Social Capital of Banjarese for Peatland Fire Mitigation: Combining of Local Wisdom and Environment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

I hope this email finds you well. I am honored to have the opportunity to review your paper titled "Social Capital of Banjarese for Peatland Fire Mitigation: Combining of Local Wisdom and Environment," submitted to the journal "World." I have carefully examined your work and would like to provide you with some constructive feedback and suggestions to enhance the quality and impact of your research.

1.        Introduction and Background: In the introduction, you effectively highlight the importance of peatland fire mitigation and the role of social capital. To make your introduction more engaging, consider providing some statistics or context about the extent of peatland fires in the region. This could help readers understand the urgency and significance of your research.

2.        Theoretical Framework and Variables: While you introduce the variables of Trust (T), Network (N), and Norm (N), it might be helpful to provide a brief explanation of how these variables are commonly associated with social capital. This would aid readers who might not be familiar with the terminology.

3.        Research Methodology: You mention conducting interviews with 20 members of the Fire Care Community (MPA) to gather information about social capital. Elaborating on the interview process, such as the types of questions asked and the criteria for selecting interviewees, would enhance the transparency of your research methodology.

4.        Structural Equation Modeling (SEM): As you use SEM for analysis, consider providing a brief overview of SEM and how it is applied in your study. This would assist readers who may not be well-versed in this statistical method.

5.        Discussion and Implications: In your discussion section, you emphasize the influence of norms on disaster mitigation. To provide a comprehensive perspective, discuss how the interaction between Trust, Network, and Norm can collectively contribute to effective peatland fire mitigation strategies. Additionally, explore the broader implications of your findings for environmental management and community-based initiatives.

6.        Conclusion: Conclude your paper by summarizing the key findings and their implications. Highlight the novel aspects of your research and underscore the practical value of leveraging social capital for peatland fire mitigation.

Best regards,

Fair

Author Response

1.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

First, I would like to point out that the subject of the research seems to me to be of undoubted interest, both because of the ecosystem it affects and because of the consequences that global warming could have on the acceleration and worsening processes of peatland fires. The role of traditional ecological knowledge and social capital in the possible mitigation of the problem seems to me to be of undeniable relevance.

On the other hand, it is clear that this is an original research, in which an important effort has been made to carry out fieldwork and with the use of mixed research techniques.

Given the strengths of the work, I am also obliged to point out some of the weaknesses that I observe and which, I believe, should be addressed. I begin with those that affect conceptual and theoretical aspects.

Throughout the manuscript, the concept of "local wisdom" is used repeatedly, at some points referring to "in the form of local wisdom values, norms, rules and sanctions in managing peatlands". I believe that the concept is being used inappropriately and in fact what is implied by the content is that the authors are referring to Traditional Ecological Knowledge.

We need to move up in the DIKW hierarchy which attempts to define relationship between Data, Information, Knowledge and Wisdom. Data is discrete collection of signs, symbols and letters. When described properly in a certain frame of reference, data becomes information. Knowledge happens when information meets experience, values, contextual understanding about the specific situations, application, intuition and beliefs. Real knowledge is the synthesis of all these. Knowledge provides a roadmap to address situations and contextual challenges. But are you solving the right problems for the right reasons?  That is wisdom – the “why” of things we do. Knowledge looks at procedures, methods and application. Wisdom looks at objectives – it clarifies the purpose.

To developed a traditional planting system without burning to prevent land fires (tapulikampar system) is not a form of local wisdom but of local traditional knowledge. In the same vein, it should be noted that there is an extensive bibliography on Traditional Ecological Knowledge that should be consulted. For example:

Berkes, F.; Colding, J.; Folke, C. Rediscovery of traditional ecological knowledge as adaptive management. Ecol. Appl. 2000, 10, 1251–1262.

Another relevant theoretical issue is the concept of social capital. The theoretical framework and literature references used are limited, and when the concept of social capital is related to that of community resilience, it leads to debatable assertions: “Social capital is social unity or community resilience”??

Resilient communities have the capacity to learn and adjust, use all forms of knowledge, and develop linkages between institutions to foster sustainable disaster mitigation initiatives. Resilience to natural hazards can largely be achieved by implementing effective and sustainable disaster mitigation initiatives that focus on reducing vulnerability to hazards. Other scholars stress that the resilience of communities to natural disasters results from social skills (social capital) that allow intentional actions to be adopted before and after a catastrophe (Rapeli et al. 2017). In general, the resilience of a territory combines knowledge, learning experiences, sense of place, social networks and local infrastructures, diversity, and economic innovation, as well as participatory governance (Maclean et al. 2014). In other words, social capital is one of the requirements or elements that shape and explain the resilience of a community.

Concerning the methodology applied, I would like to point out two issues. A total of 250 completed questionnaires are mentioned, but we are not told what the initial sample was, what the response rate was, how the respondents were selected or their socio-demographic characteristics.

On the other hand, part of the questions included in the "Trust" category refer to the respondents' ecological knowledge, not to their trust that this ecological knowledge will be shared or applied by the community. For example, within the subcategory "Fairness" they ask:

·        Fires on peatlands during the dry season are normal but must be prevented so they do not spread.

·        Understanding the characteristics of peatlands and the causes of fires is very understandable for people who live there.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I fail to see what these questions have to do with Fairness/Equity. Ultimately, in the theoretical framework of the work I miss traditional ecological knowledge. Norms and values would be directly related to this knowledge.

A quick comment. Between lines 262 and 264 it is stated: “According to the community, the perpetrators of land burning should be given social 262 and legal sanctions. Social sanctions can be in the form of fines and legal sanctions in the 263 form of imprisonment.”. In fact, I believe that both fines and imprisonment are legal sanctions. The first is an administrative sanction (fine) and the second a criminal sanction (prison sentence.

Finally, a formal point. Between lines 82 and 92, the same sentences have been repeated three times: “The Banjar people who live in peatland areas have for generations understood peatlands very well, and there are local wisdom values that apply to the community. This study aims to analyze the social capital of the Banjar people in mitigating land fires based on local wisdom and the environment. The Banjar people who live in peatland areas have for generations understood peatlands very well, and there are local wisdom values that apply to the community. This study aims to analyze the social capital of the Banjar people in mitigating land fires based on local wisdom and the environment. The Banjar people who live in peatland areas have for generations understood peatlands very well, and there are local wisdom values that apply to the community. This study aims to analyze the social capital of the Banjar people in mitigating land fires based on local wisdom and the environment”.

Author Response

Reviewer 2:

I have revised the article based on your suggestions in the attached file. Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article “Social Capital of Banjarese for Peatland Fire Mitigation: Combining of Local Wisdom and Environment” is very interesting, by showing an analysis on the relation between the peatland environment, often characterized by fires in the dry season, and the social capital, in terms of trust, social networks and norms. Local wisdom and the environment, indeed, can contribute to the mitigation of the peatland fire risk. However, some changes and suggestions are here listed.

-                      Some sentences have no meanings (lines: 43-44, 255-257, etc.). It is suggested to check them in the overall paper;

-                      There are a lot of formal mistakes in the text, so it is suggested to pay attention to capital letters, punctuation marks and repetition of words in two following sentences or the repetition of entire sentences.

-                      At line 103 “In him, there is always an urge to interact with other human beings.”, is correct the expression “In him”?

-                      It is suggested to modify the “Conclusions” paragraph, by prefixing and summarizing all the research and the paper before the considerations present in the current version.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3:

I have revised the article based on your suggestions in the file attached. Thank you

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Accept in present form

Fair

Author Response

Dear Editor

We have revised it based on your comments. We revised the introduction (Data land fire), and method (explain about SEM analysis) and added the discussion. Thank you.