Global Mapping of Indigenous Resilience Facing the Challenge of the COVID-19 Pandemic
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article is interesting and actual. There are some recommendations for improving it:
- The abstract is using an lot of time of the word "indigenous". It is recommended to improve stylistically.
- The introduction lacks of identification of scientific problem, scientific gap, novelty, implications (for example academic, social, political).
- There’s need for logical transition from the concepts „indigenous“, „community“ and „institutional resilience“.
- The introduction lacks of aim of the article.
- The methodological part need to be improved by sample of interviews participants and observed persons”.
- The relationship between “ancestral knowledge” and Covid 19 should be provided. The 4 part is devoted to ancestral knowledge but lacks of integration to whole research area.
- Please, clarify Figure 1. How Covid 19 is related with food system? Doesn’t Covid 19 influence believes, values? How institutional resilience influence (namely by adaption, persistence and transformation) others elements of model?
- The conclusions lack of further researches. Please, provide clear conclusions, eliminating such sentences: “At the global level, indigenous populations do give lessons on how they face their 591 adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic is one of them” What concrete kind of lessons? What exact recommendation do you provide for improving Institutional resilience?
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Dear reviewer, I would like to thank you for taking the time to evaluate my manuscript. The suggestions and recommendations were considered and have led to a substantial improvement of the text. Below you can find the responses to each comment made. In the manuscript the changes are highlighted in red. The manuscript was also read by a native English speaker to improve spelling and writing. Other changes to the manuscript were made to maintain the logical and coherent structure of the analysis.
The article is interesting and actual. There are some recommendations for improving it:
- The abstract is using an lot of time of the word "indigenous". It is recommended to improve stylistically.
Answer: The wording of the abstract was improved and the use of the word indigenous was limited. (see lines: 8-18).
- The introduction lacks of identification of scientific problem, scientific gap, novelty, implications (for example academic, social, political).
Answer: Following the reviewer's suggestion, the study's problematic and its implications in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic are clarified (lines: 60-82).
- There’s need for logical transition from the concepts „indigenous“, „community“ and „institutional resilience“.
Answer: a paragraph explaining the transition mentioned by the reviewer was added (see lines: 104-113).
- The introduction lacks of aim of the article.
Answer: The objective was set at the beginning of the introduction section (see lines: 22-26).
- The methodological part need to be improved by sample of interviews participants and observed persons”.
Answer: The section indicated by the reviewer was improved and a new figure was also added (see lines: 269-273 and 291).
- The relationship between “ancestral knowledge” and Covid 19 should be provided. The 4 part is devoted to ancestral knowledge but lacks of integration to whole research area.
Answer: Part 4 was improved and the reviewer's recommendation was addressed (see lines: 294-339).
- Please, clarify Figure 1. How Covid 19 is related with food system? Doesn’t Covid 19 influence believes, values? How institutional resilience influence (namely by adaption, persistence and transformation) others elements of model?
Answer: the relationship of COVID-19 and the food system is clarified (see lines: 332-339).
- The conclusions lack of further researches. Please, provide clear conclusions, eliminating such sentences: “At the global level, indigenous populations do give lessons on how they face their 591 adversities, the COVID-19 pandemic is one of them” What concrete kind of lessons? What exact recommendation do you provide for improving Institutional resilience?
Answer: the conclusions section was improved based on the reviewer's recommendation (see lines: 620-629).
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for presenting this interesting and timely article. It would be helpful to know the author/s relationship or connection with the case study, i.e. why this particular location and people were selected. The case study appears to be a very small and isolated community - was this the rationale?
The connections between the findings from the case study are not clearly connected with the potential contributions they could make to the wider community. These applications could be clarified.
The places where the figures and images are to be placed were not acknowlded in the text, making it difficult to see how the 'Results' section acatually reported Results.
I have written the following points to assist with strengthening your work.
The case stusdy is not introduced until line 182, this feels a bit late.
line 34, do you mean 'timely' rather than 'tidy'?
line 47 'They type..' is a rather awkard phrase.
line 51, should you include the word 'people' to clarify?
The paragraph commencing with line 56 needs revision as it reports on a moment in time without indicating the moment. Remember, people will be reading this in years to come and the situaiton will have changed by then.
line 78, delete the 's' from immunes'
line 111 - what/which institutions? This statement is a bit too broad to be of use.
I felt your article really started at line 160. Up until this point the word 'indigenous' was applied so braodly it hasd barely any meaning.
line 180, instead of 'the proposed objective' please insert the actual objective.
line 197 provide a year for the conquest
line 219 use considered instead of considering
line 279 'is a complex of elements' doesn't quite make sense
line 311 '5. Results' reads more as Findings rather than Results, while the 6. Discussion section seemed a continuation of the 5. Results i.e. it did not have the feel of a new and distinct section.
line 377 same issue as previously. You cannot write 'to date', but rather you must insert the actual date. In this way future readers will be able to follow along. the next sentence illustrates my point - you have left out India, which you could not possibly include as it was not so affected by COVID 19 at the time of your writing.
line 390 makes a sweeping stement which many would refute. It doesn't serve your purpose to set people offside with broad comments like this.
line 584, you could consider adding the word 'drawing'
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Dear reviewer, I would like to thank you for taking the time to evaluate my manuscript. The suggestions and recommendations were considered and have led to a substantial improvement of the text. Below you can find the responses to each comment made. In the manuscript the changes are highlighted in red. The manuscript was also read by a native English speaker to improve spelling and writing. Other changes to the manuscript were made to maintain the logical and coherent structure of the analysis.
Thank you for presenting this interesting and timely article. It would be helpful to know the author/s relationship or connection with the case study, i.e. why this particular location and people were selected. The case study appears to be a very small and isolated community - was this the rationale?
Answer: the reviewer's recommendation was followed (see lines: 222-226).
The connections between the findings from the case study are not clearly connected with the potential contributions they could make to the wider community. These applications could be clarified.
Answer: the conclusion section is improved, the clarification commented on by the reviewer is made (see lines: 637-646).
The places where the figures and images are to be placed were not acknowlded in the text, making it difficult to see how the 'Results' section acatually reported Results.
Answer: the results section is improved; a new table is added (see lines: 344-391).
I have written the following points to assist with strengthening your work:
The case stusdy is not introduced until line 182, this feels a bit late.
Answer: In order to maintain logic and coherence in the text of the manuscript, the case study should remain in section 4. This section was also improved (see lines: 297-307 and 334-341).
line 34, do you mean 'timely' rather than 'tidy'?
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see line: 38).
line 47 'They type..' is a rather awkard phrase.
Answer: the paragraph was deleted
line 51, should you include the word 'people' to clarify?
Answer: the word "people" is added (see line: 52).
The paragraph commencing with line 56 needs revision as it reports on a moment in time without indicating the moment. Remember, people will be reading this in years to come and the situaiton will have changed by then.
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see lines: 57-59).
line 78, delete the 's' from immunes'
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see line: 81).
line 111 - what/which institutions? This statement is a bit too broad to be of use.
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see lines: 118-119).
I felt your article really started at line 160. Up until this point the word 'indigenous' was applied so braodly it hasd barely any meaning.
Answer: dear reviewer I understand your comment, the word "indigenous" is an awkward category with few synonyms.
line 180, instead of 'the proposed objective' please insert the actual objective.
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see line: 188).
line 197 provide a year for the conquest
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was addressed (see line: 205).
line 219 use considered instead of considering
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see line: 230).
line 279 'is a complex of elements' doesn't quite make sense
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see lines: 293-303).
line 311 '5. Results' reads more as Findings rather than Results, while the 6. Discussion section seemed a continuation of the 5. Results i.e. it did not have the feel of a new and distinct section.
Answer: the results section was reworked (see lines: 344-391).
line 377 same issue as previously. You cannot write 'to date', but rather you must insert the actual date. In this way future readers will be able to follow along. the next sentence illustrates my point - you have left out India, which you could not possibly include as it was not so affected by COVID 19 at the time of your writing.
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see lines: 416-418).
line 390 makes a sweeping stement which many would refute. It doesn't serve your purpose to set people offside with broad comments like this.
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed (see lines: 432-433).
line 584, you could consider adding the word 'drawing'
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was addressed (see line: 627).
Reviewer 3 Report
please see attached
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Reviewer 3
Dear reviewer, I would like to thank you for taking the time to evaluate my manuscript. The suggestions and recommendations were considered and have led to a substantial improvement of the text. Below you can find the responses to each comment made. In the manuscript the changes are highlighted in red. The manuscript was also read by a native English speaker to improve spelling and writing. Other changes to the manuscript were made to maintain the logical and coherent structure of the analysis.
The basic premise of the paper is an interesting and worthwhile one, although it is only partially realized through the material provided. The paper was hard to follow and make sense of in some passages, especially in the first few pages, and would benefit from a careful rewrite (see specific list of passages requiring attention below, for example). The paper is a challenging one to assess because although the core ideas would appear to be sensible and timely, the paper does not altogether work well in its current form.
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was heeded, most of the manuscript was re-formulated, all changes can be seen in the new version of the manuscript, highlighted in red.
It was not clear until well into the paper that “institution” was being used in a much wider sense than its conventional usage as a synonym for ‘bureaucracy’. The paper would benefit from this being clarified at the outset (including in the abstract). Most readers will assume that “institutional resilience” refers to the capacity of bureaucracies and formal organizations to survive challenges, whereas something different and much broader is being referred to here.
Answer: as suggested by the reviewer, the term "Institutions" is explained in detail (see lines 122-130).
The resilience literature is relatively well covered, although no mention is made of critiques, especially as they apply to Indigenous peoples (many of whom now claim they are tired of being seen as ‘resilient’). There is little mention also of the literature on TEK in the field of sustainability, though several sources can be found in the reference list.
Answer: I do not agree with your statement that indigenous people are tired of being considered "resilient". Being resilient is not an appellative, it is an attribute of human beings.
The relationship of the author(s) to the people being profiled/studies is unclear and needs to be explicated. In addition, as per all contemporary research on/with Indigenous peoples, the nature of the relationship building and reciprocity between researcher and researched, needs to be described.
Answer: the reviewer's recommendation was followed (see lines: 222-226).
The case study itself works well. The material on Indigenous peoples around the world (including Figure 2), less so. I don’t see the value add of the Figure, and the information in Tables 1-5 is too general and broad to be very useful to most readers. It would be good to know why this case study site was chosen in particular, and how it is similar or different from other areas. This would help contextualize the findings and enable the reader to assess transferability
Answer: Dear reviewer, I understand your concern in lines: 222-226, it explains why that place was chosen. I believe that the necessary elements are provided so that in a global scenario we can try to rescue the applied approach. The literature review of indigenous peoples of the world allows us to assess how strategies emerge in the face of a challenge, the explanation based on the theoretical model clarifies the emergence of such strategies in the current context.
I was expecting (and would like to see) some discussion of Indigenous resilience versus resistance or resurgence. These have distinct meanings, and my understanding is that more Indigenous peoples are critical of resilience and advancing these other two distinctions more forcefully of late.
Answer: the results section was modified and partly addresses your concern, regarding the debate within indigenous peoples that they are resilient or not, I'm not sure about that.
p.3, line 127: is there really just one global Indigenous “world view”, or does this need to be pluralized?
Answer: Your comment is interesting and my answer is that there is no global indigenous worldview, each indigenous culture generates its own worldview. There are theories about the formation of a core of cultures that revolve around a collective but this is debated.
p.2, lines 82-85: versus always already entangled and inseparable? Positing nature and humans is already an act of dualistic separation, is it not?
Answer: Dear reviewer, I agree with your statement.
Many passages were hard to follow. For example:
- p2, lines 52-53: “communities indigenous still adapt to alter whereas maintaining their cultures and traditions”
Answer: In my opinion, this is an undeniable fact and forms the basis of the approach used in this study which is "Institutional Resilience".
- 2, line 65-66: “The current pandemic suggests an unprecedented challenge to the human agency of global society”
Answer: This is a strong statement and the subject of intense debate, and the bibliographical references that deal with the subject of social metabolism explain it quite well.
- 2, lines 78-79: “indigenous populations are not immunes by the effects of the COVID19 pandemic”
Answer: This statement is aimed at saying that indigenous people can also be affected by COVID-19, however, a set of strategies they have deployed has mitigated this scenario. Some of the above is explained in this study.
- 2, line 92: “the exploitation of natural resources is increasing generating a decline in sinks”. Is this in reference to oceans and forests that are referred to by climate scientists as carbon sinks?
Answer: I refer to forests
- 3, lines 111-112: “institutions are relevant because of their transversality to the actions that govern the human being”
Answer: this statement is correct and is well explained in the definition given (see lines: 122-130).
- 3, lines 113-114: “The term "institutions" acquires relevance because it gives meaning to the "informal institution" which in turn constitutes the shaping element of institutional resilience”
Answer: this statement is explained in lines: 122-141
- 4, lines 156-158: “the presence of a pandemic the world has weakened in the socioeconomic context, there is uncertainty about the future to come, in these conditions the promotion of resilience is low.”
Answer: Dear reviewer, would you agree with me that this pandemic has slowed down the global economy, from a Western perspective the health measures put in place are not exactly resilience-building?
- 4, line 195: “Triple Alliance, subject to strong tributes
Answer: This statement is given in the context of the scenarios of submission to which the Totonac people were subjected by the Mexica empire.
- 5, line 217: “Huehuetla was founded in the 1,550 year”
Answer: I want to highlight the importance of the municipality in a historical context.
- 5, line 219: “This municipality is considering as marginalized and a high degree of lag.”
Answer: highlights this marginalisation as part of the reality experienced by the Totonac indigenous group.
- 6, line 255: “their traditions, and reproduction-strategies and how the latter influence the logic of local development.”
Answer: This statement is connected to the object of study of the research.
- 6-7: “indigenous 283 knowledge is antagonistic because its application in different cultural contexts may not be appropriate since its specific characteristics are not contemplated”
Answer: is a statement that emerges from the literature, which I do not agree with, in lines: 317-320 I give an explanation.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did the corrections. Recommendations: to rethink the presentation of Figure 1 (related the lines to and from rectangle COVID19)
Author Response
Reviewer 1
The authors did the corrections. Recommendations: to rethink the presentation of Figure 1 (related the lines to and from rectangle COVID19).
Answer: Dear reviewer thank you, in reference to your comment I made a slight improvement to the lines that connect to the COVID-19 rectangle, I hope I understood your comment (see figure 1, line: 262). The modification can be seen in the new version of the manuscript
Reviewer 2 Report
The revised version presents a stronger argument and addresses my previous concerns.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
The revised version presents a stronger argument and addresses my previous concerns.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thank you for your comments.
Reviewer 3 Report
The attentiveness of author(s) to reviewer comments is appreciated. The paper is noticeably improved. The additional figures and tables are particularly helpful.
I do not think that the author sufficiently describes her own relationship to the studied peoples/communities. The material that is added in this regard only addresses the university mandate to be "of benefit" to surrounding communities (which is a common statement).
In my original review, I listed a number of phrases and statements as "hard to follow". The author responded with points of agreement and disagreement, which led me to realize that I was not sufficiently clear. When I wrote "hard to follow" I mean that I don't understand what is being said, and therefore some rephrasing for greater clarity is required. It's not that I disagree with what's being said, but rather just don't understand what the author is trying to say in those sentences. Many of these sentences have not been changed in the revised manuscript, and in my view still require attention if the author wishes to be understood by readers.
Author Response
Reviewer 3
The recommendations made by the reviewer can be seen in red in the new version of the manuscript. I appreciate your recommendations because it allowed me to improve the text of my manuscript. Thank you very much.
I do not think that the author sufficiently describes her own relationship to the studied peoples/communities. The material that is added in this regard only addresses the university mandate to be "of benefit" to surrounding communities (which is a common statement).
Answer: thanks for the clarification, lines 232-233 show the improvement.
In my original review, I listed a number of phrases and statements as "hard to follow". The author responded with points of agreement and disagreement, which led me to realize that I was not sufficiently clear. When I wrote "hard to follow" I mean that I don't understand what is being said, and therefore some rephrasing for greater clarity is required. It's not that I disagree with what's being said, but rather just don't understand what the author is trying to say in those sentences. Many of these sentences have not been changed in the revised manuscript, and in my view still require attention if the author wishes to be understood by readers.
Answer: Dear reviewer, thanks for the clarification I will try to respond to your suggestions.
Many passages were hard to follow:
- p2, lines 52-53: “communities indigenous still adapt to alter whereas maintaining their cultures and traditions”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 52-55.
- 2, line 65-66: “The current pandemic suggests an unprecedented challenge to the human agency of global society”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 67-68.
- 2, lines 78-79: “indigenous populations are not immunes by the effects of the COVID19 pandemic”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 82-83.
- 2, line 92: “the exploitation of natural resources is increasing generating a decline in sinks”. Is this in reference to oceans and forests that are referred to by climate scientists as carbon sinks?
Answer: I refer to forests
- 3, lines 111-112: “institutions are relevant because of their transversality to the actions that govern the human being”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 119-120.
- 3, lines 113-114: “The term "institutions" acquires relevance because it gives meaning to the "informal institution" which in turn constitutes the shaping element of institutional resilience”
Answer: this statement is explained in lines: 122-141
- 4, lines 156-158: “the presence of a pandemic the world has weakened in the socioeconomic context, there is uncertainty about the future to come, in these conditions the promotion of resilience is low.”
Answer: text contained in lines: 156-158 was deleted
- 4, line 195: “Triple Alliance, subject to strong tributes
Answer: for an explanation of the phrase used, see lines: 209-211.
- 5, line 217: “Huehuetla was founded in the 1,550 year”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 236-237.
- 5, line 219: “This municipality is considering as marginalized and a high degree of lag.”
Answer: the text was deleted
- 6, line 255: “their traditions, and reproduction-strategies and how the latter influence the logic of local development.”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 274-276.
- 6-7: “indigenous 283 knowledge is antagonistic because its application in different cultural contexts may not be appropriate since its specific characteristics are not contemplated”
Answer: the reviewer's suggestion was followed, see lines: 314-316.
