Social-Ecological Resilience as Practice: A Household Perspective from Agua Blanca (Ecuador)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting article draft on a specific sustainability issue. Please enlarge the material and methods to tell more detail and structured about what you actually have done; e.g. number of iterations, schedule of iterations etc. At the same time, try to make the text more concise. Now there is some repetition. A more concise text for the discussion and in conclusion, especially,  makes this article easier to read. Take the % marks from each line in tables of and add % to the titles of the particular columns. Please check the spelling, also from the list of references; there are a number of minor errors in the list and elsewhere.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper deals with a highly interesting topic, the assessment of resilience by making use of the social-ecological systems framework. It focuses on the paradoxical decisions of households in their aim of achieving resilience and presents the household focus as a particular specificity of the approach, adding to the SES framework.

However, the comprehensive framework of the SES analysis as presented by McGinnis and Ostrom (2014) is not directly addressed and applied in the paper. this has serious implications for the concept of the analysis used for the paper and the presentation of the household analysis as a separate dimension, in addition to the SES framework while in general actors are an integral part of the SES, along the governance systems, the resources systems and resource units and focal action.

Albeit the paper provides interesting analyses on specific developments with regard to changes and analysis towards resilience in the case study, the paradoxical action could be referred to this separation of analysis. In particular, the focus on the small-scale of the case study (a small village in Ecuador) tends to dismiss external influences and more large-scale implications towards local action. I am not enough familiar with the background of the case study to derive any assumptions on potential influences or aspects that might be overlooked due to this perspective, but would recommend to reconsider this aspect carefully as it might provide additional and interesting clues to the interpretation and changes of local action.

Besides this general concern, I'd raise some smaller comments with regard to the manuscript:

The term of SES is differently used throughout the paper, and there should be consistency in the terminology used. Most literature, and also the literature referenced by the authors, refer to "social-ecological systems" while the paper sometimes call it socio-ecosystems which would imply a different view.

Moreover, the selection of the households as appropriate unit of analysis should be argued more directly. Is it because decisions are taken at that level? Or what is the discourse if different household members argue differently? And how to deal with obvious changes of households?

Changes of households is implied through the notion of "new" households" which mainly refers to the young generation or recently built households. It might be interesting if this distinction is mainly about the age of household members or suggest any specific aspects of household building? Moreover, how to deal with overlaps of households - transitions from "old" households to "new" households? and vice-versa?

In lines 162ff. it is stated that teh "current regime of SES" was established at the beginning of the century. It might eb interesting to explore what has led to previous changes and how to delineate the new period of SES. Moreover, it seems rather difficult to speak of a static SES as systems are always evolving, but I agree we could see specific phases, main trends and aspects for some time.

The village is presented as a community of 292 inhabitants (2018). This small-scale suggests an insertion into surrounding spatial patterns or a very peripheral situation, if not. Both should be explained and highlighted and would lead to an assessment of trans-local interrelations and influences on the local situation and actions. In particular the rising aspect of tourism suggests that these spatial interactions are of relevance and should not be neglected for other socio-economic activities neither.

Context specific aspects of stayers/leavers of the region should be addressed and could inform on local specific features of households as well.

The uptake of charcoal activity is presented as a "male rite of passage to adulthood" (line 457). Even if that is still right, it might be interesting if and why there are no forces to change that. Is that seclusion of the community from other parts of the world or specific "identity" of the community or? I wonder whether there are no changes underway.

The assessment of negative environmental effects is partly mentioned; in an assessment for resilience it might be of greater relevance than shown. Would it be possible to reconsider that argument or reveal why negative effects are of minor relevance?

At the end "moments of vulnerability" (line 538) are addressed - wouldn't that imply a more in-depth consideration on future needs for changes?

In the conclusion a strong reference is made to the ethnographic methodology used. In terms of Assessing the SES a more interdisciplinary perspective might be useful which could encompass also sociological and cultural changes, economic development, spatial dynamics and aspects of agronomy, forestry development as incentives and influences for the SES. This would underline the dynamic nature of the SES concept.

Reference 6 and 15 are identical.

In view of these aspects it is suggested that the paper is revised and additional views are included in the assessment of the study.

Literature:

McGinnis, M.D. and Ostrom, E. (2014): Social-Ecological System
Framework: Initial Changes and Continuing Challenges.
Ecology and Society 19 (2), article 30. https://doi.org/10.5751/
ES-06387-190230

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

This revision takes account of the comments supplied, in particular in careful adjusting of the wording of specific terms (SES), the description of the empirical work, the interrelations between spatial units, the view on potential changes and the different levels of looking at resilience aspects.