Household Vulnerability and Transformability in Limpopo National Park
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper reads well, the text is carefully crafted, and the narrative is compeling and interesting. The figures, on the other hand, are a mess. Figure 2 [Share of livelihood activities in: (a) Bingo, Chimanhue and Machamba; (b) Macavene; (c) Massingir Velho] is missing entirely in the copy of the manuscrit I received. Figure 3 [Income and spending share in: (a, c) Macavane; (b, d) Massingir Velho] has too small print for readability, and shows only three labels for the spending pie-charts when there are clearly six different activities. Similarly, Figure 4 (Fetching water from a natural spring fed by the Shingwedzi) is also missing. After this, there two different figures labelled as Figure 5. Please revise the figures completely, these annoying mistakes really demerit what could otherwise be an interesting paper.
On the other hand, the Methods section is written in a very vague style, perhaps because the authors are evading the use of the first person. Who did the sampling. Did the authors do the field work? If not, who did it? Was it reliable? The reason why I ask this is because if one reads the statement on the authors' contributions at the end of the paper, none of the two authors declares having conducted the field work themselves. Given the deep social nature of the study, clarifying the methods and provedures for field in more detail is critical.
Finally, I am attaching here a copy of the manuscrit with some editorial comments. Please read them and correct your text as needed.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
We are grateful for the comments of the two reviewers and hope we have met most if not all. We believe they were good suggestions and critical points. Below the overall changes are described and then listed in more detail, mostly based on the detailed comments of reviewer 1 to whom we are very grateful.
General comments
We have added a new area map that shows the zoning of the park and the villages in relation to zoning. We have also marked the villages where we carried out surveys and those villages where surveys were carried out by the park. In addition, we have added two tables to illustrate the results better. In these tables we have also made clearer as to which information comes from our own surveys and which comes from the LNP surveys. The questionnaire is now also added as extra material or as an appendix with comments on how our questionnaire compares with these used by the park.
There seems to have been a problem with the figures not showing in the manuscript the reviewers received. We hope that these problems has been solved. We have also made considerable changes to the figures for clarity. They have now been combined into one and figure numbers have subsequently been revised.
Some of the information given in results have been moved to background, while some information given in discussion has been moved to results as advised by reviewer 1 (see also below).
In general, we have been more clear concerning the results based on our own studies (we are using first person now more frequently) and those of the park. We have also tried to write out the location of the other villages mentioned in relation to park zones and boundaries.
The terms Endurability and Transformability are now more often discussed and they are also introduced in the discussion with a reference to fig 5. We have kept the structure of the results section, but added a bridging explanation.
In general, the English has been revised and concepts has been added to keywords as per recommendation.
Detailed comments
Comments in text has been revised and images has been fixed
Reviewer 1
Cite the work being done right after the author, e.g. Milgroom [60], Witter’s studies [61]; DONE IN GENERAL
Could you give some information about the buffer zone? How large is the area? THIS IS NOW ADDED IN THE AREA AND ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE 1
Methods
Include Area background in the Materials and Methods section. DONE
Concretely describe the steps done (with bullets or numbers) or present them in a table or in a diagram form; WE DECIDED NOT TO DECRIBE IT BY BULLETPOINT BUT TRIED TO WRITE IT OUT MORE CLEARLY IN THE PAPER
The questions asked to the respondents are not presented in the paper. Therefore, it’s difficult to judge the results since what has been done it’s not clearly presented. Are the questions done by this study exactly the same as the questions done by other studies from LNP? NOW ADDED AS AN APPENDIX WITH COMMENTS ABOUT DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN RELATION TO THE ONES USED BY THE LNP.
What type of interview was done (structured, unstructured, semi-structured), how many questions were asked? This influences to a great extent the research design. NOW BETTER EXPLAINED
Selection bias that may result in a biased sample: I miss to understand how the sample was selected (what was the criteria used for the selection of these households?) NOW BETTER EXPLAINED
The Results need to be re-written to allow a clear understanding of what was done by this study, and if the results can be compared to studies done previously. THIS IS NOW BETTER EXPLAINED IN TEXT AND FIGURES.
Results could be presented in graphs; this would make this section easier to follow. WE HAVE NOW ADDED TABLES TO PRESENT THE RESULTS BETTER AND ALSO REFORMULATED THE TEXTS TO BALANCE THESE
There is some information in the results that should be moved to the Area Background since they are describing the study area. THIS INFORMATION HAS NOW BEEN MOVED AS SUGGESTED, AND TABLE 1 HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED
The paper lacks consistency, terms such as “endurability” and “Transformability” are mentioned in the introduction but are not showed in the results, and are almost omitted in the discussion and conclusions. So I lack to understand the really importance of these terms to the present research. WE NOW LINK TO THESE TERMS MORE CLEARLY IN THE DISCUSSION AND MAKE MORE CLEAR THAT THE DISCUSSION IS SUMMARISED IN FIG 5
In Figure 3a, the share of employment is missing; Figure 3 [Income and spending share in: (a, c) Macavane; (b, d) Massingir Velho] has too small print for readability, and shows only three labels for the spending pie-charts. THIS FIGURE HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED
Please add the share (%) to all numbers mentioned as you did in lines 256, 258 and 262 (the best would be to present these results in graph form). WE ADDED PERCENTAGES IN TEXT AND HAVE PUT SOME INFORMATION IN TABLES
Detailed comments
Line 104: why “possible the Sengwe Corridor”? Aren’t the borders of the transfrontier park defined? NOW REVISED
Line 188: With whom the villagers negotiate resettlement? Government? Park administration? NOW EXPLAINED
Line 147: Where is Shagaan? It is hard to understand since no explanation is given regarding the additional interviews done here; NOW EXPLAINED (SHANGAAN IS THE LOCAL LANGUAGE)
Line 161: I suggest to use the past form, since the research was already conducted; Cite the work being done right after the author, e.g. Milgroom [60], Witter’s studies [61]; NOW REVISED
Could you give some information about the buffer zone? How large is the area? NOW ADDED IN THE INTRODUCTION AND MAP
What is the difference between “employment” and “shop”? NOW EXPLAINED
Where is the Figure 2, that is mentioned in line 196? FIGURES HAVE BEEN AMENDED
What is the difference between Figure 3b and 3d? FIGURES HAVE BEEN AMENDED
In Figure 3a, the share of employment is missing; NOW EXPLAINED IN FIGURE TEXT
Line 203: substitute “200-150” to “150-200”; NOW REVISED
Line 221: What ZAR means? Isn’t Metical the currency in Mozambique? NOW EXPLAINED
Line 231: LNP 2013a,b – cite according to the journal requirements (with number); NOW REVISED
Where is Figure 4? NOW REVISED
Weren’t 59 households interviewed? Line 250 says 46 + 14, which is 60. IT IS NOW BETTER EXPLAINED
Please add the share (%) to all numbers mentioned as you did in lines 256, 258 and 262 (the best would be to present these results in graph form). NOW CHANGED
Line 268: Which is Figure 3e? NOW REVISED
Line 280: “below the age” of what? It seems something is missing. NOW REVISED
Which is Figure 6? There are two Figures 5, probably the scheme corresponds to Figure 6. Please change the number. FIGURE NUMBERS NOW AMENDED
Lines 312-313: The data mentioned is quite old (more than 16 years old), could you update it? NOW DELETED WITH REFERENCE TO LATER DATA
Lines 329-331: gives new information that perhaps should fit into the Results and not Discussion; NOW MOVED
Line 349: the term “durability” appears for the first time and is not discussed anymore, I suggest to delete it;
Lines 381-384: This sentence is very large and difficult to understand; I suggest to split it into more sentences;
Lines 423-426: This sentence should be split as it refers to two unrelated things, at least in the context that are discussed: new policy with border control & covid-19 pandemic. Actually the information about covid-19 could be omitted, it doesn’t bring any value to the paper; IT HAS NOW BEEN DELATED BUT IS MENTIONED ONE ONE OCCASION WHEN DISCUSSING NEED TO ASSESS NEW POLICY AND EFFECTS OF COVID UNDER TRANSFORMABILITY
Line 529: the same work is cited twice; REVISED
Lines 529-532: these sentences are part of the methods, not discussion; NOW MOVED
Line 532: the word “interviewed” appears twice; NOW CHANGED
Line 552: The citation should be numbered, at the moment doesn’t fit the journal requirements; NOW REVISED
Line 845: Probably it was a mistake, I suggest to delete it. DONE
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
at the first I found the idea of the paper very interesting and appeallng. Though while reading it, it was a bit discouraging since it was quite hard to follow (what was done by you, what was done by other studies, what are the main findings from your work).
Attached I'm sending a detailed letter which refers to most of my concerns regarding the coherence of the paper.
Best regards
Comments for author File: 
Comments.doc
Author Response
We are grateful for the comments of the two reviewers and hope we have met most if not all. We believe they were good suggestions and critical points. Below the overall changes are described and then listed in more detail, mostly based on the detailed comments of reviewer 1 to whom we are very grateful.
General comments
We have added a new area map that shows the zoning of the park and the villages in relation to zoning. We have also marked the villages where we carried out surveys and those villages where surveys were carried out by the park. In addition, we have added two tables to illustrate the results better. In these tables we have also made clearer as to which information comes from our own surveys and which comes from the LNP surveys. The questionnaire is now also added as extra material or as an appendix with comments on how our questionnaire compares with these used by the park.
There seems to have been a problem with the figures not showing in the manuscript the reviewers received. We hope that these problems has been solved. We have also made considerable changes to the figures for clarity. They have now been combined into one and figure numbers have subsequently been revised.
Some of the information given in results have been moved to background, while some information given in discussion has been moved to results as advised by reviewer 1 (see also below).
In general, we have been more clear concerning the results based on our own studies (we are using first person now more frequently) and those of the park. We have also tried to write out the location of the other villages mentioned in relation to park zones and boundaries.
The terms Endurability and Transformability are now more often discussed and they are also introduced in the discussion with a reference to fig 5. We have kept the structure of the results section, but added a bridging explanation.
In general, the English has been revised and concepts has been added to keywords as per recommendation.
Detailed comments
Comments in text has been revised and images has been fixed
Reviewer 1
Cite the work being done right after the author, e.g. Milgroom [60], Witter’s studies [61]; DONE IN GENERAL
Could you give some information about the buffer zone? How large is the area? THIS IS NOW ADDED IN THE AREA AND ILLUSTRATED IN FIGURE 1
Methods
Include Area background in the Materials and Methods section. DONE
Concretely describe the steps done (with bullets or numbers) or present them in a table or in a diagram form; WE DECIDED NOT TO DECRIBE IT BY BULLETPOINT BUT TRIED TO WRITE IT OUT MORE CLEARLY IN THE PAPER
The questions asked to the respondents are not presented in the paper. Therefore, it’s difficult to judge the results since what has been done it’s not clearly presented. Are the questions done by this study exactly the same as the questions done by other studies from LNP? NOW ADDED AS AN APPENDIX WITH COMMENTS ABOUT DIFFERENCES IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN RELATION TO THE ONES USED BY THE LNP.
What type of interview was done (structured, unstructured, semi-structured), how many questions were asked? This influences to a great extent the research design. NOW BETTER EXPLAINED
Selection bias that may result in a biased sample: I miss to understand how the sample was selected (what was the criteria used for the selection of these households?) NOW BETTER EXPLAINED
The Results need to be re-written to allow a clear understanding of what was done by this study, and if the results can be compared to studies done previously. THIS IS NOW BETTER EXPLAINED IN TEXT AND FIGURES.
Results could be presented in graphs; this would make this section easier to follow. WE HAVE NOW ADDED TABLES TO PRESENT THE RESULTS BETTER AND ALSO REFORMULATED THE TEXTS TO BALANCE THESE
There is some information in the results that should be moved to the Area Background since they are describing the study area. THIS INFORMATION HAS NOW BEEN MOVED AS SUGGESTED, AND TABLE 1 HAS ALSO BEEN ADDED
The paper lacks consistency, terms such as “endurability” and “Transformability” are mentioned in the introduction but are not showed in the results, and are almost omitted in the discussion and conclusions. So I lack to understand the really importance of these terms to the present research. WE NOW LINK TO THESE TERMS MORE CLEARLY IN THE DISCUSSION AND MAKE MORE CLEAR THAT THE DISCUSSION IS SUMMARISED IN FIG 5
In Figure 3a, the share of employment is missing; Figure 3 [Income and spending share in: (a, c) Macavane; (b, d) Massingir Velho] has too small print for readability, and shows only three labels for the spending pie-charts. THIS FIGURE HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED
Please add the share (%) to all numbers mentioned as you did in lines 256, 258 and 262 (the best would be to present these results in graph form). WE ADDED PERCENTAGES IN TEXT AND HAVE PUT SOME INFORMATION IN TABLES
Detailed comments
Line 104: why “possible the Sengwe Corridor”? Aren’t the borders of the transfrontier park defined? NOW REVISED
Line 188: With whom the villagers negotiate resettlement? Government? Park administration? NOW EXPLAINED
Line 147: Where is Shagaan? It is hard to understand since no explanation is given regarding the additional interviews done here; NOW EXPLAINED (SHANGAAN IS THE LOCAL LANGUAGE)
Line 161: I suggest to use the past form, since the research was already conducted; Cite the work being done right after the author, e.g. Milgroom [60], Witter’s studies [61]; NOW REVISED
Could you give some information about the buffer zone? How large is the area? NOW ADDED IN THE INTRODUCTION AND MAP
What is the difference between “employment” and “shop”? NOW EXPLAINED
Where is the Figure 2, that is mentioned in line 196? FIGURES HAVE BEEN AMENDED
What is the difference between Figure 3b and 3d? FIGURES HAVE BEEN AMENDED
In Figure 3a, the share of employment is missing; NOW EXPLAINED IN FIGURE TEXT
Line 203: substitute “200-150” to “150-200”; NOW REVISED
Line 221: What ZAR means? Isn’t Metical the currency in Mozambique? NOW EXPLAINED
Line 231: LNP 2013a,b – cite according to the journal requirements (with number); NOW REVISED
Where is Figure 4? NOW REVISED
Weren’t 59 households interviewed? Line 250 says 46 + 14, which is 60. IT IS NOW BETTER EXPLAINED
Please add the share (%) to all numbers mentioned as you did in lines 256, 258 and 262 (the best would be to present these results in graph form). NOW CHANGED
Line 268: Which is Figure 3e? NOW REVISED
Line 280: “below the age” of what? It seems something is missing. NOW REVISED
Which is Figure 6? There are two Figures 5, probably the scheme corresponds to Figure 6. Please change the number. FIGURE NUMBERS NOW AMENDED
Lines 312-313: The data mentioned is quite old (more than 16 years old), could you update it? NOW DELETED WITH REFERENCE TO LATER DATA
Lines 329-331: gives new information that perhaps should fit into the Results and not Discussion; NOW MOVED
Line 349: the term “durability” appears for the first time and is not discussed anymore, I suggest to delete it;
Lines 381-384: This sentence is very large and difficult to understand; I suggest to split it into more sentences;
Lines 423-426: This sentence should be split as it refers to two unrelated things, at least in the context that are discussed: new policy with border control & covid-19 pandemic. Actually the information about covid-19 could be omitted, it doesn’t bring any value to the paper; IT HAS NOW BEEN DELATED BUT IS MENTIONED ONE ONE OCCASION WHEN DISCUSSING NEED TO ASSESS NEW POLICY AND EFFECTS OF COVID UNDER TRANSFORMABILITY
Line 529: the same work is cited twice; REVISED
Lines 529-532: these sentences are part of the methods, not discussion; NOW MOVED
Line 532: the word “interviewed” appears twice; NOW CHANGED
Line 552: The citation should be numbered, at the moment doesn’t fit the journal requirements; NOW REVISED
Line 845: Probably it was a mistake, I suggest to delete it. DONE
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have answered the reviewers' queries in a satisfactory manner.
Author Response
Rewiever 1
English edits required THE PAPER HAS NOW BEEN PROOFREAD BY A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER
Reviewer 2
first of all I would like to ackowledge the efforts you made to make the paper clearer and smooth. Though I still found weaknesses that should be addressed. These are:
1) The language was improved, though some parts seem to be written differently and thus I suggest that the paper is proofread by an english native speaker. I could make many changes and suggestions but is not my work to correct the language (e.g., line 119: should be "were" instead of "was"; line 120: should be "moved" instead of "moving"; line 185: it should be "we used" instead of "we will use"; ...).
THE PAPER HAS NOW BEEN PROOFREAD BY A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER
2) the second important point that should be taken care regards the in-text citations and references. All the citations should be checked. Some examples:
Line 78: change the parenthesis by square brackets;
Line 90: citation is not presented as the journal's requirements: Levine et al. [xx]; THIS IS NOW DELETED
Reference numbers 45 and 64 are not cited in the text; NOW CITED
Levine et al. is missing in reference list; NOW DELETED
Lines 131-133: cite this sentence using the work that conducted the surveys; NOW CITED
Line 153: delete the year (2009); DONE
Lines 202-209: I suggest to delete the years of the studies. DONE
3) I suggest to move Figure 1 to section 2.1. (it can be at the end of this section). As the figure is now clear, you can shorten the title of the figure (some info is repeated); FIG NOW MOVED AND TEXT REPHRASED
4) Line 134: delete "as we will see", it doesn't bring information to the paper. If you think this is important then you should state: "as it can be seen in section x"; DONE
5) Lines 172, 173 & 195: you can omit the names of the assistants; DONE
6) Line 182: "village communication" is repeated; NOW REVISED
7) Table 1: I suggest to add "infrastructure" to column 1, row 10. So it would be "communication and infrastructure". Column 1, row 14: Which is the difference between the local clinic in Mashamba and Massingir Velho? If there is no difference, please use the same terminology for both cases. NOW ADDED
8) Table 2: The first two rows are given the same information that was presented in Table 1, I suggest to delete it; NOW DELETED
9) Information on lines 256-265 doesn't match the information given in Table 2; the same happens in information given on lines 284-289, doesn't correspond to information presented in Table 2. NOW CHANGED/EXPLAINED
10) Line 280: what is meant by "incomes expenditure"? NOW CHANGED
11) Line 290: Change "4.1" by "4.2"; DONE
12) Line 331: Change "Tabl3" to "Table"; DONE
13) Line 450: substitute "52" by "5.2"; DONE
14) Line 537: There is no Figure 6, please correct the citation. CORRECTED
As you could see, there are still many mistakes and misunderstandings that can't be accepted in a scientific publication.
Best regards!
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
first of all I would like to ackowledge the efforts you made to make the paper clearer and smooth. Though I still found weaknesses that should be addressed. These are:
1) The language was improved, though some parts seem to be written differently and thus I suggest that the paper is proofread by an english native speaker. I could make many changes and suggestions but is not my work to correct the language (e.g., line 119: should be "were" instead of "was"; line 120: should be "moved" instead of "moving"; line 185: it should be "we used" instead of "we will use"; ...).
2) the second important point that should be taken care regards the in-text citations and references. All the citations should be checked. Some examples:
Line 78: change the parenthesis by square brackets;
Line 90: citation is not presented as the journal's requirements: Levine et al. [xx];
Reference numbers 45 and 64 are not cited in the text;
Levine et al. is missing in reference list;
Lines 131-133: cite this sentence using the work that conducted the surveys;
Line 153: delete the year (2009);
Lines 202-209: I suggest to delete the years of the studies.
3) I suggest to move Figure 1 to section 2.1. (it can be at the end of this section). As the figure is now clear, you can shorten the title of the figure (some info is repeated);
4) Line 134: delete "as we will see", it doesn't bring information to the paper. If you think this is important then you should state: "as it can be seen in section x";
5) Lines 172, 173 & 195: you can omit the names of the assistants;
6) Line 182: "village communication" is repeated;
7) Table 1: I suggest to add "infrastructure" to column 1, row 10. So it would be "communication and infrastructure". Column 1, row 14: Which is the difference between the local clinic in Mashamba and Massingir Velho? If there is no difference, please use the same terminology for both cases.
8) Table 2: The first two rows are given the same information that was presented in Table 1, I suggest to delete it;
9) Information on lines 256-265 doesn't match the information given in Table 2; the same happens in information given on lines 284-289, doesn't correspond to information presented in Table 2.
10) Line 280: what is meant by "incomes expenditure"?
11) Line 290: Change "4.1" by "4.2";
12) Line 331: Change "Tabl3" to "Table";
13) Line 450: substitute "52" by "5.2";
14) Line 537: There is no Figure 6, please correct the citation.
As you could see, there are still many mistakes and misunderstandings that can't be accepted in a scientific publication.
Best regards!
Author Response
Rewiever 1
English edits required THE PAPER HAS NOW BEEN PROOFREAD BY A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER
Reviewer 2
first of all I would like to ackowledge the efforts you made to make the paper clearer and smooth. Though I still found weaknesses that should be addressed. These are:
1) The language was improved, though some parts seem to be written differently and thus I suggest that the paper is proofread by an english native speaker. I could make many changes and suggestions but is not my work to correct the language (e.g., line 119: should be "were" instead of "was"; line 120: should be "moved" instead of "moving"; line 185: it should be "we used" instead of "we will use"; ...).
THE PAPER HAS NOW BEEN PROOFREAD BY A NATIVE ENGLISH SPEAKER
2) the second important point that should be taken care regards the in-text citations and references. All the citations should be checked. Some examples:
Line 78: change the parenthesis by square brackets;
Line 90: citation is not presented as the journal's requirements: Levine et al. [xx]; THIS IS NOW DELETED
Reference numbers 45 and 64 are not cited in the text; NOW CITED
Levine et al. is missing in reference list; NOW DELETED
Lines 131-133: cite this sentence using the work that conducted the surveys; NOW CITED
Line 153: delete the year (2009); DONE
Lines 202-209: I suggest to delete the years of the studies. DONE
3) I suggest to move Figure 1 to section 2.1. (it can be at the end of this section). As the figure is now clear, you can shorten the title of the figure (some info is repeated); FIG NOW MOVED AND TEXT REPHRASED
4) Line 134: delete "as we will see", it doesn't bring information to the paper. If you think this is important then you should state: "as it can be seen in section x"; DONE
5) Lines 172, 173 & 195: you can omit the names of the assistants; DONE
6) Line 182: "village communication" is repeated; NOW REVISED
7) Table 1: I suggest to add "infrastructure" to column 1, row 10. So it would be "communication and infrastructure". Column 1, row 14: Which is the difference between the local clinic in Mashamba and Massingir Velho? If there is no difference, please use the same terminology for both cases. NOW ADDED
8) Table 2: The first two rows are given the same information that was presented in Table 1, I suggest to delete it; NOW DELETED
9) Information on lines 256-265 doesn't match the information given in Table 2; the same happens in information given on lines 284-289, doesn't correspond to information presented in Table 2. NOW CHANGED/EXPLAINED
10) Line 280: what is meant by "incomes expenditure"? NOW CHANGED
11) Line 290: Change "4.1" by "4.2"; DONE
12) Line 331: Change "Tabl3" to "Table"; DONE
13) Line 450: substitute "52" by "5.2"; DONE
14) Line 537: There is no Figure 6, please correct the citation. CORRECTED
As you could see, there are still many mistakes and misunderstandings that can't be accepted in a scientific publication.
Best regards!
