Scenario-Based Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem-Based Mitigation Strategies in Kazakhstan

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Two main questions were addressed in the research: 1) how to establish a regionally disaggregated methodology for assessing Kazakhstan’s national carbon balance (a gap since no unified framework existed, especially at the regional scale) to identify GHG emission hotspots and carbon sequestration capacities across administrative regions; 2) whether Kazakhstan can meet its international climate commitments—15–25% GHG emission reduction by 2030 (vs. 1990 levels) and carbon neutrality by 2060—through multisectoral mitigation strategies (energy, transport, agriculture, forestry), and what the regional differences in mitigation potential are. The topic is highly relevant to both academic and policy fields as it aligns with Sustainability’s core focus on sustainable development, climate change mitigation, and resource efficiency, directly responding to the UN 2030 Agenda and Kazakhstan’s national decarbonization goals. The manuscript addresses urgent policy needs: Kazakhstan is a major Central Asian emitter with heavy coal dependence, and its regional emission disparities (e.g., Pavlodar vs. Almaty) had not been systematically analyzed before, making the research policy-actionable.
(2) The research is original and fills several gaps of existing literature; for one thing, most previous studies on Kazakhstan’s GHG emissions (e.g., Istomin 2020) focused on national-level commitments or single sectors (e.g., energy), while this study disaggregates data across 17 administrative units, revealing spatial variations in emission sources (e.g., Pavlodar’s coal-dominated energy emissions vs. Karaganda’s pasture emissions). For another, official Kazakh GHG inventories previously excluded pasturelands as a source; this study quantifies pasture emissions using FAO methodologies, correcting underestimation in national data. Moreover, unlike studies focusing on isolated strategies (e.g., renewable energy alone), this research integrates four mitigation pathways (energy modernization, transport fuel shift, pasture optimization, forest restoration) and quantifies their combined effects, providing a holistic roadmap.
(3) Compared with published material, the study provides the first detailed dataset on regional emission-reduction capacities (e.g., East Kazakhstan’s 2,942.44 ktCO₂-eq forest sequestration vs. Pavlodar’s 58% energy emission reduction via BAT), which prior works (e.g., IEA 2022 Kazakhstan Energy Profile) lacked. The research simulates three practical scenarios (BAU, partial mitigation, optimized geoengineering) and demonstrates that only coordinated multisectoral action (not single-sector reforms) can enable all regions to meet 2030 targets—this is a key addition to studies advocating isolated technical fixes (e.g., carbon capture alone). The study highlights forestry as a low-cost, high-impact complement to technological measures (e.g., 53.7% increased sequestration via reforestation), filling gaps in literature that prioritize energy over natural climate solutions (e.g., PwC 2021 Renewable Energy Report for Kazakhstan).
(4) While the methodology (IPCC guidelines for emissions, FAO for agriculture, scenario modeling) is generally rigorous, three specific improvements are recommended:
 ①Enhance data accuracy for forest calculations: The study relies on indirect estimates (National Atlas maps) for regional forest species/age distribution (Section 2.5), as official disaggregated data are unavailable. To reduce uncertainty, the authors could validate estimates with remote sensing data (e.g., Landsat or Sentinel-2) for key regions (e.g., East Kazakhstan’s coniferous forests), conduct sensitivity analyses to test how variations in tree age/growth rates affect sequestration results.
②Expand transport sector scenarios: The current transport mitigation only considers converting to natural gas (8% or 50% fleet shift) but ignores other impactful strategies (e.g., electric vehicle adoption, public transport optimization, road infrastructure upgrades) highlighted in Sustainability studies (e.g., Gallo 2020 on sustainable mobility). Adding these would make the transport assessment more comprehensive.
③Localize agricultural emission factors: The study uses a Russian reference value (0.3 tCO₂-eq/ha) for pasture emissions (Section 4.2.6), which may not reflect Kazakhstan’s arid/semi-arid pasture conditions. The authors should cite Kazakh-specific studies (if available) or adjust the factor using local livestock density/soil data and clarify why the Russian factor is applicable (e.g., similar climate zones) to avoid methodological ambiguity.
(5) The contents of current conclusions seem to belong to the section of results and discussion, please remove them from this section. Moreover, the authors should make several conclusions summarized from results and discussion.
(6) The references are comprehensive and appropriate for the study’s scope. A suggestion is to add some recent studies published in 2024 and 2025 on Central Asian regional climate mitigation (if available) to strengthen connections with regional research trends, though the current list (up to 2025) is sufficiently timely.
(7) Figs. 3 and 6-8: These legends in these figures are so small and vigor that they cannot be clearly distinguished, please revise them all.
(8) The error bar (standard deviation) and significance analysis were missing for data in the tables and figures of this manuscript, please supplement them.

 

Author Response

Please see revision in the attached file. 

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript "Scenario-Based Evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Ecosystem-Based Mitigation Strategies in Kazakhstan" is a review of main sources of greenhouse gases produced in Kazakhstan with division by different regions of the country. In addition, the carbon consumption by forests is analyzed. As expected, the main source of emission is thermal energy production, which is followed by the contribution from cattle (pastures), agriculture and concluded by transport. Forests can currently consume only a modest share of overall emission, and enhancing of their effect is difficult and leads only to a moderate increase. The strategy consisting of reducing of the emission is more promising as it allows for hoping for almost 50% decrease in greenhouse gases emission. In general, the paper is of interest, though is too region-specific.

In addition, I feel the major flaw of the paper in neglecting the dynamics of needs in power/food production as well as transport with time. As far as I know, Kazakhstan is one of the few countries that may boast positive fertility rate ~3.0. Therefore, its population will grow for several decades. As a consequence, energetical demands will also increase, as well as food supply needs and transport needs. Could this increase negate the possible positive effects of optimized emission? 

Minor comments:

1. The equations 1 and 2 are the same. No need to give it twice.
2. If I understood correctly, only internal combustion engine transport is included. What about see, river transport as well as railroad contributions?
3. In Table 7, the header in both columns is identical. 
4. It is unclear how the contributions of agriculture and pastures were calculated in Table 13. It is supposed that data from Table 7 is somehow involved, but I did not get the exact procedure. 

Author Response

Please see revision in the attached file. 

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors of this manuscript performed a scenario-based evaluation of greenhouse gas emissions and ecosystem-based mitigation strategies in Kazakhstan. The topic of this study is relevant, and the results obtained by the authors are of interest. At the same time, the text of the manuscript has the following shortcomings:

1. The authors did not perform a detailed review of the scientific literature on the topic of the study, in particular, they did not identify gaps in the literature. It would be worth devoting at least one subsection in section 1 to this.
2. Some of the data provided in the text of the manuscript, for example, in lines 50-54, are not supported by references to sources of information.
3. Section 2 needs improvement. Calculations should not be performed in this section. They should be moved either to the appendices or to section 3.
4. From the material provided in lines 214-217, it is not entirely clear whether all of Kazakhstan or only some of its regions is considered.
5. The research methodology is described in section 2 not fully enough. First of all, this concerns the description of the methodology of those calculations, the results of which are given in the tables in section 4.
6. The authors paid insufficient attention to assessing the statistical significance of the results they obtained. In general, it would be worthwhile to apply statistical analysis methods more fully. This would perhaps make it possible to establish the presence of a statistically significant influence of factors on the volume of gas emissions.
7. In my opinion, the most interesting results are contained in the tables in section 4. These tables with their description should be moved to section 3.
8. In general, tables should not be placed in the sections “Discussion” and “Conclusions”.
9. In section 4, a more detailed discussion of the results obtained by the authors of this manuscript should be carried out. In particular, this concerns the scientific novelty of the results obtained and the reasons that determined them.
10. The results obtained should be described in such a way that they are interesting for scientists not only from Kazakhstan, but also from other countries. In particular, the Conclusions should justify the importance of these results for scientists from other countries.
11. It would also be appropriate to indicate directions for further research on this topic in the Conclusions.

12. The design of the manuscript needs minor improvement. In particular, check the correct placement of all tables and figures (all of them should be located immediately after their mention in the text). I also recommend performing a final grammar check.

Author Response

Please see revision in the attached file. 

Thank you very much!

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

After carefully reading the manuscript, all of the comments and suggestions have been responded properly. The revised version of the manuscript has been improved significantly and can be considered for acceptance and publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the careful reading of our manuscript and for acknowledging the improvements made in the revised version. We highly appreciate your positive assessment and recommendation for acceptance and publication.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised manuscript was improved according to the comments raised, and the satisfactory response was received. The manuscript is suitable for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2

We sincerely thank the reviewer for confirming that the revised manuscript has been improved in line with the comments raised and for considering it suitable for publication. We truly appreciate this positive feedback.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have done a lot of work to improve the text of their manuscript. Overall, I am satisfied with the way the authors have taken my comments into account. However, I still have a few comments, namely:

1. I have already noted in the previous review that it is not always clear whether the authors are considering the whole of Kazakhstan or only individual regions. If the whole country is considered, then this should be indicated in line 251, and only then data on the number of regions and the cities studied should be provided. Also, in this case, Table 2 should be better called “Characteristics of the regions of Kazakhstan”.
2. The authors should check whether the process of obtaining the numerical data presented in the tables in subsection 3.6 is described sufficiently fully. For example, this applies to the data on optimized emissions presented in Table 20.

3. Section 5 “Conclusions” contains a lot of numerical data. All these numbers should necessarily appear in the previous sections. Please check.

Author Response

See file attached

Author Response File: Author Response.docx