Taboos as a Social Mechanism Keeping the Human-Nature Balance: Core Values and Practices of Rukai Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Water
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript is well written and very informative, and provides valuable insights into the the culture of Rukai and their ecological knowledge of water and its stewardship. The authors have presented the content in a very organized, logical, and understandable manner. The following are minor improvement suggestions for the authors' consideration:
Line 35: Revise statement, "...In most people's minds, Taiwan has... to be more specific with supporting reference source(s).
Line 121: Provide more details on the location within Taiwan.
Line 127: Provide the range of age, in addition to the given average age.
Line 141: Provide examples of places that represent "fostering of trust and sense of security" for the conduct of interviews.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall an interesting study and well-organized manuscript. It is recommended that authors work on revisions as suggested before it can be published.
- Title might be changed to be more generic or at least provide generic meaning for Tawlrisiane. It is unclear until article is read through a couple pages down.
- Abstract needs revisions. Please highlight the scope, objective, methodology and key findings of the study. Also, give special consideration on why this study is significant and what does this add to the exiting knowledge. Also, a minor suggestion Line 14 does not add much unless six practices are listed.
- Some of the sections/sentences need additional works on improved clarity. For instance -
Line 47 – please elaborate as it is not clear at its present form.
Line 70 – Please check for clarity with word – “this”
Line 158 – There seems to be a sudden jump. Please check for cohesive flow and revise accordingly. Also, added clarity on Tables 1 and 2 will be useful.
- Conclusion needs extensive revisions. It should be a stand-alone piece that provides the broad context for the study and should adequately highlight the key findings of the study – both primary and secondary. Also, in general practice, we do not cite others work in conclusion rather is a summary of specific study.
- Lastly, proof-read is recommended as there were few instances of linguistic errors.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The method used in the article is too subjective. More scientific and objective methods or evidence should be supplemented.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have made their efforts in addressing the concerns raised and I do not have objection in publishing the article.
