Beyond Protected Areas: Assessing Management Effectiveness of a Ramsar Site in Nepal
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This studied focus on evaluate management effectiveness of a Nepal Ramsar Site which out of local protected area system by using Ramsar Management Effectiveness Tracking Tool. Result showed Jagadishpur Reservoir was in an inadequate management. This manuscript analyzed the reasons but need more direct suggestions in 5. Conclusions.
In Line 383 [Lockwood et al., 2012 cited in 10]. What does this cite mean?
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
This manuscript analyzed the reasons but needs more direct suggestions in the Conclusions.
Suggestions are now provided in the Conclusion section. [Page 22, Line 480 - 482]
In Line 383 [Lockwood et al., 2012 cited in 10]. What does this cite mean?
Citation style fixed. [Page 20, Line 428]
Reviewer 2 Report
The presented manuscript is of low importance for international readers. We should take into account that the manuscript has been submitted to a high-quality journal, i.e. Diversity.
The title tell us that the authors consider a lot of Protected Areas (Ramsar sites) in Nepal. But the abstract and the aim and research tasks present information that the authors studied only one, Jagadishpur Reservoir, Ramsar site. This geographic coverage makes this manuscript local. Therefore, the results can be interested only to the narrow audience, who is related to this Ramsar site. At the same time, the level of the journal Diversity is much higher than the original level of this paper. Therefore, I recommend to include much more Ramsar sites to this research. Otherwise, the submission should be rejected.
In addition, the whole manuscript has a descriptive character, without any analysis. The presented tables just show us the generalized data, which have been obtained by the authors. But there is no the analysis of data, with a statistical treatment of them. Again, taking into account the current level of Diversity journal, such a low-quality material cannot be considered for publication in Diversity at present form.
Finally, throughout the whole text, we see coloured text (dots and commas in various cases) and spaces (in the list of key words).
Therefore, I recommend to reject this manuscript.
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
This is an invited pilot study from a region, where reliable peer-reviewed data for further synopses and meta-analyses on this topic is scarce to non-existent. We understand the addressed shortcomings but evaluate those as tolerable characteristics of such baseline work.
Although data processing and analysis are comparatively basic, we would disagree with being without any analysis at all. We would also stress that descriptive results, which are a part of this work, are still valuable in the scenario given.
Submission took place after sending the abstract to the academic editor, which approved the submission and hence also to the overall scope of the study.
Reviewer 3 Report
I appreciate your attempt to fill the gap in assessing a Nepalese Ramsar site. However, this manuscript is more of a technical report than a scientific one. The study lacks replication, an unverified and simplistic evaluation system, no novel data, and no relevance beyond the single site. The paper would be highly suitable for a local journal, and I encourage the authors to submit it to a more relevant outlet.
Introduction
45. It is doubtful a reservoir is a wetland, as most ecologists would define it.
79-82. Have these been verified and peer-reviewed? Standardized frameworks are notorious for underperformance without an adaptive approach.
89. Your hypothesis is irrelevant as you only look at one site.
99. Limited scope and relevance outside of the site.
Material and Methods
104-121. Knowing more about the reservoir's biological, physical, and chemical aspects would be helpful. As you are likely aware, the Ramsar definition of wetlands is highly suspect, and most are aquatic and not wetland systems at all. The reader needs more details on the site to better understand the system.
136. Great tool for summarizing success and putting in a report, but not great for a scientific manuscript. What independent means did you use to verify your results? What external factors were evaluated? The issue with workshops is the participants discuss the problems, and opinions are swayed before independent evaluations. How did you overcome this bias?
Results
The threat assessment is good but, again, not relevant beyond the site. Also, there is nothing novel about the results. It is as one would expect.
Figure 2 is washed out.
Discussion
The discussion is the best part of the manuscript, but overly long. I would trim by ½ to 1 page.
References
There is an overreliance on white papers and unpublished papers. This support my assertion that this is not an international-quality paper and is more relevant as a technical report or maybe a local submission.
Good luck with your revisions!
Author Response
Thank you for your comments.
45. It is doubtful a reservoir is a wetland, as most ecologists would define it.
We agree with the reviewer that wetlands should be defined by their ecological principles – however, we are not defining those ecological assets in this study.
Although this site was originally constructed as an irrigation reservoir, it has been recognized as a Ramsar Site and hence corresponds to the wetland definition provided by this UN convention, including its ecological implications.
79-82. Have these been verified and peer-reviewed? Standardized frameworks are notorious for underperformance without an adaptive approach.
Yes, these methodologies went through peer review and are currently widely adopted by both, national government bodies and international conservation organizations. All these methodologies are applied within the IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas Framework in assessing management effectiveness. (for details, please refer to Leverington et al., 2008)
89. Your hypothesis is irrelevant as you only look at one site.
We have edited the text: Instead of a probably misleading hypothesis, we now stated the importance of the management effectiveness assessment at this exemplary site. [Page 4, Line 95 - 100]
99. Limited scope and relevance outside of the site.
While we agree with the reviewer that this study is a site-level study, it nevertheless provides the baseline for future assessments as well as a first comparison with results from international assessments.
104-121. Knowing more about the reservoir's biological, physical, and chemical aspects would be helpful. As you are likely aware, the Ramsar definition of wetlands is highly suspect, and most are aquatic and not wetland systems at all. The reader needs more details on the site to better understand the system.
We have addressed this now: Ecological, physical, and chemical characteristics of the wetland site are now included. [Page 5 and 6, Line 131 - 145]
136. Great tool for summarizing success and putting in a report, but not great for a scientific manuscript. What independent means did you use to verify your results? What external factors were evaluated? The issue with workshops is the participants discuss the problems, and opinions are swayed before independent evaluations. How did you overcome this bias?
We have addressed this now: Proper discussion to justify the results, including probable bias in the workshop scenarios, has now been now added. [Page 9, Line197 - 210]
The discussion is the best part of the manuscript, but overly long. I would trim by ½ to 1 page.
We appreciate the suggestion – but we are certain, that the length of this section is appropriate to the content and does not negatively influence the readability of the paper.
There is an overreliance on white papers and unpublished papers. This support my assertion that this is not an international-quality paper and is more relevant as a technical report or maybe a local submission.
Because of the pilot character of this study in a realm that is still comparatively date/information scarce, this manuscript would be a first step to providing such a peer-reviewed baseline. Furthermore, valuable local sources must not be neglected in academia as they can contribute to better understanding also by combining different knowledge systems. Additionally, several references were added by recommendation of the academic editor.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Unfortunately, the manuscript has not been improved appropriately. But, if the Editors support the manuscript and allow to publish it as it is, I am not against, since the Editor is always right.
Reviewer 3 Report
Thanks for considering my previous suggestions.
