Learning through Place-Based Implementation of the UNESCO MAB Program in South Africa’s Oldest Biosphere Reserve: A Case Study of the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript outlines the implementation and evaluation of UNESCO's MAB within the Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve (KBR) in South Africa. The study addresses the global framework of MAB and aims to bridge a gap in understanding and consolidating lessons from this site, contributing to the program's global benefit. The introduction rightly contextualizes the thematic with a bibliographic reference generally well chosen. The approach is interesting. In this context, I am absolutely excited to learn from this article the different results and the importance of aligning international designations with the specific needs and characteristics of emerging or newly established BRs
However, I have some suggestions to further improve the manuscript:
Certainly, the study's findings are highly interesting, holding significance not only for the KBR but also for other Biosphere Reserves worldwide. However, an important observation is that the study primarily focused on a limited number of interviews (09) and engaged only a subset of involved groups. While several partners were identified as stakeholders in the KBR, it would have been valuable to develop different types of questionnaires tailored to specific target groups and broaden the interviews to include the perspectives of key partners. Additionally, there are some remarks about the article's structure, particularly certain sections of the results (3.1; 3.2, ...) that don't present clear findings but rather describe components that could be formulated before the results section.
Although the interview sample size may not facilitate statistical analysis, it is suggested that the results be further synthesized. By emphasizing only the key findings and minimizing the inclusion of detailed formulations and interviewee stipulations, the presentation of results could be more concise and focused.
Do not go beyond the results of the study in the discussion and conclusion. While the KBR is an interesting case due to its bottom-up establishment, but it's crucial to highlight that each biosphere is unique. Considering other case studies or comparisons with different biosphere reserves could strengthen the validity of the conclusions and provide a more comprehensive perspective. Also, it would be valuable to mentioning in the discussion section the limitations of generalizability. As the use of a qualitative inductive approach is appropriate for exploring local dynamics in the KBR, it's important to acknowledge that this approach can generate results specific to the studied situation and does not allow for statistical generalization.
Also, while the conclusion mentions the renewal and subsequent success of the KBR, a more thorough discussion on future implications, practical recommendations for other biosphere reserves, and potential research areas could enrich the conclusion.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Author(s),
Thank you for the opportunity to read the paper entitled The Theoretical Logic and Practical Framework of National Parks’ Differentiated Governance in China.
The topic of this paper is interesting, but certain improvements would be appreciated.
Here are some more specific comments regarding the article: The study aimed to investigate institutional context and governance strategy in the biosphere reserve. It used Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve as a case study area. The study explored the interpretation and implementation of the MAB in the context of the KBR focusing on the translation of the international MAB designation for a local social-ecological and economic fit. It also investigated the strategic decisions and motivations therein that have enabled this BR to fulfill the role it has envisioned within its broader landscape.The contribution of the research lies in a sustainability model based on the KBR that can be implemented in other sites similarly operationalizing an international designation for local conditions.
The authors should point out the research objectives at the end of the introduction, Line 73.
The results are nicely presented through tables and figures. The quality of the presentation is very high.
The conclusion needs to be improved by adding a theoretical contribution – Line 817. Managerial implications should also be added after line 830.
At the end of the Conclusion limitations and future work suggestions should be added.
Abstract
Comment 1
The abstract gives the impression of an interesting article; it's a really nice opening. Great job! No modification is needed!
Introduction
Comment 2
Line 34– “BRs” you need first to introduce abbreviation. Biosphere Reserves (BRs)..then from now on you use BRs.
Comment 3
You need to point out similar research on the topic and what makes your study different. You should point out the research gap as well as the contribution, novelty, and originality of the study.
Other than that, the introduction section is very nicely explained.
2. Materials and Methods
Comment 4
Methodology is all clear. Very nicely explained instruments used for the survey. No modification is needed.
Results
Comment 5
The results are nicely presented through tables and figure. Very detailed and through. Great job! Everything is very clear!
Discussion
Comment 6
Discussions are also perfect, and very detailed, compared to the situation in the BR, following the “story” and results.
Conclusion
Comment 7
What are the theoretical contributions and practical implications of your study? Limitations and future research? These segments are missing. Please add them.
Comment 8
Once again, thank you very much for the opportunity to read this interesting article. The article has serious potential, and it deals with a very popular topic in research, but certain improvements are needed (conclusion). I look forward to reading your article again.
I wish you all the best!
Kind regards,
Reviewer
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis reviewer appreciates being allowed to review this work and learn more about the topic in depth. It seems to me that some aspects need to be improved.
Formal issues
Authors should always take into account the instructions for authors of this journal (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).
The Abstract should have a maximum of 200 words. It is not advisable to use abbreviations here, they start using KRB without indicating that it is Kogelberg Biosphere Reserve (appears on line 61). You can delete the number of the global network and countries, remove the number of questionnaires and analysis documents...
Acronyms make the text difficult to read, I recommend creating a list of acronyms at the end (Abbreviations). When used only once, it is not necessary to cite the acronym: e.g. “Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)” (line 32) or “World Heritage Site (WHS)” (line 68)... But other times it is used without indicating BRs (line 34). Review all the acronyms, the first one is developed (acronym in parentheses). Once the meaning is indicated, they should not use the full form again (for example, on line 67 they use “biosphere reserve” again).
Try not to use footnotes: if they are important, include them in the text; If they are not important, they do not need to appear. Follow the instructions for Land with the footnotes.
Content issues
I think we have to do a literature review, and create a background, which can go in the Introduction. “Introduction: The introduction should briefly place the study in a broad context and highlight why it is important. It should define the purpose of the work and its significance, including specific hypotheses being tested. The current state of the research field should be reviewed carefully and key publications cited. Please highlight controversial and diverging hypotheses when necessary. Finally, briefly mention the main aim of the work and highlight the main conclusions. Keep the introduction comprehensible to scientists working outside the topic of the paper.” (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).
In the largest municipalities (lines 102-104), they can mention the inhabitants in each of them (or percentage) or, at least in the largest, so that the reader understands its dimension. I recommend reading works, some of them are literature reviews: <https://doi.org/10.3390/su12145497>, <https://doi.org/10.1017/S037689291000038X>, <https://doi.org/10.14512/gaia.17.S1.14>, <10.4103/cs.cs_17_58>. It would be interesting to compare this space with others that may be similar in mid-latitudes in different contexts.
I think there are plenty of clarifications (the languages spoken, footnote 1), but nevertheless, there are things that are not understood outside of South Africa ("colored", his condition is "mestizo", but in Europe it would be the same as “black African”). Talk about what needs to be talked about.
Structure issues
Authors should always take into account this journal's instructions for authors for the Research Manuscript Sections (https://www.mdpi.com/journal/land/instructions).
Subsection 2.1 appears very compartmentalized, it is not necessary, it is well understood if the titles (2.1.1, 2.1.2...) are eliminated.
Subsection 2.3 does not exist. I think 2.2, 2.4, 2.5 and 2.6 should form a set (Methods and data).
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document has been substantially improved, and no further modifications are required.
