaction was subjectively assessed by farmers in terms of their perception of damage to life and property, the perception of agricultural production losses, and their perception of mental health harm. The study found the conflict negatively affects land use efficiency leading to the likelihood of changes in land use behaviour, and the social network tends to exaggerate the risks associated with the conflict, thereby worsening the damage.

Assessment

This an excellent study and a fascinating subject. While the study acknowledges the subjective nature of the farmers’ assessment of the conflict, it carefully analyses a wide range of factors which could contribute to their rating of the conflict. The main question being addressed by the research is the extent to which the human-elephant conflict affects the land use efficiency of farming. The human-elephant conflict has been subject to previous research with Google Scholar listing many studies which generally focus on the wider aspects of the human-elephant conflict. Few of the studies appear to address the effect on farming which has not been examined to the extent of this paper. Also most of the papers are from the past decade indicating that this is an active area of research to which the paper will add significantly.

The strength of the paper lies in it surveying in depth a large sample of farmers and analysing their responses to quantify the effect of the conflict on their farming output. No specific weaknesses were identified. The method is sound and clearly explained and should be reproducible given access to the data which are available. The paper acknowledges that the subjectivity of the interviews is a limitation but I consider it is not a significant weakness given the common use of such surveys.  The discussion and conclusions are consistent with the findings. It is particularly pleasing that the paper addresses the policy implications of its findings and suggests a range of practical measures.

The paper contains no figures and as well as a map of the location I suggest a diagram of the method would be useful for the reader. The Tables are clear and convey their information well. The English is quite satisfactory. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Most of the 41 references are post-2000 apart from four references which are pre-2000. Self-citation is not an issue.

Specific Comments
It would assist readers to have a map showing the study area and its location with respect of the whole of China. Photographs of the elephants and the damage they cause would also be welcome.

Line 104 “With a total area of about 45,000 square kilometers” Is this correct? That is huge for a town. Or is it the area of the province?

Table 3. This shows the weak social network is the frequency of mutual assistance between the family and other villagers. The scale includes Frequently = 4 and the Mean is 4.125. This would seem to be a strong social network, not a weak one. If I have this wrong, you need to make it clearer why a high mean results in a weak social network.  

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2

Comments 1: It would assist readers to have a map showing the study area and its location with respect of the whole of China. Photographs of the elephants and the damage they cause would also be welcome.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have added a map showing the study area and its location within China, as well as photographs of Asian elephants and the damage they have caused in Pu'er City. These additions can be found in the revised manuscript on page 6 and 8 （Lines 240 and 286）, in Section “3.1. Research Area”.

 

 

Comments 2: Line 104 “With a total area of about 45,000 square kilometers” Is this correct? That is huge for a town. Or is it the area of the province?

 

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We have verified the total area of the region. The previous description was inaccurate. Pu’er is a large city with a total area of about 45,385 square kilometers, making it the largest prefecture-level city in Yunnan Province.

 

 

Comments 3: Table 3. This shows the weak social network is the frequency of mutual assistance between the family and other villagers. The scale includes Frequently = 4 and the Mean is 4.125. This would seem to be a strong social network, not a weak one. If I have this wrong, you need to make it clearer why a high mean results in a weak social network.

 

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting this confusion. We're sorry for not explaining the concept and meaning of social networks clearly before. We've added this information to the text. In this study, based on Granovetter’s “weak ties theory” from 1973, social networks are divided into strong and weak ones. He said that in social networks, when members interact often, have close emotional ties, a stable relationship, and a lot of reciprocal behaviour, it's called a “strong tie”. If they interact little, have superficial emotional ties, a loose relationship, and less reciprocity, it's seen as a “weak tie”. So, the division of strong and weak social networks in this paper is mainly based on the closeness of the relationship. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript on page 9-10 (Lines 334-346), in Section “3.3.3. Moderating Variable” .

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript deals with a very interesting topic. The authors clearly contextualize the problem of human-elephant conflict, highlighting the ecological and socio-economic consequences. It is commendable that they do not focus only on economic losses, but also on the psychological aspects of risk perceived by farmers. The title is fully adequate and expresses the essence of the research. The abstract is written quite clearly in terms of structure. The introductory part clearly highlights the objectives, gaps, significance and innovation of this study. The literature review is clear, the text is coherent, I only recommend a more critical approach in this part of the manuscript, so it would be good to pose research questions in the introductory part. Perhaps even including it in the literature review is perfectly fine. The methodology is explained clearly and simply. The use of the Tobit model for the analysis of a limited dependent variable is extremely appropriate and demonstrates methodological rigor. Also, the inclusion of mediation models and instrumental variables contributes to the validity of the findings. A detailed description of the geographical and socio-economic context of Pu’er city in China provides excellent insight into the specificities of the region. The explanation of how climatic and ecological factors contribute to frequent conflicts with elephants is particularly useful. The results are presented in clear tables and figures, I do not recommend any changes. The authors do not offer only descriptive conclusions, but enter into a deeper analysis of psychological and social factors. The use of instrumental variables to address the problem of endogeneity and additional analysis of mediating effects are a great contribution to the precision of the results. The discussion could be strengthened with a comparative analysis with similar studies that were reviewed in the literature review chapter. The conclusion should be slightly expanded and strengthened in the section on theoretical, practical implications, limitations and directions for future research. There are very few references for the importance of the manuscript.

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3

Comments 1: The literature review is clear, the text is coherent, I only recommend a more critical approach in this part of the manuscript, so it would be good to pose research questions in the introductory part. Perhaps even including it in the literature review is perfectly fine.

 

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We fully agree with your suggestion and have made the necessary revisions. We have adopted a more critical approach in the literature review section and posed research questions in the introductory part. In the introduction, we summarize previous research findings and conduct a critical analysis of existing studies’ limitations to introduce our research questions. Meanwhile, we elaborate on these questions to clarify the direction and focus of this study. This revision can be found in the introduction sections of the revised manuscript, on pages 1-3. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript on page 1-3 (Lines 30-137), in Section “1. Introduction”.

 

 

Comments 2: The conclusion should be slightly expanded and strengthened in the section on theoretical, practical implications, limitations and directions for future research. There are very few references for the importance of the manuscript.

 

Response 2: Agree. Thank you for your suggestion. In the conclusion section, we have added discussions on the theoretical and practical implications, which can be found on page 24 (Lines 815-823) of the revised manuscript. Additionally, we have introduced a new section to discuss the limitations of this study and future research directions, which can be found on page 23 (Lines 780-803). Moreover, we have expanded the discussions on existing research in the introduction and theoretical analysis sections and increased the number of references cited. These changes can be found in the revised manuscript on page 1-3, in Section “1. Introduction” and “2. Theoretical Analysis and Research Hypotheses” (Lines 30-230).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor and author,

The author has made detailed amendments to my questions, and I am very satisfied with these amendments. Therefore, I want to pass this review for the author of this article.

I personally believe that this research is very meaningful, as I am also working on this issue. Reviewing this study has also been very enlightening for me. Thank you.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf