Revealing Changes in the Management Capacity of the Three-River-Source National Park, China: An Application of the Best Practice-Based Evaluation Method
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors applied environmental assessment methods to the national park environmental changes over time. However, there is a weak debate about whether the environment measured by subjective methods reflects the actual environment. As are shown on lines 538-539, it may be right in saying that the numbers reflect the actual situation as it looks reasonable. However, a more persuasive explanation should be given by referring to previous studies, etc., to show that such subjective methods can be used to correctly assess the environment. A discussion of the results is underway. For example, the authors say that a low management figure indicates a lack of personnel per facility. However, the value of the evaluation method may not be very high if it only confirms the reality. The authors should find facts that they could not see just by observing the reality, and should express their thoughts more about considerable reasons.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment:
The conservation of management of national parks is a hot topic as well as in urgent need in China. The authors put forward the best-practice-based evaluation method and applied it to the Three-River-Source National Park, so as to reveal the changes in its management capacity during the pilot period. This work is not only innovative in the evaluation methods of national park management, but also can meet the urgent need of China's national park construction, therefore having both theoretical and practical significance. However, before publication, this manuscript needs to be further improved and I offer some suggestions as follows.
Specific comment:
1. Introduction
Line 76-78: “a composite evaluation system has been established that includes an evaluation of .......” This sentence is confusing. The authors should make further explanation and rewrite the whole sentence.
Line 85-86: “Several of these methods have been widely used in many protected areas around the world [15]. ” Can you give names of these methods?
Line 86-87: “Compared to the evaluation of management effectiveness, the management capacity evaluation (MCE) focuses on......” The authors can use MEE instead.
Line 88-96: The authors can simplify the introduction of specific methods, but discuss more about the difference in suitability between the MEE and MEC methods. What about their strength and shortcomings? In what condition or to solve what kind of problems, should they be applied?
Line 97-112: The authors talk a lot about the MEE. That’s a little bit confusing, as the method proposed in this manuscript belongs to the MCE.
Line 114-116: “the national parks of China are at the early stage of construction, so the MCE that emphasizes the suitability of management measures is more appropriate for them” Is the MCE more suitable for the early-stage evaluation of national parks? As mentioned above, the authors should explain more about the suitability of the MCE.
Line 131-133: “We further discussed which measures played a role in these changes and put forward recommendations for improving its management measures and processes. ” It should be revised to “improving them”.
2. Materials and Methodology
Line 154: Table 1
The authors should further improve the description of the standards. Just provide some examples:
An independent management organization is established in the national park with well-organized departments and clear division of duties, which allows for efficient and orderly operation.
The management planning can integrate multiple plans of the national park to meet its management needs to the largest extent, and form a mechanism for dynamic adjustment and regular revision.
Line 162: delete “each”
Line 164: Table 2
The names of some indicators in Table 2 are not consistent with Table 1. Management team or contingent? Multi-stakeholder participation or multi-participation? Pls make further check.
Line 166-167: capability or capacity?
Revise to “To evaluate......, participants will be invited to score each indicator by ......”
Line 194: revise to “which is usually the entire area or a sub-zone”
Line 229-230: This sentence is confusing. What does the management include? What kind of conflicts? The authors should make further explanation.
Line 234: 2.3 Data collection
The authors seem to forget to introduce the scoring process. How many participants were invited to score the indicators? How was the participatory process performed?
Line 248-250: revise to “......between 2017 and 2021 by searching literature and websites.”
Line 253: Table 4
The authors should further improve the description of the measures. Just provide some examples:
The TNP management authority is comprised of ten departments with the staff number of 402 at the initial, which increased to 409 in 2022.
After officially certified, the TNP has adjusted its boundary timely by including the headwaters of the three rivers into the conservation scope.
3. Results
Line 315: revised to “chosen”
Line 329: % is missing.
4. Discussion
Line 337-339: These sentences are a little bit repetitive and can be deleted.
Line 366-367: revise to “With the adjustment of the boundary, the total area of TNP has expanded by nearly half......”
Line 369: management contingent? Or team?
Line 377: This sentence can be deleted.
Line 381: delete “the”
Line 381: delete “the TNP”
Line 418: The National Park Services? In which country? The I&M investigated 12 resources. How about the TNP? What is the gap between them?
Line 436: “Proven” sounds weird.
Line 439: will be ? or are?
Line 454-455: Should it be “because of” and “the strong link”?
Line 463-467: apparent? Do you mean the enhancement is not true?
falls short of the advanced international experiences? In what aspects?
The statements about international experience here and also in other sections are confusing. The authors should rewrite them and express the viewpoints more clearly. They authors should avoid describing the international experience generally, but closely link the experience to the problem you want to solve. The important point is not what the experience is but what the experience has for the TNP.
Line 505: revise to “only one tenth of the expected number”
5. Conclusions
Line 510-516: These sentences are a little bit repetitive and can be deleted.
Line 540: the actual changes? In what aspect?
Line 550: revise to “then make adjustments accordingly”
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
The article is interesting and could make an important contribution to the field, but unfortunately in its current form the manuscript lacks research depth, visible by a focus on the case study rather than the research issue, proved by an unclear introduction and poor discussions. Thus, the manuscript requires a strong development of these sections, which are also too descriptive, and lack the analytical touch required to emphasize the contribution of the study to the theoretical advancement of the field. In general, the manuscript presents too many results, without a clear indication of their contribution to the advancement of the field. Moreover, the article lacks the international exposure required for publication in an international journal. Detailed comments are provided for each section of manuscript.
The final paragraph of the introduction makes no sense whatsoever; it gives the impression that the authors provide an absolutely unnecessary summary of their research; this summary belongs to the "Abstract", which is meant to summarize the research, and therefore there is no need to duplicate it elsewhere. The introduction should be cleaned of elements not belonging here, such as the methods used in the study, or discussion of results. All the text starting on line 127 with "Firstly, we make..." and ending on line 133 with "...measures and processes" must be removed. The research goals are written in an unclear way, without any clear statement (e.g., "this study aims to.."); the should be rewritten as a clear statement (sentence in lines 125-127).
Figure 1 shows the inability of authors to write up research. This is an article for an international journal, and not a report for the national authorities. The authors should present a map showing the location of the study area in an international context, making visible the neighboring countries with their names, so that a Brazilian researcher could understand it too. China is not the only country in the world!
The most important section of a research article, the Discussions, is insufficiently developed. The section is meant to emphasize the importance of research, justifying its publication. Normally, this section includes include (A) the significance of results - what do they say, in scientific terms; (B) the inner validation of results, against the study goals or hypotheses; (C) the external validation of results, against those of similar studies from other countries, identified in the literature; (D) the importance of the results, meaning their contribution (conceptual or methodological) to the theoretical advancement of the field; (E) a summary of the study limitations and directions for overcoming them in the future research. Out of these, only a discussion of the significance of results is present. The "Discussions" should be developed to include the missing elements.
The abstract looks like a shopping list, focusing on the case study only, and not on the broader implications of research and only on what has been done, without the slightest indication on why it has been done, and what knowledge gap is actually being filled in. The abstract is supposed to deliver ideas, and not state the research steps in brief and provide useless figures instead of their significance. It needs to be rewritten entirely, and shift the focus from the case study to the research issue investigated in the study (an application of the best-practice-based evaluation method to revealing changes in the management capacity).
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have fully and deeply addressed my previous comments, and as a result the manuscript increased its research depth and addresses a broader international audience. I do not have any additional comments and recommend its publication in the revised form.
Author Response
Thank you for your efficient reviewing.
