Hunters’ Perceptions and Protected-Area Governance: Wildlife Decline and Resource-Use Management in the Lomami Landscape, DR Congo

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General points

This paper provides original, very detailed and important socio-economic information on the  “dual subsistence-market role (of) hunting as a cornerstone of rural survival strategies…” from hunters who live to the south-east of the Lomami National Park (LNP, DR Congo). The species of mammals hunted are identified, and the hunters’ perceptions of trends in the animal populations are given. Some of these populations have gone extinct locally, and others appear to be declining; thoughtful suggestions on effective actions for conservation are given.   

The work was done in one of the remotest conservation areas in the world, and a total of 60 hunters were interviewed across nine villages located in the southern periphery of LNP. These may of course not be representative of hunters on the whole conservation area (>60 000 km²), but it is excellent that the study has been done, and published in a clear, and even literary, article.

There is a whole section in the Discussion “4.6. Toward Adaptive and Integrated Conservation Strategies Around Lomami National Park (LNP)”. Yet the opinions of the authors on what should be done by the authorities are indicated extensively in the Results; I suggest the passages based on the authors’ opinions would be better assembled in the Discussion,  especially in section 4.6.

In contrast there are three or four points in the Discussion on which information should be provided in the Results. Please see my proposals on these below, in the section of this review called “Discussion”.

The Material and Methods are well presented; eg. in Line 267 “accurate assignment of scientific names while grounding the identification process in both local ecological context.”

Data processing and statistical analyses have been done well, and are clearly presented.  

The title starts with “ Linking Hunters’ Perceptions to Protected‑Area Governance :” since you provide no direct information on the governance (frequency of patrolling,, for instance) I don’t see how you can link it to your data on hunters’ perceptions. May I suggest you start the title “Hunters’ Perceptions and Protected‑Area Governance: …”

Specific points

1. Results: Line 395 “Elephants, in particular, were actively hunted for their ivory, which was used to craft prestige objects with strong 396 symbolic value. You say later that some goes to the ivory trade, why not mention this here?
2. Line 191 You say “This study focuses exclusively on hunters, as no poachers were identified in the study”…This seems inconsistent with, for instance

Line 426 “Over one-third of hunters in both zones report continuing to hunt inside LNP, and

Line 732 “The findings reveal that hunting remains a widespread practice both around and within the park, despite its legally protected status”. You need to say here where the readers can find these findings in the Results.

Further you say

Line 751      “illegal incursions into the park persist.” and

in the Discussion Line 448 you say “For instance, access to hunting zones within the park boundaries” Has this been mentioned earlier  in the paper? Clarify these points please.

3. You speak of protected species Line 437 “Most hunters (75% near, 70% far) report seeing protected species and claim to avoid killing them, though a significant minority either do not encounter or do not spare them. You need to say here where the readers can find the information on the protected species; which species are they?

Discussion

4. There are three or four points in the Discussion on which information should be provided in the

Line 515 “…seasonal structuring of hunting observed in the area.” You need to say where the readers can find the information on this.

Line 516 “Our results show that hunting is strategically timed to align with the ecological cycles of target species, optimizing energy use, time, and returns while minimizing effort and risk. Where do you say what these ecological cycles are? I could not find the term « ecological cycle » anywhere else.

Line 549 “As duikers become scarce, primates have emerged as the most heavily hunted taxa, indicating a critical ecological tipping point. Where in the Results cqn the readers can find this information?

Line 592  “Beyond the species actively hunted, several hunters acknowledge the presence of other wildlife they deliberately avoid targeting. These are often species under strict legal protection in the DR Congo.” Which species are these? again it would be good to learn this in the Results.

Editorial points

Line 84  “…with hunters reporting similar.”    I suggest “with hunters “…providing similar opinions.”

Table 3 “Main use of captured animals   Consumption et Sale - "et" should be "and"

Author Contributions Author Contributions is doubled.

“…and guenons, can fetch up to…” 614 Latin name?

“Kundelungu National Park [70],” I would add the country, please.

 

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for helping review  our manuscript and providing the suggestions for us.  Please find our response in the attached file.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors

Surveys of local communities are very important tools not only for researchers but, mostly, for wildlife management so I am convinced that your efforts are important.

Article itself needs some work.

lines 25-28 - so detailed methods are not needed in abstract,  better focus on results, delete please 

line 55 - „DR” for main body of article we use rule of explaining abbreviations in saparete to abstract so please add full name of a country and abbreviation in brackets 

line 56 - delete space before coma

 halter 2 part 2.1. Or maybe 2.2. It is completely lack of description of local community, how many people live there, name of a tribe, culture type ect. And this very important background please.

lines 94-96, 101,343-346, 360, - add species names in English if existing 

Lines 191-197 and 240-250 - why this paragraphs are in different color? Correct 

line 275 - frequency of answers not “citation frequency “ correct please 

line 277- should be equation 1.

equation 1 should be directly after explanation line 281 and eq. 2 after following paragraph line 290 not at the end

lines 302, 303 you missed “a” explanation add please 

chapter Results should be only focused on results, additional comments (lines 316-318, 320-322, 333-334, 364-369, 393-402, 410, 411, 414-417, 419, 420, 422-428, 434-437, 463-466) should be moved to discussion section 

Lines 336, 337 - tabel description lacks explanation of zones. Add please 

line 377, 378 italic is missing 

Table 5, last row - format needed: “fishing “ is bold now

line 535 - lack of name of author, “van” is kind of prefix not full surname

line 591 - delete Latin name in brackets 

paragraph in lines 620-628 lacks references to existing research and data - add.

lines 634-636 - rewrite sentence please, putting reference as it is now is rather strange 

lines 701-702 x edit: italic in Latin names 

practical inclinations from Results chapter can be put here and add paragraph about study limitations 

line 736 - change Latin names to English names - you used them in Discussion chapter please be consistent 

Author Response

REVIEWER2

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and attention you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive comments and insightful suggestions have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and rigor of our work.

We have carefully considered each point you raised, and we present below our detailed responses

Comment: lines 25-28 - so detailed methods are not needed in abstract, better focus on results, delete please

Response:

Dear Reviewer, We thank you for this pertinent remark. We have revised the abstract by removing the detailed description of statistical tools, in order to refocus this section on the results.

Comment: line 55 - „DR” for main body of article we use rule of explaining abbreviations in saparete to abstract so please add full name of a country and abbreviation in brackets 

Response: We thank you for this observation. We have improved this section by adding the full name of the country followed by its abbreviation, as follows: Democratic Republic of Congo (DR Congo), in accordance with the recommendations for the main body of the article.

This insertion now appears on line 52, page 2 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: line 56 - delete space before coma

Response: We thank you for this remark. We have corrected the text by removing the space before the comma, in accordance with your suggestion.

Comment: halter 2 part 2.1. Or maybe 2.2. It is completely lack of description of local community, how many people live there, name of a tribe, culture type ect. And this very important background please.

Response: We sincerely thank you for this pertinent observation regarding the lack of description of the local context.To enhance the clarity of the manuscript, we have added the following details: The communities living in the buffer zone of Lomami National Park belong primarily to seven distinct ethnic groups: Lengola, Mbole, Mituku, Langa, Tetela, Ngengele, and Arabised. Around 100 small villages are scattered throughout the area, relying mainly on agriculture, hunting, and fishing for their livelihoods. These villages lack access to electricity, clean drinking water, and mobile phone networks. Educational and healthcare infrastructure is limited, and the unpaved roads make most villages inaccessible by car, especially during the rainy season [11, 12, 13]. This insertion now appears between lines 115–121 on page 3 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comments: lines 94-96, 101,343-346, 360, - add species names in English if existing 

Response: We thank you for this suggestion. In accordance with your recommendation, we have added the corresponding English vernacular names for each scientific name mentioned on lines 94, 96, 101, 343, 346, and 360 of the previous version of the manuscript. These modifications now appear between lines 102–104 on page 3, and lines 345–350 on page 9 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: Lines 191-197 and 240-250 - why this paragraphs are in different color? Correct 

Response: Thank you for this remark. We have corrected the formatting by standardizing the text color in the paragraphs corresponding to lines 191–197 and 240–250 of the previous version of the manuscript.

Comment: line 275 - frequency of answers not “citation frequency “ correct please 

Response: Thank you for this observation. We have corrected the terminology by replacing “citation frequency” with “response frequency”. This revision now appears on line 281, page 7 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: line 277- should be equation 1.

Response: We sincerely thank you for this pertinent remark. Following your observation, we have corrected the numbering by replacing “Equation 3” with “Equation 1” on line 286 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: Equation 1 should be directly after explanation line 281 and eq. 2 after following paragraph line 290 not at the end

Response: Thank you for this constructive remark. We have repositioned Equation 1 immediately after the explanatory line 286 and Equation 2 just after the paragraph on line 298, in accordance with your suggestion. These adjustments appear on page 7 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: lines 302, 303 you missed “a” explanation add please 

Response: Thank you for this pertinent remark. We have completed the text by adding the following explanation: With a corresponding to the number of species in common between two groups, and ? and ? to the number of species observed only in one of the groups considered.This insertion now appears on line 299, page 7 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: chapter Results should be only focused on results, additional comments (lines 316-318, 320-322, 333-334, 364-369, 393-402, 410, 411, 414-417, 419, 420, 422-428, 434-437, 463-466) should be moved to discussion section

Response: We thank you for this very pertinent remark regarding the coherence of the Results section. We have moved all related comments and analyses to the Discussion section, and added a paragraph addressing the limitations of the study.

These elements are now presented as follows: To enhance their effectiveness, conservation efforts must adopt culturally sensitive approaches that are tailored to the realities of both indigenous and non-local groups. These efforts should address the entire resource-use chain—from rural producers to urban consumers and traders—by combining market regulation with demand reduction. Sustainable conservation also requires moving beyond purely biological protection to incorporate the cultural dimensions of biodiversity, promoting community-based models that integrate traditions, local knowledge, and viable economic alternatives. Finally, communication and community engagement strategies must be rethought, favoring oral, visual, and participatory tools better suited to populations with low levels of formal education, in order to foster genuine ownership of conservation initiatives. We have added the following limitation to the study. Although this study focuses specifically on Maniema Province and is based on a non-exhaustive sample, it provides valuable insights at the local scale. However, extending these findings to other provinces within the park and its buffer zone would require further investigation. This insertion now appears on lines 698–711, page 20 of the revised version of the manuscript

Comment: Lines 336, 337 - tabel description lacks explanation of zones. Add please 

Response: We have addressed this remark by adding a more detailed description to Table 2 in order to clarify the study areas. The table description is as follows: Table 2. Socio-demographic and hunting profile of respondents in proximal and distant zones around LNP (n=60). Proximal zones refer to villages located less than 10 km from the core area of the park. Distant zones refer to villages situated more than 10 km from the park. This addition now appears on lines 338–340, on page 8 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: line 377, 378 italic is missing

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for this remark. We have corrected the omission by italicizing the relevant terms on lines 381 and 382 of the revised version of the manuscript, in accordance with your suggestion.

Comment: able 5, last row - format needed: “fishing “ is bold now

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for this observation. We have corrected the formatting by reverting the word “Fishing” to regular style in the last line of Table 5 (page 14 of the revised version of the manuscript).

Comment: line 535 - lack of name of author, “van” is kind of prefix not full surname

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for this clarification. We have corrected the reference by indicating the full name: Van Vliet [58]. This insertion now appears on line 513, page 16 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: line 591 - delete Latin name in brackets 

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for this observation. We have corrected the text by removing the Latin name mentioned in parentheses on line 591. This revision now appears on line 569, page 17 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: paragraph in lines 620-628 lacks references to existing research and data - add.

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for your remark, which helped us improve the clarity and relevance of the text. The paragraph originally found on lines 620–628 has been revised with the addition of references [12, 14] and moved to the Introduction section, in accordance with your suggestions and those of other reviewers. This insertion now appears between lines 68–73 on page 2 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: Lines 634-636 - rewrite sentence please, putting reference as it is now is rather strange 

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for this remark. The sentence has been rewritten for greater clarity, and the reference has been added.  These results are consistent with the observations of Tieguhong [58], who highlights that communities living near protected areas often perceive conservation initiatives as ineffective due to their limited impact on livelihoods and the lack of tangible economic benefits for local populations. This insertion now appears on line 601, page 18 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: lines 701-702 x edit: italic in Latin names

Response: Dear Reviewer, thank you for this remark. We have corrected the formatting by italicizing the Latin name on lines 701–702. This revision now appears between lines 669–670 on page 18 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: practical inclinations from Results chapter can be put here and add paragraph about study limitations

Response: We thank you for this very pertinent remark regarding the coherence of the Results section. We have moved all related comments and analyses to the Discussion section, and added a paragraph addressing the limitations of the study.These elements are now presented as follows:To enhance their effectiveness, conservation efforts must adopt culturally sensitive approaches that are tailored to the realities of both indigenous and non-local groups. These efforts should address the entire resource-use chain—from rural producers to urban consumers and traders—by combining market regulation with demand reduction. Sustainable conservation also requires moving beyond purely biological protection to incorporate the cultural dimensions of biodiversity, promoting community-based models that integrate traditions, local knowledge, and viable economic alternatives. Finally, communication and community engagement strategies must be rethought, favoring oral, visual, and participatory tools better suited to populations with low levels of formal education, in order to foster genuine ownership of conservation initiatives.We have added the following limitation to the study. Although this study focuses specifically on Maniema Province and is based on a non-exhaustive sample, it provides valuable insights at the local scale. However, extending these findings to other provinces within the park and its buffer zone would require further investigation.This insertion now appears on lines 698–711, page 20 of the revised version of the manuscript.

Comment: line 736 - change Latin names to English names - you used them in Discussion chapter please be consistent

Response: Dear Reviewer,Thank you for this observation. We have harmonized the terminology by replacing all Latin names with their English equivalents. This revision now appears on lines 719 on page 20 of the revised version of the manuscript.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Manuscript Linking Hunters’ Perceptions to Protected‑Area Governance: Wildlife Decline and Resource‑Use Management in the Lomami Landscape, DR Congo has an interesting topic. Hunting around Lomami National Park in DR Congo is intensifying due to local needs and urban demand for bushmeat, threatening wildlife and conservation efforts. A 2023 study based on hunter surveys revealed the decline or extinction of key species including elephants and leopards. Hunting even takes place in the center of the park, highlighting poor law enforcement. The study urges community-based management, stronger law enforcement and sustainable livelihood alternatives to reduce hunting pressure and protect biodiversity. Overall, it is written well but I still  have a few concerns raised.

line 56: explaining abbreviations as LNP

Tables 2 and 3 are both described in the previous text which becomes redundant

lines 608-618: what is the role of this information? they are not relevant.

lines 620-628: possible move to the Introduction section.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We would like to sincerely thank you for the time and attention you devoted to reviewing our manuscript. Your constructive comments and insightful suggestions have greatly contributed to enhancing the quality and rigor of our work.

We have carefully considered each point you raised, and we present below our detailed responses

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf