Collection of Non-Timber Forest Products in Chinese Giant Panda Reserves: The Effect of Religious Beliefs

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript is about collection of NTFPs in giant panda reserves in China. The authors investigated whether there is a correlation between religious beliefs and other socioeconomic and NTFP collection related variables with NTFP collecting behaviours. The topic is interesting but the execution still needs to be improved to be clear to the reader how things were done and what is the relevance  of this information to the international audience as well as how this information may be used in management of giant panda reserves.

Description of the method used creates confusion since the authors mentioned beside this household survey using of other data from previous studies. This is not clear. For details please see the comments in the PDF.

Throughout the manuscript the authors use word influence to describe results of correlation. This must be corrected. Influence is about causal relationship and correlation does not show causal relationship.

In the introduction studies about the connection between religious beliefs and NTFPs harvesting behaviour, what are the relevant variables and so on, should be introduced.

In the discussion theoretical background is discussed. It should be introduced earlier- either in the introduction or as separate section.

It is not clear what are the native and what are the western religious beliefs and what it has to do with attitudes towards nature, including gathering NTFPs.

Additionally it is not clear what ethnic groups and minorities were involved. It should be explained for international readers who are not familiar with the context.

More detailed comments please find in the attachment.

In the conclusion it should be explained what is the relevance of these results a) in the context of previous similar studies, b) for the sustainable management of giant panda reserves, and c) for the international audience.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript “Non-Timber Forest Products Collection in China Giant Panda Reserves: How Religious Belief Works?” focused on the differences of NTFPs collection between farmers with or without religious beliefs. I consider manuscript as an original and in compliance with the scope of the journal. I appreciate that authors collected huge amount of data.  The manuscript describes in detail the process of collecting data, but authors inefficient apply the results in discussion.

The abstract is quite general. It should highlight the novelty, as well as, main results of your research. Additionally, I think the article does not describe scientific novelty and although the study was conducted in a unique condition, the results did not bring scientific originality.  Authors must complete the text to convince readers of scientific novelty.

It is written understandable English, but I have found many grammatical errors and formal shortcomings as (line 112 or table 1 I miss explanation of the units of individual variables). Moreover, Table 1 is confusing. How authors explain negative minimum value of income? Do come these variables from particular year or other period? etc.

The chapter „2.5 Method of Data Analysis“ is insufficient. It is too short and does not describe how data where analysed by STATA software. How probability has been realised, which statistical significant has been applied? Did authors analyse quality of collected data (e.g. reliability)? etc...

I have a substantial concerns regarding the methodology. I am afraid that the authors did not choose the correct statistical method. According to table 3 authors applied dichotomous and ordinal variables. They should apply non parametric tests. However, they analysed data with statistical methods appropriate for nominal variables – parametric tests with normal distribution (e.g. F test).

Table 4 can be considering as baffling.  This table mixed nominal, dichotomous and ordinal variables and authors analysed them in the same way. Do you think is it correct? Can you explain for example Work category? What does average value “1.61” mean? What it has explanatory power?

Authors must explain in more detail how and why they choose this method. (see my comment according to table 4).

 Although, descriptions of data analysed have been carried out, sometimes the data synthesis and its relevant interlinking are missing to generalise results. Discussion is quite general and it is not sufficient interlinking with results. Authors should compare their results s previous research in more detail (to identify similarity as well as the specifics of their research).

According to above mention facts, the article should be revise and highlight the scientific novelty of the research and make clear the contributions of this study to the wider audience of scientists on the international level. For the above reasons, which state that the article is unsuited in this form, I suggest to major revision.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript has been improved. Only a minor comment - when you talk about foreign religions, you mention Catholicism, Christianity and Islam. Catholicism is one of the Christian denominations, not separate religion. Please change. 

Author Response

The statement about Christianity has been changed in line 117 and line 119.

Reviewer 2 Report

I thank the authors for an accurate revision. Based on remarks in previous version of manuscript, authors improved the manuscript. Due to the fact that the article has been improved, I do recommend to publish it.

Author Response

We have improved the statement of some variables in Results from line 373 to 380.