Planning for Implementation: Shifting the Focus of National Biodiversity Strategies to Local Narratives, Existing Institutional Settings and Social Capital

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors,

Please make additions to the manuscript. Specify some suggestions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for pointing to these remaining issues. All specific comments made by reviewer 1 have been addressed – more literature has been added to the call for mainstreaming in the introduction (fairly easy as all literature related to mainstreaming seems to find this). The sentence in the discussion was based on the empirical findings, which has been clarified.

Reviewer 2 Report

Ms. Ref. No.: sustainability-2354476

Title: Planning for Implementation: Shifting the Focus of National Biodiversity Policy from International Commitments to Local Narratives, Institutions and Social Capital

 

I found this study interesting. This manuscript looks at the example of Peru to analyse to what extent NBSAPs are capable of addressing context specific implementation challenges. The author use, preliminary work on conservation governance in Peru to build a context-specific analytical framework. The author analyse to what extent NBSAPs are reflecting national biodiversity narratives (A), address dominant causes of biodiversity loss (B), link targets to sector-specific institutions and processes (C) and to what extent the Peruvian National Commission for Biological Diversity (CONADIB) builds social capital for implementation (D). The manuscript has merit but it requires modifications and explanations before it is suitable for publication (see specific comments).

 

Specific comments

Title

I think that is long.

 

Abstract
I suggest the authors to rewrite better the abstract (background, aim, methods, major findings and conclusions).

 

The author need to add abbreviations?

 

Keywords

Replace two or more appropriate key words.

 

1. Introduction

This should point out the significance of the reasons for doing the work. The text is very long and difficult understandable from the readers.

 

2. Theoretical Framework

I think that is OK.

 

3. Methodological Approach

I think that is OK.

 

3. Results

This should point out the significance of the results in relation to the reasons for doing the work. The text is very long and difficult understandable from the readers.

 

4. Discussion

I am lost! Please only the results in relation to the reasons for doing the work.

 

6. Conclusion and Recommendations

Please rewrite clearly only the main conclusions and Recommendations for the future research.

References

I think that is OK.

 

Tables is OK.

See specific comments.

Author Response

Thank you for these comments! 

 The title has been shortened. The abstract has been adjusted and now follows the logic indicated by the reviewer covering aspects to background, aim, methods, major findings and conclusions. The abbreviations have been reduced – however the abbreviations to the terms “CBD” and “NBSAP” are kept, because they are known by the target community, are repeatedly used in the abstract and because they reflect established terms in the related scientific and political debates. Some keywords have been added.

Thanks for pointing to the lack of clarity again. I have revised and streamlined the introduction reflecting the same (or closely corresponding) four headers in all sections. The wording has been reviewed and simplified where possible. Also results and discussion has been edited.

The literature editing has been adjusted.

Reviewer 3 Report

The article is well built and thought out. The scope of the paper is interesting and concerns the poorly recognized and described in the literature of Peru.
The literature is selected correctly and includes the latest key publications from the subject literature.
The text of the manuscript is accompanied by tables that correlate with the text and underline key issues of the manuscript.
The research goal and research hypotheses were clearly specified and the research framework was well and factually described.
The paper is written in clear and very good language.
All chapters are well presented.
I would suggest adding graphs illustrating e.g. descrubed research framework.
The literature (bibliography) should be reformatted to meet the requirements of the journal.
The above-mentioned comments are minor and do not affect the substantive assessment of the paper.
The manuscript meets the requirements of the MDPI Sustainability Journal and is suitable here. After minor revision, I think the paper is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Thanks for these suggestions! 

The literature has been reformatted. A figure with the conceptual elements has been added.