Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper deals with the socio-economic impact of sandstone quarrying on local communities in Lekokoaneng, Lesotho, a topical issue concerning the impact of extractive activities on the population. Although the topic is interesting, in my opinion the discussion is far too theoretical, not very factual, based on the opinions of people who often know nothing about mining/quarrying and its environmental impact.

In order for this to make sense in reality, further information is needed:

- What volumes are extracted from the quarry? Are these open-pit quarries? What excavation techniques are used? What processing is carried out in the quarry and in the laboratories? What are the finishes of the materials?

- What are the yields and how much waste is produced? What is the nature of the waste (e.g. waste rock, any fine sawing materials, sludge)?

- Is the mining waste recovered? If so, where does it go?

- What measures are in place to protect the environment? From excavation techniques to subsequent processing.

- Do the rocks contain any minerals that are harmful to health (e.g. quartz, fibrous minerals)? Are there any studies on the dispersion of dust in the environment linked to mining activities?

- What is the risk of water contamination linked to mining activities? What preventive measures are in place?

- What are the advantages of natural stone materials over artificial ones (e.g. ceramics)?

- Bibliographical references must be implemented and adapted, including practical examples of environmental impact in the quarrying sector, waste recovery, etc.

As already mentioned, the discussion lacks concrete details and real examples, and this is, in my opinion, the most critical point.

Author Response

Comments 1:This paper deals with the socio-economic impact of sandstone quarrying on local communities in Lekokoaneng, Lesotho, a topical issue concerning the impact of extractive activities on the population. Although the topic is interesting, in my opinion the discussion is far too theoretical, not very factual, based on the opinions of people who often know nothing about mining/quarrying and its environmental impact.
Response 1: Thank you for your comment. The study's aim was to focus on the experiences of households surrounding the quarry to capture the social, economic, and environmental livelihood outcomes rather than the technical aspects (mining types, resource extraction or production-level data). This approach aligns with the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, which prioritizes local perspectives in assessing sustainability. A clarification paragraph has been added to Section 1 (Introduction, page 2, paragraph 4) to make this focus explicit.

Comment 2: What volumes are extracted from the quarry? Are these open-pit quarries? What excavation techniques are used? What processing is carried out in the quarry and in the laboratories? What are the finishes of the materials?

Response 2: The study’s primary focus was on socio-economic and environmental livelihood outcomes of the quarrying activities. Operational data such as extraction volumes, waste recovery rates, or Environmental Impact Assessments were totally not part of the study. However, we have added a contextual description of typical sandstone extraction practices in Lesotho and comparable Southern African settings. This addition appears in Section 2.1 (Study Area, Page 3) and is supported by regional literature (Legwaila et al., 2015; Kafu-Quvane & Mlaba, 2024; Umar & Oriri, 2023).

Comment 3: What are the yields and how much waste is produced? What is the nature of the waste (e.g. waste rock, any fine sawing materials, sludge)?
Response 3:  As described in comments 1 and 2, waste recovery and classification were not the primary focus of this study.  However, field visits and community observations revealed the presence of fragmented sandstone, fine particulate dust, and sediment runoff, which contribute to environmental degradation in areas surrounding the quarry. These findings are discussed in Section 3.4 (Access to Water, Food, and Other Resources) and Section 3.6 (Health and Safety Concerns), and are thematically framed under Environmental Degradation and Control in Section 3.7.

Comment 4: What is the risk of water contamination linked to mining activities? What preventive measures are in place?
Response 4: Thank you for this observation. Field observations revealed no formal drainage infrastructure, or sediment traps at the quarry site. This absence increases the risk of sediment-laden runoff entering nearby water sources, particularly during rainfall. Similar studies in Southern Africa have linked quarrying to elevated turbidity, hydrocarbon contamination, and reduced water quality in adjacent communities . These risks are compounded by the lack of institutional monitoring or environmental safeguards. These findings are also added in Section 3.7.

Comment 5: What are the advantages of natural stone materials over artificial ones (e.g., ceramics)?
Response 5: The study does not aim to evaluate the relative advantages of natural versus artificial construction materials. The manuscript is framed within the disciplines of environmental management and sustainable livelihoods, with a specific focus on the socio-economic and spatial impacts of sandstone quarrying in Lekokoaneng. As such, comparative material analysis falls outside the scope of this research and has not been included.

Comment 6: What measures are in place to protect the environment? From excavation techniques to subsequent processing. Do the rocks contain any minerals that are harmful to health (e.g. quartz, fibrous minerals)? Are there any studies on the dispersion of dust in the environment linked to mining activities?

Response 6: We thank the reviewer for these important questions. The study focused on community perceptions rather than technical excavation or mineral testing. However, the manuscript acknowledges that sandstone quarrying generates PM2.5 and PM10, with potential health risks linked to quartz exposure (Section 1, Paragraph 4; Page 4). Community concerns about dust, water contamination, and respiratory symptoms are captured in the Results (Section 3.6, Page 12). While mineralogical and dispersion studies were beyond scope, the Discussion references relevant literature and suggests future research to complement these findings.

Comment 7: Bibliographical references must be implemented and adapted, including practical examples of environmental impact in the quarrying sector, waste recovery, etc.

Response 7: Thank you for this important observation. In response, we have updated the manuscript’s bibliography to include literature that offers practical examples of environmental impacts and waste recovery challenges in the quarrying sector, particularly within Southern Africa.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Abstract
- Remove abbreviations from the abstract.
1- Introduction
We want to know whether the quarries are state-owned, privately owned, or community-owned.
2.1 Study area
Please include a map showing the research area and its location within the country.
Include a map showing the study area, geological features, quarries, and the five buffer zones.
It is also preferable to add photos of a typical quarry, machinery, grain size, and other items that reflect surveys conducted with local residents.
2.2 Methodology
Insert the questionnaires used in the surveys in the appendix.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Abstract
- Remove abbreviations from the abstract.
Response 1: Thank you for this suggestion. The abbreviations “SLF” (Sustainable Livelihood Framework) and “SDT” (Sustainable Development Theory) are defined in full at their first mention in the abstract, in line with MDPI editorial standards. They are retained thereafter for brevity and clarity.


Comment 2:1- Introduction
We want to know whether the quarries are state-owned, privately owned, or community-owned.
Response 2: A clarification has been added in Section 2.1, Page 5

Comment 3: Study area
Please include a map showing the research area and its location within the country.
Include a map showing the study area, geological features, quarries, and the five buffer zones.
It is also preferable to add photos of a typical quarry, machinery, grain size, and other items that reflect surveys conducted with local residents.
Response 3: We thank the reviewer for these helpful suggestions. A new Figure 1 has been added to Section 2.1 (page 6), showing the study area, quarry site, and the five buffer zones (0–1000 m). Supplementary field photographs depicting quarrying scenes, waste heaps, and typical site conditions have been added as Appendix B to visually support the text. Due to access restrictions, quarry operators did not permit close-range photography of machinery or active excavation areas. While grain size analysis and equipment-specific documentation were beyond the scope of this study, the photographs reflect observable quarrying practices and community-reported impacts.

Comment 4:Methodology
Insert the questionnaires used in the surveys in the appendix
Response 4: Acknowledged. The household questionnaire used during the survey has been added as Appendix A and is now included.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

General Assessment
The paper addresses a relevant and underexplored topic: the socio-economic and environmental impacts of sandstone quarrying at Lekokoaneng (Lesotho). The use of the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) and Sustainable Development Theory (SDT) is conceptually sound and could provide an integrated view of livelihood dynamics around extractive activities. However, the manuscript currently lacks sufficient contextualization, methodological transparency, and analytical rigor to support its conclusions.

Major Comments

1. Lack of Local Context and Socio-Economic Background
   The study would greatly benefit from a clearer description of the local context. Readers need to understand the demographic and economic structure of the study area (number of inhabitants, key socio-demographic characteristics, income levels, unemployment rate before and after quarry establishment, and main livelihood sources). Similarly, environmental characteristics (land cover, soil type, prevailing climate) should be briefly summarized.
   → Recommendation: Include a contextual subsection within the introduction or methods to improve replicability and interpretability.

2. Missing Description of Quarry Characteristics
   The paper does not specify the quarry’s size, production capacity, workforce, or operational scale. This information is essential to interpret whether the impacts described (both positive and negative) are proportionate to a small-scale or industrial-level operation.
   → Recommendation: Provide quantitative details on quarry dimensions, number of employees, production volume, and duration of operation.

3. Justification of the 0–1000 m Analytical Buffer
   The choice of a 0–1000 m radius for impact assessment appears arbitrary and lacks justification. In sparsely populated rural contexts, such a narrow range might exclude relevant affected populations; conversely, in denser settings it might capture overlapping effects.
   → Recommendation: Explain why this distance was chosen or, if feasible, test wider buffers (e.g., up to 20 km) to assess spatial sensitivity.

4. Survey Transparency and Replicability
   The questionnaire used for household interviews is not included or summarized. Without knowing the exact wording and scaling of questions, it is impossible to assess measurement validity or compare with other studies.
   → Recommendation: Provide the full survey instrument (or at least its key items) as supplementary material, along with a variable dictionary linking questions to analytical indicators.

5. Unclear Operationalization of Theoretical Frameworks (SLF and SDT)
   Although SLF and SDT are mentioned, their practical application is not demonstrated. The paper should clarify how the five SLF capitals (human, social, natural, physical, financial) and the SDT dimensions were translated into measurable indicators in the survey and analysis.
   → Recommendation: Add a conceptual table mapping theoretical dimensions to variables, and explain how they guided data collection and interpretation.

6. Analytical Approach: Descriptive but Not Inferential
   The analysis relies mostly on descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages by distance buffer). No inferential tests, regression models, or confidence intervals are provided. As a result, it is unclear whether observed differences are statistically significant or confounded by socio-demographic factors.
   → Recommendation: Introduce appropriate inferential analyses (e.g., logistic or ordinal regression, or GLMMs with buffer distance and socio-demographic covariates). Report effect estimates (OR/RR), confidence intervals, and p-values.

7. Measurement Validity and Environmental Indicators
   Most environmental and health outcomes are self-reported perceptions rather than objective measurements. This limits the strength of conclusions regarding pollution or degradation.
   → Recommendation: If possible, integrate or reference environmental monitoring data (e.g., dust/PM concentrations, water quality, soil parameters) or explicitly discuss this limitation in the discussion.

8. Inconsistencies in Equations and Terminology
   Equation (2) contains what appears to be a typographical error (“(Pe + Ae) + (Pb + Pe)”), likely meant to read “(Pe + Ae) + (Pb + Ab).” Also, the “Employment Opportunity Index (EOI)” is inconsistently labeled as “EOA” in Eq. (4). Such errors reduce clarity.
   → Recommendation: Revise all formulas for correctness and consistency, and define each symbol clearly.

9. Ethical and Data Availability Information
   Ethical approval, informed consent, and data protection procedures are not clearly described. For MDPI standards, this information is mandatory.
   → Recommendation: Add IRB approval details and an anonymized dataset or metadata description as supplementary information.

10. Presentation and Figures
    Figures and captions are inconsistently numbered and formatted. Percentages are shown without absolute sample sizes, making interpretation difficult.
    → Recommendation: Standardize figure numbering and captions, include sample size (N) for each buffer, and consider adding a spatial map of sampled households and the quarry boundary.

 

Minor Comments

• Harmonize terminology (e.g., “employment impact” vs “new employment”).

• Use consistent units (“m” for meters).

• The abstract would benefit from including key numerical findings and confidence intervals.

• References should be checked for formatting and completeness; some entries appear to be placeholders.

• English editing is recommended to improve clarity and readability.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The overall quality of English is acceptable, but the manuscript would benefit from language editing to improve clarity and flow. Several sentences are lengthy and could be simplified for readability. Minor grammatical and stylistic issues are present (e.g., inconsistent use of tenses, articles, and prepositions). Some terminology is used inconsistently across sections (e.g., “employment impact” vs. “new employment”). A careful professional proofreading or copy-editing would make the paper easier to read and more polished for publication.

Author Response

Comments 1: Lack of Local Context and Socio-Economic Background
The study would greatly benefit from a clearer description of the local context. Readers need to understand the demographic and economic structure of the study area (number of inhabitants, key socio-demographic characteristics, income levels, unemployment rate before and after quarry establishment, and main livelihood sources). Similarly, environmental characteristics (land cover, soil type, prevailing climate) should be briefly summarized.
Response 1: Thank you for recognizing the relevance of the topic and for the constructive feedback. The revised manuscript now includes a more detailed local context section (Section 2, Sub-Section 2.1.1 -Socio-Economic Context of Lekokoaneng, page 4).

Comments 2: Missing Description of Quarry Characteristics
The paper does not specify the quarry’s size, production capacity, workforce, or operational scale. This information is essential to interpret whether the impacts described (both positive and negative) are proportionate to a small-scale or industrial-level operation.

Response 2: Acknowledged. Since formal production data were not part of the study, the study has now included a contextual description of quarry operations based on field observations and secondary literature (Section 1, paragraph 4, page 4). The text clarifies that extraction is medium-scale and semi-mechanized and that operations date back to the early 2000s.

Comment 3: Justification of the 0–1000 m Analytical Buffer
The choice of a 0–1000 m radius for impact assessment appears arbitrary and lacks justification. In sparsely populated rural contexts, such a narrow range might exclude relevant affected populations; conversely, in denser settings it might capture overlapping effects.

Response 3: The 0–1000 m buffer zone adopted in this study is grounded on three aspects, namely: legal precedent, environmental dispersion science, and empirical field logic (Section1, paragraph 4, page

Comment 4: Survey Transparency and Replicability
The questionnaire used for household interviews is not included or summarized. Without knowing the exact wording and scaling of questions, it is impossible to assess measurement validity or compare with other studies.
Response 4:  The full questionnaire has been provided as Supplementary Material. Additionally, the Results section clearly reflects the structure and intent of the survey, with thematic domains and variable categories directly derived from the questionnaire items (Section 3, pages 6-12).

Comments 5: Unclear Operationalization of Theoretical Frameworks (SLF and SDT)
Although SLF and SDT are mentioned, their practical application is not demonstrated. The paper should clarify how the five SLF capitals (human, social, natural, physical, financial) and the SDT dimensions were translated into measurable indicators in the survey and analysis.

Response 5: We appreciate the reviewer’s comment. The operationalization of SLF and SDT is already integrated into the manuscript. Figures 7 and 8 (Page 13 & 14) explicitly demonstrate how thematic domains derived from community responses are mapped to SLF capitals and SDT dimensions. These frameworks guided both data collection and interpretation, and their application is reflected throughout the Results and Discussion sections.

Comments 6: Analytical Approach: Descriptive but Not Inferential
The analysis relies mostly on descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages by distance buffer). No inferential tests, regression models, or confidence intervals are provided. As a result, it is unclear whether observed differences are statistically significant or confounded by socio-demographic factors.

Response 6: Appreciated. The study was designed to prioritize descriptive and livelihood-oriented insights, aligned with its focus on community perceptions and spatial livelihood dynamics. The sample of 203 households was unevenly distributed across buffer zones, and most variables were categorical and perception-based rather than continuous. Given the exploratory nature of the research and its emphasis on lived experience, descriptive analysis was methodologically appropriate. The Discussion now explicitly acknowledges this design choice and suggests that future studies with larger, more standardized datasets could apply inferential techniques such as regression or multilevel modeling to build on these findings.

Comments 7: Measurement Validity and Environmental Indicators
Most environmental and health outcomes are self-reported perceptions rather than objective measurements. This limits the strength of conclusions regarding pollution or degradation.

Response 7: The study intentionally foregrounds community lived-in experiences and perceptions as a legitimate and necessary lens for understanding environmental and health impacts. These self-reported outcomes reflect lived experience and are central to the Sustainable Livelihood Framework, which prioritises local knowledge and subjective well-being. While objective measurements such as air quality indices or mineral testing were beyond the scope of this study, the findings offer valuable insight into how quarrying activities are experienced and interpreted by affected households.

Comment 8: Inconsistencies in Equations and Terminology
Equation (2) contains what appears to be a typographical error (“(Pe + Ae) + (Pb + Pe)”), likely meant to read “(Pe + Ae) + (Pb + Ab).” Also, the “Employment Opportunity Index (EOI)” is inconsistently labeled as “EOA” in Eq. (4). Such errors reduce clarity.

Response 8: Corrected. All formulas have been reviewed and standardized for accuracy and symbol consistency. Specifically, Equation (2) now reads “(Pe + Ae) + (Pb + Ab),” and Equation (4) consistently uses “EOI.” See page 7 for updated equations.

Comment 9: Ethical and Data Availability Information
Ethical approval, informed consent, and data protection procedures are not clearly described. For MDPI standards, this information is mandatory.

Response 9: This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee of Cape Peninsula University of Technology under Reference No: 231091834/11/2023. All participants provided informed consent prior to data collection. The research adhered to institutional guidelines for ethical conduct, confidentiality, and data protection

Comment 10: Presentation and Figures
Figures and captions are inconsistently numbered and formatted. Percentages are shown without absolute sample sizes, making interpretation difficult.
Response 10: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback. Figure numbering and caption formatting have been reviewed and standardized throughout the manuscript. Percentages are now accompanied by sample sizes (N) where relevant to improve interpretability. (Pages 7-12)

Minor Comments

Reviewer’s Note	Response and Revisions
Harmonize terminology (“employment impact” vs “new employment”).	Corrected throughout the text.
Use consistent units (“m” for meters).	Standardized across the manuscript.
Abstract should include key numerical findings.	Added key quantitative results.
References formatting and completeness.	Reviewed and updated all entries to conform with MDPI style.
Improve English clarity and flow.	Conducted full language polishing and style editing. Long sentences simplified; tenses standardized.

 

 

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Compared to the first version, the manuscript has been partially expanded, and numerous bibliographical references have been added (I imagine at the request of the other reviewers, to increase their citations).

In general, the authors have attempted to clarify some aspects that were too vague. I understand that certain insights are beyond the scope of the journal, but some further clarification should be included.

• For example, what is meant by “The quarrying site in Lekokoaneng is formally recognised and privately operated, though not formally classified by regulatory authorities. It functions as an open-pit quarry using semi-mechanised wet-cutting methods”. What do you mean by “not formally classified by regulatory authorities”? Is there no national classification of resources and raw materials (e.g., Category I and II)? What do you mean by wet-cutting methods? Do you mean diamond wire cutting?
• “Water is applied to soften the sandstone before extraction, followed by manual chiselling to shape the stone”…what do you mean? I am a specialist in the quarrying sector, and I have never heard in my life that water can “soften” rock (?), it's not dry bread! Perhaps you mean that water is essential for wire cutting or diamond disc cutting operations?

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is acceptable, but occasionally there are “strange” and “original” terms, suggesting that machine translation may have been used.

Author Response

Comment 1: For example, what is meant by “The quarrying site in Lekokoaneng is formally recognised and privately operated, though not formally classified by regulatory authorities. It functions as an open-pit quarry using semi-mechanised wet-cutting methods”. What do you mean by “not formally classified by regulatory authorities”? Is there no national classification of resources and raw materials (e.g., Category I and II)?
Response 1: We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. The phrase “not formally classified by regulatory authorities” refers to the absence of a standardized national framework in Lesotho for categorizing quarry operations. While the site is recognized and permitted to operate, it is not designated under any formal classification system for resource extraction (e.g., small-scale vs. industrial). This reflects broader regulatory gaps in the coordination between environmental oversight and extractive activities. Clarification has been added on Section 2, page 5.

Comment 2: “Water is applied to soften the sandstone before extraction, followed by manual chiselling to shape the stone”…what do you mean? I am a specialist in the quarrying sector, and I have never heard in my life that water can “soften” rock (?), it's not dry bread! Perhaps you mean that water is essential for wire cutting or diamond disc cutting operations? 
Response 2: The phrase “wet-cutting methods” refers to the consistent use of water during sandstone extraction at the Lekokoaneng quarry site. According to quarry operators and field observations, water is applied to the rock surface prior to detachment. Locally, this practice is described as “softening” the sandstone not in a chemical or mineralogical sense, but to facilitate the ease of penetration during cutting. Clarification has been added on Section 2, page 5

English

The English has been improved through English editors (See the English editor's letter in the Supplementary files)

Figures

All figures have been edited/improved to conform to the journal's style.

 

 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Les auteurs ont fourni une version révisée intégrant les suggestions demandées. Je considère que l'article est désormais bien structuré et prêt à être publié.

Author Response

Comments: Reviewer 2 had no further comments.

English

The English has been improved through English editors (See the English editor's letter in the Supplementary files)

Figures

All figures have been edited/improved to conform to the journal's style.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript shows substantial improvement and addresses most of the concerns raised in the first review round. The paper now provides a clearer socio-economic and environmental context, an explicit justification for the analytical buffer, and the inclusion of the full survey instrument enhances transparency and replicability.

Specific observations:

1. Contextualization – The addition of Section 2.1.1 on the socio-economic context of Lekokoaneng adequately situates the study within local demographic and economic conditions. Well done.

2. Quarry description – The description of operational characteristics is improved but remains qualitative. If quantitative estimates (approximate workforce or production scale) cannot be obtained, please state this explicitly as a data limitation in the Methods.

3. Buffer zone justification – Now robustly defended with reference to national regulations and environmental dispersion literature. This is a solid improvement.

4. Framework application (SLF & SDT) – The conceptual figures clarify how the frameworks guided analysis, but the link between individual survey variables and each SLF capital could be briefly reinforced (e.g., in a table or short explanatory note).

5. Analytical scope – The reliance on descriptive statistics is now well justified given the exploratory and perception-based nature of the data. However, ensure that this limitation is clearly highlighted in the Discussion or Conclusion as part of the study’s boundaries.

6. Equations and notation – Please recheck Equation (2) and (4) for typographical consistency and ensure the terms “EOI” and “EOA” are used uniformly.

Overall, this revision reflects careful work and a genuine effort to meet reviewer feedback. With minor editorial and formal corrections, the manuscript will be suitable for publication.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The English is overall clear but could benefit from a light proofread to remove repeated in-text references (e.g., multiple parentheses duplication) and standardize citation style.

Author Response

Comments 2:  If quantitative estimates (approximate workforce or production scale) cannot be obtained, please state this explicitly as a data limitation in the Methods.
Response 2: We thank the reviewer for this valuable suggestion. This limitation has now been noted in the Methods section. ( Section 2.1; page 5)

Comment 4: The conceptual figures clarify how the frameworks guided analysis, but the link between individual survey variables and each SLF capital could be briefly reinforced (e.g., in a table or short explanatory note)
Response 4: Noted and appreciated. The connection between survey variables and the Sustainable Livelihood Framework (SLF) capitals was already indicated in Section 2.2 and reinforced by Figures 7 and 8. A brief explanatory note has now been added to make this relationship explicit in the very Section 2.2, page 7

Comments 5: The reliance on descriptive statistics is now well justified given the exploratory and perception-based nature of the data. However, ensure that this limitation is clearly highlighted in the Discussion or Conclusion as part of the study’s boundaries.
Response 5: Thanks. The limitation regarding the use of descriptive analysis is already acknowledged in the Discussion section, where the need for future inferential approaches is outlined.

Comments 6: Please recheck Equation (2) and (4) for typographical consistency and ensure the terms “EOI” and “EOA” are used uniformly.
Response 6: Noted and corrected.

English

The English has been improved through English editors (See the English editor's letter in the Supplementary files)

Figures

All figures have been edited/improved to conform to the journal's style.