Forest Loss Drivers and Landscape Pressures in a Northern Moroccan Protected Areas’ Network: Introducing a Novel Approach for Conservation Effectiveness Assessment

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is a comprehensive study on “Conservation of Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas Network of the Northern Morocco”. That the approach is novel in one of the strengths of this study, according to the authors. It is a useful contribution in the area of assessing conservation of effectiveness assessment of protected areas. The study approach is sound, and methodology quite elaborate. The language is good, however, it could be improved by avoiding verbose style at places. For example, ‘surge’ is quite strong, ‘remarkable surge’ is unnecessary.

It is difficult to understand that almost no attempt has been made to inform about the forest types, botanical names of important species, forest/vegetation physiognomy based on growth forms, canopy cover and other such vegetation attributes.

The article has given a considerable attention to ‘wildfire’. It would be useful to define ‘wildfire’ as used in the studies. The authors are expected at least to tell what they mean by ‘wildfire’. Are oak stands planted or natural? We don’t come to know whether it is natural or man-made or both. What is nature of fire regimes? It may be pointed out that not all fire incidents may not result in deforestation. Fires may change species composition or lead to succession instead of forest loss. So how the effect of fire in terms of deforestation estimated? What are main features of the infrastructural development? I suggest to give a brief account of mammals and wildfire conflicts.

Almost nothing has been referred to population growth, overall economy and place of agriculture in that. In many parts of world both rich like Japan and poor like Nepal, and Himalayan regions of India, agricultural abandonment has begun to occur, resulting in decrease in pressure on forests. Thus poverty, population growth and continuation or discontinuation of agriculture, interact in a complex way to affect conservation. It would be useful to give an idea of agriculture, landholdings and its share in economy and relate them to conservation. Please see line 728 in this regard.

The paper needs to be substantially condensed to make it more readable. Discussion should focus more on the present study or avoid generalistic traits. Table and Figures are required to be self-explanatory. I am uncomfortable with the use of “evolution” (please see Fig. 3).

Comments on the Quality of English Language

English language is fine, but minor editing may be required.

Author Response

Comments 1: It is a comprehensive study on “Conservation of Effectiveness Assessment of Protected Areas Network of the Northern Morocco”. That the approach is novel in one of the strengths of this study, according to the authors. It is a useful contribution in the area of assessing conservation of effectiveness assessment of protected areas. The study approach is sound, and methodology quite elaborate. The language is good, however, it could be improved by avoiding verbose style at places. For example, ‘surge’ is quite strong, ‘remarkable surge’ is unnecessary.

 

Response 1: The authors have revised several passages of the manuscript and have attempted to make the style more concise. Comment satisfied (see revised manuscript: line:299).

 

Comments 2: It is difficult to understand that almost no attempt has been made to inform about the forest types, botanical names of important species, forest/vegetation physiognomy based on growth forms, canopy cover and other such vegetation attributes.

 

Response 2: The most important plant species found in the region's parks and SBEIs were outlined in section 2.1 (Study Area: lines 164 to 230). Additionally, other endangered species are discussed in section 4.2 (Analysis of landscape pressures: lines 752 to 876) in relation to the landscape pressures affecting the parks and SBEIs, including their plant life. The authors have focused on the most significant species to keep the manuscript concise. More comprehensive information about these species can be found in our previous articles on the same area: “Deforestation Drivers in Northern Morocco: An exploratory Spatoial Data Analysis” (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad5ad6) and “Spatio-temporal analysis and identification of deforestation hotspots in the Moroccan western Rif ” (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tfp.2023.100388).

 

Comments 3: The article has given a considerable attention to ‘wildfire’. It would be useful to define ‘wildfire’ as used in the studies. The authors are expected at least to tell what they mean by ‘wildfire’. Are oak stands planted or natural? We don’t come to know whether it is natural or man-made or both. What is nature of fire regimes? It may be pointed out that not all fire incidents may not result in deforestation. Fires may change species composition or lead to succession instead of forest loss. So how the effect of fire in terms of deforestation estimated? What are main features of the infrastructural development? I suggest to give a brief account of mammals and wildfire conflicts.

 

Response 3: The comment is extremely important and pertains to aspects that were discussed in our earlier publications: "Wildfires Risk Assessment Using Hotspot Analysis and Results Application to Wildfires Strategic Response in the Region of Tangier-Tetouan-Al Hoceima, Morocco" (https://doi.org/10.3390/fire6080314) and “Deforestation Drivers in Northern Morocco: An Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis” (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad5ad6). Wildfires refer to all fire incidents that result in burned areas, whether in forest formations or agricultural lands. For this reason, the authors have chosen to use the term "wildfires" instead of "forest fires". The GFC platform referenced in our article is by nature a database for deforestation. As a result, fire incidents that do not directly result in deforestation are not captured by this platform and are therefore excluded from consideration. Nonetheless, it is important to mention that these incidents can still be identified in the Burned Area Product (MODIS Fire_CCI51). In the region, all oak formations are natural, as explained in section 2.1 (Study Area, lines 181).

As outlined in our article about the drivers of deforestation in northern Morocco (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/2515-7620/ad5ad6) and summarized here, infrastructure development encompasses all man-made alterations to the landscape resulting from human activities. This includes urban and rural settlements, construction of highways, roads, tracks, dams, water basins, electrical grids, and quarry projects. Regarding the effects of wildfires on mammals, it is crucial to highlight the lack of published research on this topic in the region. Nonetheless, a paragraph has been included to clarify this issue (see lines 667 to 672).

 

Comments 4: Almost nothing has been referred to population growth, overall economy and place of agriculture in that. In many parts of world both rich like Japan and poor like Nepal, and Himalayan regions of India, agricultural abandonment has begun to occur, resulting in decrease in pressure on forests. Thus poverty, population growth and continuation or discontinuation of agriculture, interact in a complex way to affect conservation. It would be useful to give an idea of agriculture, landholdings and its share in economy and relate them to conservation. Please see line 728 in this regard.

 

Response 4: In northern Morocco, intensive farming is predominantly found in flat regions, which are typically privately owned. The most notable ecological consequences stem from the overuse of water for irrigation and the environmental contamination caused by pesticides and fertilizers, as discussed in lines 788 to 794. In the mountainous regions, the main agricultural practice is cannabis cultivation, which often leads to the destruction of forested areas. Unlike the situations in countries such as Japan, Nepal, and the Himalayan regions of India, cannabis farming in northern Morocco persists and continues to significantly threaten the conservation of forest ecosystems in the area, as referenced in various sections of the manuscript (lines: 94, 772, 809, 828, 991).

 

Comments 5: The paper needs to be substantially condensed to make it more readable. Discussion should focus more on the present study or avoid generalistic traits. Table and Figures are required to be self-explanatory. I am uncomfortable with the use of “evolution” (please see Fig. 3). English language is fine, but minor editing may be required.

 

Response 5: The authors revised the manuscript and rephrased and summarized several passages (example: Sections 2.2.1 and 2.2.2). The word 'evolution' has been replaced by 'Yearly changes' in figure 3.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting study and the authors have focused on researching a new approach for conservation effectiveness assessment of protected areas in northern Morocco. However, some revisions are needed related to Introduction of the manuscript: The authors didn’t present well the literature review. Moreover, the discussion part needs an improvement. Finally, a concise and well-written conclusion can be added to the text.

More and detailed comments are provided in the manuscript file.

 

 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: An adequate literature review of relevant previous researches is not provided in the introduction.

 

Response 1: As noted in the discussion (lines 964 to 968), there is a scarcity of research on the effectiveness of protected areas in North Africa, especially in our region. This has been corroborated by the bibliometric studies conducted by Martínez-Vega and Rodríguez-Rodríguez (2022) and Duan et al. (2020). Consequently, the authors did not include a bibliographic review on this subject in the introduction. However, a new paragraph has been added to the introduction (lines 118 to 125) mentioning this point and highlighting the importance of the current study in filling this gap.

 

Comments 2: Lack of reference for the highlighted text in the first paragraph of the introduction

 

Response 2: Reference [1] has been moved to the corresponding passage.

 

Comments 3: The basis of this prioritization is not clear. A clearer explanation should be provided or a scientific reference should be provided.

 

Response 3: The unclear section has been eliminated. PAs were compared based on several criteria: ecological representativeness, biodiversity, forest, heritage, and socio-economic values, area, disturbances, and threats. A citation has been added at the end.

 

Comments 4: The year of their registration as a protected area can be added to this table.

Response 4: All PAs in the region were identified by the Master Plan for Protected Areas in 1995. The year has been added in the title of Table 1.

 

Comments 5: The discussion seems to be very long. Focus only on the discussion of the main results of this research and comparison with other previous studies.

 

Response 5: The authors acknowledge that the discussion is relatively long. However, it is essential to emphasize that the region comprises a network of 21 PAs. Providing a brief overview of the results for each area adds to the discussion's length due to the significant number of PAs involved. As this is the inaugural study conducted in the region in the topic, the authors chose to present a comprehensive analysis of the entire network, guaranteeing that no protected areas were omitted.

 

Comments 6: Do not simply summarize the points already made in the body — instead, interpret your findings at a higher level of abstraction.

 

Response 6: The conclusion has been revised to emphasize the significance of the study's findings for local policymakers at a national level and to highlight the potential applicability of the novel proposed methodology in other regions on an international scale.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see the attachment.

Manuscript ID: conservation-3081681

Title: Forest Loss Drivers and Landscape Pressures in a Northern Moroccan Protected Areas Network: Introducing a Novel Approach for Conservation Effectiveness Assessment

Authors: Hamid Boubekraoui, Zineb Attar, Yazid Maouni, Abdelilah Ghallab, Rabah Saidi, Abdelfettah Maouni

Journal: Conservation

 

OVERVIEW AND GENERAL COMMENTS

The topic taken up by the Authors raises extremely important issues. Legislative and policy measures aimed at restoring and conserving biodiversity are taken by the European Union in different countries. European Union Biodiversity Strategy for 2030, European Union Habitats Directive, and European Union Funding Programs are initiatives and legislative actions of the European Union that are connected with promoting sustainable development and restoration law. Human activity has altered, modified, and sometimes fundamentally changed the conditions of habitats. The described methodological framework for potential application in another region is very interesting, and, in my opinion, it is a positive attribute of this work.

The prepared manuscript consists of 38 pages, eight figures, and five tables. In general, the paper is correct, the writing is easy to understand. The research methods used are correct. The Authors answered the research questions. The conclusions are correct based on the research conducted. In my opinion, the manuscript fits the scope of the Conservation Journal.

Below, I present my doubts and suggestions:

 

SPECIFIC COMMENTS

·         However my doubts are raised by the unequal size of the study groups. Could this have an impact on statistical analyses? (For example, table 4 – the number of observations).

·         My next consideration is the area of studied groups. The area is largest in the case of parks. Does this fact affect the results?

·         Why Authors analyzed areas between 2001 and 2020 years. Why 2001 year?

·         Too much emphasis is placed on describing the results of the previous study. As the Authors themselves claim, this has already been studied. Some content can be omitted only by mentioning it and then citing the work (for example, lines 235-239, and please modify the next part after this sentence).

·         Although the Authors distinguish the aim of their research, I would like to ask the Authors to formulate a research hypothesis and add it at the end of the introduction.

·         In 2.1. section, please add short information about the localization of the studied area.

 

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS

·         In the whole text of the manuscript, all references should be written as numbers in squares – not as entire surnames with years, according to the guidelines. Please check the entire text.

·         Please check the list of references according to the guidelines. There are many errors, e.g., the lack of a dot at the end of the citation. Please decide if you use the whole name of the journal or an abbreviation. It should be unified.

·         Some issues should be corrected, which are included in a separate PDF file sent to the Editorial Office. Please correct the text according to my comments and suggestions.

 

OVERALL RECOMMENDATION

Considering my opinion, I would like to conclude that the manuscript can be accepted after a few minor corrections.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Comments 1: However my doubts are raised by the unequal size of the study groups. Could this have an impact on statistical analyses? (For example, table 4 – the number of observations).

 

Response 1: The comment is very important and has already piqued the authors' interest. It's worth mentioning that the study's findings include an examination of how the size of PAs influences the mean cumulative effect index. The analysis showed that the size of the PAs, and consequently the number of observations they contain, does not have a significant impact on this value. Nevertheless, to maintain brevity in the manuscript, the authors have decided to address this aspect in a future study.

 

Comments 2: My next consideration is the area of studied groups. The area is largest in the case of parks. Does this fact affect the results?

 

Response 2: As stated in Response 1, statistical analyses indicated that the size of PAs does not affect the mean values of the cumulative effect index. This is further exemplified in the boxplot shown in Figure 5.b, which reveals that for parks, the index values can vary, being both lower and higher compared to other PAs’ categories, irrespective of their size.

 

Comments 3:  Why Authors analyzed areas between 2001 and 2020 years. Why 2001 year?

 

Response 3: The study period was primarily selected based on the availability of data for the factors under investigation, including deforestation, agricultural expansion, infrastructure extension, fires, and population growth. The period from 2001 to 2020 was chosen as it represents the common timeframe for which data on these factors are available.

 

Comments 4: Too much emphasis is placed on describing the results of the previous study. As the Authors themselves claim, this has already been studied. Some content can be omitted only by mentioning it and then citing the work (for example, lines 235-239, and please modify the next part after this sentence).

 

Response 4: Comment satisfied. The relevant sections have been summarized (refer to lines 255 to 289).

 

Comments 5: Although the Authors distinguish the aim of their research, I would like to ask the Authors to formulate a research hypothesis and add it at the end of the introduction..

 

Response 5: The hypothesis of the study was formulated in the methodology section (lines 403 to 411). However, this hypothesis was also included in the introduction to address the comment (lines 128 to 132).

 

 

Comments 6: In 2.1. section, please add short information about the localization of the studied area.

 

Response 6: Comment satisfied (refer to Section 2.1, lines 148 to 153).

 

Comments 7: In the whole text of the manuscript, all references should be written as numbers in squares – not as entire surnames with years, according to the guidelines. Please check the entire text.

 

Response 7: The authors have reviewed the entire manuscript and made the necessary corrections to the references as requested.

 

Comments 8: Please check the list of references according to the guidelines. There are many errors, e.g., the lack of a dot at the end of the citation. Please decide if you use the whole name of the journal or an abbreviation. It should be unified.

 

Response 8: The authors have reviewed the entire manuscript and made the necessary corrections to the references as requested.

 

Comments 9: Some issues should be corrected, which are included in a separate PDF file sent to the Editorial Office. Please correct the text according to my comments and suggestions.

 

Response 9: The text has been corrected according to comments and suggestions.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx