Effects of Land-Related Policies on Deforestation in a Protected Area: The Case Study of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Journal: Conservation (ISSN 2673-7159)
Manuscript ID: conservation-1259611
Title: Effects of land-related policies on deforestation in a protected area: the case study of Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary, Bangladesh
Overall Comments and Suggestions for Authors
Regarding the land use transition using Landsat images in a macro scale especially for Bangladesh, this manuscript would deserve to publish. I read through the manuscript and could not find any specific deficient parts. All the contents were described in detail and authors tried to discuss with the related preceding studies. In addition, authors provided appropriate their suggestion based on this research findings. Overall, authors describes the manuscript so clearly that there is no question on any parts of the manuscript.
My comments for publication are as follows. I hope that this manuscript can be improved based on peer-review’s comments.
To improve the readability as a periodical, I recommend authors to update the resolution of Figures 1, 2 and 4. The current version is not clear enough to see.
When you provided p-value in Result section, it would be better to put the exact p-value instead of <0.05 unless it’s too small. For example, Lines 289 and 304 have different p-value range. Significance level (or alpha) can be used as like in the text, but p-value can be directly referred, e.g. p=0.0328, p=0.0021, or p<0.0001 if it’s too small. With this notation, readers can judge the statistical significance by themselves.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Overall comments:
- Manuscript, that investigates how policies affects land use and land cover change in Rema-Kalenga Wildlife Sanctuary (RKWS), in overall, looks good. I think the manuscript is a good contribution in the field of forest conservation and related policies. This is good to consider for publication with the minor revision as indicated below.
Abstract:
- Author/s have mentioned that forest area was converted to noncommercial agriculture when co management was provisioned under different land related policies------at the same time author suggest the need to support community forest conservation----is not “co management itself a form of community engagement? If that was not effective why to suggest this option?
Introduction:
- National parks in most cases are under the broader term/definition of PAs. It is better to clarify if they are different in case of Bangladesh otherwise remove the confusions (in row number 40)… …..national parks and PAs were introduced in Bangladesh Please clarify.
- (A bit short better to explore and reflect if there are some other studies on impact of policies (any sector) on land use in Bangladesh)
- Very generic statement- We assumed that the different programs under different policies would cause different LULC change in PAs.---Any evidence ?
Materials and Methods:
- Very comprehensive and clear however this section is too long. I think sub section 2.7 (all) can be shifted to introduction section (easy to understand the context for the readers)
- Results
Nicely articulated
- Discussion
- Overall discussion section- Not enough- link policy effect and implications better
- Quite odd--Commercial agricultural, built-up, and waterbody areas- could be improved as “Commercial agriculture, construction and waterbody areas??
- Not clear- no significant deforestation was not found- ???
- Conclusion
- Clear
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
