Evolutionary Game Analysis for Grassland Degradation Management, Considering the Livelihood Differentiation of Herders

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Your game theory approach is interesting, and may make a genuine contribution. Your English is excellent for a non-native speaekr.

However, the introduction and literature review lack important context, and some terms are undefined. The literature review/backdrop to the study seems to depend primarily on ref 2, which represents the European/UN perspective on overgrazing and land degradation. There are other scientific viewpoints, especially in Africa and the US (e.g. Behnke and Scoones). With one exception, I am not going to require that you include those sources, but I do recommend that you read in that literature if you are going to continue to research in this topic area in the future.

The one exception is Elinor Ostrom, the first woman to win the Nobel Prize in Economics; she won for her work on land ownership in relation to sustainable management of resources such as grazing lands. Your ms. is not clear (to a non-Chinese) about land ownership in Tibet. Ostrom classifies the possibilities into private (individual); government control; commons; and no ownership i.e., open access. The type of ownership matters since the whole point of your study is to determine what type or mixture of ownerships is most likely to produce sustainability. Here is the key reference: Elinor Ostrom, Joanna Burger, Christopher B. Field, Richard B. Norgaard and David Policansky. Revisiting the Commons: Local Lessons, Global Challenges. Science 284:278-282.

After reading that paper, you should be able to describe the ownership situation in Tibet in a way that is comprehensible to a foreigner. Also, you should provide historical context: I imagine the ownership pattern was different before the Chinese government took control of Tibet, and perhaps it changed more than once since then as the government and researchers interacted with the ecosystems and adjusted their views about the sustainability issues.

Now for the terms. First, I don't think you were clear about what constitutes overgrazing in your model. Ref. 2 has a multifaceted definition, including productivity decline, biodiversity decrease, erosion, replacement of grassland with other land use, loss of ecosystem services, etc. I believe your definition for purposes of this study is simpler, but you need to be clear and specific about that. At what point does grazing become overgrazing? Is it a threshold, or a gradual deterioration?

More than once you mention the "forest chief system". What is that? Also, more than once you suggest "returning pasture to grass". Does this mean there is no grass in those areas? Then there is "monoculture production methods of grassland areas" on line 93. Are these areas sown with a single species of grass? Please explain!!

On line 212, you mention active regulation and negative regulation. What is the latter?

Finally, on line 475, you state that "nearly 40% of the global grassland area has been degraded" and cite reference 38, which is a paper on the Loess Plateau. You mist have cited it by mistake.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is interesting, even if not original at all. The analysis is linked at a specific country with no particular features compared to those of many other countries. Moreover, it can not be a good reference point for similar studies to be conducted in other countries. The methodology used is very simple and the bibliographic references should be extended and diversified. Above all it is necessary to explain better why the paper is original and what it adds in the field; but also why the authors can say that their idea and use of the chosen methodology in better than other ones; the methodology must be explained deeply and better; moreover, in my opinion the references are poor and do not consider more recent and innovative literature.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The paper is structured according to the requirements of a scientific article and includes abstract, keywords, introduction, Literature Review, working method, Discussion, conclusions and bibliography.

A rich part of the analysis is noteworthy, in which hypotheses, payment matrices and a series of analyzes and demonstrated theorems are presented.

I would suggest that the proof of the theorems should not be done in the form of text, as you did in the article, but each term one by one, separately, for an easier understanding.

Also, the text contains a series of interesting simulations regarding The impact of herders' livelihood differentiation on the game of grassland degradation management.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx