Review Reports - Collective Resource Management and Labor Quota Systems for Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Semi-Arid Ethiopia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

The English command is generally acceptable. Some checks during the revision will improve the final language quality

Author Response

27 July 2023

Replies to the comments and a list of changes

Thank you very much for reviewing the manuscript, " Collective Resources Management and Labor Quota Systems for Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Semi-Arid Ethiopia". The author really appreciates the reviewers’ valuable comments and suggestions. Based on these, the author rewrote the manuscript, and a list of the changes is shown at the bottom of this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Shiro Mukai (Ph.D.)

= Reviewer 1 =

Comment 1: Abstract. The introduction is too long. At the end, the problem is not clear and the methodology to short. Results on the study objective: (1) analyzing what village organizations managed those resources and (2) organizations that controlled collective work in the study area – have not been presented/ summarized in the abstract. The abstract will require a complete rewrite.

Reply to comment 1: Thank you very much for your time and energy to read my manuscript carefully and giving precious comments. Considering all points you mentioned here, the author completely rewrote the Abstract in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: Introduction. Page 2, lines 45-56: In the 1980s, droughts and famine frequently attacked Ethiopia. The socialist government (1974−1991) and donor agencies considered the country-level natural resources degradation to cause the aggravation of famine and started national-level natural resources management package programs. PROVIDE A SOURCE

Reply to comment 2: The author added the source to the revised manuscript.

Comment 3: Line 67: Like other East and South African countries.. sounds ambiguous. The comparison should not go beyond the regional location of Ethiopia, if this should happen, one should talk of SSA or Africa.

Reply to comment 3: The author rewrote this sentence from “Like other East and South African countries, large-scale gullies across several villages are found” to “Large-scale gullies across several villages are commonly found all-over Ethiopia” in the revised manuscript.

Comment 4: Page 5, lines 173 – 183. Should be integrated into the methods section.

Reply to comment 4: The author left this paragraph at the end of the Introduction; however, the paragraph was shortened, and the relationship with the objectives of the study was highlighted in the revised manuscript.

Comment 5: The introduction lacks a theoretical background. Many interesting theories on collective action, and sustainable natural resource management (e.g. Ostrom, 1990, Barzel, 1997). It is strongly recommended for the authors to discuss relevant theories and by extension a define a central research question and Hypotheses to be tested in the study.

Reply to comment 5: The author understands your suggestion greatly improved the manuscript. I did not know even “The Governing the Commons” before your suggestion.

Comment 6: History of Natural Resources Management in Ethiopia. Well written, though in my opinion too long for any reader out of Ethiopia. This section can be greatly improved by limiting it to the highlights.

Reply to comment 6: Some redundant parts were sent to Notes in the revised manuscript.

Comment 7: Page 9, lines 390-391 states: “The following two Ethiopian studies were referred to elucidate the village organizations managing collective natural and life resources and controlling collective work in the study area. State the two Ethiopian studies. The following sentences refer to more than two studies.

Reply to comment 7: The author changed the phrase “The following two Ethiopian studies” to “The following two types of Ethiopian studies”.

Comment 8: When was the study carried out? I draw from the article to assume that it was done in 2007. If this is the case, the authors need to justify why such an old study was not published before, and/or is still relevant for the Tigray region or for science today.

Reply to comment 8: It was my careless mistake. The author was involved in the survey project, namely, “advanced-technologies development for anti-desertification and environment conservation in Ethiopia (2004–2008)”, subsidized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. Part of the Results (Tables 5 and 6 in the revised manuscript) was quoted from the findings obtained from that survey project. But, other parts of the study were conducted in 2013.

Even I made a mistake on the date when Warka and Odalega iddirs in Merko Odalega village had implemented collective work for natural and life resources management, which was written on page 14, lines 592-606 in the original manuscript. Originally, the author wrote “Warka iddir maintained the road connecting Warka gott and Welenchiti for four days during February and March 2007. It also repaired the road broken by the gully expansion for 12 days from June to September 2007. Odalega iddir weeded a communal pond and dug a waterway to the pond for three days during March and April 2007. It also repaired the road connecting Odalega gott and Welenchiti broken by gully expansion for ten days from May to August 2007”. However, the reality was that “Warka iddir maintained the road connecting Warka gott and Welenchiti for four days on February 25, 2012, and March 5, 21, and 26, 2012. It also repaired the road broken by the gully expansion for 12 days from June to September 2012. Odalega iddir weeded a communal pond and dug a waterway to the pond for three days on March 18 and 28, 2012, and April 1, 2012. It also repaired the road connecting Odalega gott and Welenchiti broken by gully expansion for ten days from May to August 2012”.

The author was writing another manuscript side-by-side with this manuscript, entitled “[29] Mukai, S. Structure, Stratification, and Consensus-Building Process in Ethiopian Village, J. Afr. Stud. 2023. (in Japanese), accepted”. The survey year of this accepted paper was 2007. The author can be confused with it.

The author wrote in the Funding that “Part of this study was conducted in the survey project, advanced-technologies development for anti-desertification and environment conservation in Ethiopia (2004–2008), subsidized by the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Japan. The author acknowledges the ﬁnancial support and all coordination provided by Japan International Research Center for Agricultural Sciences (JIRCAS)”. The author quit JIRCAS in 2011 and personally visited Ethiopia in 2012 and 2013 to continue surveys. That was why the author wrote in the Funding that “Part of this study was conducted ---“. Actually when the author visited the study area (Ethiopia) in 2012 and 2013, the author collected the field data of this study and, simultaneously, those for “Mukai, S., Billi, P., Haregeweyn, N., Hordofa, T. Long-term effectiveness of indigenous and introduced soil and water conservation measures in soil loss and slope gradient reductions in the semi-arid Ethiopian lowlands, Geoderma 382, 114757” from the same study area. Accordingly, the author corrected or newly added the survey year in the revised manuscript.

Comment 9: 3. Materials and Methods. 3.1. Study Area and Previous Studies Referred. Page 8, line 373: I am not sure why the authors refer to an exchange rate of the birr to the US Dollar as far back as 2007. Source of exchange rate should be provided.

Reply to comment 9: The author described the exchange rate of the survey year. So, that was changed to that in 2013, and the information source was added in the revised manuscript.

Comment 10: Materials and methods. This section is elaborate and overly detailed. However, because it is not clearly written in the traditional way (study area, sampling, data collection and analysis), it is difficult to understand HOW and WHY specific villages and village organizations managing natural and life resources and controlling collective work were selected, and even the final sample.

Comment 11: With the exception of Table 1, all other ‘results’ (tables 2 to 5, figure 1) would seem to me as better placed under the “Results” section.

Reply to comments 10 and 11: The author rearranged and rewrote the Materials and Methods in the revised manuscript. First, 3.1. Preliminary survey subsector was newly added, where information including Table 1 (Table 2 in the revised manuscript) was placed. However, the author left Tables 3 and 5 (Tables 3 and 4 in the revised manuscript) and Figure 3 in the newly set 3.2. Study Area, Previous Studies Referred, and Methodology subsector. It was because these two tables explained variables used for the canonical discriminant analysis and the multiple regression analyses. Figure 3 is obviously part of the 4. Results, but it was also needed for the background of why the two-limit Tobit model was used in the multiple regression analyses.

Comment 12: This section contains a lot of information which would have fitted in the section (2).: History of Natural Resources Management in Ethiopia.

Reply to comment 12: The main description of the iddir (pages 8-9, lines 375-389, in the original manuscript) was moved to 1. Introduction where the term iddir first appeared in the revised manuscript. The assumption why “In Tigray and Amhara regions, communal grazing lands are managed by hamlet-based organizations; however, no such organization is observed in the semi-arid Ethiopian Rift Valley, including the Boset district” (pages 8, lines 526-541, in the original manuscript) was moved to the ending part of 4.1. Natural and Life Resources Management in the Boset District in 4. Results.

Comment 13: Results and Discussion. The results are well discussed in relation to the context (during presentation of the results) and to existing scientific discourses in the “Discussion” section.

Reply to comment 13: Thank you for your appreciation. I rewrote Results and Discussion in the broader theoretical framework you suggested, though.

Comment 14: Conclusion. In the absence of a theoretical framework and relevant hypotheses, the conclusions are limited to the study’s relevance in the study site. This makes the article more suitable for a national (or regional) journal. Including relevant theories and discussing the implications of the study for the broader science is a prerequisite for the article to be published in a prestigious journal like Land.

Reply to comment 14: Thanks to the suggestions you gave me, I think that this manuscript has been improved. If I could get your opinions again on the revised manuscript, it would be my great pleasure.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic "Collective Resources Management and Labour Quota Systems for Sustainable Natural Resource Management in Semi-Arid Ethiopia" is quite interesting to the international viewers which has highlighted the role of traditional village institutions, local practices and people's participation for the success of any common resource management program for livelihood improvement. Despite the relevance of the topic, the manuscript suffers from few shortcomings.

1. The introduction section is too lengthy. Major overlaps are observed between introduction, materials and methods, results etc in the manuscript. For example- good number of results have been mentioned in the materials and methods section. It should be properly segregated.

2. In line no 56-57, it has been mentioned that cash incentives are provided in Food for Work (FFW) program. It may be clarified as in most of the places in the world food (cereals, pulses etc) are provided for nutritional security and check misutilization of money by the receiver. Therefore, this statement (line 56-57) may be mentioned more explicitly.

3. In line number 72-73, it has been mentioned that "the broken part of the road was repaired by check dams". This is not comprehensible as how can a check dam be located on a road? To my understanding, the author probably wants to mention about retention wall or culvert systems. Therefore, it may be clearly stated.

4. Line 149- It has been mentioned that "on crop fields with more than 2% slope, narrow strips above the upper 149 part of the soil bund suffered frequent waterlogging (Figure 1 (f))". As a standard SWC practice, Land with more than 2% slope is provided with graded bunds to avoid such water stagnation. Therefore, it is a design failure and has less to do with peoples participation. Similar is the case with tree plantation in land having less than 10 cm soil depth. These class-VIII lands are recommended only for grassland development.

5. In the manuscript both the words "Enclosure" and "Ex-closure" have been used interchangeably. This may be avoided as in ecology and afforestation they are used in specific context.

6. The manuscript may be made more coherent with objectivity and clarity. Redundancy on historical part may be reduced.

Quality of English language is better.

Author Response

27 July 2023

Replies to the comments and a list of changes

Yours sincerely,

Shiro Mukai (Ph.D.)

= Reviewer 2 =

Comment 1: The introduction section is too lengthy. Major overlaps are observed between introduction, materials and methods, results etc in the manuscript. For example- good number of results have been mentioned in the materials and methods section. It should be properly segregated.

Reply to comment 1: Thank you very much for your time and energy to read my manuscript carefully and giving precious comments. Some redundant parts in 1. Introduction and 2. History of Natural Resources Management in Ethiopia were sent to Notes. I took care of the overlaps and I believe it was greatly reduced in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2: In line no 56-57, it has been mentioned that cash incentives are provided in Food for Work (FFW) program. It may be clarified as in most of the places in the world food (cereals, pulses etc) are provided for nutritional security and check misutilization of money by the receiver. Therefore, this statement (line 56-57) may be mentioned more explicitly.

Reply to comment 2: The author added Note 2 at the end of the manuscript, writing “Though it is generally called cash-for-work when cash is supplied in exchange for participation, this study does not distinguish grain and cash and calls it food-for-work (FFW).”

Comment 3: In line number 72-73, it has been mentioned that "the broken part of the road was repaired by check dams". This is not comprehensible as how can a check dam be located on a road? To my understanding, the author probably wants to mention about retention wall or culvert systems. Therefore, it may be clearly stated.

Reply to comment 3: The author rewrote this sentence to “By treating the evolved parts of the gully with check-dams (gabions and stones), the road can be repaired, and the gully can be partly treated (Figure 1(b and c)).” Actually, the author often saw this type of gully treatment and road repair around the Boset district (the study area), where the administration lacks a budget being difficult to treat the gully using costly techniques.

Comment 4: Line 149- It has been mentioned that "on crop fields with more than 2% slope, narrow strips above the upper part of the soil bund suffered frequent waterlogging (Figure 1 (f))". As a standard SWC practice, Land with more than 2% slope is provided with graded bunds to avoid such water stagnation. Therefore, it is a design failure and has less to do with peoples participation. Similar is the case with tree plantation in land having less than 10 cm soil depth. These class-VIII lands are recommended only for grassland development.

Reply to comment 4: The author quoted this sentence from “Herweg, K.; Ludi, E. The Performance of Selected Soil and Water Conservation Measures: Case Studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea, Catena 1999, 36, 99-114.” They wrote that “(ii) despite a drainage gradient of 2% or higher, waterlogging is frequently observed along a narrow strip above the SWC structures (page 109)”. So, it appears that these fields were with graded bunds but they still suffered waterlogging. The author changed the sentence as accurately as I quoted from Herweg and Ludi (1999), such that “(ii) despite a drainage gradient of 2% or higher, narrow strips above the upper part of the soil bund suffered frequent waterlogging (similar to Figure 1 (f))”.

Regarding the case of tree plantation in land having less than 10 cm soil depth, the author sent these sentences to Note 21 in the revised manuscript because it is not directly related to the sluggishness of hillside management in the Boset district.

Comment 5: In the manuscript both the words "Enclosure" and "Ex-closure" have been used interchangeably. This may be avoided as in ecology and afforestation they are used in specific context.

Reply to comment 5: The author referred to “Raf Aertsa, Jan Nyssen, and Mitiku Haile (2008) On the difference between "exclosures" and "enclosures" in ecology and the environment, Nature Precedings”, which made my understanding clear.

Comment 6: The manuscript may be made more coherent with objectivity and clarity. Redundancy on historical part may be reduced.

Reply to comment 6: Considering all points suggested by the two Reviewers, the author rewrote the manuscript. In the process, I believe that it has got coherent with the objectives, and redundancy in the historical parts has been reduced in the revised manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I appreciate the effort of the authors to revise the article. It is a very read now. The authors may do a last English language check on the proof version

The English language has improved tremendously from the previous version. Authors may check one last time, as they proof-read the article for any English language issues

Author Response

August 19, 2023

Replies to the comments and a list of changes

Yours sincerely,

Shiro Mukai (Ph.D.)

= Reviewer 1 =

Comment 1: I appreciate the effort of the authors to revise the article. It is a very read now. The authors may do a last English language check on the proof version. The English language has improved tremendously from the previous version. Authors may check one last time, as they proof-read the article for any English language issues

Reply to comment 1: Thank you very much for your time and energy to read my manuscript carefully and giving precious comments. I started proofreading and soon felt a thorough check was needed. I carefully proofread the whole document again. The words and phrases I changed cover so much that I cannot point out where I exactly changed point by point. However, I am sure that I only modified it grammatically, I have not changed any contents. Thank you again for your time and energy and your series of great comments. It greatly helped to modify this manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

It is hard to understand the reason of water stagnation after providing a 2 % slope in the drainage. A citation of a reference does not corroborate the statement that goes against the natural drainage of water in a field unless some experimental data is generated to support it. It is better to avoid such statements.

Author Response

August 19, 2023

Replies to the comments and a list of changes

Yours sincerely,

Shiro Mukai (Ph.D.)

= Reviewer 2 =

Previous comment: Line 149- It has been mentioned that "on crop fields with more than 2% slope, narrow strips above the upper part of the soil bund suffered frequent waterlogging (Figure 1 (f))". As a standard SWC practice, land with more than 2% slope is provided with graded bunds to avoid such water stagnation. Therefore, it is a design failure and has less to do with peoples participation.

Reply to the previous comment: The author quoted this sentence from “Herweg, K.; Ludi, E. The Performance of Selected Soil and Water Conservation Measures: Case Studies from Ethiopia and Eritrea, Catena 1999, 36, 99-114.” They wrote that “(ii) despite a drainage gradient of 2% or higher, waterlogging is frequently observed along a narrow strip above the SWC structures (page 109)”. So, it appears that these fields were with graded bunds but they still suffered waterlogging. The author changed the sentence as accurately as I quoted from Herweg and Ludi (1999), such that “(ii) despite a drainage gradient of 2% or higher, narrow strips above the upper part of the soil bund suffered frequent waterlogging (similar to Figure 1 (f))”.

New comment: It is hard to understand the reason of water stagnation after providing a 2 % slope in the drainage. A citation of a reference does not corroborate the statement that goes against the natural drainage of water in a field unless some experimental data is generated to support it. It is better to avoid such statements.

Reply to the new comment: Thank you very much for your time and energy to read my manuscript carefully and giving precious comments. Besides Herweg and Ludi (1999), waterlogging problems with soil bunds are sometimes reported by other articles from Ethiopia where probably soil structure underground has some drainage problems. So, I deleted this sentence in the revised manuscript. However, many other articles other than Herweg and Ludi (1999) pointed out the problem of rodents and running-weeds infestation with soil bunds. So, I added this problem to the revised manuscript.

I started proofreading the previous manuscript and soon felt a thorough English check was needed. I carefully proofread the whole document again. The words and phrases I changed cover so much that I cannot point out where I exactly changed point by point. However, I am sure that I only modified it grammatically, I have not changed any contents. Thank you again for your time and energy and your series of great comments. It greatly helped to modify this manuscript.