Potential for Carbon Credits from Conservation Management: Price and Potential for Multi-Habitat Nature-Based Carbon Sequestration in Dorset, UK

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is an interesting, well-conceived, and well-written paper.

I would like to see this published as soon as possible in almost the current form.

I.                     My most significant concern is that I have no idea of the generalizability of the Dorset case in the selection of the sites. There are some inferences drawn later on in the Discussion to the whole of the UK based on this case. It would be helpful to know more about how typical or atypical the County is relative to the rest of Britain. Mention is made of “a wide range of conservation initiatives.” Some more information to contextualize this, the costs mentioned later (maybe average values of Dorset land versus other parts of the UK and of the entire country and labor costs if that is a variable) as well as the topography relative to the rest of the nation. Mention is made of the intuitive difference in Global North land costs and lower costs elsewhere in the Global South. Some basis for making similar comparisons between this case and the overall UK context would be helpful.

II.        The next thing is not required, but more for consideration. While this is a narrow topic, it does address policy areas and may consider drawing some broader policy recommendations on the basis of what has been determined.

 

A.      First, it seems that more specific suggestions could be offered for the UK in terms of the subsidies and regulations needed to make these sort of conservation efforts viable.

B.      Secondly, the Introduction mentions the 30% by 2030 formula but also notes that the potential yield of this is approach is limited. Coupled with the difficulties mentioned in the Discussion including the existing inadequacy of existing markets (lacking in transparency, efficacy, etc.) and the need for regulation and standards, it is probably fair to make the point that the ultimate potential for sequestration will remain more towards the “every bit helps” end of the spectrum until more serious and systematic efforts are put in place.

C.       A reasonable corollary to this might be that more efforts at decarbonization will have much more immediate impact, especially as sequestration is ramped up.

 

Again, this is just a suggestion, but the paper does engage in policy analysis and has earned some broader policy suggestions related to its findings. Consider whether more policy prescriptions are merited.

In toto, this is nice work and I would like to see more of this sort of relevant practical research in print.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

A minor point is that the sixth line in section 3.1.1. has a typo where

“maintain” should be “maintained” to be parallel to “converted.” I was not

proofreading but the mistake stood out so maybe a close proofreading

should make sure there are no other typos.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research considers various habitats like woodlands, heathlands, and grasslands, and analyzes the cost per additional tonne of carbon sequestered. The study's findings highlight the variation in costs between different conservation projects and discuss the implications for localizing carbon offsetting and combining it with other credit schemes.

Recommendations for Major Revisions:

1. Contextualization and Theoretical Background:

   • Expand on how the study situates itself within the broader context of existing theoretical and empirical research.
   • Clarify the unique contributions of this study to the existing body of knowledge.

2. Relevance of Cited References:

   • Ensure all references are directly relevant to the research topic.
   • Consider including recent studies or publications to enhance the paper's current relevance.

3. Clarity in Research Design and Methods:

   • Provide more explicit details about the research design, including the formulation of questions and hypotheses.
   • Elaborate on the methodological approach, ensuring it is clear and replicable.

4. Coherence in Argument and Discussion:

   • Strengthen the logical coherence and academic soundness of arguments.
   • Enhance the balance and persuasiveness of the discussion, especially in linking findings to broader implications.

5. Presentation of Empirical Research Results:

   • Ensure the results are presented in a clear, concise, and structured manner.
   • Use visual aids like charts or graphs for better clarity, where applicable.

6. Referencing and Supporting Evidence:

   • Thoroughly review the reference list for completeness and relevance.
   • Ensure all claims and conclusions are adequately supported by empirical evidence or referenced literature.

7. Conclusions and Their Justification:

   • Make sure the conclusions are directly supported by the results presented in the article.
   • Discuss how the findings contribute to the field and what future research could build on this study.

 

Author Response

Please see attachment- 'response to reviewers' file

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper analyses how carbon sequestration can be obtained from the management of conservation activities.

The theme is a topical issue and the motivation for the study, methods and writing are fine. However, although the paper aims to assess carbon offsetting credits as a potential financing source for the continued management of conservation activities, it just alludes to this possibility at the end of the discussion and final section of the text. A true assessment of this alternative, with the pros and cons being explored, is lacking.

At the end of the introduction, the authors justify the study of Dorset based on the wide range of local conservation initiatives. Some reference or exemplification of these initiatives could have been introduced at this stage. Also, regarding the selection of this region as an object of analysis, it would be relevant to refer to other features besides the conservation initiatives in Dorset that may contribute to making this a relevant setting to analyse. It is important to show that the conclusions are not time or space specific, so that a generalization of results is allowed. The authors should clarify whether any potential exogenous factors exist in Dorset that can potentially influence the results.

How do the results presented in the paper compare with previous research? A better interlink with the literature could have been explored.

Minor issues:

·         It doesn’t make sense to have a subsection 1.1. if no subsection 1.2. exists

·         There is a formatting issue in Table 3, as the titles are almost overlapped.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

I recommend proofreading the English to correct some minor typos.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author(s) performed necessary improvements

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I am satisfied with the revised version. The additional explanations both in the introduction and discussion sections led to a richer paper that deserves to be published.