Property Rights for Forest Carbon: A Conceptual Perspective

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 4)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Climate change has really become an extremely significant global issue since the last quarter of the 20th century, was increasingly paid much more attentions by the scientists and scholars in the world. Global climate change is closely related to the carbon cycle in the ecosystem. Global warming and rising temperatures are one of the direct consequences of increasing carbon dioxide concentrations in ecosystems. How to offer guidance to both national and international legislators on how to effectively integrate carbon rights into their legal frameworks in order to ensure clarity, security, and equitable access to these rights for all stakeholders is very important scientific question. This study try to seek to address potential obstacles to the recognition and enforcement of carbon rights, contributing to the development of robust and sustainable carbon management policies, therefore it is of importance and significance.

 

In the future research, if the empirical research and case study can be well combined with the actual situation of more countries, especially European countries, it will be expected by much more scholars.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

it is good！

Author Response

Reviewer 1

Comments:

 

In the future research, if the empirical research and case study can be well combined with the actual situation of more countries, especially European countries, it will be expected by much more scholars.

 

 

Response: We appreciate the reviewer's insightful comment regarding the expansion of our research to include a wider range of countries, particularly those in Europe. We believe that such an expansion would enrich the generalizability and impact of our findings. Thank you for this valuable feedback and for your positive assessment of our work.

 

 

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript has been revised and implemented, now it seems suitable for publication.

But there remain, in my opinion, some questions regarding the presentation of the results reported in Fig.s 1 and 2 that should be reviewed before publishing the manuscript.

 Fig.1: some doubts remain on how to go from a verbal to a numerical judgment (vertical axis 0-100), in particular how to reach the precision of 1 unit. For example: what does 42 mean for Alienation? It is possible to move from a qualitative judgment to a quantitative scale, using a fuzzy approach, but this is another story.

 Fig.2: the intermediate values ​​0.5 are still present. They should be removed because they do not make sense since the EFLD scores are only 4 without intermediate values. For example, consider: 0 “No provision” and 1 “Includes a general provision and is insufficient”, 0.5 should mean partially “No provision” and partially “Includes a general provision and is insufficient” this is not possible; the same thing goes for the other scores.

I recommend to publish the paper with the request modifications and rearrangement of Figures 1,2.

Author Response

Reviewer 2

 

Comments: Fig.1: some doubts remain on how to go from a verbal to a numerical judgment (vertical axis 0-100), in particular how to reach the precision of 1 unit. For example: what does 42 mean for Alienation? It is possible to move from a qualitative judgment to a quantitative scale, using a fuzzy approach, but this is another story.

 

Response: The values on the Fig 1 were intended to represent percentages. We apologize for the confusion caused by our failure to clearly label and indicate this. We appreciate the referee's vigilance in pointing out this oversight. The necessary correction has been made to the Fig 1.

Comments: Fig.2: the intermediate values ​​0.5 are still present. They should be removed because they do not make sense since the EFLD scores are only 4 without intermediate values. For example, consider: 0 “No provision” and 1 “Includes a general provision and is insufficient”, 0.5 should mean partially “No provision” and partially “Includes a general provision and is insufficient” this is not possible; the same thing goes for the other scores.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear editor,

This letter consists of my review on the manuscript sustainability-3365974 titled "Property Rights on Forest Carbon: A Conceptual Perspective". This paper focuses on forest carbon rights, analyzes its status in Turkish Forest Law with the theory of rights bundle, and highlights the importance of clarifying the definition and regulations of carbon rights.This paper is well-written, has rigorous logic, clear structure, detailed results and strong innovation. Therefore, MINOR REVISIONS could be done before this manuscript be accepted. Here are a few tips to further improve the paper.

1. It is recommended that the introduction be divided into 2-3 paragraphs.

2. Line 82, “...criteria derived from (Table 1).” The expression is not clear, it is recommended to give a general description of Table 1, and change it to "...criteria derived from...(Table 1)".

3. Line 88, “The following criteria was used to...” refers to table 2?

4. Figures 1 and 2 need to be standardized and beautified.

5. What is the significance of the existence of Table 5? Table 5 is not analyzed and described. Please add this part.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Comment: 1. It is recommended that the introduction be divided into 2-3 paragraphs.

Response: Introduction has been divided into 2-3 paragraphs.

Comment: 2. Line 82, “...criteria derived from (Table 1).” The expression is not clear, it is recommended to give a general description of Table 1, and change it to "...criteria derived from...(Table 1)".

Response: We have revised the text in the lines 88-90 as “The analysis of carbon rights or carbon ownership in forests in Türkiye is based on the Bundles of Right Theory and criteria derived from the rights outlined in Table 1, which provides definitions of access, extraction, management, exclusion, and alienation rights.”

Comment: 3. Line 88, “The following criteria was used to...” refers to table 2?

Response: We have revised the text in the lines 101-103 as “Additionally, the security of rights associated with different ownership types (Table 2) has been examined. The criteria outlined below were used to evaluate ownership security, and each right was assessed individually based on these criteria.”

 

Comment: 4. Figures 1 and 2 need to be standardized and beautified.

Response: Other reviewers had also similar suggestions about Fig 1 and Fig 2. The necessary corrections have been made in the graphics

Comment: 5. What is the significance of the existence of Table 5? Table 5 is not analyzed and described. Please add this part.

Response: We have revised the text in the lines 473-481 as “Table 5 provides a concise overview of the rights and provisions within Turkish Forest Legislation, illustrating how constitutional and legal regulations influence forest resource management and utilization. Key findings include; Multi-layered Structure: Rights are regulated at both constitutional and legal levels, ensuring comprehensive principles and detailed implementation rules. Complexity: Numerous legal articles govern these rights, potentially complicating understanding and application. Manage-ment-Oriented Approach: The legislation prioritizes sustainable management, balancing economic, social, and ecological benefits. While not exhaustive, Table 5 offers a foun-dational overview of key legislative principles.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is interesting to discuss the concept of carbon right. The manuscript can be referenced by other researchers from the world. Overall, it is well organized and written. In the section of introduction, the authors should add the background of the use of bundle of rights theory. Some flaws of the format should be corrected carefully.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

Comments:

It is interesting to discuss the concept of carbon right. The manuscript can be referenced by other researchers from the world. Overall, it is well organized and written. In the section of introduction, the authors should add the background of the use of bundle of rights theory.

Response: We have revised the text in the lines 74-80 as “a foundational concept in property rights analysis, provides a structured framework for understanding the complexities of ownership and use of resources. Introduced by Schlager and Ostrom, the theory categorizes rights into "access," "extraction," "management," "exclusion," and "alienation." These rights define the scope and security of ownership and are particularly relevant to forest management and carbon rights. Integrating this theory into the study of carbon rights helps clarify the intricate relationship between forest ownership and the regulation of carbon as a resource.”

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

see attached file

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Many sentences need to be revised as they cause confusion in understanding the text.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors

I recommend following corrections and changes in order to improve the manuscript

First: Abstract should be changed. Abstract is not an Introduction of the manuscript. It must contain the most important aspects of the research, the methodology followed and main conclussions. 

Introduction: 

Authors said that "Since 1800, climate change has been a significant scientific issue". Authors should included references. 

In general, Introduction must be improved with a wide description of the problem and previous research articles about the carbon emissions, the most important "carbon rights", "carbon sinks" or CO2 reduction mechanisms. 

The article must be re-structured. Resutls are really a study of the state of the art. 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

Your paper focuses on important issue.

It has great value for public ownership of forests.

However, limitations are serious in text parts that focus on private ownership of forests.

Therefore, I suggest that you delete text parts which tell us something about private ownership.

I mean that you can consider private ownership only in Discussion section.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study addresses some general legal issues/questions: how carbon rights are structured and how it relates to the broader legal framework in a country. The central content of the study proceeds on a theoretical basis, comparing legal solutions related specifically to: definitions, objectives and scope of application; institutional setup; assessment, including issues of public interest; and concluding remarks highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the legislation analyzed and identify priority legal issues and approaches to guide international and national legislators and forest governors in the sense of carbon rights. 

In the future research, if the empirical research can be combined with the actual situation of more countries, especially European countries, it will be expected by more scholars.