Challenges and Solutions for Forest Biodiversity Conservation in Sweden: Assessment of Policy, Implementation Outputs, and Consequences
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
“The aim of this study is to endeavor an assessment of progress with biodiversity conservation focusing on contributions to conservation, management and restoration of representative forest habitat networks during a 30-year phase of the current iteration Swedish forest policy cycles.” It is interesting and worthwhile to do so, and it is also notable to see the authors make a tremendous effort in producing such a comprehensive report and attempt to get it published in a single manuscript.
As impressive and insightful as this manuscript may be, this reviewer has some concerns with its substance as well as style. First, the authors promised to pursue an interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary assessment, but I have to say that the socioeconomic components are weak, given that only planning processes were considered regarding the “social system.” Relatedly, despite the authors’ repeated emphasis on the importance of “evidence-based” knowledge and policy making, the evidence is not just limited but also mostly from the perspective of conservation biology and landscape ecology, with little from the socioeconomic dimensions. As a result, a lot of the “strategies and measures” in the last section look either hardly based on a lengthy assessment or too superficial to make a great difference.
Moreover, some of the ecosystem services are private goods, but many are public goods at the local, regional, national, or even global level. Without contextualizing the underlying properties of different ecosystem services under consideration, therefore, any assessment of this type may not be very constructive or beneficial. Another related point is that little consideration is given to some kind of fundamental cost-benefit analysis. Of course, more effective and broader conservation and protection are needed; but it remains unclear whether society is willing to pay for what the authors proposed.
In terms of style, it appears that the study is an assessment of the assessments or a review and synthesis of the existing studies. But the authors never made it explicit. Also, the manuscript is too lengthy; a lot of the stuff can and should be condensed or put in the appendix or supporting information. For instance, with Figure 2 showing the framework used for the review/synthesis, Table 1 may be included in an appendix. Otherwise, some interested readers might be turned away.
Author Response
See enclosed file
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The reviewer very much appreciate your effort to put this study together. I hope this will be a great asset to people working around forest policy.
Please see attached for suggestions.
Thank you
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
See enclosed file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
The paper is a fair work and the authors have addressed the subject comprehensively. However, the following comments should be considered.
1. In lines 90-91, it is stated that “At the same time, global climate change and an increasingly polarized world has led to uncertainties”. Could the authors elaborate a bit more on this point? Some examples of such uncertainties would be highly interesting.
2. A citation of the source from which the data displayed in Figure 1 were derived, should be added in the label of the figure. Is this data state of the art? The same applies to Figure 2 (and other figures that lack citations).
3. In my opinion, it is necessary to provide more information on methodological details. Which criteria were considered in choosing the material for the review? Which databases were used and how was the reliability of procedures verified? Did this review follow the methodology of distinct review types (such as scoping, systematic, etc)?
4. In the beginning of the Discussion, it is stated that “However, while public policy clearly is built on evidence-based knowledge about conservation biology and landscape ecology at international, EU 77 and national levels, voluntary policy like forest certification is not”. What are some possible explanations for the lack of evidence-based knowledge for voluntary policy like forest certification?
5. Figure and Tables within the Discussion disrupt the coherence of the Discussion section; perhaps they should be provided in an Appendix.
6. I found it a bit challenging to navigate through the Discussion section. This paper has been prepared way too long and lacks a clear focus. The text and particularly the Discussion need to be condensed significantly and efforts should be made to bring forward the key points.
Author Response
See enclosed file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Even though I wish the authors could have been more open-minded and responsive to my comments, I am satisfied with their change and explanations. No more comments.
Author Response
See enclosed file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Most reviewers’ comments have not been addressed while very few revisions have been made. There is no substantial explanation on why the paper has been prepared so long and that it must be condensed significantly. The argument that Land “has not page limit” is at least inadequate, if not somewhat disrespectful. The intention of this comment was to draw authors’ attention to the fact that such a long paper does not engage readers and does not succeed in communicating its importance. If, however, it is impossible to shorten this manuscript, then perhaps authors should consider narrowing the scope of their study. In addition, having so many tables and figures in the Discussion diminish the quality of this work and do not help highlight the contributions of this work.
Author Response
See enclosed file
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
