Translating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into a Design Framework for Sustainable Resource Management: A Case Study of the Ruza System of Nagaland, India

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic is both timely and important, with significant potential to contribute to the discourse on Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and sustainable landscape design. While the manuscript demonstrates originality and strong engagement with the field context, there are several substantive issues that require careful revision before the work can be considered for publication. My detailed comments are outlined below. 

The title is clear and informative, but it could better reflect the methodological contribution. Currently, it emphasizes the case study, but not the comparative or theoretical positioning of the proposed design framework. Consider rephrasing to highlight the framework development aspect more explicitly.

Abstract

The abstract provides a good overview but lacks clarity regarding the research gap, methodological rigor, and validation of results.

Phrases such as “decode and propose a framework” are vague; please clarify how this decoding was operationalized.

The abstract should briefly mention the limitations of the study and scope for generalization, which are currently missing.

Research Question and Hypothesis

The manuscript does not explicitly state a clear research question or hypothesis. Without this, it is difficult to assess the logical flow of the study. Please articulate the central research question and, if applicable, hypotheses that guide the investigation.

The literature review is underdeveloped. There is insufficient engagement with existing scholarship on TEK integration, ecological design frameworks, and comparable indigenous farming systems.

Several core works in landscape ecology, sustainability science, and participatory design are missing. This weakens the justification of the study’s novelty.
 Cite this relevant aork somewhere in introduction- https://doi.org/10.3390/app14041578

The research gap is implied but not clearly articulated. Please sharpen the identification of what is missing in current literature and how your study directly addresses this gap.

Methodology

The description of the methodology is vague in certain parts. For instance:

How exactly were ethnographic observations structured?

How were interview participants selected, and how was sample size justified?

How was drone-assisted spatial analysis operationalized, and what software/tools were used for processing?

There is no comparison with existing frameworks or models. A more systematic contrast with prior approaches would strengthen the originality claim.

Several equations appear in the text, but no citations or theoretical justification are provided for them. Please ensure that all formulas are either derived with explanation or referenced appropriately.

Results and Discussion

The results section highlights four design principles, but it is unclear how these were validated beyond descriptive observation. Were these principles cross-verified with existing ecological design models or similar case studies?

The discussion does not address whether the findings were expected based on prior studies, nor does it situate the results within broader theoretical frameworks.

Please clarify: Are the results context-specific, or can they be generalized beyond the Ruza system?

Software and Validation

The manuscript does not specify which software packages or analytical tools were used in data collection and analysis (GIS, qualitative coding software, drone mapping platforms, etc.). Transparency in tools and reproducibility of results is essential.

Validation is missing. How did you ensure the reliability of interview data, ethnographic interpretation, or spatial analysis?

Limitations

The study does not provide a limitations section. Every empirical study has constraints—such as sample size, cultural specificity, seasonal variability, or methodological scope—that should be acknowledged.

Technical Rigor

Equations and analytical steps lack citation and explanation. Without proper references, these inclusions appear disconnected. Please clarify their origin and role in the methodology.

Comparative analysis with at least one existing sustainability or TEK integration framework would significantly improve the technical strength of the study.

Contribution and Implications

The claimed contribution as a “methodological bridge” is promising, but it is not convincingly substantiated. The framework needs stronger grounding in both theory and comparative literature to establish its broader applicability.

Please expand the section on implications for policy, design practice, and local community engagement.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

 

We sincerely thank the reviewer for their thorough, insightful, and constructive comments. We agree that these suggestions have significantly strengthened the manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper on a point-by-point basis to address all the issues raised. All major revisions in the manuscript have been marked in red color.

Comment 1: (Title)

• Reviewer's Comment: The title is clear and informative, but it could better reflect the methodological contribution. Currently, it emphasizes the case study, but not the comparative or theoretical positioning of the proposed design framework. Consider rephrasing to highlight the framework development aspect more explicitly.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have revised the title to better reflect the main contribution of our study, which is the development of a transferable framework. The new title is now: "Translating Traditional Ecological Knowledge into a Design Framework for Sustainable Resource Management: A Case Study of the Ruza System of Nagaland, India".

Comment 2: (Abstract)

• Reviewer's Comment: The abstract provides a good overview but lacks clarity regarding the research gap, methodological rigor, and validation of results. Phrases such as “decode and propose a framework” are vague; please clarify how this decoding was operationalized. The abstract should briefly mention the limitations of the study and scope for generalization, which are currently missing.

• Our Response: We agree completely. The abstract has been entirely rewritten to address these points. It now opens by explicitly stating the research gap, clarifies the methodological rigor by mentioning the triangulation of qualitative and spatial data, and concludes with a sentence acknowledging the limitations related to generalizability.

Comment 3: (Research Question)

• Reviewer's Comment: The manuscript does not explicitly state a clear research question or hypothesis. Without this, it is difficult to assess the logical flow of the study.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We wish to clarify that the guiding research questions are explicitly stated in a dedicated section of the manuscript. Please see Section 2. Research Question, where we outline the three central questions that structure our investigation.

Comment 4: (Literature Review)

• Reviewer's Comment: The literature review is underdeveloped. There is insufficient engagement with existing scholarship... Several core works... are missing... Cite this relevant work... The research gap is implied but not clearly articulated.

• Our Response: We appreciate this crucial feedback. We have substantially expanded the Introduction (Section 1) and the Theoretical Background (Section 3). We have integrated several new key references to better engage with existing scholarship on TEK integration, landscape ecology, and participatory design. Crucially, we have included and discussed the relevant work suggested by the reviewer (Tempa et al., 2024) to provide a stronger context for our study. These additions have allowed us to articulate the research gap much more sharply in the Introduction.

Comment 5: (Methodology)

• Reviewer's Comment: The description of the methodology is vague in certain parts. For instance: How exactly were ethnographic observations structured? How were interview participants selected, and how was sample size justified? How was drone-assisted spatial analysis operationalized, and what software/tools were used for processing?

• Our Response: We have thoroughly revised Section 4 (Methodological Approach) to provide the requested details.

  • In Section 4.1, we now explicitly describe the use of purposive and snowball sampling and justify the sample size of 22 with the principle of theoretical saturation.

  • In Section 4.2, we now specify the software used (Pix4Dmapper for photogrammetry and Microsoft Excel for thematic analysis) and describe the analytical process.

  • To further clarify our entire research process, we have added a new methodological flowchart (Figure 6).

Comment 6 & 14: (Comparative Analysis)

• Reviewer's Comment: There is no comparison with existing frameworks or models. A more systematic contrast with prior approaches would strengthen the originality claim.

• Our Response: This is a valuable suggestion. We have added a new paragraph in the Discussion (Section 6.3) that provides a comparative analysis. We now contextualize our findings by comparing the extracted principles of the Ruza system with the established principles of Permaculture, demonstrating how our findings align with and contribute to universal ecological design discourse.

Comment 7 & 13: (Equations)

• Reviewer's Comment: Several equations appear in the text, but no citations or theoretical justification are provided for them.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for their careful reading. However, we believe there may have been a misunderstanding, as our study is qualitative and does not contain any mathematical equations. We have double-checked the manuscript to confirm this and apologize for any potential confusion.

Comment 8 & 11: (Results Validation & Software)

• Reviewer's Comment: The results section highlights four design principles, but it is unclear how these were validated beyond descriptive observation... How did you ensure the reliability of interview data, ethnographic interpretation, or spatial analysis?

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this important question. We have clarified our validation process throughout the revised Methodology (Section 4). Validation was achieved through:

  1. Triangulation: As described in Section 4.2 and visualized in Figure 6, we cross-referenced findings from interviews, field observations, and spatial data.

  2. Ground-Truthing: We explicitly added that our spatial analysis was validated through ground-truthing field surveys (Section 4.2).

  3. Theoretical Saturation: We clarified that the reliability of our interview data was established by reaching theoretical saturation (Section 4.1).

  4. Comparative Contextualization: As mentioned above, we further contextualized our principles by comparing them with Permaculture principles in the Discussion (Section 6.3).

Comment 9 & 10: (Discussion Context & Generalizability)

• Reviewer's Comment: The discussion does not address whether the findings were expected based on prior studies, nor does it situate the results within broader theoretical frameworks. Please clarify: Are the results context-specific, or can they be generalized beyond the Ruza system?

• Our Response: We have revised the Discussion (Section 6) to better address this. The new comparative analysis in Section 6.3 situates our findings within broader ecological design frameworks. Furthermore, we have added a dedicated Limitations of the Study section (4.3), which explicitly discusses the context-specific nature of our findings and the scope for generalization.

Comment 12: (Limitations)

• Reviewer's Comment: The study does not provide a limitations section.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting this omission. We have now added a comprehensive "Limitations of the Study" section (4.3), which addresses constraints related to our qualitative approach, the single-case context, and the scope of our participant sample.

Comment 15: (Contribution and Implications)

• Reviewer's Comment: The claimed contribution as a “methodological bridge” is promising, but it is not convincingly substantiated. Please expand the section on implications for policy, design practice, and local community engagement.

• Our Response: We agree that this needed strengthening. The entire revised manuscript—from the new title and abstract to the detailed methodology and new figures (Theoretical Framework, Flowchart)—is aimed at better substantiating our "methodological bridge" contribution. We have also significantly expanded the implications by adding a new section, "6.5. Future Challenges and Adaptation Strategies", which complements the existing "6.4. From Framework to Policy and Actionable Recommendations".

We are confident that these extensive revisions have addressed all of the reviewer's concerns and have resulted in a much-improved manuscript. We thank you again for your valuable guidance.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript is well-crafted, thoroughly detailed, and anchored in empirical fieldwork as well as theoretical frameworks. This work significantly connects Traditional ecological Knowledge (TEK) with modern frameworks in landscape architecture, agroecology, and resilience theory. The Ruza farming system serves as a notable example of community-based and ecologically resilient land-use practices.                             

Some comments are to be considered for better readability.

• The sample size (22 interviews) provides valuable insights but may not fully capture intra-community variations.
• The introduction is relatively short and only five references have been cited. More details would be better.
• Most figures’ captions need to be shortened and concise.
• The font in in Figs. 4-6 is very small.
• Labor intensity is noted as a limitation, but economic feasibility studies or labor-to-output ratios are missing.
• The proposal for GIAHS recognition is excellent, but the paper could more strongly link Ruza to global adaptation frameworks (e.g., IPCC, UNFCCC).
• The conclusion is too long. It should be more concise.

 

 

 

 

Author Response

 

Response to Reviewer 2

 

We are very grateful to the reviewer for their positive, encouraging, and highly constructive feedback on our manuscript. We are delighted that the reviewer found our work to be "well-crafted, thoroughly detailed," and a significant contribution. We have carefully addressed all suggestions to improve the readability and overall quality of the paper. All major revisions in the manuscript have been marked in red color.

Comment 1: (Sample Size)

• Reviewer's Comment: The sample size (22 interviews) provides valuable insights but may not fully capture intra-community variations.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this valid point. We agree and have now explicitly acknowledged this in our new, comprehensive Section 4.3. Limitations of the Study. We state that while the sample size was sufficient for theoretical saturation on the system's core principles, it "does not fully capture intra-community variations" and that a deeper analysis of these variations is a crucial area for future research .

   

Comment 2: (Introduction)

• Reviewer's Comment: The introduction is relatively short and only five references have been cited. More details would be better.

• Our Response: We appreciate this suggestion. In our revision, we have substantially expanded Section 1. Introduction to provide a stronger context for the study. We have also enriched the literature review in

  Section 3 with several new and relevant citations, including a recent study on land-use change in the Himalayan region, to better situate our research.

   

Comment 3: (Figure Captions)

• Reviewer's Comment: Most figures’ captions need to be shortened and concise.

• Our Response: We agree that the original captions were too long. We have revised all figure captions throughout the manuscript to be more concise while still providing the essential information needed to understand each figure. For example, the captions for

  Figure 8 and

   

  Figure 9 have been significantly shortened.

   

Comment 4: (Font in Figures)

• Reviewer's Comment: The font in in Figs. 4-6 is very small.

• Our Response: Thank you for pointing out this important readability issue. We have revised the original image files for these figures (now renumbered as Figures 7, 8, and 9) to increase the font size, ensuring all text is clear and legible.

Comment 5: (Labor Intensity / Economics)

• Reviewer's Comment: Labor intensity is noted as a limitation, but economic feasibility studies or labor-to-output ratios are missing.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this insightful comment. We have now explicitly acknowledged the lack of quantitative economic data as a key limitation of our study in Section 4.3. Limitations of the Study

  .

   

Comment 6: (Link to Global Frameworks)

• Reviewer's Comment: The proposal for GIAHS recognition is excellent, but the paper could more strongly link Ruza to global adaptation frameworks (e.g., IPCC, UNFCCC).

• Our Response: This is an excellent suggestion to enhance the paper's impact. We have added a concluding sentence to

  Section 6.5 (Future Challenges and Adaptation Strategies) that explicitly links the practice of documenting TEK to global adaptation frameworks, referencing the IPCC.

   

Comment 7: (Conclusion)

• Reviewer's Comment: The conclusion is too long. It should be more concise.

• Our Response: We agree completely. We have rewritten

  Section 7. Conclusion to be a single, concise, and impactful paragraph that focuses on the main contributions and forward-looking implications of the study, rather than re-summarizing all sections of the paper .

   

We are confident that these revisions have improved the manuscript's readability and overall quality. We thank the reviewer again for their valuable and supportive feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deeply explores the socio-ecological design principles of the Ruza farming system and its application in contemporary landscape planning. The article's novel topic, combining Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) with modern landscape design, holds significant theoretical and practical value. The research methods are diverse, data sources are rich, and the argumentation process is thorough. The four core design principles proposed are highly generalizable and transferable. Below are some specific review comments, hoping to help the author further improve the article:

1. In the Introduction, it would be beneficial to more clearly identify the specific challenges in integrating TEK into modern design, beyond just "superficial applications," by addressing deeper structural or cognitive barriers. This would better position the research's innovation and necessity.
2. When describing the Ruza system, a slight expansion providing more information on its historical development and cultural background would enhance the reader's understanding of the system.
3. In the section "Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK) and its Role in Climate Adaptation" (page 3), Figure 1 effectively illustrates the three core dimensions of TEK. It is suggested that the caption for Figure 1 explicitly delineate the boundaries of "Socio Ecological Systems" and explain how these three dimensions interact and are embedded within it.
4. For Figure 3, the "Agroecology" model, a more detailed explanation of what the "Systems" module specifically refers to and how it interacts with "People" and "Landscapes" would be beneficial.
5. The specific application of drone-assisted spatial analysis could be explained in more detail. For example, which spatial features were specifically analyzed, how these features were quantified, and how this data was combined with interview and field observation results.
6. Figure 4 provides a very clear division of the three-tiered landscape. When describing the function of each level, it would be beneficial to further highlight how different levels synergistically interact to form a holistic ecosystem.
7. In the conclusion, consider adding a sub-section to discuss the challenges facing the Ruza system and potential adaptation strategies, which would make the research more comprehensive.
8. When discussing the potential challenges in promoting the Ruza system, such as labor intensiveness and community cohesion, a more specific analysis of how to overcome these challenges or propose adaptive strategies would be valuable.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3

We are very grateful to the reviewer for their positive evaluation and for providing such insightful and constructive comments. We agree that these suggestions have helped us to add significant depth and clarity to the manuscript. We have carefully revised the paper to incorporate all of the reviewer’s valuable feedback. All major revisions in the manuscript have been marked in red color.

Comment 1: (Deeper Challenges in Introduction)

• Reviewer's Comment: In the Introduction, it would be beneficial to more clearly identify the specific challenges in integrating TEK into modern design, beyond just "superficial applications," by addressing deeper structural or cognitive barriers.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this excellent suggestion. We have added a new paragraph in Section 1 (Introduction) that now elaborates on these deeper challenges, including the difficulties of translating holistic knowledge into standardized language and navigating issues of intellectual property. This helps to better position the necessity and contribution of our study.

   

Comment 2: (Historical and Cultural Background)

• Reviewer's Comment: When describing the Ruza system, a slight expansion providing more information on its historical development and cultural background would enhance the reader's understanding of the system.

• Our Response: We agree completely. We have added a new introductory paragraph at the beginning of Section 5.1 that provides the historical and cultural context of the Ruza system. This new section discusses the system's origins nearly a century ago, its cultural significance to the Chakhesang Naga tribe, and the intergenerational methods of knowledge transfer .

   

Comment 3: (Figure 1 Caption)

• Reviewer's Comment: It is suggested that the caption for Figure 1 explicitly delineate the boundaries of "Socio Ecological Systems" and explain how these three dimensions interact and are embedded within it.

• Our Response: Thank you for this suggestion to improve clarity. We have revised the caption for

  Figure 1 to better explain that the three dimensions are "embedded within a broader Socio-Ecological System, which represents the complete set of relationships between human societies and their environments".

   

Comment 4: (Figure 3 "Systems" Module)

• Reviewer's Comment: For Figure 3, the "Agroecology" model, a more detailed explanation of what the "Systems" module specifically refers to and how it interacts with "People" and "Landscapes" would be beneficial.

• Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer pointing this out. We have expanded the paragraph in

  Section 3 that discusses Figure 3 to provide a clear definition, stating that the "'Systems' domain refers to the body of traditional farmers' knowledge and ancestral farming methods" and that it interacts with the other two domains.

   

Comment 5: (Drone Analysis Details)

• Reviewer's Comment: The specific application of drone-assisted spatial analysis could be explained in more detail. For example, which spatial features were specifically analyzed, how these features were quantified, and how this data was combined with interview and field observation results.

• Our Response: We have provided more details on our spatial analysis process in Section 4.2. We now specify the software used (Pix4Dmapper), the outputs generated (georeferenced orthomosaic), and explain that these geospatial datasets were used to analyze "land use organization, vegetation cover, and hydrological features" . The new methodological flowchart (

   

  Figure 6) also visually details how this data was combined with other results through triangulation.

   

Comment 6: (Synergistic Interaction)

• Reviewer's Comment: When describing the function of each level, it would be beneficial to further highlight how different levels synergistically interact to form a holistic ecosystem.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this important point. We have reviewed and revised the text in Section 5.1 to better emphasize this synergy. The concluding paragraph of this section now explicitly states that "these three tiers constitute a dynamic and interdependent system" and that the "vertical structuring enables efficient use of elevation gradients, allowing for gravity-fed irrigation and the natural flow of nutrients and water through the landscape".

     

Comment 7 & 8: (Future Challenges and Adaptation Strategies)

• Reviewer's Comment: In the conclusion, consider adding a sub-section to discuss the challenges facing the Ruza system and potential adaptation strategies... a more specific analysis of how to overcome these challenges... would be valuable.

• Our Response: This is an excellent suggestion to make the research more comprehensive and forward-looking. We have added a new dedicated section within the Discussion, Section 6.5. Future Challenges and Adaptation Strategies. This section not only identifies challenges such as youth out-migration and climate change but also proposes specific adaptation strategies, including small-scale mechanization, ecotourism, and the formal documentation of TEK .

   

We are grateful for the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestions, which we believe have significantly enhanced the depth and completeness of our manuscript.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The scientific soundness of the article is low

1) In abstract and in conclusion: the novelty of the article is unclear. It appears to be a mere description of already known practices and theories.

2) The article requires a Figure with global geografic reference;

3) It might be interesting to provide some maps of the Nagaland study area;

4) It is unclear what is meant by "biota" in Figure 1;

5) A figure is needed as a logical framework for how agroecology and Adaptive Cycle Theory can combine (complement or integrate) each other, or, better yet, how both can complement or integrate with Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK);

6) Section 4. Methodological Approach is very brief and requires a flowchart that illustrates, step by step, the methodological process followed in the research work;

7) The authors should expand on the information (method, technique, etc.) regarding stakeholder engagement (line 263);

8) Section 4.3. Limitations of the Study should be expanded to address methodological limitations;

9) In Figure 5, the center diagram is illegible: try a different solution;

10) Some paragraphs are very long: 5.2. Traditional Water Harvesting and Storage - 5.3. Soil Conservation Strategies in Traditional Agriculture - 5.4. Indigenous Wisdom and Biodiversity Support - 5.5. Climate Resilience in the Ruza System. Shorten them to make them more effective, focusing on the core of the specific topic.

11) The caption in Figure 6 is too long. It should be just the title; move the description to the text.

12) The applicability to landscape design and planning methodologies remains unclear (lines 231-232). For example, what physical or visual/perceptual implications do these have on the landscape? What specific implications do they have for the urban planning process or plans contents at a given scale (local, regional, etc.)?

13) There is no quantitative data in the entire article.

14) Lines 780-782: "This study reinforces the value of TEK as a living knowledge system that informs not only agricultural practice, but also environmental governance and spatial planning." I believe the purported value of TEK is independent of this article.

15) The references should be expanded.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 4

We thank the reviewer for their rigorous critique and for the provocative questions that have prompted us to undertake a substantial revision to improve the scientific soundness and clarity of our manuscript. We have worked diligently to address every point raised. All major revisions in the manuscript have been marked in red color.

Comment 1: (Novelty Unclear)

• Reviewer's Comment: In abstract and in conclusion: the novelty of the article is unclear. It appears to be a mere description of already known practices and theories.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for this critical feedback. We have extensively revised the manuscript to make our primary contribution—the development of a transferable methodological framework for translating TEK into design principles—much more explicit. This is now highlighted in the

  new title, the completely rewritten Abstract , the sharpened

   

  research gap in Section 1 , and the

   

  new theoretical framework diagram in Figure 4 . We now demonstrate

   

  how the analysis was done, moving beyond mere description.

Comment 2 & 3: (Geographic Reference & Maps)

• Reviewer's Comment: The article requires a Figure with global geographic reference; It might be interesting to provide some maps of the Nagaland study area.

• Our Response: We agree completely. We have added a new map,

  Figure 5 , which provides the requested geographical context at both the national (India) and regional (Nagaland) scales, clearly marking the study site of Kikruma village.

   

Comment 4: ("biota" unclear)

• Reviewer's Comment: It is unclear what is meant by "biota" in Figure 1.

• Our Response: Thank you for pointing out this lack of clarity. We have revised the text in

  Section 3 to provide a clear and accessible definition: "Knowledge refers to the community's deep understanding of all living organisms in their environment (the biota), including local plants and animals...".

   

Comment 5: (Theory Combination Figure)

• Reviewer's Comment: A figure is needed as a logical framework for how agroecology and Adaptive Cycle Theory can combine... with Traditional Ecological Knowledge (TEK).

• Our Response: This is an excellent suggestion. We have developed and added a

  new conceptual diagram (Figure 4) that explicitly illustrates our "Triple Lens" integrated theoretical framework, showing how we utilize TEK, Agroecology, and Adaptive Cycle Theory as complementary lenses for our analysis. This is further explained in the accompanying new paragraph at the end of

   

  Section 3 .

   

Comment 6: (Methodology Flowchart)

• Reviewer's Comment: Section 4. Methodological Approach is very brief and requires a flowchart that illustrates, step by step, the methodological process...

• Our Response: We agree that a flowchart significantly improves clarity. We have created a comprehensive

  methodological workflow diagram (Figure 6) that visually details our research process from data collection and analysis through to synthesis.

   

Comment 7: (Stakeholder Engagement)

• Reviewer's Comment: The authors should expand on the information... regarding stakeholder engagement...

•  

  Our Response: We have expanded on our stakeholder engagement process in Section 4.1, providing more detail on our participant selection strategy (purposive and snowball sampling) and justifying our sample size with the principle of theoretical saturation .

   

Comment 8: (Expand Limitations)

• Reviewer's Comment: Section 4.3. Limitations of the Study should be expanded to address methodological limitations.

• Our Response: We have added a dedicated and expanded Section 4.3. Limitations of the Study

  , which now addresses methodological limitations (the qualitative approach, lack of quantitative data), context specificity, and the scope of our participant sample .

   

Comment 9: (Figure 5 Illegible - now Figure 8)

• Reviewer's Comment: In Figure 5, the center diagram is illegible: try a different solution.

• Our Response: We thank the reviewer for pointing this out. We have redesigned the central diagram within this figure (now renumbered as Figure 8) to ensure all components and text are clear and legible.

Comment 10 & 11: (Long Paragraphs & Captions)

• Reviewer's Comment: Some paragraphs are very long... The caption in Figure 6 is too long...

• Our Response: We agree and have revised for readability. We have broken down the long paragraphs in Sections 5.2 through 5.5. We have also shortened the captions for the relevant figures (e.g., Figure 9) to be more concise.

Comment 12: (Applicability Unclear)

• Reviewer's Comment: The applicability to landscape design and planning methodologies remains unclear...

• Our Response: This is a critical point. We have substantially expanded the latter part of our Discussion (Sections 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5) to more explicitly address the applicability of our findings. We now include a comparison with Permaculture principles, concrete policy recommendations, and a discussion of overcoming challenges, all of which clarify the implications for landscape design and planning.

Comment 13: (No Quantitative Data)

• Reviewer's Comment: There is no quantitative data in the entire article.

• Our Response: We acknowledge that our study's primary contribution is qualitative and methodological. We have now made this scope clear and addressed the lack of quantitative data as a key point in our new

  Limitations of the Study section (4.3).

   

Comment 14: (Value of TEK statement)

• Reviewer's Comment: I believe the purported value of TEK is independent of this article.

• Our Response: We appreciate the reviewer's point. To be more precise, we have rephrased the sentence in the

  Conclusion to state that "This research reinforces the value of TEK as a living knowledge system...", clarifying that our study serves as a powerful example of this value, rather than claiming to establish it.

   

Comment 15: (Expand References)

• Reviewer's Comment: The references should be expanded.

• Our Response: We agree. As part of our expanded literature review, we have expanded our Reference list with several new and relevant scholarly works to better ground our study in the existing literature.

We believe that these extensive revisions have fundamentally transformed the manuscript and addressed all of the reviewer's concerns regarding scientific soundness. We thank you again for your rigorous and valuable feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

good work

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for addressing my concerns. Only references are not expanded as required.

• eviewer's Comment: The references should be expanded.

• Our Response: We agree. As part of our expanded literature review, we have expanded our Reference list with several new and relevant scholarly works to better ground our study in the existing literature.