Drivers, Barriers, and Strategies in the Community-Based Supply of Bamboo for Industrial-Scale Bamboo Utilization in Ngada Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This is an interesting study for bamboo management and livelihood improvement in Ngada Regency. Through the extensive field work, stakeholders knowledge involvement and analysis, this research revealed the lack of utilization of bamboo for some traditional community and make recommendations to improve the bamboo management capacity of local stakeholders and community. The study fits in the aims and scope of journal Sustainability and will be interesting for the readers. Here are some recommendations:

 

In the Introduction section:

how is the land degradation in the study area? what is the relationship with bamboo planting and land degradation? how is the current situation or conflict between the impact of industry-based planting and community-based planting?

 

Figure1:

1. it is better to add land use types or land degradation conditions on the map;
2. Do not make the Bajawa with different color, this may confuse readers about your research area.

 

Data Collection section:

1. It is better to point out how many questionnaires you have collected and how many of them are valid.
2. More information are needed about the focus group discussions. For instance, how many times of FGDs you conducted? Did you invite the same stakeholders each time?

 

Figure 9:

Items of the figure are not fully shown;

 

Some descript in the Results belongs to the Method description, please revise:

1. Lines 428-435, IFE, please move to the Method section.
2. Lines 447-455, EFE, please move to the Method section and simplify the description, in combine with IFE.
3. Lines 478-486, the description of SWOT.

 

Discussion section:

More discussions are need directly based on your results and leading to the conclusions.

 

Please check the whole manuscript:

1. to avoid basic mistakes including punctuation, unit, redundancy expressions. For instance, Line 25 (to promote), 131, 148, 150 (km2) etc.
2. the full name of abbreviation only need to show up at the first time in the main text and the abstract. For instance, the FGDs, IFE…

 

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer-1 uploaded 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the article titled: Drivers, barriers, and strategies for community-based bamboo development in Ngada Regency, East Nusa Tenggara, Indonesia. The study aims to provide strategic recommendations for future development using a multidisciplinary approach to identify and analyze the enabling and constraining factors in developing and utilizing bamboo through community based restoration. Unfortunately, there are more-than-minor problems with the document; these issues are detailed further in the comments below.

 

• From the start, a clear, theory driven research questions does not emerge in the introduction. As a result, the contribution of this study to the body of knowledge on community-based bamboo development or management is not clearly articulated. The authors need to situate this study within the broader scholarly debate on bamboo uses and management to identify the gaps in knowledge. At the moment, it is not clear what makes this study different from other studies that has been done on bamboo. In addition, the argument that the authors are bringing forward is not clear in the introduction.
• The methodology section is generally weak and disappointing. There are more questions than answers in the methodology section. Although the description of the study area is well presented, the methodology is poorly written. The authors claim that they have combined both qualitative and quantitative data collections, however, it is not clear how quantitative data was collected in this study. It is also not clear how quantitative data was analysed. The authors claim to have used semi-structured interviews, in-depth interviews and focus group discussion with respondents. This begs the questions; what was the reasons of combining semi-structured interviews with in-depth interviews. How many respondents were interviewed through semi-structured and how many were interviewed through in-depth interviews. How did you reach the figure of 121 and 119 participants? In other words, did you interview your respondents until the point of data saturation, if yes, what was your point of data saturation in this study? Why focus group discussion was also used as another data collection method. In other words, what data that could not be collected by interviews were collected through focus group discussions? Did those who were interviewed also participated in focus group discussions? How were members of focus group discussion recruited? How many focus group discussions were conducted? Did you have focus group discussion upstream and downstream? What were the challenges that you experienced during focus group discussion, if any? The section on data analysis is generally poor. The author claim to have used SWOT analysis to analyse data collected through interviews. This begs the question, is this the right analysis? What makes SWOT analysis more ideal for this study? Why did you not use thematic content analysis in this study? In my opinion, thematic content analysis will be the best approach to analyse data for a study of this nature.
• The results of this study are questionable since the methodology is weak. Importantly, the results of this study are also poorly presented. In other words, they are not presented in line with research objectives or questions and this is disappointing. It is strange that the authors do not want to give voice to the respondents. The hallmark of semi-structured, in-depth interviews and focus-group discussion is to give voice to participants which in this manuscript is totally lacking. In other words, who said what during interviews and focus group discussion? It is strange that you are unable to give some quotations of some of the things that were raised by respondents regarding drivers, barriers, and strategies for community-based bamboo development in the study area. I find the information on SWOT analysis provided on page 13 irrelevant and does not add value to this manuscripts. The key question remain answered: what did your respondents said regarding drivers, barriers, and strategies for community-based bamboo development in the study area.
• I also find the section on discussion and conclusion to be generally poor. With regard to the results, the authors need to identify the main findings of this study and discuss them in relation to other studies. With regard to conclusion, it is not supported by results presented in the article and this is disappointing.
• I encountered a lot of grammatical errors and this does not only distract the message or the point that the authors are trying to convey, but also tampers with the logical flow. Those unnecessary typos and errors also draw a lot of reading energy. I therefore recommend that the authors should get a native speaker of English to edit the whole article

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 2, file uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The research presented is very interesting regarding the contribution of natural material (that is, bamboo) to multidimensional aims: economics, social, and ecological. In order to clarify the contribution of the paper, it is important to overcome some conceptual and methodological aspects:

1. The revision of literature should be improved and updated; the references include many 'grey' literature, which has its place but is not sufficient. It is important to include literature on community-based development involving the management of natural resources such as bamboo.
2. The methodology is appropriate but should be clarified in its design and implementation. It is important to properly identify the actors inquired, justify the reasons for their consideration, the number of respondents, the guidelines of the techniques employed (questionnaire, interviews, focus group). I propose to use a table to systematize this information.
3. The introduction of a map is very important in this kind of research. However, try to be more clear in the characterization of the region. There are many figures in the text, which difficult the read. Again, maybe the use of a table allows some clarification in this regard.
4. The results are interesting but, again, they are presented in a very confusing way. Try to be more systematic in the presentation of data and the discussion of results.
5. The abstract is too long and the presentation of the focus of the paper takes place very late. Try to present a more short abstract starting with the aim of the paper.
6. There are two keywords with the word bamboo. I propose to reduce to one word with the reference to it.

To sum up, the paper has an interesting subject within the area of sustainability. However, the authors do not follow a clear and systematic path in their presentation and analysis. 

 

Author Response

Responses to Reviewer 3, file uploaded

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Unfortunately, the authors have failed to address my earlier comments. I attach the previous comments for the second time. I do not see any improvement on this manuscript. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and comments, our responses as attached in this file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

The paper is now more clear. However the tittle is too extensive; a general reivsion is needed - e.g. page 8 have the word 'resource' several times.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your review and valuable comments. Our responses as attached in the file.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

A lot of my comments have not been addressed. It is like the authors have failed to understand some of my comments because some of the comments that were addressed were incorrectly addressed. The methodology remain poor with no improvement. It is still not clear what are the findings of this study in relation to research objectives. Discussion is also poor.

This work is poorly written and cannot therefore be published in a high impact journal like sustainability. It therefore my recommendation that this manuscript should be rejected.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you very much for your comments and valuable input. we had tried our best to understand and revise the manuscripts based on your comments and review.  Please kindly find the response to your review. We also had the manuscript edited and proofread, we really hope the manuscript is more systematic and clear.

Once again thank you very much for your review and comments.

Bes regards,
Desy

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf