Farmers’ Perception of Ecosystem Services Provided by Historical Rubber Plantations in Sankuru Province, DR Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,
The topic of the study is interesting as there is a pressing need to address relevant issues, especially during the last years in which policymakers are looking for new ways to hinder climate change threats, ecosystem services play an important role on this issue. However, I feel that there are some portions that require improvements. Below, please find my recommendations:
Abstract
- Your abstract provides a good overview of your paper's topic, the data you used and key results. However, it could benefit from further refinement. My recommendation is to avoid unnecessary details, e.g. “30 villages in the two areas of Lodja and Lomela”, “who were interviewed between October 4 and December 31” and also, to refer briefly to the adopted methodology. In the current form you don’t make any reference on this issue.
Introduction section
- In this section, you make an attempt to motivate the study. However, I feel that what is missing in this process is the justification of why farmers’ perceptions on this issue are important. You should focus on this aspect. You should explicitly declare which is the motivation to investigate farmers; perceptions and additionally to “build” the conceptual framework of the study on this motivation.
- Lines 115-121: The reader is left confused. State explicitly which is the overarching aim of your study and which are the secondary.
- At the end of the introduction, consider including a brief paragraph outlining the structure of the paper. This will provide readers with a roadmap, helping them navigate through the content more effectively.
Results
- Several noteworthy results are described in this section. Even though this is fine, at the end of this section, think about going over your data again to extract the key points that summarise your findings in their entirety. This contributes to crafting a "message" that your readers will remember better.
Discussion
- I feel that this section merely compares your results with results of relevant studies. For me the role of this section is to open the thread for policy discussion which is absent in your case. I feel that you have to elaborate on this issue since you have several noteworthy results derived from your work, which could have considerable policy reflections.
Conclusions
- Check the numbering of the section.
- In my humble opinion this section does not deliver what the introduction promises. For instance, “….the objective is to propose strategic orientations for collaborative natural resource management, involving policymakers, researchers, and local communities...”,”… the objective of this work is to promote the ecological, economic, and social sustainability of Sankuru's historic agroforestry ecosystems while strengthening dialogue between stakeholders for the purpose of facilitating concerted and inclusive management….”. Without addressing policy implications, the research does not fully bridge the gap between scientific insights and actionable guidelines for stakeholders and policy makers. This omission limits the paper’s practical value. Please elaborate on these aspects.
I wish you all the best in your revisions and improving your manuscript.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments. Th Here are the answers to your concerns.

Question 1. Your abstract provides a good overview of your paper's topic, the data you used and key results. However, it could benefit from further refinement. My recommendation is to avoid unnecessary details, e.g. “30 villages in the two areas of Lodja and Lomela”, “who were interviewed between October 4 and December 31” and also, to refer briefly to the adopted methodology. In the current form you don’t make any reference on this issue.
Introduction section.

Answer 1. Based on this very pertinent observation, we have deleted the unnecessary details and added a sentence (lines 37-40) that briefly clarifies the methodological approach used.

Question 2. In this section, you make an attempt to motivate the study. However, I feel that what is missing in this process is the justification of why farmers’ perceptions on this issue are important. You should focus on this aspect. You should explicitly declare which is the motivation to investigate farmers; perceptions and additionally to “build” the conceptual framework of the study on this motivation.

Answer 2. Thank you very much for your constructive comment. We understand that the importance of studying farmers' perceptions must be explicitly justified and clearly integrated into the conceptual framework of the study. Your comment highlights a crucial point that we have taken into account and improved in the revision of our manuscript. In this new version, we have clarified the link between farmers' perceptions and sustainable natural resource management in our conceptual framework, emphasizing that ecosystem management can only be effective if it is based on recognition of farmers' values and needs (lines 108 - 117). This last point is particularly relevant in the context of rubber plantations, where ecosystem services such as climate regulation, carbon storage and biodiversity management are crucial to maintaining long-term productivity. Thus, understanding how farmers perceive these services enables management policies and strategies to be better adapted to local realities, thus fostering rural communities' support for conservation initiatives.

Question 3. Lines 115-121: The reader is left confused. State explicitly which is the overarching aim of your study, and which are the secondary.

Answer 3. Based on this comment, we have made an effort to add a paragraph (lines 126 - 136) that explicitly states the main objective and specific aims of this study.

Question 4. At the end of the introduction, consider including a brief paragraph outlining the structure of the paper. This will provide readers with a roadmap, helping them navigate through the content more effectively.

Answer 4. Based on this comment, we have made an effort to add a paragraph (lines 137 - 147) describing the structure of the manuscript to provide the reader with a roadmap that will help them navigate the content more effectively.

Question 5. I feel that this section merely compares your results with results of relevant studies. For me the role of this section is to open the thread for policy discussion which is absent in your case. I feel that you have to elaborate on this issue since you have several noteworthy results derived from your work, which could have considerable policy reflections.

Answer 5. Based on this very pertinent comment, we have made an effort to add a whole section (lines 983 - 1020) that deals with the implications of ecosystem services on the sustainability of historical rubber plantations in Sankuru.

Question 6. Check the numbering of the section.
- In my humble opinion this section does not deliver what the introduction promises. For instance, “….the objective is to propose strategic orientations for collaborative natural resource management, involving policymakers, researchers, and local communities...”,”… the objective of this work is to promote the ecological, economic, and social sustainability of Sankuru's historic agroforestry ecosystems while strengthening dialogue between stakeholders for the purpose of facilitating concerted and inclusive management….”. Without addressing policy implications, the research does not fully bridge the gap between scientific insights and actionable guidelines for stakeholders and policy makers. This omission limits the paper’s practical value. Please elaborate on these aspects.
I wish you all the best in your revisions and improving your manuscript.

Answer 6. On the basis of this very pertinent remark, we have made an effort to revise the conclusion (lines 1021 - 1058) to take account of the objectives of the study and link them with the political implications. We have emphasized that research into farmers' perceptions can promote the ecological, economic, and social sustainability of Sankuru's historic plantations, while strengthening dialogue between the various stakeholders with the aim of facilitating concerted and inclusive management of natural resources.

We would like to thank you again for your valuable comments, which helped us greatly to improve our work.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The manuscript highlights the socio-ecological importance of historical rubber plantations in Sankuru, contributing to under-researched tropical agroforestry systems.
• Employs a mixed-methods approach, integrating semi-structured interviews, focus groups, and statistical analyses like Chi-square and MCAFA for comprehensive insights.
• Effectively emphasizes the cultural heritage value of rubber plantations, linking conservation to local identity and history.
• Data is presented clearly through detailed figures and tables, aiding interpretation of ecosystem services and socio-demographic factors.
• Sampling bias is evident, with 74.67% male respondents (p. 19), limiting insights on services managed by women, such as firewood collection and pharmacopoeia.
• The sampling methodology lacks clarity and justification for village selection criteria (p. 5).
• Overreliance on qualitative perceptions reduces ecological validity; no quantitative data on biodiversity or carbon sequestration is provided (p. 16).
• Literature engagement is superficial, referencing Chabi et al. and Ndiaye et al. without critically contextualizing regional differences (p. 20-21).
• Policy recommendations are vague and lack actionable strategies to address plantation productivity or land-use conflicts (p. 20).
• Regulating services like carbon storage and windbreaks are mentioned but not backed by direct measurements or detailed analyses (p. 17).
• Redundancy in language and structure detracts from readability; key ideas, such as plantation significance, are reiterated excessively (p. 4, 20).
• Socioeconomic factors like market access and infrastructure limitations are underexplored, despite their relevance to ecosystem service utilization (p. 20).
• Policymaker and stakeholder engagement is absent, limiting the practical impact and applicability of the study’s findings (p. 5).

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Should be improved 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable comments. Here are the answers to your concerns.

First of all, thank you for your comment on the quality of English in our manuscript. We understand that the use of clear and precise English is essential to ensure the comprehension and impact of our work with a wide academic audience. We are aware that certain formulations may hinder the fluidity and clarity of our text. In order to improve the linguistic quality of our manuscript, we undertook a thorough revision of the entire text, particularly of sections where the language was less fluid. In particular, we corrected errors of grammar, syntax, and punctuation to make the ideas clearer and better structured. To enhance the effectiveness of our revision, we used specialized grammar and style correction tools (e.g., Grammarly, Deepl Write and ProWritingAid) to ensure that the text met the standards of rigorous academic English. These tools helped us to spot inconsistencies and stylistic clumsiness and correct them. Question 1. Sampling bias is evident, with 74.67% male respondents (p. 19), limiting insights on services managed by women, such as firewood collection and pharmacopoeia.

Answer 1. We recognize that the majority of respondents were men (74.67%), which may limit the understanding of ecosystem services managed by women, particularly in relation to the collection of firewood and the use of resources for pharmacopoeia. This bias is largely influenced by local socio-cultural structures, where men are often responsible for managing rubber plantations, while women, who are mainly involved in domestic chores and natural resource activities, are not always included in decision-making processes. We pointed out in the discussion (line 759) that the majority of heirs to Sankuru's historic rubber plantations are men. In addition, our study population consisted of rubber plantation owners (line 229 - 236).  To compensate for this bias, we took steps to obtain representative information regarding services managed by women, notably by specifically targeting certain groups of women during focus group discussions (one focus group in each village) and interviews (lines 263 - 270). Although this bias may indeed affect the diversity of perceptions on ecosystem services, it should be noted that the data collected from men remains relevant for understanding the overall issues of plantation management. Although sampling bias exists, it is important to note that the results obtained on ecosystem services remain significant for all stakeholders in rubber plantation management.

Question 2. The sampling methodology lacks clarity and justification for village selection criteria (p. 5).

Answer 2. The 30 villages chosen for this study were selected according to the distribution (number of hectares) of rubber plantations and socio-economic activities (lines 194 - 217). Only areas with a significant presence of historical plantations were selected to ensure that the results were relevant to the study's objective of understanding the impact of these plantations on local farmers. Care was taken to include villages with socio-economic diversity, enabling perceptions of ecosystem services to be examined from different angles, particularly in terms of standard of living and access to resources.

Question 3. Overreliance on qualitative perceptions reduces ecological validity; no quantitative data on biodiversity or carbon sequestration is provided (p. 16).

Answer 3. We understand that the use of qualitative perceptions may be perceived as a methodological bias, particularly with regard to ecological validity. However, we opted for this qualitative approach in order to better understand local perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by historical rubber plantations in Sankuru. Moreover, this approach allows us to capture social, cultural, and economic aspects that cannot be measured by quantitative data alone. Our study focuses primarily on farmers' perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by these historic plantations, which justifies the emphasis placed on qualitative perceptions. However, we recognize that quantitative data on ecological indicators such as biodiversity or carbon sequestration could have enriched the results. In this sense, we have mentioned this limitation in the manuscript and propose, in the study perspectives (lines 1050 - 1057), to conduct future research that would include in-depth quantitative analyses on biodiversity and carbon sequestration. This could be done, for example, through floristic inventories, biomass measurements and analyses of carbon stocks in soil and vegetation.

Question 4. Literature engagement is superficial, referencing Chabi et al. and Ndiaye et al. without critically contextualizing regional differences (p. 20-21).

Answer 4. We understand the remark concerning the superficiality of the bibliographical research. The references to Chabi et al. and Ndiaye et al. were chosen because of their relevance to the theoretical framework of the study, which deals with ecosystem services and their management in similar agricultural contexts. These works provided a useful framework for analyzing perceptions and agricultural practices in rubber plantations. In response, we have enriched the literature review section with regional studies more directly relevant to the context of Sankuru and other regions of the Congo Basin. We have also included a critical discussion of existing work, highlighting the implications of ecosystem services for the sustainability of these historic plantations (lines 983 - 1020). We have taken care to contextualize the previously cited references by comparing them with other studies carried out in similar contexts, highlighting variations in rubber plantation management, ecosystem services and local community perceptions. We also recognize that a more in-depth analysis of regional differences could enrich future research. As such, we have suggested, in the conclusion of the study (lines 1050 - 1057), that comparative research be carried out between historical rubber plantations in Sankuru and other regions of Central Africa. This would enable a more detailed examination of the impacts of ecological, socio-economic, and cultural differences on plantation management and ecosystem services. This approach would enable a better understanding of regional dynamics and the formulation of policy recommendations better adapted to the local context.

Question 5. Policy recommendations are vague and lack actionable strategies to address plantation productivity or land-use conflicts (p. 20).

Answer 5. We understand that policy recommendations may seem vague in their initial formulation in the manuscript. That said, the main objective of this study is to better understand local farmers' perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by historical rubber plantations and to identify potential levers for promoting ecological, economic, and social sustainability. Following your comments, we have revised and clarified the policy recommendations in the manuscript. We have introduced more concrete strategies to improve plantation productivity, such as the promotion of sustainable agricultural practices and yield optimization techniques in rubber plantations, which take into account local specificities and available resources (lines 983 - 1020).  We have also highlighted the need to encourage closer collaboration between stakeholders (farmers, local communities, public authorities, and non-governmental organizations) to co-construct integrated natural resource management strategies (lines 983 - 1020). This approach could help resolve land-use conflicts in a more equitable and sustainable way, while ensuring greater productivity of rubber plantations and more rational use of the ecosystem services provided by these plantations.

Question 6. Regulating services like carbon storage and windbreaks are mentioned but not backed by direct measurements or detailed analyses (p. 17).

Answer 6. We understand that the absence of direct measurements on carbon storage and windbreaks may be perceived as a weak point in the analysis of the regulating services provided by rubber plantations. However, it is important to note that the main objective of this study was to analyze farmers' perceptions of the ecosystem services provided by these plantations, rather than to carry out a direct quantification of these services. In this sense, the chosen methodology focused on qualitative and descriptive approaches, based on local perceptions and uses of ecosystem services, which explains why these regulating services were not measured directly as part of this study. We recognize the importance of quantifying these services to complete the analysis and strengthen the ecological validity of the results. In this respect, we have taken this point on board and suggest in the discussion of the study that future research should incorporate direct measurements and quantitative analyses (lines 856 - 862), such as measuring carbon storage in the above- and below-ground biomass of rubber plantations or assessing the effectiveness of windbreaks using vegetation models or carbon flux analyses. These measures would provide a more accurate and rigorous assessment of these regulating services. Nevertheless, we have included references to existing studies that have quantified these services in similar plantations (line 850), in order to contextualize and support the qualitative observations obtained in this study. We have also discussed regulating services from a sustainable natural resource management perspective, explaining how rubber plantations can contribute to carbon sequestration and the reduction of wind and erosion risks in rural areas (lines 863 - 882).

Question 7. Redundancy in language and structure detracts from readability; key ideas, such as plantation significance, are reiterated excessively (p. 4, 20).

Answer 7. Thank you for your pertinent comment. We understand that excessive repetition of key ideas, such as the importance of rubber plantations, can hinder the flow and readability of the text. Following your comment, we have taken care to revise the structure of the manuscript to avoid unnecessary redundancy. We have consolidated sections where similar concepts were repeated and ensured that each section of the text provides new information or further reflection without repeating points already made. This makes the text more coherent and concise, while preserving the clarity of the main ideas. Instead of simply reiterating the importance of plantations, we have introduced a more analytical and nuanced approach, discussing the specific challenges, opportunities and practical implications that arise from the management of historical rubber plantations (lines 983 - 1020). This change makes it possible to treat the subject from different angles and to develop each point in an original way, without falling back into repetition of the same message.

Question 8. Socioeconomic factors like market access and infrastructure limitations are underexplored, despite their relevance to ecosystem service utilization (p. 20).

Answer 8. Thank you for this valuable comment. Indeed, we recognize that market access and infrastructure limitations are crucial socio-economic factors influencing the use of ecosystem services in rubber plantations. Although our study focused on farmers' perceptions of ecosystem services, we integrated the impacts of local socio-economic conditions wherever possible. However, we recognize that these factors could be explored in greater depth. Following your comments, we have broadened the discussion to better integrate the impact of market access and infrastructure limitations (lines 846 - 882). For example, we have detailed how poor access to roads and markets can limit the export of products from rubber plantations, thereby reducing potential economic benefits and limiting farmers' ability to invest in sustainable practices (lines 1021 - 1058). We also discussed how these socio-economic factors affect the adoption of greener technologies and natural resource management in the region. We also introduced recommendations for future research and public policy aimed at improving market access and infrastructure to facilitate the sustainable management of these historic plantations.

Question 9. Policymaker and stakeholder engagement is absent, limiting the practical impact and applicability of the study’s findings (p. 5).

Answer 9. Thank you for this important observation. We recognize that the engagement of policy makers and stakeholders is crucial to the practical impact and applicability of a study's findings, especially when it comes to natural resource management. Following your comments, we have revised the conclusion section (lines 1021 - 1058) to better reflect the importance of engaging policymakers and other stakeholders. We have added practical recommendations on how the results of the study could be used to strengthen dialogue between stakeholders and policymakers. These recommendations focus on natural resource management, ecosystem conservation and the promotion of an inclusive approach to rubber plantations, involving farmers, policymakers, and private sector players.

We would like to thank you again for your valuable comments, which helped us greatly to improve our work.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for the revision.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you very much for your valuable comments.

We have taken your comments into account and revised our manuscript accordingly. We are grateful for the attention you have given to its revision.

Yours faithfully