Integrating Community Well-Being into Natural Climate Solutions: A Framework for Enhanced Verification Standards and Project Permanence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The Authors address the timely and very important issue of implementing Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) in the context of their long-term effectiveness and impact on local communities. The main value of the article is to emphasize the importance of the social context of climate projects. The Authors propose a novel approach to verifying NCS projects that goes beyond standard measures of greenhouse gas emission reductions and takes into account the well-being of local communities. Their approach could have important implications for climate policy and market mechanisms. However, it should be noted that the proposed framework still needs to be refined and tested in real-world settings.

The article is well structured in terms of content organization. The Authors use a systematic approach to analyze existing standards for verifying NCS projects, comparing them with the proposed model for integrating social welfare. The research methodology is based on document analysis and synthesizing existing data, but the lack of empirical testing of the proposed model is a significant limitation. The Authors note this lack and emphasize the need for further field research in this area.

The timeliness of the subject matter, the clear and understandable structure of the article, the interdisciplinary and holistic approach, and the proposal of the Author's innovative framework model can be pointed out as significant qualities and strengths of the article. These aspects contribute positively to the value of the work. However, some areas for improvement can also be identified, these include:

1. The text in some places seems vague and inconsistent.

2. In the Materials and Methods section of the article, it would be worth describing in more detail the sources analyzed and the criteria for the verification standards chosen, It would also be useful to have a graphic presentation of the model, which would greatly improve its clarity and readability.

3. The article is based on the analysis of existing standards, but it would be worth adding more practical examples (e.g. case studies) that could illustrate the effectiveness of the proposed solutions.

4. the Conclusions presented should be more condensed and clearly present the implications of the study for policy and practice.

5. It would be worth considering a reference to existing international programs dealing with NCS, such as those implemented by UNEP or FAO. The article lacks detailed examples of implementation of similar initiatives. A section could be added describing specific cases of successes and failures of NCS programs.

Author Response

Comment 1: The text in some places seems vague and inconsistent.

Response: We revised several sections for clarity and consistency, particularly in the Introduction, Methodology, and Conclusion. We also streamlined language to improve readability and coherence.

Comment 2: Describe in more detail the sources analyzed and criteria for verification standards; include a graphic presentation of the model.

Response: We expanded the “Materials and Methods” section to clarify our integrative framework synthesis approach and added a summary table (Table 1) outlining source types and purposes. Due to space constraints, we were unable to include a full graphic model but have provided a detailed tabular framework (Tables 2–4) and linked to supplemental materials online.

Comment 3: Add more practical examples (e.g., case studies).

Response: We included references to REDD+ case studies (e.g., Cambodia, Ethiopia, Indonesia) in the “Validation through Literature & Cases” section to illustrate real-world relevance. A full case study analysis was beyond the scope of this paper but is planned for future work.

Comment 4: Condense and clarify the Conclusions.

Response: The Conclusion section has been revised to more succinctly summarize key findings and implications for policy and practice.

Comment 5: Reference international programs like UNEP or FAO.

Response: We added references to UNFCCC and Article 6 mechanisms, which are closely aligned with UNEP’s work. While FAO-specific programs were not included, we acknowledge this as a valuable direction for future research.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The relevance of the study is indisputable. The study's primary focus is on the social dimensions of evaluating climate projects. The authors concentrate on Natural Climate Solutions (NCS). The authors demonstrate the limitations of prevailing approaches, which are predicated on the opinions of decision makers and international institutions. The authors put forth an alternative assessment approach, one that is founded on the analysis of successful case studies and the perspectives of local communities. The proposed assessment method is meticulously described and substantiated. The authors contend that the implementation of this assessment framework will address the limitations of existing methodologies. In my estimation, the authors have met their stated objective: "The framework provides clear verification alignment protocols that integrate with existing standards while maintaining rigorous requirements and offering practical implementation guidance." The article is further enriched by extensive Appendices, which contain more detailed information on the issues discussed in the article and the main literature on which this study is based.

I hereby offer several suggestions for enhancing the article's structure.

1) In the section "Five core tenets for community engagement" the five principles in question and their source should be directly indicated. And then they can be described in detail. It is difficult for the reader to guess these principles in the text. Table 2 can be demonstrated already at this stage.

2) The same applies to "Nine Well-being Domains". The reader wants to understand what is being discussed and then see a detailed explanation.

3) Maybe the critical comments in lines 289-308 should be moved to the introduction of the article, where the relevance of the study is described?

4) I think that the text describing the methods and the research tool developed by the authors (lines 310-322) should be separated into a separate part, the critical comments and the description of the methods should be separated. Now they are collected in one paragraph. This is very confusing.

5) I would suggest that the authors shorten the Appendices. Some of the information can be placed in the public domain on online resources, and the article should include links to these resources. Because now the article looks compact, but the Appendices are too extensive.

 

Author Response

Comment 1: Clarify the “Five core tenets for community engagement” and introduce Table 2 earlier.

Response: We now introduce the five tenets earlier in the manuscript and provide clearer definitions in Table 2.

Comment 2: Clarify the “Nine Well-being Domains.”

Response: We revised the section to explicitly list and define the nine domains before elaborating on each, improving reader comprehension.

Comment 3: Move critical comments (lines 289–308) to the Introduction.

Response: We integrated key critical insights into the Introduction to better frame the study’s relevance and rationale.

Comment 4: Separate methods and critical commentary (lines 310–322).

Response: We restructured this section to clearly distinguish between methodological description and critique.

Comment 5: Shorten the Appendices.

Response: We moved some detailed content to supplemental online materials and streamlined Appendix A to focus on the most relevant conceptual frameworks.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments for the Authors

General Feedback

The manuscript presents an important discussion on integrating community well-being into Natural Climate Solutions (NCS) and its implications for carbon credit verification and project permanence. The study is timely and aligns with the increasing focus on sustainable and socially inclusive environmental governance. However, several areas need improvement for clarity, coherence, and methodological rigor.

 

Abstract & Introduction

Line 13-29 (Abstract): The abstract effectively highlights the research problem and contributions. However, it would benefit from a more explicit statement on the framework’s practical applications.

 

Suggestion: Clearly outline the key methodological approaches used (e.g., literature review, case studies).

Line 52-82 (Introduction): The introduction provides a strong rationale for the study, but there are two major concerns:

 

The discussion on the "polycrisis" and cascading risks (Lines 61-66) is insightful but should be linked more directly to the role of NCS.

The transition from the problem statement to the research objective could be smoother.

Suggestion: Strengthen the linkage between NCS, verification standards, and community well-being to emphasize the study’s interdisciplinary nature.

Methodology

Line 89-113 (Methodological Approach): The use of a mixed-methods approach is commendable, but the methodology lacks specificity in terms of data sources, selection criteria, and analytical techniques.

 

Were case studies analyzed? If so, what criteria were used to select them?

What type of literature review was conducted (systematic, scoping, or narrative)?

How was the framework developed—was it purely theoretical, or were empirical insights incorporated?

Suggestion: Provide greater transparency on the methodology to improve reproducibility. A summary table outlining data sources, selection criteria, and analysis methods would be beneficial.

Lines 114-123 (Case Study Examples): Several case studies are referenced (Cambodia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, etc.), but their connection to the framework is not well articulated.

 

Suggestion: Either expand the discussion on these case studies or summarize them in a table that highlights their relevance to the proposed framework.

Results and Discussion

Lines 325-354 (Participatory Process Framework): The framework presented is well-structured, but its validation process is unclear.

 

How were the five tenets for community engagement derived?

Are there examples where this framework has been tested or applied in real-world projects?

Suggestion: If possible, include a brief pilot study or expert validation process to strengthen the framework’s credibility.

Lines 356-417 (Well-being Assessment Framework & Integration with Verification Standards):

 

The well-being domains are well-structured, but it remains unclear how these will be operationalized in verification processes.

Suggestion: Provide a step-by-step example of how an NCS project could apply this framework in practice.

Lines 418-442 (Implementation Guidance & Policy Implications):

 

This section would benefit from an explicit discussion on policy implications.

How should policymakers, standard-setting bodies, and project developers integrate these findings?

Suggestion: Consider adding a dedicated subsection on policy recommendations.

Figures and Tables

Figures 2 & 4:

 

Figure 2 (PRISMA flowchart) could be enhanced by providing a breakdown of excluded articles by category.

Figure 4 (Geographical distribution) would be clearer if a heatmap overlay were used.

Table 1 & 3 (Well-being Domains & Verification Standards):

 

These tables are useful but lack explanatory notes.

Suggestion: Add descriptions to clarify how different well-being indicators correspond to verification requirements.

Limitations and Future Research

Lines 450-466 (Limitations Section):

 

The authors correctly acknowledge limitations related to empirical validation and stakeholder engagement.

Suggestion: Consider addressing the challenge of balancing community well-being with economic incentives in carbon markets.

Lines 467-491 (Conclusion):

 

The conclusion effectively summarizes the key contributions but does not explicitly address potential next steps.

Suggestion: End with a set of future research directions, such as testing the framework in pilot projects.

Author Response

Comment 1: Clarify the framework’s practical applications in the Abstract.

Response: We revised the Abstract to include a clearer statement on practical applications and methodological approach.

Comment 2: Strengthen the link between “polycrisis” and NCS in the Introduction.

Response: We added a paragraph explicitly connecting cascading risks to the need for integrated NCS approaches.

Comment 3: Provide more methodological transparency.

Response: We expanded the Methodology section with a summary table and clarified our integrative review process, including source selection and analysis.

Comment 4: Clarify the role of case studies.

Response: We now explicitly describe how case studies informed framework validation and provide a table summarizing their relevance.

Comment 5: Clarify framework validation and operationalization.

Response: We added a section on implementation guidance and verification protocols, including a proposed three-tiered approach.

Comment 6: Add policy implications.

Response: We included a subsection on policy recommendations in the Discussion, targeting standard-setting bodies and project developers.

Comment 7: Improve figures and tables.

Response: We revised tables to include explanatory notes and added links to supplemental materials for further detail.

Comment 8: Expand on limitations and future research.

Response: We elaborated on limitations related to empirical testing and stakeholder engagement and outlined future research directions in the Conclusion.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article has been improved by the authors and can be published.