Linking Biodiversity and Human Wellbeing in Systematic Conservation Assessments of Working Landscapes

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

sustainability-2399282 titled “Using systematic planning to link biodiversity conservation and human health outcomes within regional food systems: a stakeholder-driven approach”

My comments on the manuscript are as follow:

1.     I have gone through the manuscript thoroughly, the paper is indeed a very novel approach and may be of interest to a wider community and therefore worth reporting. The authors have used a combination of human health, ecosystem services and community wellbeing during/for land use planning to address environmental impacts. Personally, I am very pleased to see approaches like these for addressing our core and shared challenges.

2.     I don't see any bigger issues, as the overall layout is very clear and conveys a clear message to the readers. The introduction section is enough with a good number of citations, further all sections and sub-sections are appropriately/logically discussed and conveys a clear message. However, few of the minor comments before the MS is accepted for publication that are as under:

a.     The title is not clear, rather lengthy and for specialised/restricted group and it cannot convey a clear message as the aim of the study should. I would suggest modifying it in a way that it has a broader domain and wider audience while still having “biodiversity conservation and human wellbeing” as the central/core.

b.     Is there any specific reason for choosing Sacramento region of northern California for this modelling, is this a random selection or for some specific reasons a brief description may be added in relevant M&M section for this.

c.     Similarly, there are so many platforms available, why the authors have used Marxan planning/modelling only? What are the advantages here or disadvantages in others. This will be very helpful for future end users and at the same time will highlight/disseminate the findings widely.

d.     This is extremely important and I will be specifically interested to know, as the work undertaken was heavily predicated or relied on modelling plus engagements/ consultations with the natural resource management community and regional partners. How, predictions/forecast here were translated to real world scenarios to help prioritize and guide the focus (i.e. on ground at Sacramento). Or it was difficult to infer/relate the results obtained through modelling with real world/on ground status/scenarios. This on one hand will facilitate/help out end user selection and in future certain other/additional criteria may be added  to greatly fit the model for wider acceptability and wide use.

a.     L441-444: very little evidence is available for “This led to the discovery of areas of common concern and understanding that many did not know existed. We believe that participants benefited from the opportunity to assess their areas of concern from very different view points” rather it is an opinion. Such statements may be deleted for rephrased throughout the MS.

b.     Use of bullet points and numbering is easily avoidable in the MS e.g. L141-149 and L164-185. Further, it looks a bit odd, these may me given as paragraphs.

c.     Unless it is important delete “comma” before and e.g. line 32.

d.     L32: they (used for food systems) may be replaced/rephrased or simply merge it with the preceding phrase.

e.     L89: “Another cause” may be rephrased as another reason or additional reason/s etc.

f.      Legend/caption of Table 1, require additional details to make it self explanatory.

g.     Similarly legend of Figures 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 have very little details. Since the entire focus is on these figures additional details will be handy to readers. Also in the resolution here is not clear enough for comparison or validation of the results. High resolution images MUST be added in the revised version.

h.     All abbreviations needs to be described in full at their first place of mention throughout the MS.

i.      Similarity index, formatting and references styles may be double checked and may be consistently followed as per the journal guidelines.

Decision:

While the study is within the scope of the journal, and information may be handy and of wider interest. The MS may be accepted after minor revisions.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

fine in the current form, but another round of stringent review will make the MS even further clear and worthwhile. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article „Using systematic planning to link biodiversity conservation and human health outcomes within regional food systems: a stakeholder-driven approach“ it has a certain scientific value. However, some improvement is needed. In the following paragraphs I present a few observations that should be taken into account in the revised version of manuscript.

Section “Abstract”:
- at the end of the abstract there is no clearer assessment of the global impact conclusion

- The abstract should be structured similarly to a scientific paper (intro, methods, results, conclusion and etc.). Rework it.

Section “Introduction”:

- research hypotheses are missing at the end of the introduction. It is necessary to set hypotheses as it is standard in scientific work. Hypotheses need to be verified or refuted in conclusions.

- at the end of the introduction, it is necessary to define more clearly the objectives of this research and its need in an international context. Specifically, who will benefit from it.

Section “Methods”:

- recommend complementing the statistical analysis of research data in the research. The statistical analysis will further enhance the research results. Statistical analysis should be part of every scientific work.
- it is necessary to add what has been compared in more detail so that the methodology can be applied purely in the future
- to characterize what hypothesis was verified by what statistical method

Section „results“:

- It is necessary to indicate the mutual influence of the assessed aspects and also indicate others that affect them. It is an essential moment of work, so take care of it and process it in detail.

- The result part is only descriptive. Rather, focus on the implications of the findings and confront them with other work in the field. Also add the impacts on real applications in practice.

- The result part is very superficial and processed at a weak scientific level. This part needs to be rapidly revised and strengthened. Results should be the dominant part of any research.

Section “conclusion”:

- Conclusion is very brief. Also, the conclusion must contain specific numerical values and confirmation or refutation of hypotheses.
-the conclusion is to be conceived both locally and globally
General comments:

- It is necessary to specify precisely which countries fall within the scope of the research impacts. Because it is a case study rather than a global reach.

- The part focused on the interpretation of the results is very superficial. It is necessary to massively revise and supplement it.
- the discussion needs to be completed to have a global reach

- In the discussion I recommend to discuss with already published articles in "this journal" and etc. journals, especially with those dealing with similar issues. For example, these and more: DOI: 10.1007/s13412-015-0349-2; DOI: 10.1088/1757-899X/603/2/022022; https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-3738-4_1 and etc.

- Analyze in more detail in parallel your work with international research.

- Conclusions should be more exact and straightforward, also based on numerical quantities.

I suggest major revision. After removing the shortcomings, I would like to re-examine the manuscript and reconsider my position.

Minor errors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

satisfied

minor