Human Communities in Protected Natural Areas and Biodiversity Conservation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper of “Human communities in protected natural areas and biodiversity conservation” give a good summary. It reviewed the development of diversity conservation, and give a deep insight into the interactions between human communities and protected natural areas. While, after red the whole paper, I think the authors need improve the manuscript a lot.

First, none of the related topics are developed in deep.

Second, the writing style is too flowery and fits better for general, nonfiction science writing not for a scientific journal. I suggest the authors focus on the research progress of this field, and give some tables and figures to summary the development of this field.

Third, the manuscript is not well organized, the authors need improve the structure to make the logical relationship more clearly.

Fourth, the language of this paper still need to be improvement.

For example, Line 45 it is better change to “the history of biodiversity conservation”.

Line 70 What’s the mean of [8] (486)?

Line 84-86 the sentence need rewrite to make it easy to understand.

Line 95-101 this paragraph need rewrite.

Line 652-653 it is better change among to between.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper covers an important topic and offers a large reference list. However, no methods are presented, conclusions are drawn with insufficient data or referencing, and awkward phrasing is common throughout the text.

The topic sentence of the abstract is unclear:

Under the socioecological concept and starting from an historic context of diversity conservation, this research study reviews main interactions between human communities and protected natural areas (PNAs) to describe different phases and public over time with emphasis on climate change implications.

‘’Different phases” of what?

‘’and public’’ and public what?

The next sentence in the abstract discusses how  ‘’the analysis reveals’’. But no description of the analysis is given.  A sentence on methodology here would be important to include.

A subsequent sentence in the abstract uses an awkward phrase:

Thus, interest runs parallel to increasing PNAs as a conservation 16 instrument worldwide.

What is meant by ‘’runs parallel’’?

The next sentence in the abstract reveals findings without the methodological context:

The interaction of human communities in these areas has had a 17 positive effect on biodiversity use, management, and conservation.

According to what methods?

This and the next sentence on sustainable traditional uses seems like an oversimplified conclusion. There must be great variation in these communities reviewed even if a net positive. Similarly, what are ‘’sustainable traditional uses’’ and what is the variation here? Surely there are also examples of non sustainable and non traditional uses.

Regarding climate change, again, the authors cite ‘’various studies’’ without context. Are we talking about ‘’most studies’’ or a fraction, or…? Here again the methods are critical to contextualizing findings. And again surely there is much variation and that not all PNAs serve similarly successfully as climate buffers.

Lines 21-22 ‘’human communities play an important role’’ – in what? Climate change or conservation?

Line 21 ‘’damaging climates’’ -climates aren’t damaging so much as climate change impacts on increasing the magnitude and frequency of extreme events.

Lines 22-24 are vague and simplified. Increasing awareness how? Is awareness all that is needed? What about changing behaviors and policies?

Lines 41-44 what is meant by ‘’besides’’? This sentence does not make sense and it is an important sentence that summarizes the study.

Line 46 ‘’the’’ needs to go before ‘’post-COVID”

Line 48 historicalLY

Line 55 Do not end a sentence in ‘’so on’’. Specify.

Line 58 delete this second use of ‘’so on’’.

Good informative background

Line 166 There is no methods section before moving to ‘’3. Protected Natural Areas’’ or perhaps the methods of research go before section 4. Regardless, there should be a clear background section followed by research questions and then by methods to address those questions. I appreciate that this is a literature review. But literature reviews have methods as well guiding searches and inclusion/exclusion criteria.

Lines 318-320 The parks didn’t have a positive impact themselves but rather what the parks do. And the topic sentence is about perceptions. This is confusing.

Line 331 makes no sense….’’on’’….’’text’’…’’rational’’ how/why?

Line 660 ‘’antechamber’’?

Line  668 perceived by whom?

Line 685 increasingly arising according to whom? Does this paper make that case convincingly by itself?

Line 696 another reference to analysis without ever establishing the methods of analysis.

Conclusion – what about research limitations and implications for filling future gaps in research?

General:

-Avoid one sentence paragraphs

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

it could be accpted at the present stage.

Reviewer 2 Report

Congratulations!