Community Perceptions and Determinants of the Sustained Conservation of Historical Rubber Plantations in the Lomela and Lodja Territories, Sankuru Province, Democratic Republic of the Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The diving rubber market has prompted many smallholders around the world to abandon their rubber plantations in favor of other means of survival, and how to balance the sustainable conservation of rubber plantations with the threats to them has become an urgent and realistic issue. This paper explores the factors influencing the sustainable conservation of rubber plantations and the differences in perceptions among different groups from the perspective of community perceptions, which is a unique perspective and a topic of great scientific value. However, the paper still has the following points for further consideration:

1. The introduction of the article introduces the development of rubber plantations and the difficulties they face, but the synthesis of research on the sustainable protection of rubber plantations is not fully introduced, so it is recommended to further strengthen it.
2. Section 2.3 of the article mentions the use of probabilistic methods, please explain how this is done. Are these 401 households all the households in the 14 villages or some of them, and if they are part of them, please explain how these 401 households were chosen? Can the author provide further clarification on this section?
3. The Lomela and Lodja Territories districts were selected for this study, are there any differences in the results of the two districts?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your very pertinent comment. We recognize that the first version of the introduction did not sufficiently highlight the current state of scientific knowledge on the sustainable conservation of rubber plantations, particularly in post-colonial and progressive abandonment contexts.

In response to this suggestion, we have enriched the introduction by including a more in-depth review of recent research on:

• The vulnerability of old plantations to the dynamics of land-use change,
• Community conservation models for plantations with high historical value,
• Agro-ecological and socio-economic approaches to the sustainable development of rubber plantations in tropical zones.

These elements better situate our study in the scientific literature and demonstrate the relevance of the approach based on community perceptions to fill a gap that has yet to be fully explored in existing work.

Additional references introduced include [Name of one or two relevant authors on the subject if available].

We have also provided greater clarity on the probabilistic method, particularly with regard to the choice of 401 households surveyed. We understand the relevance of your concern about the differences in results between the two territories that covered the study. However, we would point out that the study did not take this difference into account, simply because the boundaries between the two territories of the same province are simply geographical. Rubber plantations cover forests without taking these boundaries into account. Local populations are unaware of these boundaries. They have the same culture, same context, same practices. In view of the homogeneous nature of these villages, the study did not focus on the differences between the territories.

The comments have been integrated into the original text in the "followed by comments" mode.

Once again, thank you for your helpful comments and support in improving our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• An attractive paper, as the title promises, with a topic of practical and challenging relevance
• The sustainable conservation of natural resources, and not just these, is a really important and needed topic

Point 2. Materials and methods

• I recommend reducing the size of Figure 1.
• Are there models in the literature that confirm the adequacy of the independent variables for this research?
• Have similar studies been conducted? If so, it is desirable to mention them.
• I recommend, from a methodological point of view, that references and arguments be mentioned to support the authors' decision to use this analysis model
• Also, some hypotheses for the research direction, according to the analysis will be developed, there are indicated to be presented.

Results

• I recommend reducing the size of Figure 4.

Conclusions

• The connection between the objectives proposed in the first part of the paper and the degree of their achievement
• The usefulness of the research and who will benefit from the obtained results
• Proposals and recommendations
• Eventually, limitations of the paper
• Future research directions
• The gaps in the literature based on the paper research, novelty, and results

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We sincerely thank you for taking the time to review our manuscript and for your valuable

your valuable comments. Please find below the answers to your concerns.

Point 2. materials and methods

Answer 1. The size of figure 1 has been reduced.

Answer 2. The relevance of the independent variables for this research was strengthened on the basis of scientific publications on the conservation factors of forest ecosystems in general, given that the scientific literature on the conservation factors of rubber plantations remains very limited. This reinforces the originality of this study.

Answer 3. We have mentioned similar studies on the Logit model in the conservation of forest ecosystems.

Answer 4.  Some hypotheses for research orientation, based on the analysis, are developed.

Results

Answer 5. Figure 4 is reduced in size.

Conclusions

Answer 6. The link between the objectives proposed in the first part of the document and the degree to which they have been achieved is demonstrated.

Answer 7. The usefulness of the research and who will benefit from the results are clarified;

Answer 8. Proposals and recommendations are formulated

Answer 9. The limitations of the article are provided

Answer 10. Future research directions are provided

The comments have been integrated into the original text in comment-follow-up mode.

Once again, thank you for your support in improving our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Although the analysis of the questionnaires is meticulous, the authors focus only on the historical value of rubber trees. Ecology, biodiversity, environmental impact for long-term sustainability, economic impact, advantages in response to climate change compared to synthetic rubber, etc., are not included in the questionnaire. There is a notable lack of research examining ecosystem services, carbon sequestration, and other potential benefits associated with maintaining historical rubber plantations. The in-text citations require formatting, and the text is characterized by orality and several repetitions.
Some point-by-point comments are listed below.

L58: I find the wording here a little misleading. Rubber is the product, not the species. The authors may rephrase to “Natural rubber is primarily obtained from the latex of the rubber tree, Hevea brasiliensis (Willd. ex A. Juss.) Mull. Arg. (Malpighiales: Euphorbiaceae), a perennial species native to…”.
If the authors wish to, they may rephrase the above sentence, but please keep the Order: Family of the species. Also, please format Latin names in italics throughout the text.
L69-71: Please refine grammar.
L88: Hevea sp.? And please use italics when referring to the genus or species throughout the text.
L102-103: Please use full authorities of the species the first time mentioned.
L123-133: I would suggest adding a small paragraph demonstrating the reasons behind the conservation of historical rubber plantations vs their replacement with the production of synthetic Polyisoprene rubber. For instance, synthetic Polyisoprene rubber may have a lower mechanical strength and tear resistance, be less eco-friendly, and there may be a production cost difference. I suggest referring to the above to strengthen the need for the conservation of natural rubber plantations.
L135: I would suggest using simply “2.1. Study Area”.
L148-149: Please avoid repetition of the species. The authors may refer to the species by either the common or Latin names.
L153-164: I don’t understand how the climatic characteristics of the study area are relevant. Section 2.1 could be merged with section 2.2.
L164: “Figure 1 shows a historical rubber plantation in the village of Vango” is not needed. Fig. 1 has been cited in the text.
L176: “Figure 2 shows the location of the rubber plantation villages” is not needed. Fig. 2 has been cited in the text.
Figure 2: Please ensure that the meaning of "A”, ”B”, and “C" is clearly defined in the figure legend.
Table 2: Please rephrase “type” to “sex” or “gender”.
Table 3: Please refer to the meaning of “Don” in “Methods of acquiring rubber plantations”. Also, please refine the column titles to correspond to the content.
L296-313: I strongly suggest removing the gender analysis and its interpretation from the text. It cannot be considered representative with a sex ratio of 91.52%:8.48%. The authors may comment on this disparity if they wish to maintain a part of the interpretation.
Tables 5 &6: Please arrange the tables’ contents in single lines.
Discussion: Since ecology, biodiversity, environmental impact for long-term sustainability, economic impact, advantages in response to climate change compared to synthetic rubber, etc., are not included in the questionnaire, the authors should highlight in their discussion the relevance and contribution of their findings to the academic literature. If the authors possess such dataset I strongly recommend its incorporation in the analysis.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for this essential comment, which prompts us to clarify the scope and limits of our work.

Our study is primarily based on a socio-community approach, focusing on local perceptions relating to the conservation of historical rubber plantations in a specific post-colonial context. The questionnaire did not include formal modules on biophysical indicators related to ecology, biodiversity or climate change mitigation. However, the value of our contribution lies in its ability to shed light on the social, institutional and cultural determinants that condition local ownership of conservation dynamics.

In the revised discussion, we therefore highlight:

• How community perceptions constitute an essential anchoring base for any sustainable environmental management strategy;
• How these perceptions implicitly reflect environmental considerations, even in the absence of quantitative measures;
• And how our study contributes to filling a gap in the scientific literature on the interface between land memory, peasant dynamics and conservation strategies in African forest regions.

We remain open to integrating complementary empirical data on ecosystem and climate impacts in future work, but feel that our results already provide significant scientific added value in their social dimension.

The comments have been integrated into the original text in comment tracking mode.

Please note that all comments have been taken into account in detail in the original document.  

Once again, thank you for your helpful comments and support in improving our manuscript.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors, 

You have substantially improved the manuscript. The paper now reflects its scope from a more holistic point of view, integrating broader ecological, economic, or environmental dimensions, without exceeding its scope in illustrating the social and cultural factors that influence local ownership of conservation efforts.

The long-term environmental sustainability, the economic relevance of natural rubber, and its advantages over synthetic alternatives have now been discussed, adding value to the presentation of the manuscript.

 

Best of luck.