Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

thank you for this paper. I find it as valuable and useful, especially the tool that you developed. I think that such evidence-based tools can help decision making and also researchers in their work. as you already state in the paper.

I would give few suggestions for improving the paper.

To me the title is a bit misleading. Actually, I expected to read more on actual content, on drivers of woodland creation for different owners, and the paper is more on the process and tool development. This is also important and worth publishing, thus make it clear from the title and abstract that is more about the tool and its purpose. Unless you want to expand results section with some summaries of results from each five issues you visualize in the tool. But then also owners and drivers should be explained/defined and how why you selected these etc. (which might be paper in itself, especially if you have more qualitative analysis of the extracted sources).

The second part of the title is more to the point, so I would rather start from there "Navigating the Evidence for Decision-Making" and then add “on the example of woodland creation topic in UK” or something like that. But putting tool development for evidence-based decision making and systemic search at the centre.

I would change the order of the overall objectives as you do not address the first one in very detail. Maybe just referring to database and brief example, but the reader would need to actually use the tool if they want more insights. There are no extensive interpretation of results in the paper.

Discussion is quite short, and conclusion is missing. Maybe you join these two and expand, by describing some limitations, long term use of the tool, potential for updates or expanding the topic/search (or rather it needs to stay in the same boundaries) etc.

Otherwise paper is very interesting and I am happy that I could also check the dashboard.

Best regards!

Author Response

Please see attached pdf of all reviewer comments and our responses.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Review Report

This comprehensive article addresses the pressing need to understand the multifaceted factors influencing landowners' and managers' willingness and ability to establish new woodlands, a critical objective in the face of climate and biodiversity crises. The methodology employed in this study is robust, encompassing a systematic map of evidence derived from 226 studies sourced from academic journals, grey literature, and direct engagements with relevant stakeholders. Through an exhaustive screening process, the report refines this evidence base, and the subsequent systematic evidence map categorizes the content of each study against a comprehensive list of actors, drivers, barriers, and outcomes. The innovative use of a freely-accessible, interactive online dashboard provides a user-friendly tool for stakeholders to navigate and understand the distribution of evidence. This approach not only enhances accessibility but also aids in identifying trends and gaps in the existing body of knowledge.

The implications drawn from the evidence map are far-reaching, providing valuable information for policymakers, landowners, and conservation organizations to tailor interventions and strategies effectively. By combining a rigorous methodology, an interactive dashboard, and insightful findings, this article not only contributes to the current understanding of woodland creation but also serves as a pivotal resource for future research and practical initiatives in environmental conservation.

While the general content of this article is acceptable, there is a requirement for the inclusion of the following minor changes.

1.     Enhance the introduction by incorporating factual information and integrating flow charts to improve the overall presentation. Use data-driven content and visual aids to strengthen the introduction and provide a more engaging and informative experience for the readers.

2.     Kindly review and edit the article for any grammatical, spelling, or typographical errors. Your attention to detail in proofreading will help ensure the accuracy and clarity of the content.

3.     Verify all references to ensure that they adhere consistently to the designated referencing style. Confirm that each citation follows the prescribed format and guidelines, addressing any inconsistencies or deviations. This cross-check is essential to maintain uniformity and accuracy in the citation style throughout the document.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

needs proof reading

Author Response

Please see attached pdf with our responses to all reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I acknowledge the dedication of the authors and value their efforts I believe your study is highly relevant to one of the important goals of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and net zero targets. It is my hope that the report I have prepared will serve as a helpful guide for your ongoing study. Since the article you have prepared is good enough, I would like to suggest some additions rather than just a few corrections.

1-) In order to strengthen the theoretical background of the introduction of the study, the importance of SDG 15 and 13 targets and the arrangements that the United Kingdom has made to achieve these targets should be mentioned.

2-) Policy implications are generally limited in the article. For this reason, I recommend that policy recommendations should be presented either under a separate heading or more broadly in the discussion section. It is of great importance to discuss and explore important questions such as the lessons that can be learned from the findings of the study, the recommendations that can be given to other countries, the realism and adequacy of the targets set in achieving SDG 15 and 13.

The presentation and flow of the paper would be enhanced by implementing the changes I have recommended. I therefore recommend minor revisions to the article.

Author Response

Please see attached pdf with our responses to all reviewers' comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf