Let Us Get Regional: Exploring Prospects for Biomass-Based Carbon Dioxide Removal on the Ground

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1.      The study conducted descriptive statistical analysis due to a small number of surveys, which might limit the generalizability of the findings.

2.      There was a range in the level of knowledge about bioCDR technologies among stakeholders, with some technologies being less familiar to them. This variability could affect the reliability of the survey responses.

3.      The authors acknowledge the need for more in-depth investigations and detailed exchanges with stakeholders. This includes understanding misconceptions and countering expectations related to CDR deployment.

4.      Sampling Bias: There was an uneven response rate from different stakeholder groups across regions, leading to potential bias in the data. Important perspectives, such as those of eNGOs and farmers, were underrepresented or missing.

5.      Some sentences might need rephrasing for clarity. For instance, “The utilization of long lasting, sustainable and biomass based building materials is seen as a more relevant option compared to other inquired methods”. Please clarify the sentence by specifying what makes these materials more relevant.

6.      Review the paper for any spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and ensure proper punctuation throughout.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Some sentences might need rephrasing for clarity. For instance, “The utilization of long lasting, sustainable and biomass based building materials is seen as a more relevant option compared to other inquired methods”. Please clarify the sentence by specifying what makes these materials more relevant.

Author Response

1. The study conducted descriptive statistical analysis due to a small number of surveys, which might limit the generalizability of the findings.

We contextualized the value of a descriptive and qualitative approach more.

2. There was a range in the level of knowledge about bioCDR technologies among stakeholders, with some technologies being less familiar to them. This variability could affect the reliability of the survey responses.
3. The authors acknowledge the need for more in-depth investigations and detailed exchanges with stakeholders. This includes understanding misconceptions and countering expectations related to CDR deployment.

Our future research will shed more light on these questions. Furthermore, it is important to highlight that bioCDR deployment in Germany is a moving target. We have to follow it as researchers as an emerging topic.

4. Sampling Bias: There was an uneven response rate from different stakeholder groups across regions, leading to potential bias in the data. Important perspectives, such as those of eNGOs and farmers, were underrepresented or missing.”

The reviewer rightly points out the limitations of our study. We have ensured that these are highlighted in the revised version so that readers can understand the limitations regarding the generalisability of our results.

“5.      Some sentences might need rephrasing for clarity. For instance, “The utilization of long lasting, sustainable and biomass based building materials is seen as a more relevant option compared to other inquired methods”. Please clarify the sentence by specifying what makes these materials more relevant.

We did a full language check and rephrased this and many other sentences.

6. Review the paper for any spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and ensure proper punctuation throughout.”

The manuscript has been proofread by a native speaker and corrected by the authors for grammatical and orthographical correctness.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This research fills a critical gap in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) literature by examining the dynamics influencing CDR method adoption in specific spatial contexts, focusing on biomass-based CDR in three German regions. The papers advocate for a portfolio approach, recognizing regional complexities in implementation. Stakeholder-voiced challenges emphasize the need for nuanced, region-specific governance. Despite acknowledged limitations, the research contributes significantly to understanding CDR dynamics, offering guidance for future studies and policy development. Limitations include sampling bias, limited farmer perspectives, a small sample size, and the early stage of CDR development in Germany. Challenges in engaging specific stakeholder groups and the descriptive nature of findings underscore the need for more comprehensive research. To enhance the research, address sampling bias, expand the sample size, consider multinational case studies, use mixed methods, and conduct in-depth research with eNGOs, fostering collaboration with stakeholders throughout the process for greater relevance and support.

Author Response

Reviewer remarks

This research fills a critical gap in carbon dioxide removal (CDR) literature by examining the dynamics influencing CDR method adoption in specific spatial contexts, focusing on biomass-based CDR in three German regions. The papers advocate for a portfolio approach, recognizing regional complexities in implementation. Stakeholder-voiced challenges emphasize the need for nuanced, region-specific governance. Despite acknowledged limitations, the research contributes significantly to understanding CDR dynamics, offering guidance for future studies and policy development. Limitations include sampling bias, limited farmer perspectives, a small sample size, and the early stage of CDR development in Germany. Challenges in engaging specific stakeholder groups and the descriptive nature of findings underscore the need for more comprehensive research. To enhance the research, address sampling bias, expand the sample size, consider multinational case studies, use mixed methods, and conduct in-depth research with eNGOs, fostering collaboration with stakeholders throughout the process for greater relevance and support.

Thank you very much for the supportive comments. The reviewer rightly points out the limitations of our study. We have ensured that these are highlighted in the revised version so that readers can understand the limitations regarding the generalisability of our results. We have also included some of the valuable suggestions for improved research in the discussion on future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper investigates stakeholder perceptions of biomass-based carbon dioxide removal (bioCDR) methods across three regions in Germany, addressing a notable gap in the literature concerning the regional dynamics of CDR deployment. Through surveys, the study explores knowledge, potential, and challenges associated with six bioCDR methods (forest management, agriculture and soil carbon, long-lasting building materials, rewetting of peatlands and paludiculture, biochar, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) from the perspectives of various stakeholders. It reveals that while the relevancy of CDR is acknowledged, each method comes with its unique set of challenges, underscoring the necessity for a portfolio approach tailored to regional conditions and capacities. The findings emphasize the critical role of governance, policy support, and the need to address misconceptions and communication challenges to facilitate the successful implementation of bioCDR strategies.

Im supportive of the publication of this work, if the authors can address the following comments and concerns:

 

1. What were the criteria for selecting the three regions in Germany for the study? How do these regions' specific characteristics influence the potential for bioCDR deployment?

2. Stakeholder Engagement: How were stakeholders identified and engaged for the survey? What criteria were used to ensure a diverse and representative sample of opinions and expertise?

3. Misconceptions and Risk Communication: What are the common misconceptions related to bioCDR technologies among stakeholders? How can risk communication be improved to address both rational and emotional responses to CDR deployment?

4. How do the limitations and potential sampling bias identified in the study affect the generalizability of the findings? What measures could be taken in future research to address these limitations?

 

 

 

The figure quality should be improved. The texts in Figure 1 especially is very blury. 

Author Response

Reviewer 3

This paper investigates stakeholder perceptions of biomass-based carbon dioxide removal (bioCDR) methods across three regions in Germany, addressing a notable gap in the literature concerning the regional dynamics of CDR deployment. Through surveys, the study explores knowledge, potential, and challenges associated with six bioCDR methods (forest management, agriculture and soil carbon, long-lasting building materials, rewetting of peatlands and paludiculture, biochar, and bioenergy with carbon capture and storage) from the perspectives of various stakeholders. It reveals that while the relevancy of CDR is acknowledged, each method comes with its unique set of challenges, underscoring the necessity for a portfolio approach tailored to regional conditions and capacities. The findings emphasize the critical role of governance, policy support, and the need to address misconceptions and communication challenges to facilitate the successful implementation of bioCDR strategies.

Thank you very much for the supportive comments.

Im supportive of the publication of this work, if the authors can address the following comments and concerns:

1. What were the criteria for selecting the three regions in Germany for the study? How do these regions' specific characteristics influence the potential for bioCDR deployment?

We provided further details on the region selection:

“We identified three case study regions along a north-south and east-west gradient across Germany. We selected these cases to represent different regional characteristics, ranging from areas with a land-use based economy in the north to more industrialized regions in central and southern Germany [51–53]. Regional specificities, such as peat-land rewetting only being possible in northern Germany, and the presence of industrial infrastructure for BECCS in southern Germany, were main criteria.”

2. Stakeholder Engagement: How were stakeholders identified and engaged for the survey? What criteria were used to ensure a diverse and representative sample of opinions and expertise?

We added more detail on the stakeholder engagement:

“Our sample was built to map the diversity of stakeholders in biomass based CDR in the respective regions (see figure 1). The selection was based on combined approach of literature, recommendations by interdisciplinary scholars from our project, and stakeholder recommendations (“pyramid scheme”). We contacted 63 stakeholders in total. The online survey was completed by 34 participants between January and April 2023 in the three German regions: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (MV, n = 11), Mit-teldeutschland (MD, n = 19), and Rhein-Neckar (RN, n = 14). The sample represents rural regions (MV), as well as urban and industrialized (MD and RN). The irregular distribution along stakeholder groups and regions resulted from two problem: First, bioCDR is still in an early stage in Germany, where not all relevant stakeholders al-ready deal with this novel approach. Second, some stakeholders are reluctant towards responding – even to repeated requests – because of the politicized nature of CDR. Consequently, we are less dealing with a selection bias, rather than a data acquisition problem.”

3. Misconceptions and Risk Communication: What are the common misconceptions related to bioCDR technologies among stakeholders? How can risk communication be improved to address both rational and emotional responses to CDR deployment?

We only touch upon misconceptions at the end of the discussion and indicate the need for further research:

“Furthermore, there is a need to better understand misconceptions that became visible in the survey, such as the fear of malaria related to rewetting of peatlands or the as-sumption that bioenergy production in itself is already CDR. Discussing these ideas and learning about their foundations will be important to counter expectations and re-flect on risk communication that takes rational and emotional responses to deploy-ment plans into account [e.g. 75,76].”

4. How do the limitations and potential sampling bias identified in the study affect the generalizability of the findings? What measures could be taken in future research to address these limitations?

We have ensured that these are highlighted in the revised version so that readers can understand the limitations regarding the generalisability of our results. We have also included some of the valuable suggestions for improved research in the discussion on future research.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx