Sustainable Development in Sparsely Populated Territories: Case of the Russian Arctic and Far East
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Please see the attachment.
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an informative and well-written paper that deals with an important and frequently overlooked topic.
I am happy to recommend the acceptance of this paper for publication. At the same time, I do have some suggestions that should be considered in preparing a revised version for publication.
Sparsely populated territories (SPTs) appears to be a generic category containing a variety of specific cases. BUT the variability of cases is striking even within the Russian Federation much less between the Russian Federation and other countries. What is striking about SPTs in Russia is the occurrence of significant depopulation since the 1990s, the extent of the Indigenous population, and the presence of substantial natural capital. BUT even in Russia, there is great variation in these terms. For example, depopulation has been much more severe in Chukotka than in Yamal. The proportion of Indigenous people in the remaining population in much higher in Chukotka than in Sakha. The massive gas reserves of northwestern Siberia dwarf the natural capital of other parts of the Russian Arctic and Far East. I think you need to recognize these variations and their implications for sustainable development in a revised version of the paper. You say, "Sustainable development for SPTs requires rethinking what development is" (pg. 9). This is a good point. But where to start. You refer to some ideas from the Arctic Social Indicators project. One idea would be to take a more systematic look at the ASI project as a source of ideas to guide this rethinking. There is a passing reference to ecosystem services. But this concept could be developed more systematically in thinking about the Russian Arctic and Far East, especially in cases where there are apt to be tradeoffs between the maintenance of ecosystem services and the exploitation of natural resources. On pp. 2-3 you refer to a structure for the paper covering 6 sections. BUT the rest of the paper does not follow this structure. This needs to be fixed.Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear colleagues,
The article is of a certain research value and scientific novelty. Yet I would like to draw your attention to some points:
Line 17-18 As a result, there is no scientific technique that can be used to monitor the development of sparsely populated territories and inform policy choices that account for local specificity." - There is some misunderstanding here in this line (perhaps, instead of "policy choices" there should be "policy makers" or whatever else). Line 18-20 "This article offers a conceptual model for linking sustainability to the unique characteristics of the sparsely populated regions of the Arctic and Far East. " - "… suggests a conceptual model …" Line 32-33 "…whether the past trajectory has been sustainable and to inform future policy choices…" - The same as in #1 Line 59 "We further deployed the Adjusted Net Savings Index (ANSI) as a comprehensive indicator …" can better look as "We further employed the Adjusted Net Savings Index (ANSI) as a comprehensive indicator …" Line 264 "During the Soviet period, spatial policy was aimed at achieving a more even distribution …" will be better be put as "During the Soviet period (1917 - 1991), spatial policy was aimed at achieving a more even distribution …"In the introduction we face a mix of grammatical tense plans, the authors switching from the Past tense to the Present one:
In this article, we focus on sustainable development (51)
Our goal is to conceptualize (52)
We also empirically analyze (54)
We found population density to be positively correlated (55)
We further deployed the Adjusted Net Savings Index (ANSI) (59)
It is highly recommended the text in this chapter stick to one plan (usually it is the Present tense).
The article as it is clearly looks as translated from the Russian original focused on Russian-speaking readers, which makes it rather uneasy for the English-speaking reader to go through the text to comprehend it in full. It is advised to give the article a thorough stylistic editing.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I agree with the text revision and recommend for publication
Author Response
here I put the answer to the Academic Editor
