Social Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Products from Solar Evaporation Iberian Saltworks: A Descriptive Approach to the Implementation of Halotolerant Crops and Microorganisms

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is an interesting work, well developed methodologically.

However, it is important to clarify some aspects so that it can be published:

How the weights were obtained is not explained. A multicriteria technique could give more robustness to these values.

When weights are defined for the indicators, it is worth analyzing the model's sensitivity to variations in these weights.

The possible values ​​for the total social impact score are not explained.

There is no reflection on the values ​​obtained in the case study

It is important to explain the values ​​and ranges in table 7. Why the ranges, where do the values ​​come from? Are these values ​​absolute or relative? That is, do they apply in general or are they only for the case study?

In the same way, it is important to mention where the Innovation Potential Indicator values ​​come from.

Author Response

Reviewer 1

It is an interesting work, well developed methodologically.

However, it is important to clarify some aspects so that it can be published:

1. How the weights were obtained is not explained. A multicriteria technique could give more robustness to these values.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the determination of weights for social indicators. In response, we have added a detailed explanation in the revised manuscript clarifying that the weighting process was based on expert judgment within the research team, given the absence of universally standardized methods for Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA). While we acknowledge that a multicriteria technique could enhance robustness, we consider this an open area for further research rather than the primary focus of this study. Our main contribution lies in the application of the S-LCA framework to halotolerant crop and microorganism-based projects, and we have explicitly stated that future studies should explore alternative weighting methodologies, such as stakeholder-based approaches or multi-criteria decision analysis. The new explanation can be found in the Methodology and Limitations sections of the revised manuscript.

“The weighting of social indicators in this study was based on expert judgment within the research team, reflecting the specific socioeconomic dynamics of salt pan ecosystems. Given the absence of universally accepted weighting standards in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), expert-driven allocation remains a widely used approach in studies applying this methodology. The assigned weights prioritize key impact areas such as employment generation and cultural heritage conservation, which are particularly relevant in the studied context. However, we acknowledge that this weighting system is not definitive, and further refinement through more quantitative methods (e.g., stakeholder surveys, multi-criteria decision analysis) could strengthen future analyses. The primary contribution of this study lies in the application of the S-LCA framework to halotolerant crop and microorganism-based projects, while the development of a standardized weighting scheme remains an open avenue for future research.”

2. When weights are defined for the indicators, it is worth analyzing the model's sensitivity to variations in these weights.

We appreciate the reviewer’s valuable suggestion regarding the sensitivity analysis of indicator weights. While this study primarily focuses on the application of the S-LCA framework rather than the refinement of weighting methodologies, we recognize that assessing the model’s sensitivity to variations in these weights would provide useful insights. Given that our weighting approach is based on expert judgment, we acknowledge the potential impact of alternative weighting schemes. We will certainly consider incorporating a formal sensitivity analysis in future research specifically dedicated to the development and validation of weighting methodologies for S-LCA studies.

 

 

3. The possible values for the total social impact score are not explained.

 

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the explanation of possible values for the total social impact score. To address this, we have now included a more detailed explanation in the revised manuscript, specifying how the total scores are derived from the weighted sum of individual indicators. Additionally, we clarify the range of possible values and the classification thresholds used to interpret the social impact levels (e.g., low, moderate, significant, high). This addition ensures greater transparency in our scoring methodology and enhances the interpretability of the results. The explanation can be found in the Results section of the revised manuscript.

“The total social impact score in this study is derived from the weighted sum of six individual social indicators: employment, community participation, cultural heritage conservation, access to material resources, public commitments to sustainability, and economic development contribution. Each indicator is scored on a scale from 0 to 3, where 0 represents no impact, 1 indicates limited impact, 2 corresponds to moderate impact, and 3 denotes high impact. The total social impact score ranges from 0 (no social impact) to 18 (maximum social impact). To facilitate interpretation, the scores are categorized into five levels: 0–3 (no impact), 4–7 (low impact), 8–11 (moderate impact), 12–15 (significant impact), and 16–18 (high impact). These values were established based on expert judgment within the research team, ensuring a meaningful distinction between different levels of social impact. The values are relative in the sense that they are calibrated to the specific cases analyzed in this study and do not constitute an absolute or universally applicable classification system for all S-LCA studies. Rather, they serve as a practical framework for comparing the social impact of halotolerant crop and microorganism-based initiatives within the context of Iberian salinas. Future studies could refine these thresholds by incorporating a larger dataset or employing statistical methods to establish more standardized cut-off points applicable to a broader range of contexts.”

4. There is no reflection on the values obtained in the case study

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the need for reflection on the values obtained in the case study. In response, we have included a discussion in the revised manuscript analyzing the differences in social impact scores among the case studies and their implications for sustainable agriculture and salt pan revitalization. This addition provides a more comprehensive interpretation of the results and highlights key factors influencing social performance. The new discussion can be found in the revised manuscript under the Discussion section.

“The results of the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) reveal notable differences in the social impact scores across the four case studies, highlighting the varying degrees of socio-economic benefits derived from the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms. The highest-scoring cases, La Espelta y la Sal and Salina Greens, achieved strong performance in employment generation and cultural heritage conservation, reflecting their well-established business models and commitment to sustainable practices. In contrast, La Salá and Sal de Saelices obtained slightly lower scores in categories such as community participation and economic development contribution, suggesting potential areas for further engagement and investment. These results emphasize the role of business structure, market positioning, and community involvement in shaping social impact. Additionally, the findings support the argument that halotolerant agriculture and salt pan revitalization can serve as viable strategies for socio-economic development in degraded and abandoned saline landscapes. While these results provide valuable insights, they are specific to the selected case studies, and future research should explore a broader range of cases, including those with different operational challenges, to further validate these observations.”

5. It is important to explain the values and ranges in table 7. Why the ranges, where do the values come from? Are these values absolute or relative? That is, do they apply in general or are they only for the case study?

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the need for a clearer explanation of the values and ranges in Table 7. In response, we have included a detailed clarification in the manuscript, specifying that these ranges were established based on the observed distribution of values in the case studies and expert judgment. We also clarify that the values are relative to the specific cases analyzed and are not intended as an absolute classification applicable to all S-LCA studies. Instead, they provide a practical comparative framework for assessing social impact within the context of halotolerant crop and microorganism-based initiatives in Iberian salinas. This explanation can now be found in the revised manuscript.

“The classification ranges presented in Table 7 determined through a combination of empirical data from the case studies and expert judgment, ensuring that they reflect meaningful distinctions in social impact levels within the specific context of halotolerant crop and microorganism-based initiatives in Iberian saltworks. It is important to note that these values are relative rather than absolute, meaning they are intended as a comparative framework within the scope of this study rather than a universally applicable classification for all Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) studies. The thresholds were defined to facilitate interpretation of the results and provide a structured way to compare different initiatives in the context of sustainable agriculture in saline environments. However, these classifications should not be extrapolated beyond the specific conditions and methodological approach used in this research without further validation.”

6. In the same way, it is important to mention where the Innovation Potential Indicator values come from.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the need to clarify the origin of the Innovation Potential Indicator values. In response, we have included an explanation in the manuscript detailing that these values were assigned based on qualitative assessments from company interviews and expert evaluation. The scoring system (0–3) was structured to reflect the level of engagement in adopting halotolerant crops and microorganisms, ranging from initial curiosity to full implementation. We also clarify that these values are relative to the studied cases and serve as an exploratory measure rather than a standardized metric. This explanation can now be found in the revised manuscript.

 

“The Innovation Potential Indicator values were assigned based on qualitative assessments conducted through direct interviews with company representatives and an expert evaluation within the research team. The scoring system (0–3) reflects the level of engagement and commitment demonstrated by each company toward the adoption of halotolerant crops and microorganisms. A score of 0 corresponds to companies with only an initial curiosity or awareness of the approach, while a score of 3 indicates active implementation and support for innovation in the field. This classification was developed based on observable company activities, including investments in halotolerant agriculture, research collaborations, and participation in sustainability initiatives. Given the exploratory nature of this assessment, these values are relative to the studied cases and are not intended as a universally applicable innovation metric. Future studies could refine this indicator through stakeholder surveys or quantitative scoring methodologies to enhance its robustness.”

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript addresses a meaningful topic. However, it requires further refinement in terms of data, methodological transparency, and theoretical innovation:

1.While the background is comprehensively described, the manuscript lacks specific data to support the issue of waste disposal in Iberian salt pans. It is recommended to incorporate regional statistical data to clearly demonstrate the uniqueness of the study area and thereby enhance the focus on the problem.

2.The manuscript mentions the use of the “Impact Pathway Method (Type II S-LCA)” but does not clearly explain how this approach relates to the specific indicators used in the case study. It is advisable to provide the theoretical rationale for this methodological choice and include an example to illustrate the logic behind the construction of the causal chain.

3.Although the data sources include corporate interviews, literature, and policy documents, the manuscript fails to explain the design framework for the interview questions or the measures taken to mitigate respondent bias. Providing a sample interview outline and clarifying whether triangulation was employed to enhance data credibility would be beneficial.

4.The case studies encompass only a few companies, resulting in a small and potentially non-representative sample (e.g., excluding failed cases). It is recommended to discuss the limitations inherent in the sample selection or to supplement the analysis with additional regional cases to improve generalizability.

5.The allocation of weights for social indicators is not substantiated with clear justification. Consider incorporating a quantitative method for determining these weights or referencing analogous weighting standards from existing studies.

6.The manuscript claims a “20% increase in employment opportunities” and a “35% improvement in community participation” without specifying the baseline (e.g., relative to a baseline year or regional average). Please provide detailed data sources and clarify the calculation methodology used for these figures.

7.Some references are outdated.

8.There is a discontinuity in the reference numbering (e.g., the sequence jumps from [19] to [21]).

Author Response

Reviewer 2

The manuscript addresses a meaningful topic. However, it requires further refinement in terms of data, methodological transparency, and theoretical innovation:

1. While the background is comprehensively described, the manuscript lacks specific data to support the issue of waste disposal in Iberian salinas. It is recommended to incorporate regional statistical data to clearly demonstrate the uniqueness of the study area and thereby enhance the focus on the problem.
   
   

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the need for specific data on waste management in Iberian salinas. To address this concern, we have incorporated statistical data on urban and textile waste generation in Spain, highlighting the relevance of this issue in key regions where salinas are located, such as Andalusia, Murcia, and the Valencian Community. Additionally, we have included references to recent reports on waste management inefficiencies, such as the low percentage of textile recycling and the challenges posed by inadequate waste processing. This new information strengthens the manuscript by providing a clearer picture of the waste disposal problem in the study area and reinforcing the need for targeted waste management strategies in these sensitive ecosystems. The new paragraph has been added to the Introduction section:

“The issue of waste management in Iberian salinas is a crucial yet underexplored challenge that affects both environmental sustainability and local economies. In Spain, the total amount of urban waste collected in 2022 reached 23.0 million tons, with Andalusia, the Valencian Community, and the Murcia region—areas home to significant salt pan ecosystems—being among the top contributors to waste generation [INE, 2022] (ine.es). The improper disposal of waste in these areas can pose serious threats to the fragile biodiversity of salinas and hinder their potential for sustainable economic activities. Additionally, the generation of textile waste in Spain approaches one million tons annually, with only 12.16% collected separately for potential reuse or recycling, highlighting significant challenges in waste management systems [Cáritas, 2023] (caritas.es). Furthermore, a Greenpeace investigation revealed that a substantial portion of used clothing deposited in recycling containers is not adequately processed; instead, these garments often travel extensive distances, averaging over 8,917 kilometers, only to end up in landfills or be incinerated in developing countries [Greenpeace, 2024] (es.greenpeace.org). These challenges emphasize the urgent need for tailored waste management strategies in Iberian salinas, ensuring the preservation of these unique environments while promoting circular economy models that benefit local communities.”

2. The manuscript mentions the use of the “Impact Pathway Method (Type II S-LCA)” but does not clearly explain how this approach relates to the specific indicators used in the case study. It is advisable to provide the theoretical rationale for this methodological choice and include an example to illustrate the logic behind the construction of the causal chain.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to clarify the rationale behind the selection of the Impact Pathway Method (Type II S-LCA) and its connection to the study’s indicators. To address this, we have expanded the methodological explanation in the manuscript, explicitly detailing how this approach allows for the identification of causal relationships between specific social indicators and long-term socio-economic impacts. Additionally, we have included an illustrative example demonstrating the logic behind the construction of the causal chain, using employment generation as a case study to showcase how social benefits evolve over time. This addition enhances the transparency of our methodological framework and strengthens the link between theory and application in the study.

 

“The selection of the Impact Pathway Method (Type II S-LCA) in this study is grounded in its ability to establish causal relationships between specific social indicators and the broader socio-economic impacts of implementing halotolerant crops and microorganisms in Iberian salinas. This method enables the identification of cause-effect mechanisms by mapping how changes in one factor (e.g., employment opportunities) propagate through social structures to generate long-term outcomes (e.g., regional economic revitalization). The chosen indicators—employment creation, community participation, cultural heritage conservation, access to resources, public sustainability commitments, and economic development contribution—align with this approach, as they reflect both direct and indirect effects on local communities. For instance, an increase in employment in salt pan-related activities leads to greater financial stability among workers, which, in turn, fosters higher community engagement in environmental conservation and sustainable tourism initiatives. This example illustrates how the Impact Pathway Method allows us to trace the evolution of social benefits, offering a comprehensive understanding of the systemic effects of introducing halotolerant crops and microorganisms.”

3. Although the data sources include corporate interviews, literature, and policy documents, the manuscript fails to explain the design framework for the interview questions or the measures taken to mitigate respondent bias. Providing a sample interview outline and clarifying whether triangulation was employed to enhance data credibility would be beneficial.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the need for a clearer explanation of the interview design framework and measures taken to mitigate respondent bias. To address this, we have added a paragraph in the manuscript outlining the structured interview guide, which ensured consistency across responses. Given the small sample size, triangulation was not feasible; instead, we adopted an expert validation approach within the research team. This method involved critically assessing interview data in relation to existing literature and policy documents, ensuring the coherence and reliability of the findings. While we acknowledge the limitations of this approach, it remains a valid method in exploratory research where sample sizes are constrained.

“The interview process was designed to gather qualitative insights from key stakeholders, including corporate representatives and experts involved in halotolerant crop and microorganism initiatives. Given the small sample size, a structured interview guide was developed to ensure consistency across responses. The questions focused on key social impact indicators, such as employment generation, cultural heritage conservation, and community participation, aligning with the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) framework. While data triangulation was not employed due to the limited number of interviewees, the validation of responses was conducted through expert assessment within the research team. This approach allowed for a critical review of the collected information, ensuring coherence and alignment with existing literature and policy documents. Although this method has inherent limitations, it provides a focused, expert-driven validation process appropriate for exploratory research in this field.”

4. The case studies encompass only a few companies, resulting in a small and potentially non-representative sample (e.g., excluding failed cases). It is recommended to discuss the limitations inherent in the sample selection or to supplement the analysis with additional regional cases to improve generalizability.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the limited number of case studies and the potential implications for generalizability. As acknowledged in the manuscript, the small sample size is a consequence of the limited number of saline ecosystem-based enterprises currently operating in the Iberian Peninsula. The selected cases were chosen to reflect the diversity of business models and ecological contexts in this sector, covering traditional salt production, agricultural diversification, and sustainable innovation in abandoned salinas. While we recognize that our study does not include failed cases, we have explicitly discussed this limitation and suggested that future research should investigate discontinued or unsuccessful initiatives to gain further insights into the challenges of implementing halotolerant crop and microorganism-based projects. This addition strengthens the transparency of our methodological approach while reinforcing the relevance of the selected case studies within the scope of this research.

“The selection of case studies in this research was inherently constrained by the limited number of operational salt-related enterprises in the Iberian Peninsula. Given the specific ecological and economic characteristics of these environments, the chosen cases were selected to represent the main types of saline ecosystems and business models currently present in the region. These include traditional salt extraction (Sal de Saelices), diversified agricultural initiatives incorporating halophytes (La Espelta y la Sal), experimental sustainable practices in abandoned salinas (La Salá), and commercial cultivation of halotolerant species (Salina Greens). While the sample size is small, it encompasses a diversity of approaches within the sector, offering a meaningful perspective on the socioeconomic potential of halotolerant crop and microorganism applications. However, we acknowledge the limitation that unsuccessful or discontinued initiatives were not included in the analysis. Future research should explore these cases to provide a more comprehensive assessment of the challenges and barriers faced in the implementation of such projects.”

5. The allocation of weights for social indicators is not substantiated with clear justification. Consider incorporating a quantitative method for determining these weights or referencing analogous weighting standards from existing studies.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the justification for the allocation of weights in our social impact assessment. In the absence of universally standardized weighting methods within Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), we adopted an expert-driven approach, leveraging the research team’s experience in assessing the socio-economic dynamics of salt pan ecosystems. While we recognize that this method introduces subjectivity, we have explicitly acknowledged this limitation in the manuscript and clarified that the proposed weighting scheme is not definitive. Instead, we consider it a preliminary framework open to refinement through future studies incorporating quantitative approaches such as stakeholder surveys or multi-criteria decision analysis. By emphasizing the methodological application of S-LCA, rather than the establishment of a rigid weighting structure, this study aims to lay the groundwork for further advancements in this field.

“The weighting of social indicators in this study was based on expert judgment within the research team, reflecting the specific socioeconomic dynamics of salt pan ecosystems. Given the absence of universally accepted weighting standards in Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA), expert-driven allocation remains a widely used approach in studies applying this methodology. The assigned weights prioritize key impact areas such as employment generation and cultural heritage conservation, which are particularly relevant in the studied context. However, we acknowledge that this weighting system is not definitive, and further refinement through more quantitative methods (e.g., stakeholder surveys, multi-criteria decision analysis) could strengthen future analyses. The primary contribution of this study lies in the application of the S-LCA framework to halotolerant crop and microorganism-based projects, while the development of a standardized weighting scheme remains an open avenue for future research.”

6. The manuscript claims a “20% increase in employment opportunities” and a “35% improvement in community participation” without specifying the baseline (e.g., relative to a baseline year or regional average). Please provide detailed data sources and clarify the calculation methodology used for these figures.

We appreciate the reviewer’s insightful comment regarding the “20% increase in employment opportunities” and the “35% improvement in community participation.” Upon review, we recognize that these figures were derived from comparative analyses between different saltworks rather than absolute measures against a defined baseline (e.g., a specific year or regional average). Given the potential for misinterpretation, we have decided to remove these percentages from the abstract to ensure clarity and avoid presenting results that may not directly contribute to the study’s main findings.

Instead, we have revised the abstract to focus on the overall social impact assessment of halotolerant crops and microorganisms, emphasizing their potential contributions to local employment, cultural heritage conservation, and community engagement without relying on specific numerical values. This adjustment aligns the abstract more closely with the broader objectives of the study while maintaining the integrity of our findings.

Thank you for your valuable feedback, which has helped us improve the clarity and precision of our manuscript.

7. Some references are outdated.
   
   

We acknowledge the reviewer’s observation regarding the presence of some older references in the manuscript. While we have made efforts to include recent literature where applicable, certain references have been retained because they remain foundational in their respective fields. For instance, studies on salinity tolerance mechanisms and halotolerant microorganisms continue to be widely cited as reference points for subsequent research. Similarly, the ISO 14040:2006 standard remains a cornerstone for Life Cycle Assessment methodologies. These references provide essential theoretical and methodological grounding for our study. However, we recognize the importance of integrating the latest advancements and will consider updating these references in future extensions of this research as more recent studies build upon these foundational works.

8. There is a discontinuity in the reference numbering (e.g., the sequence jumps from [19] to [21]).

We appreciate the reviewer’s attention to detail in identifying the discontinuity in the reference numbering. This issue has now been corrected to ensure that all citations follow a consistent numerical sequence throughout the manuscript. We have carefully reviewed the reference list to verify that no citations are missing or duplicated. Thank you for pointing this out.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

World-3485241.  

 Social Life Cycle Assessment of Innovative Products from Solar Evaporation Iberian Saltworks: A Descriptive Approach on the Implementation of Halotolerant Crops and Microorganisms

 

 

Very good research topic, well written, great effort, and hard work.

I have a few concerns:

The experimental design and the idea of the research are somewhat tricky. This paper focuses on the socioeconomic benefits derived from the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands in the Iberian Peninsula using a Social Life Cycle Assessment. In fact, you hypothesized that any improvement in the social life is a result of a successful usage of the salinized marginal land. Meanwhile, you stated that some of your objectives were to study the bad effects of salinity.

This leads to a misconception or confusion in the framework and the focus of the study:

First, are you studying the positive outcomes of the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands or the negative effects of the presence of these abandoned salt works and salinized lands? both cannot be done at the same time.

Second: How can you justify your conclusions? i.e., how can you be sure that the improvement in social life is just related to the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands, not in general improvement in the economy, for example?

Third: The indicators you used, such as employment, etc., can be improved by some other factors. You need to add some justification to ensure that the improvement in soil life was only a result of the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands to support your argument.

Author Response

Reviewer 3

Very good research topic, well written, great effort, and hard work.

I have a few concerns:

The experimental design and the idea of the research are somewhat tricky. This paper focuses on the socioeconomic benefits derived from the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands in the Iberian Peninsula using a Social Life Cycle Assessment. In fact, you hypothesized that any improvement in the social life is a result of a successful usage of the salinized marginal land. Meanwhile, you stated that some of your objectives were to study the bad effects of salinity.

This leads to a misconception or confusion in the framework and the focus of the study:

First, are you studying the positive outcomes of the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands or the negative effects of the presence of these abandoned salt works and salinized lands? both cannot be done at the same time.

We appreciate the reviewer’s concern regarding the clarity of the study’s focus. To clarify, our research is primarily focused on assessing the positive socioeconomic outcomes of implementing halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands through the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) methodology. The mention of the negative effects of salinity was intended as contextual background to highlight the challenges these regions face and to justify the need for innovative solutions. However, we understand how this dual mention might cause confusion. To ensure clarity, we have added a “positive” in the paragraph of the introduction where the primary objective is presented.

Second: How can you justify your conclusions? i.e., how can you be sure that the improvement in social life is just related to the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands, not in general improvement in the economy, for example?

We acknowledge the reviewer’s concern regarding the attribution of observed social improvements solely to the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms. Given the complexity of socioeconomic dynamics, we do not claim that these improvements are exclusively due to our intervention. Instead, our study presents a case-specific assessment that identifies localized social benefits linked to the studied initiatives. While external macroeconomic factors may also influence social well-being, the results obtained from direct interviews and case studies suggest that the introduction of halotolerant agriculture played a significant role in employment creation, cultural heritage conservation, and community engagement.

To strengthen our argument, we have now explicitly acknowledged in the Discussion section that other external factors could contribute to these improvements. However, given that all case study participants reported direct socioeconomic changes linked to these initiatives, we argue that the impact of halotolerant crops and microorganisms is a key driver of change in these specific communities.

“While this study identifies positive socioeconomic changes linked to the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in salt-affected lands, we acknowledge that external economic and social factors may also contribute to improvements in employment, community engagement, and local economic development. This study is case-specific and does not seek to isolate the impact of halotolerant agriculture from broader macroeconomic trends. However, direct interviews and case study assessments indicate that observed improvements were directly associated with these initiatives. Future research could further strengthen this analysis by incorporating control groups or statistical approaches to quantify the relative contribution of these interventions compared to other economic factors.”

Third: The indicators you used, such as employment, etc., can be improved by some other factors. You need to add some justification to ensure that the improvement in soil life was only a result of the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms in abandoned salt works and salinized lands to support your argument.

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion to further justify the selection of social indicators and their link to the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms. The indicators used in this study—employment, community participation, cultural heritage conservation, access to resources, public sustainability commitments, and economic development contribution—were chosen based on existing S-LCA methodologies and their relevance to rural development in degraded landscapes.

To address the concern about potential confounding factors, we have now expanded our explanation in the Methodology section, clarifying that these indicators were selected precisely because they capture changes that are most directly influenced by local agricultural and environmental initiatives. Additionally, we highlight that the results are based on direct reports from stakeholders actively engaged in these projects, ensuring that the observed improvements are linked to their implementation.

“The selection of social indicators in this study follows established S-LCA frameworks, prioritizing aspects most relevant to rural communities engaged in agricultural and environmental restoration activities. Employment, community participation, and cultural heritage conservation were chosen as key indicators because they are directly impacted by local economic and environmental initiatives rather than broader macroeconomic trends. While it is acknowledged that social well-being can be influenced by multiple factors, the assessment methodology used in this study relies on direct stakeholder input from individuals actively involved in halotolerant crop and microorganism initiatives. This approach ensures that the improvements reported are closely linked to these interventions, although we recognize that further research incorporating comparative control groups could provide additional validation.”

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) Although this paper attempts to explore the socioeconomic benefits of halotolerant crops and microorganisms , its analysis suffers from several significant flaws.

(2) Figure 1: Word Map of Social Life Cycle Analysis lacks any scientific value.

(3) The scientific validity of the weighting used in Figure 5 is questionable. (4) Neither the figures nor the analysis results hold scientific value.

Author Response

Reviewer 4

(1) Although this paper attempts to explore the socioeconomic benefits of halotolerant crops and microorganisms , its analysis suffers from several significant flaws.

(2) Figure 1: Word Map of Social Life Cycle Analysis lacks any scientific value.

(3) The scientific validity of the weighting used in Figure 5 is questionable. (4) Neither the figures nor the analysis results hold scientific value.

We sincerely appreciate the time and effort the reviewer has dedicated to evaluating our manuscript. While we respectfully disagree with the overall assessment of the paper, we acknowledge the importance of constructive criticism and have carefully revised the manuscript based on the valuable feedback provided by the other reviewers. These revisions have significantly enhanced the methodological clarity, justification of the weighting process, and overall scientific rigor of the study. We invite the reviewer to examine the revised version, as we believe that the improvements made address key concerns and provide a more robust foundation for our findings. We hope that these modifications help to mitigate some of the reservations expressed and provide a clearer understanding of the study’s contributions.

Reviewer 5 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• The abstract should be restructured according to a certain structure and logic: background, materials and methods, results and discussions, main conclusions
• But how many keywords did you use?
• In line 210 and line 120 you write that S-LCA is not standardised, but this is actually not true, because ISO 14075 (2024) came out. https://www.iso.org/standard/61118.html
• Also in the next lines you write: ‘The novelty of S-LCA also means that it is not widely used, limiting its potential for comparison across studies’. Actually, this is not due to the fact that it is new, but precisely to the fact that it was not standardised before.
• I understand that it is a draft, but the structure of the paper is not clear because the lines are all glued together.

Author Response

Reviewer 5

1. The abstract should be restructured according to a certain structure and logic: background, materials and methods, results and discussions, main conclusions

We appreciate the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the restructuring of the abstract. In response, we have revised it to follow a more structured format, explicitly presenting the background, materials and methods, results, and main conclusions. This revision enhances clarity and ensures a logical flow that aligns with standard scientific conventions. The updated abstract can be found in the revised manuscript.

“Soil salinization and land abandonment pose significant socioeconomic and environmental challenges, particularly in the Iberian Peninsula, where traditional saltworks and agricultural lands have been increasingly degraded. Innovative approaches, such as the implementation of halotolerant crops and microorganisms, offer a promising strategy to revitalize these underutilized areas.

This study applies the Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) methodology to evaluate the socioeconomic benefits of halotolerant agriculture in abandoned saltworks and salinized lands. Data were collected through interviews with key stakeholders, literature reviews, and case studies of four enterprises actively engaged in sustainable salinas restoration. Key social indicators, including employment creation, community participation, and cultural heritage conservation, were assessed using an expert-based weighting system. The findings indicate that enterprises involved in these initiatives demonstrated strong contributions to local economic resilience and cultural heritage preservation. However, challenges related to scalability and external economic influences remain key considerations. These results highlight the potential of biosaline agriculture as a viable solution to address land abandonment and food security challenges, while also contributing to rural socioeconomic development.”

2. But how many keywords did you use?

In the "Keywords" section, we have included 10 keywords, which aligns with the journal’s guidelines. These keywords were carefully selected to enhance the visibility and indexing of the study, ensuring alignment with relevant research fields. Additionally, key terms such as halotolerant crops, Social Life Cycle Assessment, saltworks, and socioeconomic impact are consistently used throughout the abstract and main text to reinforce the study’s thematic focus. We hope this clarifies the concern raised.

3. In line 210 and line 120 you write that S-LCA is not standardised, but this is actually not true, because ISO 14075 (2024) came out. https://www.iso.org/standard/61118.html

We appreciate the reviewer’s clarification regarding the recent standardization of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) with the publication of ISO 14075:2024. In the original manuscript, we stated that S-LCA was not standardized (lines 120 and 210), which was accurate at the time of writing. However, with the release of ISO 14075:2024, S-LCA now has an international standard that establishes principles, frameworks, and guidance for its implementation. We have updated the text to reflect that S-LCA is now standardized under ISO 14075:2024.

4. Also in the next lines you write: ‘The novelty of S-LCA also means that it is not widely used, limiting its potential for comparison across studies’. Actually, this is not due to the fact that it is new, but precisely to the fact that it was not standardised before.

We appreciate the reviewer’s observation regarding the reason behind the limited use and comparability of Social Life Cycle Assessment (S-LCA) across studies. In the original manuscript, we stated that its novelty was a contributing factor to its limited application. However, we acknowledge that the lack of standardization prior to ISO 14075:2024 played a more significant role in this limitation.

We have revised this statement to clarify that the previous absence of a standardized methodology hindered the widespread adoption and comparability of S-LCA studies. With the introduction of ISO 14075:2024, this situation is expected to improve, fostering more consistent applications of S-LCA across different research contexts.

We thank the reviewer for this clarification, which has helped improve the accuracy of our discussion.

“Until recently, the absence of a universally accepted methodological framework resulted in inconsistencies in its application, making it difficult to compare findings across different studies. However, with the publication of ISO 14075:2024, S-LCA now has an internationally recognized standard that provides guidelines for its implementation. This standardization is expected to enhance the consistency and credibility of S-LCA applications, facilitating more robust comparisons and broader adoption of this methodology in sustainability assessments.”

5. I understand that it is a draft, but the structure of the paper is not clear because the lines are all glued together.

We appreciate the reviewer’s comment regarding the structure and formatting of the manuscript. The current layout results from the manuscript submission and formatting process, which may affect the spacing and visual presentation of the text. We trust that this issue will be resolved in the next stage of the editorial process, where the journal’s typesetting will ensure proper formatting and readability.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Accept in present form

Author Response

We sincerely appreciate your time and effort in reviewing our manuscript. Thank you for your positive assessment and recommendation for acceptance.

Reviewer 4 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper is poor and should not sent for review by me again.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

 The English could be improved to more clearly express the research.

Author Response

We regret that you did not find our manuscript of interest. We acknowledge that it is a straightforward study, but we have strived to ensure its rigor and clarity. Throughout the review process, we have made significant improvements based on the valuable feedback received, and we believe the final version makes a meaningful contribution to the literature.

If you see fit, we would welcome any final considerations you may have. In any case, we appreciate the time you dedicated to reviewing our work.