Synergies and Trade-Offs between Biodiversity and Carbon in Ecological Compensation

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

It is a work of great interest that all academics dedicated to biological conservation, as well as policyholders, should have as a basis when planning and authorizing infrastructure projects. Although these policies already exist in various countries, this manuscript is important, since it involves, in addition to offsetting biodiversity, carbon offsetting, which is highly relevant to climate change issues.

It makes me very happy to review this type of work, where the structure, design and content are quite solid.

I congratulate the authors for this contribution.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

We thank you for the positive and constructive comments.

Reviewer 2 Report

The topic of review deals with important and actual problem facing our planet which is environmental degradation and ecological compensation.

After reviewing of the manuscript titled ‘’ Synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and carbon in ecological compensation’’ of authors Eshetu Yirdaw et al., I recommend to take into consideration the following comments:

Including information about the carbon offset in the introduction section which is lack to it.

Mention more instances in different paragraphs (such as Leakage: lines 194-200 and Additionality: lines 202-212 etc.) like the instance in line: 185-189, in order to more explanation of matter for readers.

 Commitment to the style of citation (numbers) for the journal, so, correct the citations in lines: 64, 189,228, 249, 251, 275, 278, 284, 287, 342, 344-345, 352, 358, 382, 423, 424.

 Mention the full names of abbreviations in lines: 264, 266 and 283.

In line 291: During the last ....

In line 359: CO_2.

In the text, you mentioned table 1 firstly (in line 376), so, should be located before figure 1 in the manuscript.

In the table no. 1, Arrange the citations هn ascending order of publication years and according to the style of journal (numbers).

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The following are our responses to your comments.

1. In the introduction section, we described the concept of ‘ecological compensation’ which forms the framework or the bigger picture of the points in the article. The carbon and biodiversity offsets are discussed in detail in sections 2.1 and 2.2. Hence, we think that it is not necessary to discuss carbon offsets in the introduction part – it may become repetitive. However, we have added a phrase ‘carbon emission reduction goals’ and a new reference in line 65.
2. We have added practical examples for leakage on lines 200-203 and for additionality on lines 215-220.
3. The citation style has all been corrected to be in line with the style of the Sustainability journal (in lines 63, 189, 236, 256, 258, 280, 283, 289, 292, 345, 347, 354, 360, 383, 422, 423).
4. As suggested the full names of the abbreviations were stated in lines 269-270, 272-273 and 287.
5. Line 294: the spelling error is corrected. The missing letter “t” is added, and it now reads: During the last decade…
6. Line 358: It is now written as: CO₂
7. As suggested, the order of Table 1 and Figure 1 is reversed - Table 1 comes first and Figure 1 comes later (Pages 9-10).
8. In Table 1, the citations are now arranged from the newest to the oldest (Page 9).

We thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript “Synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and carbon in ecological compensation” is a review that aims to summarize current state of knowledge on ecological compensation. The manuscript is rich in information and documentation, and could become a reference review in the field. However, this work also suffers some major drawbacks which are presented below.  

 

The whole manuscript is segmented in small parts with no apparent connection. Therefore, the general impression is like reading some encyclopedia entries. The work centers more on definitions, and fails to connect more with the practical relevance of the aspects reported.

 

The introduction shall be built around making the case of the importance of the topic (with clear justification of conducting this review). There should be clearer the target categories of readers – whom it may concern this review – It could be relevant for: policy makers, local authorities, industry actors, agriculture operators and farmers etc… and in what ways. Think of the target audience and connect the main message conveyed with them – what do you want them to know about ecological compensation and why they must to care about it. Considering the length of the review, there should be one aim and at least three objectives given at the end of the introduction.

 

There should be a logical flow in the information presented, with emphasis on critical insights valuable for the target audience.  

 

There is a lack of original recommendations and solutions based on the documentation conducted by the authors. Please consider elaborating some for your target audience. Also, some solutions to clarify the issues related to biodiversity-ecosystem services exist, others shall be proposed. E.g. funding agencies shall mobilize more funds in financing research projects to untangle/clarify these aspects and help defining action-based policies with beneficial outcomes (consider the EU-funded research projects that helped to provide the scientific basis for so many policies including shaping the CAP), the way policies are implemented, improvements in procedures across various sectors that impact the environment, establishing monitoring programs, awareness appraisal etc..

 

I found no mention in your manuscript of currently highly debated (at European level) of Nature Restoration Law. Other hot topics of these days were not addressed either, why?

 

The Conclusions have a structure which do not mirror the objectives given at the end of the introduction (because there were no structured objectives given as steps proposed for reaching an aim). Therefore, it is not clear whether the authors reached their objectives with this review. I do not find fit to put citations in the conclusions. Conclusions are usually original contribution of the authors – this review was conducted to have some new conclusions on this subject.

 

References – 2 papers from 2022, 2 sources from 2021 – these are the latest sources consulted? This review shall connect better with the current body of literature of 2023 by citing more reputable sources of recent years (the last 3 years).

 

Best regards.

some syntax mistakes

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The following are our responses to your comments.

1. We have added practical examples for leakage on lines 200-203 and for additionality on lines 215-220. We are of the opinion that the different sections in the manuscript are connected in explaining role/characteristics of biodiversity and carbon offsets in the context of ecological compensation.
2. Based on the suggestion, we have now divided the recommendations to target groups (researchers, practitioners, decision makers) in lines 441-475. In addition, we have modified the objectives part to one aim and three objectives in lines 88-94. We have also modified the objectives in the abstract in lines 11 to 14.

3. We are of the pinion that there is a logical flow of the sections and points mentioned in the article. In the introduction, we start we start with the overall picture of ecological compensation, followed by biodiversity offsets, carbon offsets, synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and carbon offsets, ecological compensation of ecosystem functions and conclusion. The sections (leakage, additionality, longevity, uncertainty, etc.) under biodiversity and carbon offsets are similar and connected to each other. Furthermore, we have now identified and divided the recommendations according to target audience (Pages 441-475).
4. In our opinion, elaborating on the relationship (synergies and trade-offs) and characteristics (including the factors affecting them) of biodiversity and carbon offsets in the context of ecological compensation is novel and timely. Furthermore, discussing the potential of using biodiversity and/or carbon as a proxy for other ecosystem functions is original idea. Although all of them may not be original, the collection of relevant recommendations in lines 471-475 in relation to biodiversity and carbon offsets is useful and one of the objectives of a review. As mentioned above, the recommendations are now divided according to target groups.
5. The Nature Restoration Law is still being debated and we do not know the final outcome, and hence, we do not want to comment on it. In addition, although restoration is very much related to ecological compensations, it is not the same.
6. We have removed the citations from the conclusion part (lines 447-448, 486-487).
7. We have quoted the most relevant articles to the particular point of discussion. In cases, where we have several articles to choose from, we have chosen the most recent. From the 61 in the reference list only 6 references are published earlier than 2010 the rest of the articles were published after 2010.

We thank you for your comments.

Reviewer 4 Report

I do not recommend the manuscript 'Synergies and trade-offs between biodiversity and carbon in ecological compensation' for publication in Sustainability.

 Justification of my statement

 

The Authors have addressed a 'trendy' topic such as carbon sequestration and biodiversity, but their work does not contribute innovative elements. The manuscript is a compilation of information contained in widely available sources.

In addition, I have a few comments of an editorial nature.

1) Text formatting needs to be standardised.

Alignment to right and left margins on pages: 1-2, 10-16

2) References: Incomplete citation of item no. [1]. I have marked the addendum in green.

Reid, J.; Bruner, A.; Chow, J.; Malky, A.; Rubio, J.C.; Vallejos, C. Ecological Compensation to Address Environmental Externalities: Lessons from South American Case Studies. Journal of Sustainable Forestry 2015, 34, 605–622. DOI: 10.1080/10549811.2015.1046081

3) Please improve the way References are written to match the MDPI style. Please consider the following example as a template:

Wacinkiewicz, D.; Słotwiński, S. The Sta tutory Model of Energy Performance Contracting as a Means of Improving Energy Efficiency in Public Sector Units as Seen in the Example of Polish Legal Policies. Energies 2023, 16, 5060. https://doi.org/10.3390/en16135060

4) Empty interlines between individual bibliographic items should be eliminated.

5) Why is part of the following bibliographic reference [30] in upper case?

Brown, S.; Masera, O.; Ambia, V.; Braatz, B.; Kanninen, M.; Krug, T.; Martino, D.; Oballa, P.; Tipper, R.; P Wong, J.L.; et al. IPCC Good Practice Guidance for LULUCF 4 SUPPLEMENTARY METHODS AND GOOD PRACTICE GUIDANCE ARISING FROM THE KYOTO PROTOCOL AUTHORS AND REVIEW EDITORS Sections 4.1-4.2 Coordinating Lead Authors Lead Authors Contributing Authors Review Editors Section 4.3 Coordinating Lead Authors Lead Authors Contributing Authors; 2003;

 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

The following are our responses to your comments.

1. The right and left margins are now aligned throughout the document.
2. The citation of the article by Reid et al. was corrected as suggested (Pages  516-518).
3. We have used the Mendeley software to write the reference list according to the Sustainability journal style. In addition, we have now checked the references one by one.
4. We have removed the empty lines between paragraphs. However, there are no empty lines between the references (bibliographic items).
5. The uppercase letters in the citation of Brown et al. 2003 have been changed to lowercase letters (Pages 595-596).

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Please add citations for the both of the practical examples for leakage on lines 200-203 and for additionality on lines 215-220.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The practical examples on leakage and additionality were articulated by us (the authors). We have added one reference as cf. Moilanen and Kotiaho (2018) in lines 202 and 219. The article by Moilanen and Kotiaho (2018) defines and describes leakage and additionality very well in relation to biodiversity offsets. We have put the word cf. (which means compare to) in front of Moilanen and Kotiaho (2018) so that the reader can compare the practical example given by us to the description given by the reference. Although the article by Moilanen and Kotiaho (2018) is written in relation to biodiversity offsets the arguments are valid for carbon offsets as well. The article by Moilanen and Kotiaho (2018) is added in in the reference list in lines 565-566.

Thank you for your comments.

Authors

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I have seen the manuscript, and the main issues were resolved.

Best regards.

spelling mistakes. e.g. should is written shuld;

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

The spelling error is corrected on line 449 (Shuld is corrected should). Moreover, we have checked the whole manuscript for spelling errors.

Thank you for your comments.

Authors

Reviewer 4 Report

I see a significant difference between the previous version of the manuscript and the current one, in particular, there have been significant changes in specifying the purpose of this work. In addition, conclusions and references have been improved. I see no need for further corrections.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your comments.

Authors