Balancing Offshore Wind Energy Development and Fishery Community Well-Being in Taiwan: A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Approach

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I reviewed “Balancing Offshore Wind Energy Development and Fishery Community Well-being in Taiwan: A Life Cycle Sustainability Assessment Approach” for publication in Sustainability (sustainability-3493128). The manuscript confronts an important topic in sustainability, offers an instructive case study for applying a life cycle sustainability assessment approach based on international standards, and provides valuable information for managing sustainable development of offshore wind farms and fisheries.

Major Comment: The comprehensive consideration of climate change and pollution to balance resource depletion in the environmental life cycle assessment (e.g., Table 1) is particularly valuable, because many assessments of offshore wind farm impacts on fisheries focus entirely on resource depletion and exclusion with no consideration of climate mitigation.

Minor Comments:

1. The abstract and conclusions should include a summary of results from the assessment, for example:
   1. construction requires significant investment, consumes significant resources, and may affect fishing.
   2. Reduced emissions can mitigate global warming, supporting sustainable fisheries.
   3. Economic performance depends on efficiency of energy conversion.
   4. Offshore wind power has a negative impact on fishermen’s livelihoods, but can create jobs.
2. Figure 1 (Life cycle of OWF main stages) should include all stages, including decommissioning, including dismantling, replacement, and disposal (as described in section 1.3).
3. Acronyms are defined in the table of abbreviations, but the text would be more readable if they were defined in text. For example, section 2.1 refers to LCSA, LCA, LCC, SLCA with a reference to Klöpffer (2008). Those acronyms will be familiar to some readers of the journal, but the entire section will be more meaningful to many other readers if they were defined in the section. I also suggest spelling out acronyms IFC PS and EP in Figure 2 and in Table captions.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

1. The introduction includes an informative literature review, particularly the background on the fishing industry and offshore wind development off Taiwan.
2. Section 3 should be titled, ‘Results’.
3. The footers in Tables 4-6 (‘* Tables may have a footer’) can be deleted.

Author Response

Comments 1: [The abstract and conclusions should include a summary of results from the assessment, for example: construction requires significant investment, consumes significant resources, and may affect fishing. Reduced emissions can mitigate global warming, supporting sustainable fisheries. Economic performance depends on efficiency of energy conversion. Offshore wind power has a negative impact on fishermen’s livelihoods, but can create jobs.]
Response 1: We have revised the abstract as suggested, with the updated content highlighted in red. The modifications include a more detailed summary of the assessment results, as well as potential policy implications for balancing renewable energy expansion with fishery rights protection.

Comments 2: [Figure 1 (Life cycle of OWF main stages) should include all stages, including decommissioning, including dismantling, replacement, and disposal (as described in section 1.3).]
Response 2: [We have revised Figure 1 and added a detailed annotation to clarify the life cycle stages of offshore wind farm projects, including their duration and key milestones. The annotation also highlights the interconnected nature of sub-stages within each main stage, providing a clearer understanding of the project lifecycle.]

Comments 3: [Acronyms are defined in the table of abbreviations, but the text would be more readable if they were defined in text. For example, section 2.1 refers to LCSA, LCA, LCC, SLCA with a reference to Klöpffer (2008). Those acronyms will be familiar to some readers of the journal, but the entire section will be more meaningful to many other readers if they were defined in the section. I also suggest spelling out acronyms IFC PS and EP in Figure 2 and in Table captions.]
Response 3: [We have added the full terms for acronyms upon their first occurrence in the main text. In the table, due to space limitations, we have modified the acronyms "IFC PS/EP" to "IFC Performance Standards/Equator Principles" to ensure clarity while maintaining readability.]

Comments 4:[Section 3 should be titled, ‘Results’. The footers in Tables 4-6 (‘* Tables may have a footer’) can be deleted.]

Response 4: [We have revised both sections as suggested. Thank you for your careful review and valuable feedback.]

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Paper is well written and structure, please follow the suggestions:

In Line 11-14. Clearly define how this research builds on previous studies. You mention aligning findings with IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles but do not specify how this adds to existing frameworks. Add a sentence that explicitly states the novelty of integrating local fishery rights with international regulatory frameworks.

Emphasize how your findings provide practical recommendations for policymakers beyond existing research. Include a sentence clarifying whether your results can be generalized to other regions or specific to Taiwan's regulatory and ecological context.

Section 2.2 (Line 146-147) The paper mentions that a predefined consensus threshold of 80% was used to select sustainability indicators. However, there is no justification for this choice. Explain why 80% was chosen instead of other possible thresholds (e.g., 75% or 85%). Does it align with similar research studies?

Section 2.3 (Line 183-185). The methodology mentions incorporating IFC and EP standards but does not specify how alignment was measured. Add a table or a clear explanation of the exact criteria used to determine alignment (e.g., scoring system, qualitative analysis, expert validation).

Results (Line 290-295). The discussion on cost analysis lacks a comparison with other renewable energy sources. Include a brief comparison of offshore wind costs with solar or onshore wind to contextualize the economic feasibility of the project.

Conclusion (Line 410-414). The conclusion summarizes key findings well but does not propose concrete steps for future research. Add a sentence suggesting future research directions, such as refining compensation models for fishery impacts or evaluating long-term ecological changes due to OWF projects.

Author Response

Comments 1:[ In Line 11-14. Clearly define how this research builds on previous studies. You mention aligning findings with IFC Performance Standards and Equator Principles but do not specify how this adds to existing frameworks. Add a sentence that explicitly states the novelty of integrating local fishery rights with international regulatory frameworks. Emphasize how your findings provide practical recommendations for policymakers beyond existing research. Include a sentence clarifying whether your results can be generalized to other regions or specific to Taiwan's regulatory and ecological context.]
Response 1: We have revised the abstract as suggested, with the updated content highlighted in red. The modifications include a more detailed summary of the assessment results, such as the environmental, economic, and social impacts of offshore wind farm development, as well as potential policy implications for balancing renewable energy expansion with fishery rights protection.

Comments 2:[Section 2.2 (Line 146-147) The paper mentions that a predefined consensus threshold of 80% was used to select sustainability indicators. However, there is no justification for this choice. Explain why 80% was chosen instead of other possible thresholds (e.g., 75% or 85%). Does it align with similar research studies?]
Response 2: [We have added relevant literature to support our use of an 80% consensus threshold. The explanation for this threshold is highlighted in red in the revised manuscript.]

Comments 3:[Section 2.3 (Line 183-185). The methodology mentions incorporating IFC and EP standards but does not specify how alignment was measured. Add a table or a clear explanation of the exact criteria used to determine alignment (e.g., scoring system, qualitative analysis, expert validation).]
Response 3: [Please refer to the second paragraph of Section 2.2. To our knowledge, no previous studies have integrated international standards with life cycle assessment methods. To address this gap, we employed an expert survey approach, allowing experts to select the standards they deemed most relevant. We used an 80% consensus threshold to determine the final results, which identify the specific standards corresponding to each indicator.]

Comments 4:[Results (Line 290-295). The discussion on cost analysis lacks a comparison with other renewable energy sources. Include a brief comparison of offshore wind costs with solar or onshore wind to contextualize the economic feasibility of the project.]
Response 4: [In Section 1.1, we briefly mentioned the disadvantages of onshore wind energy. Regarding the analysis of other energy sources, since the purpose of this study is not to compare different energy types but to identify specific theoretical factors applicable to offshore wind energy, we did not include a comparative cost analysis of various energy sources. However, the Levelized Cost of Energy (LCOE) is included as a potential indicator. We sincerely appreciate your suggestion, as it has inspired potential directions for our future research.]

Comments 5:[Conclusion (Line 410-414). The conclusion summarizes key findings well but does not propose concrete steps for future research. Add a sentence suggesting future research directions, such as refining compensation models for fishery impacts or evaluating long-term ecological changes due to OWF projects.]
Response 5: [We sincerely appreciate your suggestion. In response, we have revised the conclusion to make it more concise, added specific insights, and included potential directions for future research. The modifications are highlighted in red.]