Combining Photovoltaics with the Rewetting of Peatlands—A SWOT Analysis of an Innovative Land Use for the Case of North-East Germany
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsI reviewed this paper on Peatland PV. The thesis provides a comprehensive analysis of Peatland PV, covering a number of ecological, technological, legal and economic dimensions. The research methodology is rigorous, but certain parts need to be further refined to enhance the persuasiveness and practical application of the paper. The following are my specific comments:
1. The abstract is clear and concise, but it is recommended to add a short description of the definition of "Peatland PV" so that readers can quickly understand this innovative land use.
2. Please include in the abstract a brief reference to the geographical and legal context of the study in order to provide sufficient context for an international audience.
3. sufficient background information is provided in the introduction section. However, it is suggested to provide more justification in paragraph 2 (line numbers 45-55) as to why north-east Germany was chosen as the study area.
4. other peatland-rich countries are mentioned in line numbers 58-62, and it is suggested to elaborate on the relevance of these countries and how their experiences are relevant to this study.
5. check the order and format of the graphs and tables.
6. the selection and process of expert interviews is well described (lines 124-145), but it is recommended that more information is provided on how diversity and representativeness of expert opinion was ensured.
7 The data analysis section (lines 153-162) needs further clarification on how to ensure objectivity in the analysis and avoid confirmation bias.
9. results (lines 193-301). The discussion of ecological dimensions (lines 194-214) provides multiple perspectives, but it is recommended that the specific conflict between peatland protection and climate protection be more clearly articulated on pages 200-203.
10. the discussion of the technical dimension (lines 301-438) is very detailed, but in the discussion of construction equipment adaptation (lines 324-330) it is recommended that information on cost-benefit analyses be added to assess the economic impacts of required technical adjustments.
11. in the Legal Dimension (lines 448-621), it is recommended that more case studies or examples of how current spatial planning regulations specifically affect the Peatland PV project be provided in lines 458-467.
12.The Economic Dimension (lines 630-808) provides in-depth analysis, but in the discussion of the economic profitability of the project developer in lines 636-640, it is recommended that some data or case studies be included on how the size and geographic location of the project affects profitability.
13.The Discussion section summarises the findings of the study well, but when discussing the transferability and prevalence of Peatland PV in lines 872-876, it is recommended that more analysis is provided on the barriers and opportunities for possible implementation in other countries or regions.
14.The reference to the limitations of the SWOT approach in lines 884-891 is an important point, but it is recommended that the authors provide specific ways of how to overcome these limitations or enhance the robustness of the results.
15.The conclusion section clearly summarises the main findings of the study, but it is recommended that lines 1095-1097 provide further discussion on how these findings can be translated into practical policy recommendations or action plans.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable review. We provide our point-to-point responses in the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe topic is interesting, however. I have some problems with the approach. Using sentences from interviews as scientific truth is in my opinion, problematic. There are two cases in this paper, where i have problems. The authors argue, peatlands store carbon. However, the effect of rewetting is mainly due to decreasing emissions, there are still uncertainties about this issue. Secondly, experts name in interview income per ha which is half below official data. Having this in mind, I am critical about the statement and the whole approach.
I miss a definition of peatland rewetting and full rewetting (including expressions about annual dynamics)
Line 12 in combination with line 13: The main effect of rewetting is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, Carbon storage is quantitatively of minor importance. The sentence in the abstract should be adapted. The statement carbon storage should be support with citations.
Line 17: In the abstract, the scale is Northern Germany, in the title it is north-East explain the difference and correct where necessary.
Line 27: add hydrology and water management as required subjects to be studied in pilot cases.
Line 48: For me, the difference between peatland PV and Paludi PV is not clearly defined. When peatland PV is defined as, that the area is rewetted but not used. I can not imagine a site, where the vegetation is not used. In practice, the biomass will be grazed and or mown. In my opinion this is Paludi PV when the site is properly rewetted.
52: Peat PV: How is the biomass management in the study sites. Is there no agricultre?
55: is the term conflicting correct? In my opinion, the diagram shows the overlapping of different land use types. If there are conflicts it is another topic. Please correct.
Line 62: The citation 7, 18 suggest to rewett the organic soils until 2050, These quotations are no governmental quotes.
Line 69: PV can be placed elsewhere, however along highways and railroads subsides are higher.
Line 100: The project at Lottorf shoudl be named. To my knowledge, the project is investigated by GMC. Please correct. It is named latter, please rephrase
Line 209: Carbon storage. The effect of peatland rewetting is in reducing emissions. Carbon storage is of minor importance.
Line 217: This statement long term carbon storage is correct.
Line 300: see critical comments on carbon storage . Even when said peatlands store carbon in a long term perspective in your interviews. This is not proper science to use these citations; they should be proved natural science citations. At the bullet Evaporation you add, not yet quantified, the same is true for Carbon store function
Line 319: A main factor is peat depth. Why was it not mentioned in this section?
Line 344: Are interactions between heavy machinery and rewetting considered?
Line 356: Why do you write .. if .. the foundations need to reach mineral soils? Is there an option, that pV is installed without reaching mineral soil? Please clarify.
Line 401: until now you have not defined, what full rewetted means.
Line 459: I am doubtful about the methodological approach used in this study. Interviewing experts gains a quick overview of opinions about a problem. This method is maybe suitable for social science. I do not agree that this method is useful in the context of legal aspects. Here I would prefer a proper analyses of the legal rules and suggestions how to improve the,
Line 467: Statement “could be more flexible according to a geotechnical engineer” are more or less useless.
Line 468: close to grid infrastructure. PV must be constructed close to grid infrastructure, otherwise the electricity can not be transported and the project is economically not viable.
Line 490 ff: Have the experts mentioned any concrete examples where and how regulations should be changed? Just saying there is a lot of burecracy is a bit populistic. One example (line 494) is mentioned. Is this the only one?
Line 522: It seems that this section differs from the interview. Here a different method was used. Analysing the legal context. This method is missing in the method section.
Line 547: Does this statement comes from the interview? Or was it added to the content, because it was not mentioned by the selected experts clearly?
Line 630: In my opinion, it would be more interesting to see a calculation of Peatland PV instead of being informed about opinions without any data.
Line 687: According to KTB the sdb in MV can reach more than 1200 € per ha. SDB includes also costs for renting the land. The numbers from the expert clearly show the limits of the approach.
Line 865: I do not think, interviews can be considered as investigating the legal framework, please rephrase
Line 876: Here you mention Lottorf, however, in the introduction you argue there are no sites were rewetting was intentted. You have not defined what fully rewetting means quantitatively.
Line 883: For legal and economic analyses it is not necessary to rely an experts. The law system can be analysed, the economy can be calculated see Lataz Lohmann et al.
Line 955: The authors from this paper have also contributed to 13, so it is clear, thqt recommadiotions ae more or less the same. This is not independent. Please choose independent study.
Line 963: how is this recommandition related to the interviews? In general link recommendation to interview results.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable review. We provide our point-to-point responses in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis study used the SWOT method to analyze an innovative land use approach combining photovoltaics with the rewetting of peat lands, using the case of northeast Germany. This is a very meaningful study, which possesses theoretical reference value for efficient land use strategies about photovoltaics and the rewetting of peat lands in the future. The study is rich in content, well-organized, clear, and fluent to read. No obvious errors were found. It is recommended for publication.
Author Response
Thank you for your valuable review. We provide our point-to-point response in the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have addressed my concerns in the revised version.
