Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript sustainability-1139866, entitled “Potential analysis of Mediterranean forestry for offsetting GHG emissions at regional level” by Lorenzo-Sáez et al. deals about an interesting subject regarding the economical valorisation of wildfires forest protection under the Mediterranean environment based on carbon credits system. This research wants to assess a part of the important contribution to reduce atmospheric CO2 by forestation related to the stand plant protection.

Taking into consideration the topic investigated and the importance of this kind of study in order to promote forest protection as a tool to mitigate climate change, I believe that the manuscript is of potential interest for readers of Sustainability and fall within its scope.

In general, the research is well performed and follows rigorous logic and a simple and clear analytical procedure. Results are clear and discussion, although not very thorough, it is clear to follow and understand. The conclusions are based on the results and give a satisfactory resume of the results achieved from the research. Keywords are appropriate.

My specific comments, which I hope will help the authors to improve the manuscript, are reported in the attached files.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors

An interesting study and I thank you for your contribution to this field of research. Overall there are some relatively minor issues to address, such as being clear about 'local' and 'regional' inferences, but the logic flows well. I have made some suggested edits and comments on the attached Word version of the paper, in track changes for you to consider - apologies that when converting from pdf to Word the formatting changed, but you can still follow my suggestions. I appreciate that English is not your first language, so I have made some suggested alternative phrasing to improve understanding.

Comments for author File: Comments.docx

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Reviewer

Thank you for giving me a chance to make some comments on the paper “Potential analysis of Mediterranean forestry for offsetting GHG emissions at regional level”. The good side of the paper is that the authors introduced a quite new method/calculation that quantifies and or takes into account the role of forests associated with forest carbon, which could potentially contribute to the literature and practices in sustainable forest management potentially used in many parts across the world. However, the authors are highly suggested to consider improving some parts of the paper to strengthen it as mentioned below.

1. The authors consider re-naming/improving the title of the paper, for example, “Potential analysis of Mediterranean forestry for offsetting GHG emissions at regional level: Evidence from Valencia, Spain”

 

2. The paper could be much stronger if authors provide a more literature review on the progress in forest carbon credit associated with climate change mitigation programs (e.g., REDD+), the linkage of forest carbon and rural development, and particularly focusing on the methodology/methods used to quantify the forest carbon. As such, some following references may be appropriate sources that author might consider:

 

Tong, X.; Brandt, M.; Yue, Y.; Ciais, P.; Rudbeck Jepsen, M.; Penuelas, J.; Wigneron, J.P.; Xiao, X.; Song, X.P.; Horion, S.; et al. Forest management in southern China generates short term extensive carbon sequestration. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 1–10, doi:10.1038/s41467-019-13798-8.

Liu, G.; Liu, Q.; Song, M.; Chen, J.; Zhang, C.; Meng, X.; Zhao, J.; Lu, H. Costs and carbon sequestration assessment for REDD+ in Indonesia. Forests 2020, 11, doi:10.3390/F11070770.

Van Khuc, Q.; Le, T.A.T.; Nguyen, T.H.; Nong, D.; Tran, B.Q.; Meyfroidt, P.; Tran, T.; Duong, P.B.; Nguyen, T.T.; Tran, T.; et al. Forest cover change, households’ livelihoods, trade-offs, and constraints associated with plantation forests in poor upland-rural landscapes: Evidence from north central Vietnam. Forests 2020, 11, doi:10.3390/F11050548.

Lin, D.; Lin, Y. Stakeholders of voluntary forest carbon offset projects in China: An empirical analysis. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 2015, doi:10.1155/2015/518698.

Köhl, M.; Neupane, P.R.; Mundhenk, P. REDD+ measurement, reporting and verification – A cost trap? Implications for financing REDD+MRV costs by result-based payments. Ecol. Econ. 2020, 168, 106513, doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.106513.

 

 

3. Although the method part is somewhat clear and sufficient, it would be more useful if authors provide a diagram showing the methods associated with steps, which would help strengthen this part.
4. Authors use a 10-year period and include some explanations, but authors are highly suggested to provide a more explanation on the rationale to clarify this choice.
5. A more description of the study region should be provided, which could help the readers know more about how forest biomass is influenced by human activities or any others. Information/data on the land ownership could also useful to understand the degree to which forest is managed (by whom), which in turn can help learn how easy/difficult the method could be applied?
6. To what extent does this method apply to other regions? How do we know the validity of the method introduced and what conditions required to perform the method?
7. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the model, so need more discussions on this point. How different this model is from the existing one if possible?
8. The discussion part is weak. The method could be potentially contributing to many climate change mitigation programs like REDD+, yet very little or no in-depth discussion on this room has been presented. In this sense, the authors are highly suggested to provide a more discussion on the merits of the method, how the method is used at a larger scale (e.g., national, global scale...), what aspects need to consider when applying the method in practices, and so on.
9. A more description of the limitation part is highly suggested to be presented in the next version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Thanks, authors for appropriately addressing all of my comments and/or suggestions. I suggest that the paper should be accepted for publication.

 

 

 

Author Response

Thank you for your suggestions that we consider have improved the quality of the article.