How Are Residents’ Livelihoods Affected by National Parks? A SEM Model Based on DFID Framework
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Comment 1: The acronym “DFID” should be spelled out in full in the title or abstract, and it would be helpful to briefly introduce the framework in the abstract to enhance accessibility for a broader readership.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. For clarity, we set a short introduction about the DFID, which would be helpful to enhance accessibility for a broader readership. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the following for details.
Comment 2: In the second and third paragraphs of the introduction, it is recommended to incorporate discussions of similar livelihood-related conflicts in the global context. This would reinforce the broader relevance and necessity of the current research.
Response: Thank you very much for your suggestions. We added some cases of similar livelihood-related conflicts happened in Africa and Southeast Asia, which proved that the livelihood-related conflicts is widespread and has become a common issue caused by National Parks.
Comment 3: Section 2.2 mentions the diversity and applicability of the DFID framework. Given the potential diversity of the readership, a more detailed explanation or contextualization of the framework is recommended.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. To enhance the readability of the article, we added supplementary explanations of the DFID framework’s background, principles, and practical applications in section 2.2. Please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Comment 4: Consider moving Figure 2 to the end of Section 2.4, so it can visually summarize the hypotheses and better align with the logical flow of the discussion.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have moved the Figure 2 to the end of Section 2.4 and renamed the figure as "Fig 1", please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Comment 5: It is suggested to include general descriptive statistics of the variables used in the model to enhance the transparency and interpretability of the methodology.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have added a table to display the general descriptive statistics of the variables, which is named as "Table 2", please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Comment 6: The abbreviations used in Figure 4 could hinder readability. Replacing them with short, intuitive descriptive labels would improve the clarity of the figure.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We have made new figures with more information about the variables, we believe that these new figures will enhance accessibility for a broader readership. These new figures are shown as "Fig 3" and "Fig 4", please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Comment 7: Instead of using “1/2/3” to list the livelihood improvement paths, a more formal academic presentation is recommended.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We rewrite the section 5.3 with the logic of different livelihood strategies, please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Comment 8: Lines 679–691 in the conclusion section would benefit from more scholarly phrasing to improve the professionalism and academic tone of the manuscript.
Response: Thank you very much for your comments and suggestions. We rewrite the last part of the conclusion, please refer to the revised manuscript for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsPlease see the attachment.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
See above
Author Response
Comment 1: The subsequent model is coarse as it relies on what the sample say they do or believe in which is not necessarily what they actually do or accept. In my jurisdiction, many large National Parks have been established from failing pastoral enterprises. The landholders privately negotiate favourable recompense for the land acquisition, often above market rates, but publicly claim distress from a government ‘land grab’ as a matter of pride or peer pressure. Such nuances are not canvassed in the model or discussion of the results. It is possible that for a favourable recompense some stakeholders may welcome relief from agrarian drudgery and the opportunity to invest capital and labour elsewhere.
Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. As this paper is about exploratory study, social-desirability bias was not explicitly addressed. Although structural equation modelling allows for measurement error and thus helps align the findings with real-world conditions, such limitations are inherent. Corresponding caveats have been added at the conclusion of the paper.
Please refer to the revised manuscript and the following for details.
Comment 2: The focus of the manuscript is anthropocentric and though it briefly acknowledges the economic opportunities and ecosystem services a National Park can offer its tone is negative with all costs and no benefit. Likewise, there is brief acknowledgement of cultural as well as natural assets that may be protected in a National Park. These may be viewed favourably and take precedence for some stakeholders even if the livelihood benefit is not obvious.
Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. Due to the study’s scope and space constraints, we focus solely on how the National Park affects local residents’ livelihoods. In reality, as a social intervention, the National Park presents opportunities to improve livelihoods. In China, the most effective practice on this issue, is hiring residents as forest rangers. Cultural-heritage conservation has likewise gained widespread recognition. We have now incorporated these points into the Discussion and Conclusion sections. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the following for details.
Comment 3: The authors chose one of five newly created National Parks as their study area. This Park has potential trans-frontier complications that are not discussed in the manuscript. Are the borders porous to the wildlife? Is there collaborative management between the Chinese and Russian (Leopard Land) protected areas? What happens on the Korean border? Potentially these trans-frontier issues impact human-wildlife conflict and policies to resolve it.
Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. This is a serious issue. One of the major challenges in establishing the national park has been its location on an international border. Owing to geopolitical sensitivities, only China and Russia have so far achieved limited scientific collaboration, and no unified strategy for human–wildlife conflict has yet been agreed. The border itself acts as an external constraint that brings more challenges. We have added a discussion of this point in Section 5.2 and hope it will draw future attention from both policymakers and the academic community. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the following for details.
Comment 4: There are some missing articles (a, the). Proofing was deficient. There are numerous inconsistencies that I outline below. There are style issues. The captions of tables and figures are minimalistic. Typically, they should contain sufficient information for the reader to understand the figure or table without further reference to the text. The authors adopt a cumbersome style when referencing figures or tables. They write that the result is X. Figure or Table Y shows this. It is more concise to write “The result is X (Figure or Table Y).
Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. We have checked this paper again, and correct these mistakes. The missing articles (a, the) have been added; The terms have been unified; More information has been added to the captions of tables and figures, which would be helpful to enhance accessibility for a broader readership; The forms on referencing figures or tables have been corrected. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the following for details.
Comment 5: The following are suggested corrections (from L16 to L680)
Response: Thank you very much for your constructive comments. All of the mistakes have been corrected. Please refer to the revised manuscript and the following for details.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAll the comments have been well revised and explained. The suggestions are hereby accepted.
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have adequately addressed my comments and suggestions for improvement of the manuscript.
