Community Engagement in UNESCO Biosphere Reserves and Geoparks: Case Studies from Mount Hakusan in Japan and Altai in Russia
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In general the manuscript is interesting for publication in Land international journal, but it requires minor revisions. Below I send my comments, suggestions and others aspects:
Check hyphenation at the end of each line throughout the manuscript (e.g. line 32, 34, 36, 66, 68, 72, 82, 85, 118, 124, 142, 216, 243, 249, 268, 269, 276, 286, 298, 308, 309, 324, 340, 384, 386, 416, 419, 421, 429, 434, 443, 452, 455, 456, 462, 477, ).
Title
Well done
Abstract
Well done.
Keywords
Well done, but you could add the names of the countries
Introduction
If there is a section 1.2, why isn't there a section 1.1?
1.2. Brief introduction about two programs
Well done
In general, the introduction is well written, well structured and meets the requirements of an introduction to a scientific article, where the problem of the study, the objectives and a background to the study problem are presented.
Methods
2.1. Case studies in Japan and Russia
2.1.1. Mount Hakusan Biosphere Reserve (Japan)
Figure 1, could you add the coordinates? You remeber the Land journal is an international scientific journal.
I believe that you can improve the section with information about the biodiversity, this is necessary for the lector understand the Mount Hakusan Biosphere Reserve in Japan.
2.1.2. Mount Hakusan Tedoriver Geopark (Japan)
Well done. Here you add information to understand the Mount Hakusan Tedoriver Geopark.
In figure 2 the information does not look good and the north and geographic coordinates should be added.
2.1.3. Altaisky Biosphere Reserve (Russia)
Figure 3, could you add the north and the coordinates?
I believe that you can improve the section with information about the biodiversity, this is necessary for the lector understand the Altaisky Biosphere Reserve.
2.1.4. Geopark Altai (Russia)
Line 216, Map? You refered to the figure 4?
Line 291, 30 geological and geographical objects correspond to geosites or geomoprhosites?
Figure 4, could you add the north and the coordinates?
I good like very much the methodology employed in the manuscript, but why you don´t put the questionary in the manuscript?.
Results
3.1. Management of MHBR and MHTGP in Japan
Can you move figure 4 to the previous section?
Figure 5, could you add the the coordinates? The numbers inside the map what are, geosites?
3.2. Management of ABR and AGP in Russia
In this section they talk about tourists, but not for Japan. Are there any statistics on tourists visiting these reserves and geoparks? If so, I think that providing such data would improve the manuscript.
In table 2, first column, you cannot break the word biosphere. The Program and Altai Biosphere Reserve (ABR) should not be in bold. In the column 3 hydrological cannot break in this form.
In the all manuscript first Japan and then Russia are mentioned, why do they change this structure in table 2?
I think that you obtained the Level of locals’ involvement in management process from the interviews. If you say yes, How did you obtain this information? Is very important to the potential reader of your manuscript.
Discussions
4.1. Japanese cases
Well done.
4.2. Russian cases
Well done
Conclusions
ok
References
ok
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 1,
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on our manuscripts. We appreciated all of the constructive feedback and have taken all of your suggestions into consideration. Please see attached file.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I find the paper quite interesting but I think it requires some additional work in order to make it more scientifically sound. At the moment it reads a bit like a governmental report and the two main topics (BR and GP) and the study cases (Japan and Russia) are rather juxtaposed. Some relevant topics are introduced in the introduction section such as: the participation and involvement of local communities in the economic activities for the regional development. Is this relevant goal satisfied in the different programmes? to what extent? what are the main relevant constraints and limits and what the strenghts and opportunities? Another issue reported in the introduction is the different approaches to sustainable management and the involvement of local communities. Some communities use more “bottom-up” approaches, where almost all activities and decision making are conducted through the involvement of local people and communities. The paper should better highlight the main differences in the case studies reported. It is said in the paper (results and discussions sections) but in a rather disorganised way. Similarly, the introduction should focus more clearly on the objectives and the the methodology of the paper, as well as conclusions should on the main results and the policy impacts of the main findings. What do we learn from these study cases and how can we generalise them? how do we use the findings to better understand the role and the goals of BRs, GPs and other special designated sites?
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 2,
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on our manuscripts. We appreciated all of the constructive feedback and have taken all of your suggestions into consideration. Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
Very nice paper! I add my corrections in the attached PDF.
Al the best.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Dear Reviewer 3,
Thank you for taking the time to review and comment on our manuscripts. We appreciated all of the constructive feedback and have taken all of your suggestions into consideration. Please see attached file.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you to the authors for considering my suggestions.
In this new version I would recommend to clarify in the introduction in a more direct way what are the main questions arisen in the paper and what are the main findings about them, with some methodological hints for the reader.
As for the conclusions, I understand that there are not clearly policy impacts yet, but I would encourage the authors to spend a few words on the expected impacts, which would be quite interesting to discuss.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your second revision and comments. Please see attached file, for our replies.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
