The Changing Ecology of a High Himalayan Valley: Challenges to the Sustainable Development of the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Eastern Nepal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

KCA - Sustainability Review

 

“The Changing Ecology of a High Himalayan Valley” provides a comprehensive and detailed study of recent social, environmental, economic, hydrological, and climatic changes experienced in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area of Nepal. The authors should be commended for their innovative (and interdisciplinary) methodologically approach as well as the array of maps, figures, graphs, pictures, and other images that are provided and deployed to illustrate key aspect of the study. While the authors make a good case for why recent transformations in and to the KCA are so profound and urgent, in other instances the key concerns that appear to be central to the study seemingly get lost in the field. In other words, in some places throughout the paper, I felt as though I couldn’t see the forest for the trees. With this concern in mind, I encourage the authors to incorporate some of the following suggestions to make relatively MINOR revisions to their manuscript. In so doing, I think they can better focus the analysis, strengthen the argument, and make a more compelling case and recommendation for why the KCA is, and how it can remain, a “center of high mountain biodiversity.” My recommendations are organized around three thematic concerns: breadth vs. depth, literature review and baseline studies, and analytical attention. I would also be happy to review a revised draft of the manuscript.

 

Breadth vs. Depth

There is a lot going on in this paper – climate change, traditional livelihoods, road development, tourism, conservation policy, imperial espionage, British mountaineering, floristic diversity, cryospheric hazards, community forestry, GLOFs, yetis, post-earthquake politics, and more. The authors do a good job covering a vast amount of Himalayan terrain but in some instances the breadth of their comprehensive descriptive approach stretches the analytical rigor rather thin. This is not to say that it’s not important to address the complex intersections of these dynamics as they relate to sustainability concerns in Himalayan regions of Nepal, and especially for the Kangchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA).

 

However, what I find missing is an explanation of what ties all of these things together beyond the fact that they all exist to one degree or another in the KCA. To be sure, the authors choose six key topics to examine in closer detail throughout section 3: traditional livelihoods, roads, climate change, adventure tourism, wolf and snow leopard depredation, and vegetation change. But what is the key analytical connection that provides more than a descriptive and chorological account of what’s going on in the region? Is there more that can be said about what frames the paper than that which is provided on P2, lines 56-63?

 

For example, can the authors identify and prioritize three or four key contexts or conditions that powerfully bind and unite the study, and in so doing, strengthen the overall impact of the paper? Moreover, before the end of the Methods section on P5, line 184 as they get to section 3, it would be helpful for the authors to clearly state, outline, and justify the empirical, and analytical, framing for the paper beyond the list of topics to come (“The following sections discuss contemporary change within the KCA under the categories of traditional livelihoods, roads, climate change, adventure tourism, wolf and 185 snow leopard depredation, and vegetation.”)

 

Literature Review and Baseline/Comparative Studies

The authors propose that development and change in the KCA is unique and different to development patterns and outcomes experienced elsewhere in Nepal. From the abstract: “it is suggested that the KCA differs from other regions in that it still retains the option of conducting detailed feasibility, environmental, and impact assessments prior to the implementation of major change-associated projects, particularly the construction of roads. In turn, the KCA might avoid many of the environmental, social, and economic problems experienced elsewhere in Nepal, while enhancing its status, income-generating capacities, and sustainability as a global destination for adventure, nature, and cultural tourism.” Indeed, I appreciate the observation – and share their concern – that “much of the Great Himalayan Trail is rapidly becoming the Great Himalayan Road” (P8, line275).

 

However, beyond Rankin et al (2017), Sudmeier-Rieux et al. 2019, and some useful citations (#s 7-9 and 57-65) in the Intro and section 3.2 Roads, the authors do not make a very deep engagement with, or reference to, other studies that closely examine impacts of infrastructure development – especially roads – in other mountain regions, including numerous other conservation areas. This is especially important insofar much road expansion has taken place since these 2017 and 2019 studies were published. In order to strengthen the paper’s overall argument and boost the case for what makes the KCA so important and unique, I encourage the authors to engage and address, even briefly, some of these other studies. This could include, for example, previous analyses from Humla (see the work of Michelle Grocke (2018), Martin Saxer (2017, 2023), and/or Phurwa Dhondrub Gurung and Nyima Dorje Bhutia (2020), Mugu (see Tulasi Sigdel and Galen Murton (2019), Dolpo (see Phurwa Dhondrup Gurung 2021), Mustang (see Galen Murton 2017, 2019), Gorkha, including Nubri+Tsum (see the work of Sonam Lama (2015), Nadine Plachta (2019), Geoff Childs and/or Mason Brown (DATE), Rasuwa (see Galen Murton, Austin Lord, and Robert Beazley (2016), and Dolakha-Sindupalchok (see Nadine Plachta (2020), and Walung/Olangchungola (see Rupak Shrestha (2022). To be sure, existing research has covered a great deal of road-related development implications in socio-economic and ecological contexts and I encourage the authors to attend more closely to some of the baselines that are established by these other case studies in Nepal’s other conservation and mountain protected areas.

 

Analytical Attention

Some claims made in ‘The Setting’ section come across as overly simplistic and could be updated or sharpened with reference to other studies or literature on the social histories of the region. For example, while it’s true that there once was a presence of the Khampa Chushi Gangdruk resistance movement in the region, to say that they ‘have since moved on to India’ is not quite accurate when considering that many members of that rebel force are no longer even alive (whereas others are well into senior age by now and living in Kathmandu), as these events took place more than 50 years ago. Similarly, I think there could be more attention to the complexity of ethnicity in the region, rather than stating that previous Magar inhabitants have intermarried or simply been ‘replaced’ by current populations of Limbu and Rai. In other words, it would be helpful to have more nuanced ethnographic reading of the social history and its impact on the present cultural conditions in the region.

 

Observation and analysis of landscape and glacial change is made largely by drawing on time periods from the 1960s-2000s (1962-2000 LANDSAT ASTER imagery). However, considering the increasingly acute and extreme impacts of climate change, is it possible for the authors to include more recent imagery, up to 2020 or even 2022?

 

The authors pose some crucial, key questions in the Discussion on P17; however, in my view, it would be very helpful for these to be presented at the outset of the paper: “What, then, are the opportunities for the KCA to minimize the negative aspects of change while maximizing the positive? How could the KCA emerge from these transitions with the most promising, economically beneficial, and environmentally sound future possible?”

 

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper provides a comprehensive and updated summary of the many changes in Nepal that affect protected areas. It makes a balanced case of the issues and needs for local people and for the environment It provides a significant review of the literature. It also relies on the involvement of local people. It makes important conclusions for KCA.

There is some speculation about impacts in the results that need more support like the impact of new roads on forests.

The figure numbering and legends and abbreviations needs to be double checked to be matched with the test.

The paper and Nepal would have benefitted by more Nepali co authors.

Author Response

Plese see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper titled "The Changing Ecology of a High Himalayan Valley: The Case of the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area, Eastern Nepal" delves into the socio-economic and environmental transformations occurring in the Kanchenjunga Conservation Area (KCA) in eastern Nepal over the past two decades. The authors examine various factors such as road construction, climate change, adventure tourism, and impacts on wildlife, forest cover, and medicinal plants. They employ a range of research methodologies including field research, remote sensing analysis, oral histories, and literature reviews to assess these changes. The paper emphasizes the uniqueness of KCA in retaining the opportunity for detailed feasibility and environmental assessments before major projects like road construction, potentially averting environmental and socio-economic issues experienced elsewhere in Nepal.

My Comments:

1) How did you ensure the accuracy and reliability of the oral histories collected for your research?

2) Can you elaborate on the methodology used for remote sensing analysis in assessing the changes in wildlife and forest cover?

3) What specific indicators were used to measure the impact of climate change on the cryospheric conditions in the KCA?

4) How did you address potential biases in the literature reviews conducted for this study?

5) Could you explain the process of selecting the 12-member Management Council for the KCA and its representation from forest-user groups and mother groups?

6) What measures are in place to ensure effective coordination and communication among various stakeholders involved in managing the KCA?

7) Can you provide insights into the economic modeling used to assess the income-generating capacities of the KCA as a destination for tourism?

8) How do you plan to address the challenges related to waste management, especially considering the increasing tourist influx in the KCA?

9) What strategies do you propose for mitigating the potential negative impacts of road construction on wildlife habitats and migration routes?

10) How do you envision the long-term sustainability of the KCA in balancing conservation efforts with economic development, especially in the context of increasing population pressure and tourism demands?

Author Response

Please see attached.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Authors have made changes to the expectation of the reviewer. Authors have also clarified some of the reviewer's doubts. I accept the paper.