Challenges Facing Andean Communities in the Protection of the Páramo in the Central Highlands of Ecuador

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1.     Introduction is very biased. Greater fluidity and syntax should be given for a better understanding of the reader.

2.    Theoretical framework. This section contains great rhetoric without pointing out the relevance of technological innovation to trigger the social development of that region. It is necessary that the authors focus on target aspects (it is not necessary to make a historical summary) closely linked to the environmental problems of that region of Ecuador. The way in which this section is written decontextualizes the objective of this work, which, lacks objectives and hypotheses.

3.     Materials and Methods. It lacks a clear, logical and detailed layout. In this section, the authors were able to divide precisely how they would perform environmental characterization and social characterization in detail. The way is written causes a lot of confusion and leaves big methodological gaps, and therefore, the results section is presented without organization and unclear way.

Extensive editing of English language is required

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your time, your criticisms of our article and your valuable suggestions, which have helped us to improve it considerably. All changes made are tracked in the new document, which also includes specialized editing in English, according to the publisher's guidelines. We respond to comments below.

We hope that the changes made meet your academic demands.
Sincerely (on behalf of the co-authors),

Maria Cristina Torres

1. Introduction is very biased. Greater fluidity and syntax should be given for a better understanding of the reader.
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the introduction was completely revised, restructuring it for a better understanding.

2. Theoretical framework. This section contains great rhetoric without pointing out the relevance of technological innovation to trigger the social development of that region. It is necessary that the authors focus on target aspects (it is not necessary to make a historical summary) closely linked to the environmental problems of that region of Ecuador. The way in which this section is written decontextualizes the objective of this work, which, lacks objectives and hypotheses.

   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the entire chapter was reviewed, synthesizing it for a better understanding, Table 1 was eliminated.
   • In relation to technological innovation, the conceptual foundations indicate that one can speak of innovation when something existing has been improved. In the case of the páramo in this area, there was no ecosystem protection measure, and it is as a result of the serious drought of 2005, when the community in a united and empowered way began to carry out a series of activities, with the objective of protect and recover the páramo. We believe that these circumstances better fit the fundamentals of social technology.
   • Regarding the objectives and hypotheses, the objective is stated at the end of the introduction and due to the type of research, qualitative that seeks an understanding of the objective of the study, an interpretative but not an explanatory exercise has been carried out; therefore, a hypothesis has not been raised.
3. Materials and Methods. It lacks a clear, logical and detailed design. In this section, the authors were able to divide precisely how they would carry out the environmental characterization and the social characterization in detail. The way in which it is written generates a lot of confusion and leaves large methodological gaps, which is why the results section is presented without organization and in an unclear manner.
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the methodology was completely revised, including more detail and reorganizing its structure for a better understanding. 

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is carefully researched and provides adequate discussion of the past, current status, and future ideals of the target area. I believe that the following comments need to be addressed in order to enhance the usefulness of the article.

-Chapter 2
It is redundant. Provide a short explanation and discussion, making it clear how this chapter connects to the descriptions in Chapter 3 and beyond.

-Table 2
In an annotation, write the formal name of "masl".

-Line 231-247
A detailed description of the content of the interview is needed. What questions did you ask? Have you received supervision from a government agency or other entity regarding the content of the questions? How long did each interview take? How long did it take to conduct the interviews? How long did it take to conduct each interview? etc.

-Figure 3
The figure is not well explained. Explain why it was structured this way.

-Chapter 6
Not only discuss the results obtained in the target area, but also describe how these results can be applied to similar cases in other areas. This will enhance the usefulness of this article.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your time and criticism of our article and your valuable suggestions, which have helped us to improve it considerably. All changes made are tracked in the new document, which also includes specialized editing in English, according to the publisher's guidelines. We respond to comments below.

We hope that the changes made meet your academic demands.

Sincerely (on behalf of the co-authors),

Maria Cristina Torres

1. Chapter 2: It is redundant. Provide a short explanation and discussion, making it clear how this chapter connects to the descriptions in Chapter 3 and beyond.
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the chapter was revised in its entirety, restructuring it for a better understanding.
2. Table 2: In an annotation, write the formal name of "masl".
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the respective annotation was included.
3. Line 231-247: A detailed description of the content of the interview is needed. What questions did you ask? Have you received supervision from a government agency or other entity regarding the content of the questions? How long did each interview take? How long did it take to conduct the interviews? How long did it take to conduct each interview? etc.
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the methodology was completely reviewed, including what was requested.
4. Figure 3: The figure is not well explained. Explain why it was structured this way.
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and a paragraph with the explanation was included before the figure.
5. Chapter 6: Not only discuss the results obtained in the target area, but also describe how these results can be applied to similar cases in other areas. This will enhance the usefulness of this article.
   • Answer: The suggestion is accepted and the usefulness of this research was included in the last paragraph.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have done a great job. The article is written in an understandable language, and provided with sufficient illustrations, so I propose accepting the article

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

Thank you very much for your time and the positive and encouraging reviews about our article.

Sincerely (on behalf of the co-authors),

Maria Cristina Torres

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am very glad for the great effort made by the authors to make all the necessary changes so the manuscript had more clarity, it is a great merit on their part.

I only suggest doing a second review of the grammar for this research is considered for publication.

I only suggest doing a second review of the grammar for this research is considered for publication. Minor edit is necessary.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your time and the positive and encouraging reviews about our article. A second revision of English has been carried out by experts (certificate attached). The changes are highlighted in yellow in the new document.

Sincerely (on behalf of the co-authors),
Maria Cristina Torres

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf