Review Reports
by
- Andrea Patino 1 and
- Courtney W. Mason 2,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsConclusion - needs to be specific; not about the paper, but what is new, what has been learned; what we know now that we did not know before.
Suggestion -some figures should be smaller as they extend outside of the text margins . Figure captions would benefit from more details. Figures and their caption should provide enough information that they should stand out on their own.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear Authors,
After reading the manuscript, I found a few errors. They are indicated as comments inserted in the text. Please take them into account and correct them. Due to the excessive use of acronyms, the article is difficult to read. Please expand the explanations in the figure caption. They are excessively laconic.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript is interesting and strongly grounded in applied ecology and territorial management.
It is well written, but the writing is sometimes complex and the text contains a profusion of acronyms, which can sometimes be irritating.
The organization of the text deviates from the common pattern of ecological manuscripts, but I believe it suits the theme.
Line 36: What’s an “ESs”?
Please, double check if all the acronyms were explained.
Line 61: “heterogeneity (species diversity)”
Are you talking about habitat heterogeneity (which generates biodiversity) or about biological heterogeneity (species diversity itself)? Make this point clearer.
Line 68: What are “OECMs”?
Please, double check if all the acronyms were explained.
Lines 97-123: So, the classification in Ecoprovinces-Ecoregions-Ecosections is independent from the classification in Ecozones/Biogeoclimatic Zones (BEC)?
I found this explanation a lot confusing.
Lines 200-208: Was the ESs enumeration simply anecdotal or it followed more systematic guidelines?
Line 223: Is this Canadian land cover classification different from the above mentioned Ecoprovinces/Ecoregions/Ecosections/Ecozones/BEC/etc?
If so, it should be presented in the Introduction together with these approaches.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsComments
The manuscript addresses a potentially interesting topic; however, several aspects require clarification and restructuring to improve readability, rigor, and overall impact.
Introduction - week and confusing
The introduction would benefit from a clearer and more coherent presentation of the background.
Improving the logical flow between sentences and paragraphs would help guide the reader through the motivation for the study.
Several paragraphs contain multiple ideas, and the connections between sentences are not always clear.
While some sentences are individually strong, they would benefit from better integration within the paragraph structure.
Some sentences 2 appear to be incomplete and should be revised for clarity and completeness.
Methods
The methods section would benefit from a more detailed and transparent description of the procedures used in the study. Some methodological steps are unclear, making it difficult for the reader to fully understand or reproduce the work.
New terminology is introduced in this section without sufficient explanation; defining key terms when they first appear would improve clarity.
Including a schematic or workflow diagram of the methodology could greatly assist readers in understanding the study design.
Results
The results section would benefit from a more detailed presentation of the findings rather than a high-level summary.
Clarifying how the results relate to the methods and study objectives would strengthen this section.
As in the methods, some new terminology is introduced without prior definition, which may confuse readers.
Figures
Greater consistency in figure style and presentation would improve clarity.
Ensuring that each figure clearly supports the corresponding results in the text would strengthen the manuscript.
Format and Presentation
The use of footnotes interrupts the reading flow; a more standard formatting approach may improve readability and accessibility.
Overall formatting improvements would enhance the user experience.
Novelty and Significance
The manuscript would benefit from a clearer statement of its novelty and contribution to the existing literature. Explicitly highlighting what is new in this study ;
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Comments
The manuscript addresses a potentially interesting topic; however, several aspects require clarification and restructuring to improve readability, rigor, and overall impact.
Introduction - week and confusing
The introduction would benefit from a clearer and more coherent presentation of the background.
Improving the logical flow between sentences and paragraphs would help guide the reader through the motivation for the study.
Several paragraphs contain multiple ideas, and the connections between sentences are not always clear.
While some sentences are individually strong, they would benefit from better integration within the paragraph structure.
Some sentences 2 appear to be incomplete and should be revised for clarity and completeness.
Methods
The methods section would benefit from a more detailed and transparent description of the procedures used in the study. Some methodological steps are unclear, making it difficult for the reader to fully understand or reproduce the work.
New terminology is introduced in this section without sufficient explanation; defining key terms when they first appear would improve clarity.
Including a schematic or workflow diagram of the methodology could greatly assist readers in understanding the study design.
Results
The results section would benefit from a more detailed presentation of the findings rather than a high-level summary.
Clarifying how the results relate to the methods and study objectives would strengthen this section.
As in the methods, some new terminology is introduced without prior definition, which may confuse readers.
Figures
Greater consistency in figure style and presentation would improve clarity.
Ensuring that each figure clearly supports the corresponding results in the text would strengthen the manuscript.
Format and Presentation
The use of footnotes interrupts the reading flow; a more standard formatting approach may improve readability and accessibility.
Overall formatting improvements would enhance the user experience.
Novelty and Significance
The manuscript would benefit from a clearer statement of its novelty and contribution to the existing literature. Explicitly highlighting what is new in this study ;
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Your manuscript has an original topic and the results presented are quite interesant.
There are a few aspects that should be noted regarding the presentation of the work. The sections that require attention and revisions are the abstract and the introduction.
Related to the introduction section, the importance of the research subject is not very clearer highlighted An overview on current research on the issue or problem is missing and what is the superiority of their proposed innovative model over other types of approaches, if any, is not enough stressed. Also, a short review of literature on about aproached subject of paper is required.
In the results section, there are some observations regarding the presentation of the graphic component. I insist on the correctness of the way the map is presented, even if you are not its authors, as it turns out. Please see all the recommendations inserted in the text of the manuscript. There are also recommendations regarding the redistribution of text fragments within the article. These suggestions are also inserted into the text of the manuscript.
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsDear authors,
Firstly, I would like to thank you for your work in this field.
You did a good job!
After extensive reading, I only have a few comments for the current version, which are not many but essential.
For revision details, please see the following:
[1] The definition of research objectives and core issues of the paper is still not clear enough. Although the article emphasizes "ecosystem based planning and decision-making", it does not clearly explain the specific management or planning problems that this study attempts to solve, nor does it clearly distinguish between them and the existing ecosystem management (EBM) or conservation planning research. It is suggested that the author clearly put forward the research questions and objectives in the introduction, and clarify the new value of this study compared with the existing case studies;
[2] The theoretical framework is insufficient, and the concept application of ecosystem approach is more generalized. The article has mentioned the ecosystem based approach many times, but it lacks systematic elaboration on its core principles, operation path and its specific embodiment in planning and decision-making, resulting in more policy or principle descriptions at the theoretical level. It is suggested to strengthen the carding of the theoretical basis of EBA, and clarify its analytical framework and implementation logic in this study;
[3] The description of the method part focuses on qualitative statements, and the research process and decision analysis process are not transparent enough. The article does not clearly explain the data source, analysis steps and evaluation criteria, and some key judgments lack clear method support, which limits the repeatability and scientificity of the research process. It is suggested to supplement the research and design flow chart or step description to clarify the analysis tools and judgment basis;
[4] The depth of case analysis is insufficient, and the specific situation analysis of Wells Gray Provincial Park is relatively general. Although some background information is provided, the analysis of ecosystem elements, stakeholder conflicts and management decision-making trade-offs is still superficial, lacking in-depth analysis based on evidence. It is suggested to further refine the case analysis and strengthen the support of empirical data or documentary evidence for the argument;
[5] The logical connection between the results and the discussion needs to be strengthened. In the current discussion, the content of the case description or policy text is more repeated, and the comprehensive refinement and critical reflection of the research findings are insufficient. It is suggested that the key findings should be clearly summarized in the discussion, and a more in-depth analysis should be made from the perspective of the effectiveness of planning decisions and ecosystem management practices;
[6] The conclusion part does not fully reflect on the contribution and limitations of the research. This paper mainly summarizes the research process and general enlightenment, but does not clearly point out the specific contribution of this study in ecosystem planning and decision-making research, nor discuss the applicable boundary of its methods and cases. It is suggested to further strengthen the research contribution, clarify the limitations, and put forward more targeted future research directions in the conclusion.
If my comments are properly considered and followed, I have no further comments on this manuscript.
Again, I have a high comment on your current contribution.
All my upon-revision recommendations are intended to help this manuscript be more readable for readers.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx