Energy Democracy, Environmental Justice, and the Governance Gap in the Context of Forest-Based Energy Conflicts: The Case of Akbelen Forest
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article provides meaningful insights about the key and critical relationship between the need for energy production/provision and needs for a fair and just transition that doesn’t turn on a further harmful system for living and anthropogenic environment.
Moreover, even though as secondary issues, the article highlights the problem as well of a worldwide declared dismission with fossil fuels whereas many countries allow for further exploitation and funding for that harmful – for population and ecosystems- regime.
The article particularly explores, with a sound and clear methodology, the regulatory and institutional limits of a top down decision and administrative system that doesn’t allow for a suitable representation and “voice” of the people and inhabitant affected by, mainly corporate driven, energy source exploitation choices and activities on behalf of public.
In this direction the provided actor network analysis allows to shed light on the limits of an unbalanced power regulating system where, particularly, the disconnection between the governance levels and a biased concept of “public interest” result being mainly prone to, and impaired by, corporate vested interests jointly with a hierarchical approach. An approach, as well pointed out by the article, that is at the origin of many worldwide cases of local and regional conflicts and disputes having as object a strong demand for environmental and spatial equity criteria to be followed in the energy transition processes.
Finally of relevant interest is the concept of “spatial gain” as result of the bottom up and grassroot mobilization process on behalf of inhabitants and as expression of an unfolding and increasing sense of belonging and environmental awareness also in term of political ecology.
Eventually the article represents an important contribution to scrutinize under the lens of local and regional environmental justice the policies for energy regime transition. That particularly warning about the risk to simply reproduce an exploitative and hierarchical energy model while renewable energy sources veritable nature addresses for a more networked and not hierarchical system based on integrated and polycentric production/consumption nodes and hence more resilient and respectful of local identity and living places.
Follow some remarks about specific points and shortcoming
Possible shortcomings
Row 116: The central argument raised in this study is that….
Row 214: “…against the expansion of coal mining”
Row 359-361: repetition of rows 353-354
“spatial gain” term is introduced without a definition that comes only later on after the term is introduced
p.14 Fig 3 legend missing
rows 558-562: seem to best fit with discussion section
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery good paper. I don't have any comments or suggestions
Author Response
Dear Reviewer II,
We sincerely thank you for your invaluable comments and non-conditional acceptance.
With best regards,
Corresponding author (on behalf of all authors)
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript presents a compelling and timely exploration of the interplay between environmental justice, energy democracy, and governance gaps in the context of forest-based energy conflicts, focusing on the Akbelen Forest case in Türkiye. The study is well-situated within the broader literature on political ecology, environmental governance, and just energy transitions, and it offers valuable empirical insights into grassroots mobilisation and multi-level governance challenges. The qualitative methodology is robust and appropriate for the research questions. However, while the manuscript is rich in detail and analysis, there are several areas where clarity, theoretical engagement, and methodological rigour could be strengthened to enhance its contribution to the field.
(1) Theoretical Framework and Literature Review: The manuscript does an excellent job of weaving together concepts like energy democracy, environmental justice, and multi-level governance. However, the theoretical section could benefit from a more explicit discussion of how these concepts intersect and inform one another. For instance, the authors mention "multiple justice" (in abstract and Page 3) but could further clarify how this framework operationalises in the Akbelen case.
The literature review is comprehensive but somewhat fragmented. A clearer narrative thread linking the global debates to the Turkish context would strengthen the manuscript.
(2) Methodology: The qualitative approach is well-justified, but the manuscript would benefit from more transparency about the interview process. For instance:
How were interviewees selected? Was there a purposive sampling strategy?
How were themes identified and coded? A brief mention of software (e.g., NVivo) or analytical steps would add rigour.
(3) Findings and Analysis: The discussion of "spatial enclosure" and "spatial gain" is insightful but could be more examined. For instance, the authors note that the vigil area became a "living space", but how does this symbolic gain translate into tangible political or ecological outcomes?
The governance gap is a central finding, but the manuscript could delve deeper into its roots. For example, is this gap due to structural issues or actor-specific limitations? The current edition hints at this but could be expanded.
(4) Policy Implications and Conclusions: The policy recommendations (p. 19) are practical but somewhat generic. For example, "enhancing participatory governance" is laudable, but what specific mechanisms (e.g., citizen assemblies) would the authors propose for Türkiye’s context?
(5) Clarity and Structure: Some sections are overly dense.
Figure 2 (spatial expansion of mining) is useful but could include a scale bar for clarity. Table 2 (interviewed actors) is informative but could be moved to an appendix to streamline the main text. Alternatively, the line spacing could be reduced appropriately to make the table more aesthetically pleasing.
Some claims would benefit from additional References or Citations.
Overall , this manuscript makes a significant empirical and theoretical contribution to debates on environmental justice and energy democracy. With revisions to clarify the theoretical framework, deepen the analysis of governance gaps, and sharpen the policy implications, it would be a strong candidate for publication in a high-quality SSCI journal. I recommend major revisions with attention to the above points.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have made the necessary revisions, and I believe the manuscript now meets the publication requirements of the Land.
