Animal Husbandry in the Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni National Park: An Economic-Structural Analysis for the Protection and Enhancement of the Territory and Local Resources

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Sustainability- MDPI

Referee’s Evaluation Report

MANUSCRIPT IDENTIFICATION:  sustainability-2299382

Animal husbandry in the Cilento, Vallo di Diano and Alburni National Park: an economic-structural analysis for the protection and enhancement of the territory and local resources

 (ORIGINAL ARTICLE)

 

General comments:

Cerrato et al. present a study on the structural and economic aspects of livestock breeding in a protected area (Cilento area). The study is conducted through a survey of official statistical data and trends (censuses) and through interviews with a representative sample of breeders operating in the study area.

The manuscript is well written, clear and scientifically sound. The theme addressed by the authors falls perfectly within the scope of the journal and the Special Issue in which it was proposed.

The management of economic activities within protected areas is a problem of great interest, both for the possible emergence of conflicts in the use of resources, and for the possible abandonment of excessively disadvantaged areas.

The authors outline the evolutionary state of the livestock sector and suggest a multifunctional agriculture model as a tool for the resilience of the rural community.

For these reasons, I consider the manuscript of great interest. However, in my opinion, the authors should make a further effort to raise a case of local interest to a model applicable also in other contexts.

In particular, it would be interesting to introduce elements that allow the evaluation of the interaction between the structural and economic aspects described and the intervention policies that have generated the current state and the last ten years' changes.

How do the regulations/laws/incentives of the National Park, the GAL, the Regional and National administrations affect them?

 

Specific comments:

L 78: consider the use of livestock in place of zootechnical throughout the text.

L 84: South of where?

L 116-117: "Cassa del Mezzogiorno".

L 122: what is the GAL? Can a Canadian or South African reader know? Please explain clearly and concisely.

L 144: The project funder should be listed as “Funding” at the end of the manuscript.

L 146: livestock farmers.

L 208: insert bibliographic source [13].

L 213: what criterion was used for sampling? This is an essential part and must be described in detail.

L 213: the questionnaire is also an essential part and should be published in its entirety (as additional material if too extensive).

L 243: repeat questionnaire to avoid confusion.

L 258 consider the use of feed in place of food throughout the text.

L 308: to avoid misunderstandings it would be good to use, throughout the text, the terms:

herds for cattle farms;

flocks for sheep and goat farms;

animal farms for mixed farms.

L 381-386: have you considered the farmer gender (and/or animal handlers)?

 

L 431: the term wild is never used for farmed animals. Consider using extensive and semi-extensive, in place of wild and semi-wild, throughout the text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The grammar rules of the study should be reviewed again.

In the introduction, the aims, hypotheses, and research questions of the study should be written clearly, in the last paragraph.

The gap in the study is not clearly specified.

More recommendations should be developed.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Despite it is a good work, a deeper revision about English language is suggested. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

An interesting subject with a topical issue. Congratulations to the searchers.

Keep an eye on the breeders. 

Although the introduction is a bit long, it covers topics of interest. perhaps it should be revised in terms of the very large paragraphs quoted in [5,6,7].

I wish I could see the survey?

on line 573 maybe there are too many quotes, you should have split it up..[17-24].

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

no other comments

 

Reviewer 2 Report

thanks