Conditions for Multilevel Governance, Co-Management and Sustainability in Two Forest Communities in Central Mexico

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.       Key words should be other than in the title.

2.       In the introduction first sentence is what you should do, not for the readers.

3.       Aim and objectives, please clearly state the aim of the study and the objectives.

4.       ” Forest resources worldwide have been managed by the state;” is a very questionable statement. In Europe there are a lots of countries where private ownership on the forests is dominating and state is not manage those forests.

5.       Description of Mexican forestry should go to Methods part. In the introduction you should show other studies and the gap of knowledge, why your study is needed.

6.       As a rule theoretical framework is written as separate subchapter. Also it need the references by who developed the theoretical framework.

7.       Figure 1 and 2 what are the differences?  Show study areas on one figure.

8.       Figure 3 who is the author of the figure? did you draw it or did you use someone’s figure?

9.       Were interviews done in native language?

10.   What ethical guidelines did you follow, please state in the Methods part.

11.   In the result section should be presented your results and the discussion of the results with references should be in the Discussion part.

12.   There are too many abbreviations, it is hard to follow for reader.

13.   Line 605 name of the table should go prior to table.

14.   Line 748-757 should be deleted

 

15.   References should be formatted properly.

general spel check need to be done

Author Response

Reviewer 1

1. Key words should be other than in the title.

A: New keywords were proposed.

 

2. In the introduction first sentence is what you should do, not for the readers.

A: It was deleted.

 

3. Aim and objectives, please clearly state the aim of the study and the objectives.

A: We clearly stated the aim and objectives of the study in the introduction section.

 

4. “Forest resources worldwide have been managed by the state;” is a very questionable statement. In Europe there are a lots of countries where private ownership on the forests is dominating and state is not manage those forests.

A: We modified the wording considering the observation.

 

5. Description of Mexican forestry should go to Methods part. In the introduction you should show other studies and the gap of knowledge, why your study is needed.

A: We modified the wording considering the observation.

 

6. As a rule theoretical framework is written as separate subchapter. Also it need the references by who developed the theoretical framework.

A: We included the theoretical framework in a subchapter, and in the Author Contributions, we specify who developed this section.

 

7. Figure 1 and 2 what are the differences?  Show study areas on one figure.

A: These are two different territories; we consider that if we include the two maps on the same figure, it will be very difficult to distinguish the information about land uses and localities.

 

8. Figure 3 who is the author of the figure? did you draw it or did you use someone’s figure?

A: It was deleted.

 

9. Were interviews done in native language?

A: Yes, we specified in the Materials and Methods section, subsection 3.2 that all the interviews were done in Spanish.

 

10. What ethical guidelines did you follow, please state in the Methods part.

A: We mentioned in subsection 3.2 that all conversations were carried out considering the Ethics Code of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

 

11. In the result section should be presented your results and the discussion of the results with references should be in the Discussion part.

A: We considered this comment.

 

12. There are too many abbreviations, it is hard to follow for reader.

A: We considered this comment and elaborated a new version of the results section, which has been completely revised. We sought to improve the wording of the different sections, and we included tables summarizing information to make it easier to understand data that included many acronyms.

 

13. Line 605 name of the table should go prior to table.

A: We considered this comment.

 

14. Line 748-757 should be deleted

A: They were deleted.

 

15. References should be formatted properly.

A: We considered the comment and made the changes.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Reviewer 2

1. Authors should explain the main methods used in the study in the Abstract section.

A: We included the methods in the abstract.

 

2. I think that first sentence of Introduction part should be deleted:

A: It was deleted.

 

3. The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why 30 it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance.

A: We clarify in the introduction the relevance of the study in a broader context regarding the studies of multilevel governance in forest socioecosystems.

4. It is very difficult to understand the methods used in the study. It is necessary to establish a relationship between purpose and method. The approach presented in Figure 3 is also difficult to understand. The method part should be presented more clearly.

A: A new wording was developed to explain the methods more simply. We removed Figure 3.

 

5. The purpose of the study and the methods used should be considered in the presentation of the results section.

A: We considered the comment and elaborated a new version of the results section, which has been completely revised. We sought to improve the wording of the different sections, and tables summarizing information were included to make it easier to understand data that included many acronyms.

6. In addition, the limitations of the study should be highlighted, and future research directions may be mentioned.

A: We included the limitations of the current study, and we highlighted some aspects to study in the future related to MLG in the last part of the Discussion section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In the tytle please add the English name of ejidos. 

Prior to Discussion please add the limitations of the study.

Please in the Introduction clearly explaine why your study is needed and why it is adding somening to the existing body of knowledge. 

Line 30-40 It is the methods part, not the Introduction.

7. Figure 1 and 2 what are the differences?  Show study areas on one figure. 
8.  It is hard to read this both figures, please make one.
9. FIgure 3 and 4 did you use someone's figure in total or did you modify it? cite it properly.
10. line 546 correct references 
11. are there any customary law connecte to forest management?
12. what are the strategies of two ejidos connected to co-management and SFM?

 

English is ok.

Author Response

Reviewer 1	Action Taken
In the tytle please add the English name of ejidos.	We change the word ejidos by communities and modified the wording of the title considering the comment (see L. 3)
Please in the Introduction clearly explain why your study is needed and why it is adding something to the existing body of knowledge.	We considered this comment, and we added information (see L. 39-45 and 66-73).
Prior to Discussion, please add the limitations of the study.	We considered this comment, and we added information (see L. 524-529).
Line 30-40 It is the methods part, not the Introduction.	We considered this comment and included the information on the methods section (see L.136-143).
Figure 1 and 2 what are the differences?  Show study areas on one figure. It is hard to read this both figures, please make one.	We considered this comment and made the pertinent changes (see L. 152).
Figure 3 and 4 did you use someone's figure in total or did you modify it? cite it properly.	We considered this comment and made the pertinent changes.
line 546 correct references	We considered this comment and made the pertinent changes.
Are there any customary law connected to forest management?	Yes, we mention these aspects on the analysis (see L. 195-197)
what are the strategies of two ejidos connected to co-management and SFM?	We included a Conclusions section where we briefly analyze the strategies (see L. 635-657).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors included the methods in the abstract. They clarified in the introduction the relevance of the study in a broader context regarding the studies of multilevel governance in forest socioecosystems. They explained the methods more simply. Authorscompletely revised results section. They included limitations sentences in the study.

Author Response

Reviewer 2	Action Taken
1.     Authors should explain the main methods used in the study in the Abstract section.	We included the methods in the abstract (L. 12-14)
2.     I think that first sentence of Introduction part should be deleted:	It was deleted.
3.     In the Introduction section, it is seen that the background of the study is included and the purpose is clear.	We clarify in the introduction the relevance of the study in a broader context regarding the studies of co-management and multilevel governance in forest socioecosystems (see L. 42-52) and the relevance of this research (L. 53-59).
4.     It is very difficult to understand the methods used in the study. It is necessary to establish a relationship between purpose and method. The approach presented in Figure 3 is also difficult to understand.The method part should be presented more clearly.	A new wording was developed to explain the methods more simply (L. 205-248). We removed Figure 3.
5.     The purpose of the study and the methods used should be taken into account in the presentation of the results section.	We considered the comment and elaborated a new version of the results section, which has been completely revised (see L. 287-655). We sought to improve the wording of the different sections, and tables summarizing information were included to make it easier to understand data that included many acronyms (see Table 1: L. 353-362; Table 2: L. 423-437; Table 3: L. 462-473; Table 4: L. 483-500).
6.     In addition, the limitations of the study should be highlighted and future research directions may be mentioned.	We included the limitations of the current study (L. 689-695) and we highlighted some aspects to study in the future related to MLG in the last part of the discussion section (L. 696-701).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf