Beyond Climate Reductionism: Environmental Risks and Ecological Entanglements in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments  are attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your constructive review. We deeply appreciate your recognition of the manuscript’s conceptual and methodological contributions, as well as your insightful suggestions for strengthening its structure, clarity, and integration of data and discussion. Below we outline how we addressed specific recommendations:

1. The abstract on Page 1, Lines 20–37, is detailed yet excessively lengthy. Consider eliminating superfluous terms. For instance, line 36: "co-constitutive dynamic..." may be rendered more succinct for clarity.

Response: The abstract is now shortened and simplified.

2. Page 2, Line 45: The statement "April 2024 was the hottest month ever recorded..." is temporally contingent. Consider expressing this within a broader context for continued relevance.

Response: Addressed. It is now, “Recent years have repeatedly broken global temperature records, reflecting a broader trend of accelerating climate instability. In this context, April 2024 was the hottest month ever recorded in Bangladesh (Roy, 2024)”.

3. Page 2, Lines 64–67: The assertion on biodiversity and Indigenous cultures would be enhanced by a succinct citation or footnote. The critique of climate reductionism is significant but becomes redundant subsequently. Contemplate consolidating at this juncture and referencing subsequently.

Response: Sarkar and Mukul, 2024 is cited in page 2. Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We have consolidated the critique of climate reductionism in the early sections and now reference it subsequently to avoid redundancy.

4. The notion of "ecological entanglement" presented on Page 4, Lines 119–151, constitutes a significant contribution. Nonetheless, it would benefit from more explicit subheadings for its three dimensions.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have addressed this.

5. Page 5, Line 154: When elucidating the amalgamation of climate science with experiential knowledge, incorporate 1–2 exemplars from your findings.

Response: Thank you for the suggestion. We have added two examples (lines-174-181).

6. Page 6, Line 226: Elucidate the criteria used to distinguish "forest-friendly" from "fit for terrace farming" classifications (e.g., derived from land use maps?).

Response: “Around 73% of this region is forest-friendly, 15% supports horticulture, and just 3% is fit for intensive terrace farming (Rasul, 2007)” -  We deleted this sentence as this does not add any additional information to the paper. Rather, the following paragraph goes very well with the former paragraph.

7. Page 7, Line 273: Specify the year and season of the fieldwork to provide context regarding climate conditions.

Response: Added

8. Page 8, Lines 313–319: Clarify the rationale for use solely the 2017 monsoon data for validation and discuss its implications for generalizability.

Response: We cross-checked this information with our meteorologist (who is also the 3^rd author of this article) and found out that it was an unintended mistake. He confirms that two of the major satellite-based, widely recognized data sources used in the region are the Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM) and the Precipitation Estimation from Remotely Sensed Information using Artificial Neural Networks (PERSIANN). We collected precipitation and temperature data from both ground-based sources (for example, BMD’s weather station at Rangamati) and both TRMM and PERSIANN satellite-based sources, covering 20 years from 1998 to 2019 on a grid-wise basis. The annexe also provides information to support this claim. Accordingly, we amended our text in that section.

9. Page 8, Lines 334–335: Elucidate the rationale for the exclusion of temperature data, as this point is obscured and warrants greater emphasis.

Response: The information was not omitted but described in detail alongside rainfall data in Section (3.3); however, it may not have drawn sufficient attention as it was dispersed across other discussions. It is now presented more clearly as follows: “We collected precipitation and temperature data from both ground-based sources (e.g., the BMD weather station in Rangamati) and satellite-based sources, including TRMM and PERSIANN, covering a 20-year period from 1998 to 2019 (the most up-to-date available), on a grid-wise basis. However, satellite data is less reliable for capturing temperature variations in regions with complex topography. Therefore, the climate patterns and projections in this study rely primarily on rainfall data."

10. The study of rainfall intensity on page 9, lines 376–386 is effectively articulated; nonetheless, the graphical representation (Figure 2) would benefit from enhanced axis labeling.

Response: x-axis: Year, y-axis: frequency (number of dry spells or wet spells). Since all the figures have the same axis, we shared them in the caption. Also, the article described them in the adjacent section.

11. Page 10, Lines 417–433: Incorporate precise percentages from Table 1 inside the text for enhanced clarity; The discourse on agricultural impacts could be enhanced by delineating the specific regions where effects are most pronounced. Enhance the resolution and legibility of Figures 2–5, particularly the axes and legends; Page 10, Incorporate precise percentages from Table 1 inside the text for enhanced clarity; Enhance the resolution and legibility of Figures 2–5, particularly the axes and legends;Table 1 (Page 10): Consider applying coloring to rows or columns to facilitate comparison between Upazilas.

Response: We amended the texts as suggested by the reviewer, we have elaborated texts and information in figures, and made distinctions by using different shades in tables. 

12. Page 15, Lines 603–610: The colonial and postcolonial background is crucial—include a citation of historical research in addition to Rasul (2007).

Response: 2 reference added-

Khan, N. A. (2018). A political economy of forest resource use: Case studies of social forestry in Bangladesh. Routledge;

Chowdhury, M. K. I. (2014). The Making of Political Forests in the Cittagong Hill Tracts, Bangladesh: The State, Development and Indigeneity.https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/045af11e-75d9-4106-bfb4-f2cfffb18ab8/content.

13. Page 16, Lines 627–640: Distinguish more explicitly between formal governance systems and traditional governance (e.g., Circle Chief).

Response: The paragraph is edited to reflect the complexity. legal ambiguity, and jurisdictional conflicts, particularly around land, conservation, and development.”

14. Page 17, Lines 669–719: The findings are insightful and profound but excessively lengthy. Concentrate on 4–5 implementable proposals and relocate explanatory details to preceding sections. Page 18, Lines 721–734: Consider encapsulating the alignment or divergence of your proposals with national policy frameworks.

Response: Changed accordingly.

15. Page 3, Line 94: Correction: "are identical"—eliminate redundancy.

Response: We did not find this, perhaps amended while we did first thorough check of redundancy.

16. Throughout: Maintain uniformity in the capitalization of Indigenous terms and designations of forest kinds.

Response: Checked

17. Conduct a comprehensive copyedit for lengthy and complex sentences, particularly in the abstract and discussion sections.

Response: Thank you very much for flagging this up, we have had a careful edit.

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments：

 

This manuscript has made significant improvements in writing. But the greatest concern with this work may be the significant flaws in the initial research method selection and framework design. Using social survey methods to obtain key data for analyzing the impact of climate change and environmental change on the region. Whether residents can objectively perceive the impact of climate change, whether they can scientifically judge the effects of changes in biodiversity, precipitation, and temperature on agricultural production, and whether they can obtain information through social surveys are all issues that need to be verified and worth pondering.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Comments：

 

This manuscript has made significant improvements in writing. But the greatest concern with this work may be the significant flaws in the initial research method selection and framework design. Using social survey methods to obtain key data for analyzing the impact of climate change and environmental change on the region. Whether residents can objectively perceive the impact of climate change, whether they can scientifically judge the effects of changes in biodiversity, precipitation, and temperature on agricultural production, and whether they can obtain information through social surveys are all issues that need to be verified and worth pondering.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for highlighting this important concern. We acknowledge that social surveys, while valuable, may offer a limited scope for rigorously assessing the impacts of climate change. It was not our intention to use the social survey data as the primary means of evaluating climatic changes. Rather, we utilized available meteorological data to analyze patterns of weather variability over time. The social survey component served to document local perceptions and lived experiences of environmental change—such as increased heat exposure, deforestation, and the incidence of floods and landslides.

Our intention was to demonstrate that such experiences, though often attributed to climate change, may in fact be more directly linked to localized factors such as shifts in hill land use and deforestation. These land-use changes can independently exacerbate environmental vulnerabilities and compound the adverse conditions experienced by communities.

We appreciate that our earlier formulation may have conveyed an unintended over-reliance on social survey data in interpreting climate change impacts in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT). Accordingly, we have undertaken substantial revisions to the manuscript to more clearly articulate the distinction between perceived environmental change and empirically established climatic trends.

Reviewer 3 Report (Previous Reviewer 3)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reveals that the environmental risks and ecological vulnerability of Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh are not simply caused by climate change, but are intertwined with multiple factors such as militarized governance, resource development, illegal logging and socio-political marginalization. The study found that climate variability interacts with environmental risks such as land degradation, water shortage, and landslides, amplifying the vulnerability of local communities. This paper puts forward the concept of "ecological entanglement," emphasizes the complex interaction of climate, environment and socio-political factors, and points out that only by combining climate data with local narrative can we truly understand the environmental risks in the global South. The study also explores the impact of climate change on local agriculture, water resources, biodiversity and livelihoods, and finds that climate change exacerbates existing inequalities, while adaptation policies often fail to address structural problems. However, there are some problems in this paper, which can be modified and improved by the author.

1. Some of the pictures in this article are blurred and need to be further refined so that they are clear and easy for readers to understand and read.
2. The indigenous population of CHT in this study area accounts for 55.77 % of the total indigenous population in Bangladesh, and the total population is as high as 1842815. However, in the follow-up questionnaire survey of this article, only 400 households were interviewed. Is the amount of sample data sufficient? Can it have a certain representativeness?
3. The data studied in this paper are only derived from the data of Rangamati meteorological station and satellite data, and the data spans a long period of time, dating back to 1998. How to ensure the reliability, representativeness or authority of the data collected nearly 30 years ago?
4. The thickness of the inner and outer frame lines of the table needs to be unified, especially the thickness of a frame line should be consistent before and after, please check and modify.
5. Whether the picture has an outer frame line needs to be unified in the full text, such as Figure 3 and Figure 2.
6. The article emphasizes the interaction between climate change and socio-political factors, but it is oversimplified in exploring its causal relationship. For example, studies have pointed out that military and political activities exacerbate environmental risks, but failed to analyze in depth how these socio-political factors themselves affect climate change, resulting in a lack of in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the two.
7. The layout of text and pictures in the Annex 1 needs to be standardized and unified. For example, the pictures in the attachment should be centered and adjusted to the appropriate size. The extra space in the text needs to be deleted.
8. Delete “ ” from “Data Set Short Name: TRMM_3B42_daily” in the Annex 1. Similar to this situation, all modifications are required.
9. The font format in the attached picture needs to be uniformly modified to Times New Roman.

Author Response

Thanks very much for your valuable comments. We addressed your comments in our revised draft, which we elaborated as below:

1. Some of the pictures in this article are blurred and need to be further refined so that they are clear and easy for readers to understand and read.

Response: We have enhanced the sharpness of some of the figures. However, should there be further work needed on figures and illustrations, we are happy to engage with an infographic expert to make the figures more presentable.

2. The indigenous population of CHT in this study area accounts for 55.77 % of the total indigenous population in Bangladesh, and the total population is as high as 1842815. However, in the follow-up questionnaire survey of this article, only 400 households were interviewed. Is the amount of sample data sufficient? Can it have a certain representativeness?

Response: We used the standard formula of drawing a sample size = z² * p*(1-p) / ε² (where z is the z-score, ε is the margin of error, p is the population proportion), with 95% confidence and a margin of error of 5%. Assume a population proportion of 0.5 and an unlimited population size. Z-value for a 95% confidence level is 1.96. Refer to the table provided in the confidence level section for z-scores of a range of confidence levels. Using all the values in the formula, the same size is 384.16. To make it the nearest round figure, it becomes 400. We later distributed the sample evenly among the upazilas.

3. The data studied in this paper are only derived from the data of Rangamati meteorological station and satellite data, and the data spans a long period of time, dating back to 1998. How to ensure the reliability, representativeness or authority of the data collected nearly 30 years ago?

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding data reliability. As outlined in the Methodological Note (Section 2.1) and further detailed in the Annex, the study uses CHIRPS satellite-derived rainfall data spanning 1988–2019, which has been extensively validated in the literature and is widely used in climate studies across data-scarce regions. To ensure reliability and contextual relevance, we compared the CHIRPS data with ground-based observations from the Rangamati meteorological station. This comparison, shown in the Annex, demonstrates alignment in trend patterns and supports the robustness of the dataset used. Additionally, CHIRPS’s long-term spatial coverage and integration of satellite and in-situ observations make it a suitable choice for examining decadal climate trends in remote regions such as the CHT.

4. The thickness of the inner and outer frame lines of the table needs to be unified, especially the thickness of a frame line should be consistent before and after, please check and modify.

Response: adjusted

5. Whether the picture has an outer frame line needs to be unified in the full text, such as Figure 3 and Figure 2.

Response:  addressed

6. The article emphasizes the interaction between climate change and socio-political factors, but it is oversimplified in exploring its causal relationship. For example, studies have pointed out that military and political activities exacerbate environmental risks, but failed to analyze in depth how these socio-political factors themselves affect climate change, resulting in a lack of in-depth and comprehensive understanding of the relationship between the two.

Response:

We thank the reviewer for this important observation. While our study does not aim to establish a direct causal model linking militarization or political activity to climate change, we agree that these interactions merit further exploration. We have clarified this in the revised manuscript (Section 5.2), noting that such pathways—particularly how socio-political dynamics may contribute to ecological degradation and interact with hydro-climatic risks—are important areas for future research.

7. The layout of text and pictures in the Annex 1 needs to be standardized and unified. For example, the pictures in the attachment should be centered and adjusted to the appropriate size. The extra space in the text needs to be deleted.
8. Delete “ ” from “Data Set Short Name: TRMM_3B42_daily” in the Annex 1. Similar to this situation, all modifications are required.
9. The font format in the attached picture needs to be uniformly modified to Times New Roman.

Response: All Addressed

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper design has significant flaws, with poor data support for the main results and strong subjectivity.

Maintaining the previous round's judgment, it is recommended to reject.

Specific issues:

1. Figure 2 cannot support the content analyzed in section 4.1, as the time scales are inconsistent and data from different locations are suspected to be reused;

2. In addition to the local opinions on environmental changes, there are data indicators that can be quantified for changes in agriculture, poultry, livestock development, water resource changes, biodiversity changes, farmer vitality, and socio-economic changes. All of these indicators are quantified based on the proportion of respondents, which is too subjective to draw convincing research conclusions.

Author Response

Reviewer2:

The paper design has significant flaws, with poor data support for the main results and strong subjectivity.

Maintaining the previous round's judgment, it is recommended to reject.

Response:

Dear Reviewer, thank you for raising this important concern. Despite the revisions made in our previous submission, we acknowledge that we may not have been fully successful in addressing your reservations. We recognise that our perspectives on the issue differ, particularly regarding the interpretation of environmental problems in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).

Our central argument challenges the growing trend of climate washing—the tendency to attribute complex environmental issues solely to climate change. We contend that environmental degradation must be understood as a multifaceted process, where climate change may act as a threat multiplier, but is not necessarily the root cause. In the case of the CHT, we argue that attributing the observed environmental challenges primarily to extreme rainfall events risks shifting responsibility to global climate dynamics and large-scale emitters, thereby obscuring the more immediate and locally embedded drivers such as land grabbing, deforestation, institutional marginalisation, soil degradation, unregulated development, and socio-political inequalities.

We agree that social surveys, while valuable for capturing subjective and experiential knowledge, are limited in their capacity to rigorously assess climatic trends. It was never our intention to position the survey data as the principal evidence for climate change impacts. Rather, we employed meteorological data to examine long-term patterns in weather variability. The role of the social survey was to complement this analysis by capturing local perceptions and lived experiences—specifically with regard to deforestation, heat exposure, and the increasing frequency of floods and landslides.

Our goal was to illustrate that these experiences—often framed through the lens of climate change—may instead reflect the consequences of localized environmental transformations, particularly land-use changes in hilly regions. Such transformations can independently heighten ecological vulnerability and compound the risks faced by local communities.

We acknowledge that our earlier submission may have unintentionally conveyed an over-reliance on qualitative perceptions in interpreting climatic impacts. In response, we substantially revised the manuscript to more clearly differentiate between perceived environmental change and empirically documented climatic trends.

While we appreciate that two reviewers found merit in our revised manuscript, we are disappointed to note that we were unable to persuade you of its academic contribution. Unfortunately, the absence of a detailed explanation accompanying your assessment limits our ability to further refine our argument. Nevertheless, we remain open and committed to engaging constructively with your critique, should you wish to elaborate further.

Specific Comments:

1. Figure 2 cannot support the content analyzed in section 4.1, as the time scales are inconsistent and data from different locations are suspected to be reused;

Response:

One of the central arguments presented in Figure 2 and elaborated in Section 4.1 is the inadequacy of relying solely on a single weather station—located in the Rangamati district—to represent the climatic variability of the entire Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), a region characterised by complex and diverse topography. Despite the spatial heterogeneity of the CHT, the prevailing discourse on climate change impacts in the region frequently invokes flash floods and landslides as manifestations of altered dry and wet spells, often without acknowledging the limitations of the underlying climatic data.

To address this critical data gap, we employed the highest-quality satellite-derived precipitation data available and calibrated it against the historical weather station records from Rangamati, as detailed in the methodology section. This approach allows for a more spatially representative analysis of weather variability across the CHT.

This component of the paper is particularly significant, as it highlights how climate change narratives in the region have relied on a singular and potentially unrepresentative data source, thereby overlooking the broader and more complex set in environmental stressors—such as deforestation, land-use change, and infrastructural development—that cumulatively contribute to the occurrence of extreme events. The differing temporal coverage across the stations is a direct result of the data sources used: historical in-situ measurements for Rangamati, and calibrated satellite-based estimations for the other two locations.

2. In addition to the local opinions on environmental changes, there are data indicators that can be quantified for changes in agriculture, poultry, livestock development, water resource changes, biodiversity changes, farmer vitality, and socio-economic changes. All of these indicators are quantified based on the proportion of respondents, which is too subjective to draw convincing research conclusions.

Response:

We have elaborated this in our first response already, and we tried to draw on the experience of the problem.  

Finally, we think that the differences in opinion are very normal. We tried our best to bring in evidence in favour of our argument.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments are attached

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

General Comments

This paper offers a comprehensive examination of deforestation, development, and environmental hazards in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), Bangladesh. The research approach is rigorous, and the results significantly enhance the conversation on climate change. Nonetheless, other aspects necessitate refinement regarding clarity, consistency, structure, and language.

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. It is reassuring that the team worked hard, and our many years of experience in the field made a productive convergence into the paper. We acknowledge the comments of all the reviewers, which helped enhance the quality of the paper.

Specific comments

Comment 1: Page 1, Lines 3-4: The title may be more succinct while maintaining clarity. The assertion that “Bangladesh is frequently regarded as 'ground zero' for climate change” is emphatic but requires a more contemporary citation for support.

Response: The current title is ‘Deforestation, Dystopian Development and Emerging Environmental Risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh’, which problematizes and characterizes the notion of development in the CHT by adding the preposition ‘dystopian’. This amended title comprehends all the keywords of the storyline of the article. We thought of several other titles, and none explains it better than the revised one. We are also open to alternative suggestions.

We used ‘Shewly, Nadiruzzaman & Warner (2023)’ in place of Huq (2001) to update the reference.

Comment 2: Page 1, Lines 27-29: It is advisable to delineate the duration of the meteorological data collection to elucidate its importance.

Response: Declaring the duration of the meteorological data in the abstract would be difficult as the data from the weather station and the satellite have different time ranges. Also, one of our major observations is that the CHT was enlisted as a climate hotspot without the basis of climatic data, based on mounting hazards culminating through ongoing environmental degradations. However, in the methodological section, we elaborated on the sources of data, adding a new subsection titled 3.3. Climatic Data and Techniques, and in the abstract, we hinted at that too.

Comment 3: Page 2, Lines 49-51: The term "epicenter of climate change" need rephrasing to have a more impartial tone. Bangladesh is exceedingly susceptible to climate change owing to its geographical position and recurrent catastrophic weather phenomena.

Response: We certainly recognize the vulnerability of Bangladesh to diverse extreme events and adversities. We hold a firm stand on vulnerability literature. For example, eminent scholars like Phil O’Keefe, Ben Wisner and colleagues published in Nature in 1976, titled, ‘Taking the Naturalness out of Natural Disasters’. Nick Stockton (2015) published in Science, ‘Earthquakes Don't Kill People, Buildings Do’. Ilan Kelman (2020) echoes a similar argument in his lecture titled ‘Disaster by Choice’. This theoretical underpinning, in recent years, brought in some fresh perspectives in understanding climate change in Bangladesh. The most famous Bangladeshi climate scientist of all time, Saleemul Huq, wrote in the American Scientists, titled, ‘A Delta in Peril’, where the key takeaway was to go beyond the populist climate reductionism to understand climate vulnerabilities of Bengal Delta. We strived to echo these voices in our contemplation of understanding climatic events in the CHT and its manifestation towards vulnerabilities.

Comment 4: Page 2, Lines 57 to 60: The phrase structure is ambiguous: "Following a substantial rainfall, large-scale landslides occurred in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh, abruptly introducing a new location to the list of hotspots."

Response: We updated the sentence to, “However, following a heavy rainfall-induced large-scale landslide in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT), suddenly, it started becoming labelled as a climate hotspot in the mainstream media.”

Comment 5: Page 2, Line 67: The expression "this ecologically critical region has been experiencing violent conflict" requires a temporal reference for historical context.

Response: We have added some references.

Comment 6: Page 3, Lines 97-100: Please specify the precise years during which the climatic trend data was collected.

Response: We added a new subsection titled 3.3. Climatic Data and Techniques, where the sources of the data and other necessary information are given. We also added an annex for further elaboration.

Comment 7: Page 4, Lines 129-132: Cite the references for the method employed in measuring soil organic matter.

Response: We have not measured soil organic matter. However, in our key informant interviews, when we spoke to the agriculture officer and documented the experiences of the farmers, we found their coherent opinions of degradation of soil fertility, which make them reliant of chemical fertilizers that have all sorts of environmental consequences.

Comment 8: Page 5, Lines 179-183: Specify the criterion for sample selection (e.g., random sampling or stratified sampling?).

Response: Page 6, Lines 241-253 have the details of the sample selection. We tried to divide the total number of samples by 6 to represent 6 Upazilas. Then, we tried to draw on different diversities such as sex, age, livelihoods, ethnicity, and so on. Overall, the questionnaire survey followed cluster random sampling. Other individual interviews were accomplished following a snowballing approach.

Comment 9: Page 6, Lines 202-204: Include a visual depiction of correlation outcomes (scatter plot or regression graph).

Response: We have added a detailed description and district-wise data plots in the annex

Comment 10: Page 7, Lines 234-237: Structural Equation Model findings require model fit indices (e.g., RMSEA, CFI, TLI) for validation.

Response: We have added a detailed description and district-wise data plots in the annex

Comment 11: Page 8, Lines 254-257: Provide a citation that substantiates the assertion that "The Inner Mongolia grasslands are situated in a transition zone between arid and semi-arid climates."

Response: Please excuse our ignorance. We could not find such a reference in our paper. Also, we failed to figure out where this sentence could be relevant in our paper. We would appreciate a bit of elaboration.

Comment 12: Page 9, Lines 286-288: The expression "climatic factors that exert a beneficial impact" lacks specificity. Does it signify augmented biomass or enhanced species richness?

Response: Please excuse our ignorance. We could not find such a reference in our paper. Also, we failed to figure out where this sentence could be relevant in our paper. We would appreciate a bit of elaboration.

Comment 13: Page 10, Lines 309-312: Evaluate the quantification of desertification trends (e.g., % escalation in sand composition).

Response: Please excuse our ignorance. We could not find any reference to desertification trends in our paper. We certainly mentioned deforestation, which is a reality in the CHT which no one denies. Whoever we spoke to, regardless of identity, has expressed their concerns about deforestation in the CHT.

Comment 14: Page 12, Lines 521-524: The assertion is robust but requires substantiation: "Environmental and livelihood vulnerabilities in the CHT are not exclusively due to climate change but are intensified by interconnected socio-ecological factors."

• The knowledge gap should be clearly stated.
• References should be arranged as per the journal format.

 Response: We have revised our analysis and conclusion paragraphs to accommodate overlapping comments from all the reviewers.  

We have not touched the references following the ‘Guide for Authors’ of this journal, as Earth accepts free format submission.

Overall Recommendation: Minor revision is recommended to this submission

These corrections would improve the content of the manuscript and significantly increase the citations

Response: Thanks very much for your time and effort in reading through our article and commenting on areas of improvement. We tried to accommodate all your comments and now feel more confident with our revised version.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number: earth-3550787

Title: Deforestation, Development, and Emerging Environmental Risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

 

General comments:

The social development and sustainable research of hotspot regions under the background of climate change is an international hotspot. This study takes the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh as the research area, and uses meteorological data, remote sensing data, and social survey data to analyze the climate change trend in the area. The impact of climate change on environmental risks is investigated, and the effects of land degradation, water scarcity, flash floods, landslides, deforestation, and neoliberal development on social development are compared and analyzed. Research is an effective supplement to understanding social development and climate change awareness in relevant regions.

However, from the perspective of scientific paper writing, the topic of this manuscript is too broad, the issues discussed are not focused, and there is a lack of good data foundation and scientific data analysis methods, making it difficult to form meaningful scientific conclusions. From the perspective of manuscript improvement, it is recommended to further improve the manuscript in terms of organizational structure, data analysis methods, research result analysis, and summary of innovative points. The specific opinions are as follows:

 

Detailed comments:

1. Line 21-40: The abstract of the paper needs further revision, with a focus on systematically summarizing and organizing the research methods used, clear research conclusions obtained, and their significance;
2. Line 44-175: Merge "1. Introduction" and "2. Understanding Climate Change Beyond Climate Washing Approach" to unify the research background and significance;
3. Line 220: "3.2. Field Techniques" section should include steps for evaluating the validity of the questionnaire. The educational level and personal interests of the respondents may have a more significant impact on the validity of the questionnaire than the number of questionnaires;
4. Line 258: In the "3.3. Data Analysis" section, effective analysis methods such as correlation analysis, trend analysis, principal component analysis, etc. should be used to establish quantitative connections between climate data, social survey data, and environmental impact data, and should not be limited to explicit descriptions;
5. Line 287: The data analysis method in "4.1. Climate Change Projection for CHT" is too simple, and the analysis results of the three regions have not reached a consistent conclusion. Why did the analysis results of the three regions not reach a consistent conclusion, and what impact does it have on the subsequent analysis of this manuscript;
6. Line 324： “4.2. Local Perceptions of Environmental Change in CHT”， To deeply analyze the influencing factors of different interviewees' perception of environmental changes;
7. Line 348: Analyzing the impact of rainfall and temperature changes on agriculture and livelihoods through a questionnaire survey, the reliability of the conclusions is worrying; The same problem also exists in the analysis of other chapters.
8. Line 403: Please use Latin names for plant names;
9. Line 438: Without a quantitative and conclusive assessment of climate change, excessive variables were introduced to compare regional environmental risks, which affected the depth of the discussion;
10. Line 521: The innovation of the research and the effectiveness of the conclusions need to be further strengthened.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Manuscript Number: earth-3550787

Title: Deforestation, Development, and Emerging Environmental Risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

 

General comments:

The social development and sustainable research of hotspot regions under the background of climate change is an international hotspot. This study takes the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh as the research area, and uses meteorological data, remote sensing data, and social survey data to analyze the climate change trend in the area. The impact of climate change on environmental risks is investigated, and the effects of land degradation, water scarcity, flash floods, landslides, deforestation, and neoliberal development on social development are compared and analyzed. Research is an effective supplement to understanding social development and climate change awareness in relevant regions.

However, from the perspective of scientific paper writing, the topic of this manuscript is too broad, the issues discussed are not focused, and there is a lack of good data foundation and scientific data analysis methods, making it difficult to form meaningful scientific conclusions. From the perspective of manuscript improvement, it is recommended to further improve the manuscript in terms of organizational structure, data analysis methods, research result analysis, and summary of innovative points. The specific opinions are as follows:

 

Detailed comments:

1. Line 21-40: The abstract of the paper needs further revision, with a focus on systematically summarizing and organizing the research methods used, clear research conclusions obtained, and their significance;
2. Line 44-175: Merge "1. Introduction" and "2. Understanding Climate Change Beyond Climate Washing Approach" to unify the research background and significance;
3. Line 220: "3.2. Field Techniques" section should include steps for evaluating the validity of the questionnaire. The educational level and personal interests of the respondents may have a more significant impact on the validity of the questionnaire than the number of questionnaires;
4. Line 258: In the "3.3. Data Analysis" section, effective analysis methods such as correlation analysis, trend analysis, principal component analysis, etc. should be used to establish quantitative connections between climate data, social survey data, and environmental impact data, and should not be limited to explicit descriptions;
5. Line 287: The data analysis method in "4.1. Climate Change Projection for CHT" is too simple, and the analysis results of the three regions have not reached a consistent conclusion. Why did the analysis results of the three regions not reach a consistent conclusion, and what impact does it have on the subsequent analysis of this manuscript;
6. Line 324： “4.2. Local Perceptions of Environmental Change in CHT”， To deeply analyze the influencing factors of different interviewees' perception of environmental changes;
7. Line 348: Analyzing the impact of rainfall and temperature changes on agriculture and livelihoods through a questionnaire survey, the reliability of the conclusions is worrying; The same problem also exists in the analysis of other chapters.
8. Line 403: Please use Latin names for plant names;
9. Line 438: Without a quantitative and conclusive assessment of climate change, excessive variables were introduced to compare regional environmental risks, which affected the depth of the discussion;
10. Line 521: The innovation of the research and the effectiveness of the conclusions need to be further strengthened.

Author Response

Manuscript Number: earth-3550787

Title: Deforestation, Development, and Emerging Environmental Risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

General comments:

The social development and sustainable research of hotspot regions under the background of climate change is an international hotspot. This study takes the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh as the research area, and uses meteorological data, remote sensing data, and social survey data to analyze the climate change trend in the area. The impact of climate change on environmental risks is investigated, and the effects of land degradation, water scarcity, flash floods, landslides, deforestation, and neoliberal development on social development are compared and analyzed. Research is an effective supplement to understanding social development and climate change awareness in relevant regions.

However, from the perspective of scientific paper writing, the topic of this manuscript is too broad, the issues discussed are not focused, and there is a lack of good data foundation and scientific data analysis methods, making it difficult to form meaningful scientific conclusions. From the perspective of manuscript improvement, it is recommended to further improve the manuscript in terms of organizational structure, data analysis methods, research result analysis, and summary of innovative points. The specific opinions are as follows:

Response: Thanks very much for reading through the paper and making useful comments. Understanding the impact of climate change is certainly important. However, our paper embarks on the argument that ‘Environmental and livelihood vulnerabilities in the CHT are not exclusively due to climate change but are intensified by interconnected socio-ecological factors’. We hold a firm stand on vulnerability literature. For example, eminent scholars like Phil O’Keefe, Ben Wisner and colleagues published in Nature in 1976, titled, ‘Taking the Naturalness out of Natural Disasters’, where they argue that people’s vulnerability to a natural event is socially, culturally, economically and politically constructed. Nick Stockton (2015) published in Science, ‘Earthquakes Don't Kill People, Buildings Do’ and the title exhibits the core message. Ilan Kelman (2020) echoes a similar argument in his lecture titled ‘Disaster by Choice’, where he argues that our successive progress towards a vulnerable place makes us susceptible to any adversity. This theoretical underpinning, in recent years, brought in some fresh perspectives in understanding climate change in Bangladesh. Kasia Paprocki and Camelia Dewan are members of the progressive academics who are challenging populist narratives of Bangladesh’s vulnerability to climate change. The most famous Bangladeshi climate scientist of all time, Saleemul Huq, wrote in the American Scientists, titled, ‘A Delta in Peril’, where the key takeaway was to go beyond the populist climate reductionism to understand climate vulnerabilities of Bengal Delta. We strived to echo these voices in our contemplation of understanding climatic events in the CHT and its manifestation towards vulnerabilities.

Detailed comments:

1. Line 21-40: The abstract of the paper needs further revision, with a focus on systematically summarizing and organizing the research methods used, clear research conclusions obtained, and their significance;

Response: We have amended the abstract.

2. Line 44-175: Merge "1. Introduction" and "2. Understanding Climate Change Beyond Climate Washing Approach" to unify the research background and significance;

Response: We know that many articles prefer to merge research background and significance. However, our paper has a different making. In the introduction, we explained the statement of the problem, and in the 2^nd section, we tried to set up a lens which would bring in a more critical perspective in understanding climate change impact in Bangladesh, where climate change science and climate change discourse often do not merge. We, therefore, feel that these two sections are important to evolve independently.

3. Line 220: "3.2. Field Techniques" section should include steps for evaluating the validity of the questionnaire. The educational level and personal interests of the respondents may have a more significant impact on the validity of the questionnaire than the number of questionnaires;

Response: As explained in the article, we strived to draw on people’s experiences with adversities in their everyday lives. We triangulated those data with key informant interviews, observations and ethnographic engagement. We explained them all in the methods section.

4. Line 258: In the "3.3. Data Analysis" section, effective analysis methods such as correlation analysis, trend analysis, principal component analysis, etc. should be used to establish quantitative connections between climate data, social survey data, and environmental impact data, and should not be limited to explicit descriptions;

Response: We have added a completely new subsection of 3.3. Climatic data and techniques, where we have explained more about quantitative data. To maintain the flow of the discussion, we also added an Annex with details of the analysis.

5. Line 287: The data analysis method in "4.1. Climate Change Projection for CHT" is too simple, and the analysis results of the three regions have not reached a consistent conclusion. Why did the analysis results of the three regions not reach a consistent conclusion, and what impact does it have on the subsequent analysis of this manuscript?

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. In the upgraded section of 4.1 we have addressed these issues.

6. Line 324： “4.2. Local Perceptions of Environmental Change in CHT”， To deeply analyze the influencing factors of different interviewees' perception of environmental changes;

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have revised this section, too.

7. Line 348: Analyzing the impact of rainfall and temperature changes on agriculture and livelihoods through a questionnaire survey, the reliability of the conclusions is worrying; The same problem also exists in the analysis of other chapters.

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. As mentioned earlier, we used a bundle of qualitative tools and techniques not only to crosscheck and validate quantitative data but also to crosscheck gathered information through other sources. We also added an annex to explain quantitative data.

8. Line 403: Please use Latin names for plant names;

Response: We recognize the fact that biological names are often useful in ecology and other branches of natural sciences. However, in our research, where we are mentioning only the important plants, having a botanical name for them would make no difference. Therefore, we do not want to draw any unnecessary attention to the plants by labelling them with scientific names.

9. Line 438: Without a quantitative and conclusive assessment of climate change, excessive variables were introduced to compare regional environmental risks, which affected the depth of the discussion;

Response: We explained our theoretical underpinning at the beginning of this response. We also added an annex, which will explain more about quantitative research.

10. Line 521: The innovation of the research and the effectiveness of the conclusions need to be further strengthened.

Response: We reworked our conclusion and strived at our level best to accommodate our comments.

Thanks very much for all your comments. They were very useful. We have amended our paper on the basis of your critical points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a critical examination of the interplay between deforestation, development projects, and climate-related risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh. By challenging reductionist climate-centric narratives and emphasizing socio-political and ecological contexts, the paper makes a valuable contribution to understanding environmental vulnerabilities in marginalized regions. The mixed-methods approach (meteorological data analysis and community surveys) provides robust empirical support, and the concept of "ecological entanglement" effectively captures the compounding effects of industrialization, resource extraction, and climatic stressors. The manuscript can be accepted after a series of modifications. The following concerns should be addressed by the publication is considered:

1. There are some formatting and spelling errors in the text, such as: in line 258, the ‘1’ in front of the subheading ‘3.3’ is redundant; on page 7, the space is too big, so it is suggested that the layout be adjusted; some of the references are incorrectly formatted; The spelling of ‘marginalisation’ is not consistent with that of the corresponding word in the following text; in Table 1, ‘Upzilla’ should be amended to ‘Upazila’.
2. The superscript ‘ i ’ in line 67 for ‘indigenous ⁱ’ is not clear; please explain or delete it.
3. The labelling of the Y-axis in figure 2 does not specify the units, which makes interpretation ambiguous. It is suggested that specific indicators be labelled, and that the title of Figure 2 contain the automatically generated code ‘ SEQ ’, which should be deleted.
4. In Figure 4, the choice of pie charts for the percentage of people's views in each region is not appropriate and should be changed.
5. Meteorological data relies only on a single station and satellite interpolation, without discussing the representative error of the data, the reliability of the conclusion is doubtful.
6. There are only 6 charts in the text, and the content is relatively repetitive (e.g., Table 1 and Figure 4 both describe the attribution of residents). Key conclusions (e.g., ‘ecological entanglement’) lack visual support, and it is recommended to add corresponding analytical charts.
7. The concept of ‘ecological entanglement’ lacks theoretical anchoring and needs to be clarified in terms of its innovations and differences from existing research. The critique of ‘neo-liberal development’ remains at a descriptive level and does not take into account the structural factors of CHT.
8. The section on responses only makes a general call for ‘inclusive policies’ and ‘community participation’ without proposing specific measures, making the recommendations rather vague.
9. The introduction of the article stresses ‘challenging the climate-centred narrative’, but the conclusion only recapitulates ‘the role of multiple factors’, without refining the theoretical or policy breakthroughs.
10. The article does not explicitly examine specific additions to climate vulnerability theories in the discussion and conclusion, and it is recommended that further clarification be added.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

This paper offers a critical examination of the interplay between deforestation, development projects, and climate-related risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh. By challenging reductionist climate-centric narratives and emphasizing socio-political and ecological contexts, the paper makes a valuable contribution to understanding environmental vulnerabilities in marginalized regions. The mixed-methods approach (meteorological data analysis and community surveys) provides robust empirical support, and the concept of "ecological entanglement" effectively captures the compounding effects of industrialization, resource extraction, and climatic stressors. The manuscript can be accepted after a series of modifications. The following concerns should be addressed by the publication is considered:

1. There are some formatting and spelling errors in the text, such as: in line 258, the ‘1’ in front of the subheading ‘3.3’ is redundant; on page 7, the space is too big, so it is suggested that the layout be adjusted; some of the references are incorrectly formatted; The spelling of ‘marginalisation’ is not consistent with that of the corresponding word in the following text; in Table 1, ‘Upzilla’ should be amended to ‘Upazila’.

Response: Thanks very much for pointing out the formatting issues. We amended them all and had several revisions to point out further amendments needed in formatting and addressed them all. As you pointed out, we removed ‘1’ before the subheading ‘3.3’, we adjusted the space on page 7 by moving the figure one paragraph ahead, ‘marginalisation’ was used both in British and American English format which all are now aligned to American English, the spelling ‘upazila’ has been amended.

2. The superscript ‘i’ in line 67 for ‘indigenous ⁱ’ is not clear; please explain or delete it.

Response: Since we explained the politics of not recognizing the ‘Indigenous’ groups in Bangladesh, we think, the endnote is important for the general readers who are not familiar with the political economy of resources control and the political economy in the CHT.  

3. The labelling of the Y-axis in figure 2 does not specify the units, which makes interpretation ambiguous. It is suggested that specific indicators be labelled, and that the title of Figure 2 contain the automatically generated code ‘ SEQ ’, which should be deleted.

Response: Since all the graphs have similar ‘X’ and ‘Y’ axes, this has been informed in the caption. In the following paragraph, the figure has been described, where the dry spell is the number of days without rain, and the wet spell is the number of rainy days. Both the dry and wet spells are accounted for in the monsoon and winter to give an understanding of rainfall patterns.

4. In Figure 4, the choice of pie charts for the percentage of people's views in each region is not appropriate and should be changed.

Response: We also think that a bar chart will explain Figure 4 much more clearly than a pie chart. Thus, the figure has been updated.

5. Meteorological data relies only on a single station and satellite interpolation, without discussing the representative error of the data, the reliability of the conclusion is doubtful.

Response: For precision in weather data on plain surfaces, we need to have data every 200 kilometers. However, in undulating lands, like in the CHT, data needs to be acquired every 50 kilometers (Lines 272-275). However, historically, we had only one weather station in Rangamati Valley, which technically cannot represent the vast hilly terrain of the CHT. Therefore, satellite data were the best available resources which have been available only since 1998. Again, temperature data from NASA satellites is less reliable for climatic models. Therefore, we used only rainfall data to understand the changing patterns in the weather system. However, we also draw on perception data to fill in the gaps. We added a few lines from 278 to 282 to elaborate on this. In addition, we added a completely new subsection and an Annex on climatic data and techniques.

6. There are only 6 charts in the text, and the content is relatively repetitive (e.g., Table 1 and Figure 4 both describe the attribution of residents). Key conclusions (e.g., ‘ecological entanglement’) lack visual support, and it is recommended to add corresponding analytical charts.

Response: Table 1 gives a summary of 4.2 (Local Perceptions of Environmental Change in CHT), and Figure 4 refers to sub-section 4.5 (changes in biodiversity). As this research combines the meteorological data with peoples’ experiences, we see in sub-section 4.1 the changing pattern of precipitation across the year. From sub-sections 4.2 to 4.6 we strived to highlight what the CHT people informed the research team about what changes they see and experience and how they rationalize the causes of their sufferings. We see that environmental stresses which directly impact habitability like scorching heat, depleting water sources, declining rainfall and decaying soil and other indirect crises like biodiversity loss are pointed out. For all these impacts, they unanimously indicate deforestation to be responsible. In the result section, we highlighted how people understand their surrounding environment. In the section on analysis, we brought in elements of political ecology. We see that the notion of neoliberal development is very visible in their responses and that is why ‘deforestation’ came as such as detrimental evil in their responses.  

7. The concept of ‘ecological entanglement’ lacks theoretical anchoring and needs to be clarified in terms of its innovations and differences from existing research. The critique of ‘neo-liberal development’ remains at a descriptive level and does not take into account the structural factors of CHT.

Response: Ecological entanglement is now explained in the theoretical section (lines 158-166), discussion and conclusion (2^nd paragraph). In conclusion we highlight its difference from existing research. Neo-liberal development is now explained accordingly in sections 5.1 and 5.2.

8. The section on responses only makes a general call for ‘inclusive policies’ and ‘community participation’ without proposing specific measures, making the recommendations rather vague.

Response: A specific recommendation is added in the conclusion for the CHT

9. The introduction of the article stresses ‘challenging the climate-centred narrative’, but the conclusion only recapitulates ‘the role of multiple factors’, without refining the theoretical or policy breakthroughs.

Response: The paper theoretically reframes environmental vulnerability through the concept of ‘ecological entanglement,’ challenging reductionist climate-centred narratives by explicitly highlighting how structural inequalities and political-economic conditions shape vulnerabilities. This approach contributes to theoretical advancements by positioning climate change as an amplifying, rather than a singular, force within broader socio-political and environmental processes. Policy-wise, this necessitates transitioning from general climate adaptation strategies towards contextually grounded responses that address historical inequalities, Indigenous autonomy, and environmental justice

10. The article does not explicitly examine specific additions to climate vulnerability theories in the discussion and conclusion, and it is recommended that further clarification be added.

Response: Added in the conclusion, “By emphasizing ecological entanglement, the paper extends climate vulnerability theories beyond traditional exposure-sensitivity-adaptive capacity frameworks (IPCC, 2014). Rather, it adds a political-economic dimension—showing vulnerability as deeply embedded within historical, political, and structural relations (Taylor, 2020). Thus, vulnerability in the CHT context emerges not just from environmental shocks but from historically entrenched processes of marginalization, militarized land governance, and neoliberal economic extraction”.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Number: earth-3550787-peer-review-v2

Title: Deforestation, Development, and Emerging Environmental Risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

 

Comments：

 

During the modification process, there were no substantial improvements, mostly explanatory explanations. Overall, the research lacks innovation, stays at the level of describing phenomena, lacks in-depth exploration, lacks solid scientific data support, lacks quantitative analysis, and is difficult to form meaningful scientific conclusions.

Author Response

Reviewer2:

Manuscript Number: earth-3550787

Title: Beyond Climate Reductionism: Environmental Risks and Ecological Entanglements in the Chittagong Hill Tracts of Bangladesh

General comments:

The social development and sustainable research of hotspot regions under the background of climate change is an international hotspot. This study takes the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) in Bangladesh as the research area, and uses meteorological data, remote sensing data, and social survey data to analyze the climate change trend in the area. The impact of climate change on environmental risks is investigated, and the effects of land degradation, water scarcity, flash floods, landslides, deforestation, and neoliberal development on social development are compared and analyzed. Research is an effective supplement to understanding social development and climate change awareness in relevant regions.

However, from the perspective of scientific paper writing, the topic of this manuscript is too broad, the issues discussed are not focused, and there is a lack of good data foundation and scientific data analysis methods, making it difficult to form meaningful scientific conclusions. From the perspective of manuscript improvement, it is recommended to further improve the manuscript in terms of organizational structure, data analysis methods, research result analysis, and summary of innovative points. The specific opinions are as follows:

Response:

We narrowed the analytical focus by clearly positioning ecological entanglement as the central conceptual framework. The framing in Sections 1 and 2 provides a strong rationale for moving beyond climate-only narratives, thus resolving the perceived broadness. Ecological entanglement effectively anchors the paper's thematic coherence and directly addresses concerns about conceptual focus. All the changes we made in the revised version are marked in blue font.

Detailed comments:

Comment 1: Line 21-40: The abstract of the paper needs further revision, with a focus on systematically summarizing and organizing the research methods used, clear research conclusions obtained, and their significance;

Response: We have rewritten the abstract as the reviewer suggested.

Comment 2: Line 44-175: Merge "1. Introduction" and "2. Understanding Climate Change Beyond Climate Washing Approach" to unify the research background and significance;

Response: Thank you for this helpful suggestion. We understand the rationale for unifying the background and conceptual framing. However, we have chosen to retain the two sections separately to maintain analytical clarity between (i) the empirical background and significance of the study (Section 1) and (ii) the conceptual framing and critique of climate reductionism (Section 2). However, we added transition sentences for better clarity.

Comment 3: Line 220: "3.2. Field Techniques" section should include steps for evaluating the validity of the questionnaire. The educational level and personal interests of the respondents may have a more significant impact on the validity of the questionnaire than the number of questionnaires;

Response:  We explained them all in the 3.2  methods section by revising,

Our methodological framework underwent scrutiny and approval by an independent review body, after which we conducted a pilot field test wherein data enumerators assumed primary roles under the direct observation of the research lead. This initial stage allowed all team members to observe interview techniques employed by others, document their observations, and subsequently discuss insights within the group. To ensure the validity of the questionnaire, we conducted a pilot study with a small, demographically diverse group of respondents representative of the broader study population. The questionnaire was reviewed for clarity, cultural relevance, and appropriateness of language, with particular attention to variations in educational background, literacy levels, and familiarity with climate and environmental issues. Questions were simplified and revised based on feedback to minimize ambiguity and ensure comprehension across different age groups, genders, and livelihoods. Field researchers were trained to assist respondents when needed, particularly those with limited formal education, to reduce response bias and improve data reliability. In addition, data enumerators were recruited from 12 different ethnic groups across the CHT to minimize language barriers and enhance contextual sensitivity. The refined instruments, shaped by both respondent feedback and enumerator experience, reflected enhanced rigor, inclusivity, and relevance. Random spot-checks were implemented during the data collection phase to ensure procedural consistency. Furthermore, daily debriefing sessions facilitated a collaborative environment where enumerators discussed encountered challenges, posed inquiries, and collectively devised standardized solutions. Upon completion of the data collection process, a comprehensive consistency check was conducted on each questionnaire to ensure data integrity.

Comment 4: Line 258: In the "3.3. Data Analysis" section, effective analysis methods such as correlation analysis, trend analysis, principal component analysis, etc. should be used to establish quantitative connections between climate data, social survey data, and environmental impact data, and should not be limited to explicit descriptions;

Response: We thank the reviewer for the thoughtful suggestion on expanding the analytical techniques. We now added more detail on climatic trend analysis in the methodology by incorporating a subsection (3.3) and an annexe.

However, we respectfully clarify that the inclusion of advanced statistical tools such as correlation analysis or principal component analysis (PCA), while useful in certain research contexts, does not align with the theoretical scope, epistemological orientation, and methodological intention of our paper.  

The objective of the study and this paper is not to isolate climate data for narrow causal modelling but to understand climate-induced hazards as embedded within broader socio-ecological and historical entanglements. it is situated within a critical political ecology framework that foregrounds ecological entanglement—the co-constitution of climate-induced hazards with structural processes such as land dispossession, militarization, forest degradation, and governance failures (Robbins, 2012; Nightingale et al., 2020).

In line with this objective, the study employed triangulated methods: (i) satellite-based rainfall time-series analysis supported by statistical trend diagnostics (MAD, MAPE), (ii) a representative household survey (n=400), and (iii) rich qualitative data from FGDs, interviews, and life histories. Rather than pursue abstract quantitative generalizations, the aim was to contextualize climate signals within a highly differentiated, conflict-affected, and ecologically fragile landscape.

Moreover, in regions such as the CHT—where climate data is sparse and socio-environmental change is shaped by intersecting structural processes—advanced statistical modelling risks misrepresenting the lived complexity. By focusing on multicausal interactions and grounded perceptions, this paper contributes to recent debates that critique climate determinism and call for locally attuned, justice-oriented environmental analyses (cf. Sultana, 2022; Baldwin & Bettini, 2017; Mikulewicz et al., 2023).

We believe that our approach offers analytical depth through methodological pluralism and theoretical nuance rather than relying solely on numerical association metrics, which may be methodologically incompatible with our research design.

Comment 5: Line 287: The data analysis method in "4.1. Climate Change Projection for CHT" is too simple, and the analysis results of the three regions have not reached a consistent conclusion. Why did the analysis results of the three regions not reach a consistent conclusion, and what impact does it have on the subsequent analysis of this manuscript;

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. In the upgraded section of 4.1 we have addressed these issues.

Comment 6: Line 324： “4.2. Local Perceptions of Environmental Change in CHT”， To deeply analyze the influencing factors of different interviewees' perception of environmental changes;

Response: Thanks very much for your comments. We have revised this section, too.

Comment 7: Line 348: Analyzing the impact of rainfall and temperature changes on agriculture and livelihoods through a questionnaire survey, the reliability of the conclusions is worrying; The same problem also exists in the analysis of other chapters.

Response: We acknowledge the importance of methodological robustness in analyzing the relationship between climate variability and socio-ecological impacts. However, we strongly disagree with the assumption that our conclusions rely solely on household survey data. Rather, our analysis is grounded in a methodologically rigorous triangulation of climate science tools, social data, and contextual expertise. Specifically, we integrated 20 years of satellite-derived rainfall estimates (TRMM), ground-based meteorological data, and trend analysis (via time-series plots, stationarity tests, and model selection based on MAD and MAPE), with in-depth field data gathered through 400 statistically representative household surveys, 21  interviews with people working in Government and non-govt organisations, 18 key informant life histories, and 6 focus group discussions across all three districts. These data were further enriched through participatory observation and daily debriefings with local enumerators drawn from 12 Indigenous communities.

The insights derived are thus not isolated or speculative, but the result of multi-scalar empirical convergence—where statistical trends in climatic data are cross-validated with observed livelihood impacts, local oral histories, and social perceptions of change. By combining climatic data trends and community-based knowledge systems, this paper offers a robust empirical account of how changing rainfall and temperature patterns manifest materially in agriculture, water access, biodiversity, and income vulnerability in the CHT. Therefore, the conclusions presented are analytically sound, contextually embedded, and methodologically well-substantiated.

Comment 8: Line 403: Please use Latin names for plant names;

Response: We recognize the fact that biological names are often useful in ecology and other branches of natural sciences. However, in our research, where we are mentioning only the important plants, having a botanical name for them would make no difference. Therefore, we do not want to draw any unnecessary attention to the plants by labelling them with scientific names.

Comment 9: Line 438: Without a quantitative and conclusive assessment of climate change, excessive variables were introduced to compare regional environmental risks, which affected the depth of the discussion;

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to methodological precision. However, we respectfully contest the assertion that the paper lacks a conclusive quantitative assessment of climate change and that the inclusion of multiple variables weakens the depth of the discussion. We think:

• The strength of this paper lies precisely in its refusal to isolate climate variables from the broader socio-political and historical landscape. In alignment with a growing body of scholarship that critiques linear, climate-centric framings of vulnerability (O’Brien & Leichenko, 2019; Lahsen & Ribot, 2020; Sultana, 2022; Taylor, 2020), this study foregrounds ecological entanglement—an analytical lens that highlights how climate-induced hazards are co-constituted by governance failures, deforestation, militarization, land dispossession, and neoliberal development imperatives.
• Rather, the paper deliberately adopts a multi-method and multi-scalar approach, grounded in a critical political ecology framework (Robbins, 2012; Nightingale et al., 2020), to challenge climate reductionism and illuminate the intersecting drivers of environmental stress in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT).This contribution is not a diffusion of focus, but rather a deliberate alignment with emerging scholarship that calls for contextualized, just, and pluralistic understandings of climate vulnerability (cf. Sultana, 2022; IPCC WGII, 2022).
• Besides, the study makes methodological innovation by combining (i) Twenty years of satellite-based meteorological data (TRMM, PERSIANN), validated with limited but available ground-station data in Rangamati, using time series models and trend diagnostics; (ii) Quantitative household survey data from 400 diverse respondents across three districts; (iii)Rich qualitative insights from focus group discussions, institutional and key informant interviews, and life-history narratives, particularly from Indigenous elders. We argue that in regions like the CHT—where both climate datasets are limited and environmental risks are shaped by structural inequalities—such a methodological triangulation is not only warranted but necessary.
• Furthermore, our work is among the first to integrate climate data with Indigenous environmental knowledge and lived experiences in the CHT, an under-researched region in Bangladesh. This approach directly engages with recent debates on how climate determinism can obscure the root causes of vulnerability, particularly in postcolonial, militarized, and ecologically contested landscapes (Baldwin & Bettini, 2017; Mikulewicz et al., 2023; Nightingale et al., 2020).

Overall, we contend that the inclusion of multiple interlinked variables strengthens, rather than weakens, the analytical rigor and empirical richness of the paper. Far from being excessive, this multidimensional framing is essential to illuminate the complex pathways through which climate change interacts with historical dispossession and uneven development, especially in Indigenous borderland contexts like the CHT.

Comment 10: Line 521: The innovation of the research and the effectiveness of the conclusions need to be further strengthened.

Response: We reworked our conclusion and strived at our level best to accommodate our comments.

Thanks very much for all your comments. They were very useful. We have amended our paper on the basis of your critical points.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper offers a critical examination of the interplay between deforestation, development projects, and climate-related risks in the Chittagong Hill Tracts (CHT) of Bangladesh. By challenging reductionist climate-centric narratives and emphasizing socio-political and ecological contexts, the paper makes a valuable contribution to understanding environmental vulnerabilities in marginalized regions. The mixed-methods approach (meteorological data analysis and community surveys) provides robust empirical support, and the concept of "ecological entanglement" effectively captures the compounding effects of industrialization, resource extraction, and climatic stressors.The manuscript can be accepted after a series of modifications. The following concerns should be addressed by the publication is considered:

1. Despite revisions, there are still typos and formatting issues in the text. For example, "witnter" in Figure 2 should be corrected to "winter". It is recommended that the author conduct a thorough proofreading.
2. The conclusion about temperature rise in lines 345-346 needs further clarification on how it is derived from Figure 2. Please elaborate on the specific data points, trends, or analytical methods in the figure that support this conclusion.
3. Although the concept of "ecological entanglement" has been expanded upon, it still lacks comparative analysis with established theories. It is recommended to clarify its innovative aspects and enhance theoretical dialogue in the discussion section to prevent conceptual isolation.

 

Author Response

Reviewer 3:

Round 2:

Comment 1: Despite revisions, there are still typos and formatting issues in the text. For example, "witnter" in Figure 2 should be corrected to "winter". It is recommended that the author conduct a thorough proofreading.

Response: Apologies for missing the typos. We amended in the revised version. Also we had another round of thorough proofreading.

Comment 2: The conclusion about temperature rise in lines 345-346 needs further clarification on how it is derived from Figure 2. Please elaborate on the specific data points, trends, or analytical methods in the figure that support this conclusion.

Response: It is now addressed these points in our revised version. All the changes are marked in blue font.

Comment 3: Although the concept of "ecological entanglement" has been expanded upon, it still lacks comparative analysis with established theories. It is recommended to clarify its innovative aspects and enhance theoretical dialogue in the discussion section to prevent conceptual isolation.

Response: We have added comparative analysis in the theoretical section and also in the conclusion. You will find the changes marked in blue font. This has substantially changed the standard of the article. Thanks very much for pointing this out.