Citizen Science for Environmental Monitoring in the Eastern Region of Bolivia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
I’ve examined your manuscript with great attention. I find it not only internationally-important, fresh-sounding, and informative, but also performed really excellently. The application of citizen-science approaches to environmental studies is very promising and contributes to both environmental and social sustainability. The research question is urgent, and it is answered with a representative example. The methodology is strong and well-explained. The results and interpretations are reasonable, multiple, and interesting. The manuscript is well-written, well-structured, and well-referenced. The writing is very logical and convincing. Well, even the very critical reading of your work indicates nothing to criticize. Nonetheless, I have several suggestions, which can make your manuscript sounding even better.
1) Subsection 2.1: why not to give some photographs of the study area?
2) Figure 1: please, give all labels in English (e.g., Parque -> Park, Brasil -> Brazil, etc.).
3) Subsection 4.1: please, tell a bit more about the behavior of participants and its factors. For instance, who were more active: women or men, youth or olders, etc.? What about the technical readiness of the people to participate – is it possible that their technical “literacy” and skills limit their participation? And what about their ecological knowledge – what is its quality and how this affects (or not) their participation? Are you sure that the people were able to understand the reported environmental phenomena/features correctly?
4) Conclusions: please, add a paragraph where state the limitations of your study and perspectives for future research.
5) Please, cite these works, which consider citizen science in Bolivia:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ddi.13395
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/24694452.2016.1260439
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached you will find the response to each of your comments. Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsReview of manuscript Sustainability-2884654
by Oswaldo Maillard et al.
Submitted to SUSTAINABILITY
Dynamic Citizen science for environmental monitoring in the eastern region of Bolivia
General Comments:
The eastern region of Bolivia, characterized by the presence of several significant ecoregions, faces substantial anthropogenic threats necessitating continuous monitoring. To address this, a citizen science approach using mobile applications was adopted to engage local stakeholders in environmental monitoring and problem-solving. The study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of this approach in the region, utilizing an electronic form for the ArcGIS Survey123 mobile app to collect spatial data on various thematic variables. Sixteen training courses were conducted in twelve population centers from 2021 to 2023, involving 360 volunteers from diverse sectors. A total of 379 records were obtained, highlighting key issues such as wildfires, deforestation, water resources, and biodiversity. The collected data facilitated the generation of high-quality, real-time information, fostering enhanced interaction and collaboration with stakeholders in environmental dialogue and governance processes.
While the paper addresses important aspects of the topic, there are critical areas that need improvement to meet the rigorous standards of "SUSTAINABILITY" The current version CANNOT be accepted in its present form due to the following issues. Furthermore, suggestions and comments are provided to enhance the manuscript's readability and overall quality.
Major/Minor Comments:
l The introduction lacks coherence and fails to provide a comprehensive analysis of the current state-of-the-art in the field. A clearer illustration of the motivation, highlighting deficiencies in existing research, is needed. The paper appears to sequentially present previous studies without elucidating the motivation behind the current work. The author has listed a significant amount of existing research. It's recommended to add a summary and evaluation of these studies, emphasizing the motivation and significance of the present research.
l Clarify the specific anthropogenic threats facing the eastern region of Bolivia to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the challenges it faces.
l Provide more detailed information on the methodology used to develop and implement the citizen science approach, including how local stakeholders were engaged and trained in data collection.
l Expand on the significance of the nine thematic variables chosen for data collection and how they contribute to understanding environmental issues in the region.
l Discuss the limitations of the study, such as any constraints or biases in data collection and analysis, to provide a balanced assessment of the findings.
l Provide recommendations for future research or interventions based on the results obtained, including how the monitoring tool could be further improved or expanded for broader application.
l Consider discussing the potential implications of the study's findings for environmental policy and conservation efforts in the region, highlighting opportunities for community involvement and decision-making.
l Ensure clarity and coherence in presenting the results, including providing clear explanations of the three clusters identified and their implications for environmental management.
l Consider including visual aids such as maps or charts to enhance the presentation of spatial data and make the findings more accessible to a wider audience.
l Provide a brief discussion on the role of technology, particularly mobile applications, in facilitating environmental monitoring and citizen engagement in conservation efforts.
l Conclude with a summary of the study's key findings and their implications for conservation practice and policy in the eastern region of Bolivia.
l Clarify the specific objectives and outcomes of the citizen science tool implementation in building sustainable environmental governance in Bolivia. Providing more detailed information on the goals achieved through this approach would enhance the reader's understanding of its effectiveness.
l Expand on the methodology used to train volunteers for monitoring social-ecological systems and how their participation contributes to more efficient strategies for addressing environmental challenges. Providing insights into the training process and its impact on volunteer engagement would enrich the discussion.
l Discuss the limitations or challenges encountered during the implementation of the citizen science tool, including any barriers to volunteer participation or data collection. Addressing potential drawbacks or areas for improvement would provide a more balanced assessment of the approach.
l Consider including specific examples or case studies to illustrate the benefits of using mobile applications for environmental monitoring on a wide geographic scale. Providing concrete examples would help demonstrate the practical implications of this approach.
l Discuss the long-term sustainability of the coordination links established through user interaction and their impact on local capacities for environmental monitoring. Exploring the potential for continued collaboration and capacity-building efforts would strengthen the conclusion.
l Provide recommendations for future research or initiatives aimed at further leveraging citizen science tools for environmental governance in Bolivia. Identifying areas for continued improvement or expansion would contribute to ongoing efforts in this field.
l Consider discussing the broader implications of collaborative science and the dissemination of results obtained through citizen science for addressing socio-environmental problems beyond the eastern region of Bolivia. Exploring the potential for knowledge exchange and collaboration on a larger scale would enhance the significance of the findings.
l Ensure clarity and coherence in presenting the conclusion, including organizing the discussion points in a logical sequence to facilitate understanding for readers.
l Consider incorporating specific measures or indicators for evaluating the impact of the citizen science approach on maintaining ecological integrity in the landscape. Providing metrics or benchmarks for assessing success would add depth to the conclusion.
l Conclude with a summary of the key insights and contributions of the study to the field of environmental governance and citizen science, highlighting the implications for future research and practice.
In conclusion, the current version of the manuscript falls short of meeting the high standards set by "SUSTAINABILITY" Addressing the outlined issues through substantial revisions and refining the clarity and coherence of the manuscript will greatly enhance its potential for publication. The suggestions and comments provided herein aim to guide the authors in elevating the quality and impact of their work.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached you will find the response to each of your comments. Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis article looks at the effectiveness of citizen science as a field work approach in Bolivia. This is an interesting approach to field work, something that potentially expands the ability of researchers to build a network of partners to extend field work capabilities. I applaud the authors for bringing this innovative approach to this paper and developing a methodological article on the use of data collected by the local citizens of a region.
My main concern with the article as written is in your primary objective. You state (line 82-83) that the primary objective of the article is to evaluate the information collected by the local population. However, I could not find a section in your paper where you evaluate the data. Did you triangulate the data against other collected data? I wondering how you evaluated the data collected by the local citizens? Another suggestion would be to change the primary objective of the paper to evaluate the process of data collection as opposed to exclusively looking at the quality of data itself. I still think you need to address the data quality issue. A review of the data collection process would be a useful and interesting article for other researchers looking to use participatory research in their own project.
Thank you for the opportunity to review your research. I enjoyed reading your article and I learn a lot. Best of luck in your future research.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer,
Attached you will find the response to each of your comments. Thank you very much for taking the time to review our manuscript.
Best regards,
Authors
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAlthough my individual opinions, the author did not make it too clear. The authors have satisfyingly answered to almost all the points raised in my initial review.
My opinion is that the paper has been improved, and according to the high quality of Sustainability, the paper can be acceptable after the grammar is double checked.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageAlthough my individual opinions, the author did not make it too clear. The authors have satisfyingly answered to almost all the points raised in my initial review.
My opinion is that the paper has been improved, and according to the high quality of Sustainability, the paper can be acceptable after the grammar is double checked.
