Are Nature-Based Climate Solutions in the Russian Arctic Feasible? A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The review seems very nice. However socio-economic dimensions maybe expanded. The paper appropriately mentions the role of indigenous communities, but this could be a more central thread. A more detailed exploration of how to integrate indigenous knowledge and ensure equitable benefit-sharing in NbS projects would be valuable.

The title asks about feasibility, and the paper provides a strong qualitative assessment. However, a concluding section that more explicitly summarizes the feasibility of each pathway (maybe using a qualitative scale: High/Medium/Low for short-term feasibility; High/Medium/Low for co-benefits) could provide a more direct answer to the central question.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding corrections track changes in the re-submitted files!
Point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

Comments 1: A more detailed exploration of how to integrate indigenous knowledge and ensure equitable benefit-sharing in NbS projects would be valuable.
Responce 1: We have prepared several clarifications on the role of indigenous knowledge in NbS: see lines 402-405; 449-457; 663-665 in the updated document.

Comments 2: The title asks about feasibility, and the paper provides a strong qualitative assessment. However, a concluding section that more explicitly summarizes the feasibility of each pathway (maybe using a qualitative scale: High/Medium/Low for short-term feasibility; High/Medium/Low for co-benefits) could provide a more direct answer to the central question.

Responce 2: In response to the comment, we assessed the pathways using a qualitative scale. We added a section on assessment methods to the "Materials and Methods" section (lines 221-224) and completely revised the figure in the "Conclusion" section (Figure 8, line 645).

Once again, we thank you for reviewing our manuscript and providing valuable comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

ARE NATURE-BASED CLIMATE SOLUTIONS IN THE ARCTIC FEASIBLE? A REVIEW

MS ID sustainability-3930520

 

This article presents a review on the potential of Nature-based solutions to sustainable use and conserve the Arctic, with a strong focus in the Russian Arctic. I enjoyed reading this article, and believe it is comprehensive, well written and of potential interest to readers of Sustainability and scientists/practioners in the field. There is, however, two major points and few minor issues that should be solved before full consideration for publication. The main issue has to do with the Methodology, as it is not well explained. The flow diagram of the article selection process is missing, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria as well, among other details. What information was extracted from each of the articles selected? The second main issue is that the Authors are partially presenting the Results of their review. There needs to be a formal evaluation of what all articles found are stating about the topic of study. Currently, the article analyses some of the references found, but there is no actual synthesis of what was found. To correct these observations I recommend the Authors to follow the PRISMA guidelines, which can be found here: https://www.prisma-statement.org/. A minor issue is that  your article does not have a Discussion section, although the Results section could be renamed to “Results and Discussion”. Finally, I believe the title of the article should be changed to better reflect the focus on the Russian Arctic taken by the Authors.

 

Here are some minor comments:

 

L16, just the Russian Arctic? If so, please add this to the title.

 

L50, could you add a citation for that statement? Or maybe reword as something the Authors are stating.

 

L59-60, is this rise yearly? Or for which period of time? Or you every 10 years since when? Please clarify.

 

Figure 1 is not cited, nor explained in the text of the MS.

 

L192-203, maybe you can turn that text into a Table. Also,  all  of these queries should include the words Arctic or polar. This yields very broad results in some queries (query #1 for instance) because you did not include those words.

 

L204-205. What are the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Please describe them in detail. Also, add which data was taken from each article.

 

Section 3.1., what other results can be described from the Review? Are there other specific patterns? In terms of keywords? Authors? Institutions? Among others. You need to do a more profound description of the bibliometric aspect of your review. Software like Bibliometrix or VOS Viewer could be helpful for this.

 

L239-242, is this a result of your review? The quantitative results of your review should also be included, for instance: how many studies covered forests? Or sustainable grazing? Or rewilding? Or restoration?

 

L288, there is dot missing after the references.

 

L308, north-western Siberia?

 

In Figure 2, please add the respective references.

 

L332-333, please add references supporting your claim.

 

L395, GLAD LULC?, please describe the full name before using acronyms.

 

L467-468, “the potential of muskox rewilding is estimated” is written twice.

 

L565-566, what is AMAP? And CAVM?. A dot is missing after the reference.

 

Figure 4,  how did you estimate the relative significance of each of the four aspects?

Author Response

We thank you for your detailed review of our manuscript and valuable comments!

Please find below a point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors:

Comments 1: The main issue has to do with the Methodology, as it is not well explained. The flow diagram of the article selection process is missing, and the inclusion/exclusion criteria as well, among other details. What information was extracted from each of the articles selected?

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We revised the Materials and Methods section based on the recomendation (lines 179-206). We included a systematic review of the literature in this section according to the PRISMA 2020 protocol and bibliometric analysis. We've tried to describe the publication selection process in as much detail as possible and added a flow chart.

Comments 2: The second main issue is that the Authors are partially presenting the Results of their review. There needs to be a formal evaluation of what all articles found are stating about the topic of study. Currently, the article analyses some of the references found, but there is no actual synthesis of what was found. To correct these observations I recommend the Authors to follow the PRISMA guidelines, which can be found here: https://www.prisma-statement.org/.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. We have completely revised Section 3.1 "The State of Knowledge and Research Gaps." Based on the bibliometric analysis, we have provided data on the number of publications by year, publication by topics, and added the keywords co-occurrence network and conceptual structure map using bibliometrix R package.

Comments 3: A minor issue is that  your article does not have a Discussion section, although the Results section could be renamed to “Results and Discussion”. Finally, I believe the title of the article should be changed to better reflect the focus on the Russian Arctic taken by the Authors.

Response 3: We agree with this comments and corrected both the section name and the arcticle title.

Comments 4: Here are some minor comments ...

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with all the comments and have made appropriate corrections to the text. To save space, we've copied all the comments line by line below and provided the responses, highlighted in color. All edits have been incorporated into the text of the article.

L16, just the Russian Arctic? If so, please add this to the title. Added

L50, could you add a citation for that statement? Or maybe reword as something the Authors are stating. We deleted this statements. We moved a fragment of text in the next subsection, see lines 136-139 of the updated document.

L59-60, is this rise yearly? Or for which period of time? Or you every 10 years since when? Please clarify. Clarified: "during the reference decade between 2007 and 2016"; lines 53-54

Figure 1 is not cited, nor explained in the text of the MS. Corrected, please see lines 118-119.

L192-203, maybe you can turn that text into a Table. Also,  all  of these queries should include the words Arctic or polar. This yields very broad results in some queries (query #1 for instance) because you did not include those words. The text fragment has been completely reworked, see responce 1. Only one query was saved, please see 186-188.

L204-205. What are the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Please describe them in detail. Also, add which data was taken from each article. Added, please see lines 192-194, 196-200.

Section 3.1., what other results can be described from the Review? Are there other specific patterns? In terms of keywords? Authors? Institutions? Among others. You need to do a more profound description of the bibliometric aspect of your review. Software like Bibliometrix or VOS Viewer could be helpful for this. We completely updated this section and added the bibliometric aspects, please see lines 228-253.

L239-242, is this a result of your review? The quantitative results of your review should also be included, for instance: how many studies covered forests? Or sustainable grazing? Or rewilding? Or restoration? We prepared the new Figure 5 with this information and added short discussion, please see lines 244-246.

L288, there is dot missing after the references. Corrected

L308, north-western Siberia? This is correct, it is the name of a regional biome on the map “Biomes of Russia”; Ogureeva et al., 2018

In Figure 2, please add the respective references. Added

L332-333, please add references supporting your claim. The sentence reworded, please see lines 407-408.

L395, GLAD LULC?, please describe the full name before using acronyms. Corrected

L467-468, “the potential of muskox rewilding is estimated” is written twice. Corrected

L565-566, what is AMAP? And CAVM?. A dot is missing after the reference. Corrected, lines 599-600

Figure 4,  how did you estimate the relative significance of each of the four aspects? We reworked this fragment and figure. We used a qualitative scale: High/Medium/Low for short-term feasibility; High/Medium/Low for co-benefits. We assigned these categories based on an expert analysis of publication and spatial statistics. Please see lines 221-223 and updated Figure 8

Thank you again for your detailed and insightful review of the manuscript and your comments!

 

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript presents an in-depth analysis of Russian Arctic ecosystems, aiming to assess the prospects for the application of Nature-based Solutions (NbS) for climate change adaptation and mitigation.

The study addresses a topic of high scientific and practical relevance for land management and climate adaptation in Arctic environments. Its focus on NbS in the Arctic zone of the Russian Federation fills a clear gap in current research, as most existing studies concentrate on temperate or tropical regions. By examining the applicability, constraints, and potential of NbS under Arctic conditions, the study contributes to defining an operational framework for implementing and assessing NbS in high-latitude ecosystems, where empirical data remain limited.

Although the literature on NbS in the Arctic is growing, it remains relatively scarce compared to the broader NbS literature. More empirical research is needed on the implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of NbS in real Arctic ecosystems. Furthermore, many existing studies focus primarily on diagnosing Arctic climate change rather than evaluating the effectiveness of NbS interventions.

The methodology is generally sound and clearly described. To enhance robustness and transparency, the authors should consider the following improvements:

Lines 206-207: Authors are advised to specify technical parameters for spatial datasets.

Lines 236-237: The sentence is too generic at least a quantitative reference or a graph would be useful.

Lines 504-507: The Yamal–Prudhoe Bay comparison is interesting, but could be enhanced by highlighting how the extremely long recovery times necessitate active restoration solutions.

Line 524: replace the term “biocruts” with “biocrusts”.

The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and effectively address the main research question regarding the applicability of NbS for climate mitigation and adaptation in the Russian Arctic. They coherently reflect the study’s findings on knowledge gaps, monitoring limitations, and the need for interdisciplinary research. The recommendations are well-aligned with the results, though they could be strengthened by clearer links to specific evidence and a more explicit connection to the proposed operational framework for Arctic NbS.

The references are largely appropriate and relevant, covering Arctic ecology, carbon dynamics, permafrost processes, and NbS. The inclusion of both international and Russian sources strengthens the regional perspective. Overall, the references are suitable, but updating and expanding them could better reflect the latest developments in NbS and Arctic climate mitigation research.

The tables and figures are relevant, well-chosen, and add value. A detailed review of them is as follows:

Figure 1 is not introduced in the text, making it slightly harder to follow; consider referencing it immediately where the relevant data is first discussed.

Figures 2 and 3 are informative and visually clear, effectively showing spatial patterns of forest loss and open sands.

Figure 4 effectively summarizes the relative significance of different NbS approaches for the Russian Arctic.

Tables A1 and A2 provide quantitative support for the discussion on forest loss and are well-aligned with the text.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your detailed analysis of the manuscript and valuable comments.

Please see below a point-by-point response to Comments and Suggestions for Authors.

Comments 1:  Lines 206-207: Authors are advised to specify technical parameters for spatial datasets.

Response 1:  Thank you for pointing this out. We specified technical parameters for spatial datasets, Lines 212-215.

Comments 2:  Lines 236-237: The sentence is too generic at least a quantitative reference or a graph would be useful. 

Response 2:  The sentence reworded. Please see lines 255-257.

Comments 3:  Lines 504-507: The Yamal–Prudhoe Bay comparison is interesting, but could be enhanced by highlighting how the extremely long recovery times necessitate active restoration solutions.

Response 3:  We added an additional statement about active restoration solution, please see lines 576-580.

Comments 4:  Line 524: replace the term “biocruts” with “biocrusts”.

Response 4:  Corrected, line 555.

Comments 5: Figure 1 is not introduced in the text, making it slightly harder to follow; consider referencing it immediately where the relevant data is first discussed.

Response 5:  Corrected, lines 118-119.

Thank you again for your detailed review of the manuscript and very valuable comments!

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This article is a revision of a review article on the potential of Nature-based solutions to sustainably use and conserve the Arctic, focused on the Russian Arctic. I thank the Authors for their careful revision of the manuscript, as I believe my comments have been addressed in full.

 

I do have a minor comment, I think that the bibliometric analysis deserves a few more lines of explanation: would you please expand more on what the clusters mean? I think that an interesting discussion could arise from a deeper analysis of those results. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable comment!

We've expanded the bibliographic analysis results section and added a description of the identified clusters.
Corrections are marked in track change.