Understanding Local Perspectives on the Trajectory and Drivers of Gazetted Forest Reserve Change in Nasarawa State, North Central Nigeria

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript submitted for review is a long but interesting scientific material. It seems that the authors wanted to include the entire research project in one article, which makes this article quite difficult to read.
In the introduction, it is necessary to explain how forests in Nigeria have changed, the actual state (not the attitude of residents), in order to bring closer the reason for taking up the issue.
In Figure 1, the administrative division of Nigeria is unnecessary, a better solution would be to include the administrative division of Nasarawa.
In Chapter 2, the Odu object is not discussed, besides, there is a lot of repeated information.
The research results are not discussed sufficiently. It cannot be written that the age group 18-55 is dominant, it is too large a group.

 

The manuscript does not present research questions.

The presented research is very broad. It addresses topics that have already been analyzed, but concerned a different research area. Nevertheless, it is important to know the opinions of the residents of Nigeria on the subject of changes in the forest area.

The study shows the perspective of the people of Nigeria, it is worth emphasizing that this is a difficult topic to study.

The article is long and touches on several important elements. I suggest dividing the results into two parts regarding the surveys of residents and the focus group studies. There are no statistical analyses of significant relationships in relation to the survey analyses. And this is necessary. The research results are not discussed sufficiently. It cannot be written that the age group 18-55 is dominant, it is too large a group.

And do they answer the main question posed? Please also explain why this is/is not the case.
The authors do not analyze the obtained results sufficiently, in small fragments the conclusions are really an introduction to the topic rather than a summary. This may also be related to the large amount of data collected.

The discussion should refer to the results of the dabanias in a given area.

Figure 1, the administrative division of Nigeria is unnecessary, a better solution would be to include the administrative division of Nasarawa.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please see the attached document of the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted/tracked changes in the resubmitted files

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a well-structured and comprehensive article that explores the perceived drivers of forest reserve change in Nasarawa State, Nigeria, using a mixed-methods approach. The manuscript effectively integrates quantitative and qualitative data derived from household surveys, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs) to assess local perspectives on forest degradation. It also provides temporal insights from 1966 to 2022, which strengthens the analysis of historical and contemporary trends.

The topic is highly relevant, particularly in the context of sustainable forest management and biodiversity conservation in sub-Saharan Africa. The integration of local knowledge into forest governance research is commendable and aligns with current academic and policy priorities.

 

The manuscript contains several grammatical errors, repetitive structures, and awkward phrasing that should be corrected for clarity and professionalism. For example:

1. "forest communities retained the right to access resources while maintaining the forest cover” (pg. 5) — this could be revised for conciseness.
2. "community people" is used repeatedly and could be replaced with more appropriate terms like "local residents" or "community members".

 

The manuscript could benefit from a clearer articulation of its theoretical framework. While the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is referenced, the paper would be strengthened by situating the analysis more firmly within a land system science or political ecology framework to discuss power dynamics and historical legacies influencing land use.

The results section, while rich in detail, is sometimes excessively descriptive. There is a need for more analytical depth, especially when comparing patterns across forest reserves. For example, what do these differences suggest about institutional capacity, cultural values, or tenure systems?

Define abbreviations like LULCC and FGD at first use.

The authors mention ethics approval from the University of York, which is commendable. However, further clarification on how informed consent was obtained  - or the number of the authorization - from illiterate participants would be useful.

While the discussion touches on major themes, it would benefit from a stronger comparative synthesis of findings across Doma, Risha, and Odu reserves, highlighting what lessons can be generalized and what remains context-specific.

The current title is accurate but could be more concise and focused. Consider:
"Local Perceptions of Drivers of Forest Reserve Change in Nasarawa State, Nigeria (1966–2022)"

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A thorough English language and style revision by a native speaker or professional editor is strongly advised.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please see the attachment that contains the detailed responses and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighting tract changes in the resubmission file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, I have thoroughly reviewed your manuscript, it has a good structure and its content is relevant to Land. 

However, the following suggestions need to be addressed: 

Introduction 

It is recommended to integrate comparative studies on drivers of change in African forest reserves to contextualize the results within the literature on deforestation in West Africa.

It is important to argue why local insights offer added value over studies based only on remote sensing or biophysical indicators.

It is suggested to highlight the strategic role of gazetted forest reserves in national conservation and climate change mitigation policies.

It is necessary to clarify how this study fills the gap in research combining qualitative and quantitative methods applied to LULCC in Nigeria.

It is relevant to link the local focus of the study with the objectives of SDG 15 and the targets of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).

Discussion 

How differences between communities reflect differentiated ecological, cultural and governance contexts should be further explored.

It is important to discuss why indirect drivers, such as poverty or weak governance, have equal or greater weight than direct drivers in the dynamics of change.

It is recommended to link the findings with practical strategies for REDD+ or national reforestation plans that integrate local knowledge.

Author Response

 Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript. Please see the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted and tracked/changes in the resubmitted file.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have taken into account most of my comments. The article, although difficult to read, is interesting.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors.

I have reviewed in detail each of the responses. I consider that you have done an excellent scientific work and the manuscript has significantly improved its quality. 

For this reason, I consider that in its current state it can be considered for publication.

Best regards.