Applying the Precautionary Principle to Hidden Collapse

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article is a very interesting and valuable study on the precautionary principle in the context of hidden collapse. I believe it fits the subject matter covered in this journal and deserves to be published after moderate (or minor) comments are considered.

I have included detailed suggestions in the comments in the pdf file. However, I also highlight the most relevant points below.

1) I think the Authors should rethink the limitations of their approach and analysis, including the selection of cases for analysis and the context of Australia

2) I think the very valuable comparison and recommendation sections would benefit from supplementing the descriptions with a graphical synthesis of them, especially in the context of the article's applied ambitions

3. As it stands, the article is quite long. I think that major abbreviations are not possible, especially in the context of my proposal, for example, to discuss the study's limitations. However, I also think some passages describing the article's structure could be given mainly in one place (the end of the Introduction) and in a more condensed form. Such references are very helpful for the reader, while in the present form, they are, in my opinion, too long and scattered throughout the article.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

I thank the reviewer for their comments which the authors seek to respond to in a constructive fashion. Each comment is responded to in turn as follows:

1) I think the Authors should rethink the limitations of their approach and analysis, including the selection of cases for analysis and the context of Australia

The reference to Australia and 'limitations of their approach' requires understanding on the hidden collapse scenario. This scenario was first identified in Australia and the Australian context was used as a point of reference to understand why there was a failure to apply the precautionary principle to hidden collapse risk. The authors feel this is justified given the origins of how hidden collapse was first identified. Despite this, the authors have decided to respond to the concerns about what may be perceived as 'limitations' to this approach. By way of response the authors have expanded reference to how the approach taken in this article has a wider application and may be applied across different natural resource sectors and in the context of conservation. Above all, the authors have emphasised the importance of the recommendations for the protection of biodiversity at various levels of degradation which may include, but not be limited to, the hidden collapse scenario. These changes have been included in tracked changes and may be reviewed accordingly.

2) I think the very valuable comparison and recommendation sections would benefit from supplementing the descriptions with a graphical synthesis of them, especially in the context of the article's applied ambitions

Whilst the authors don't consider a graphical synthesis is strictly necessary, they accept the 'benefit' of such an inclusion. In other words accept that there is some benefit in this addition despite it not be an essential requirements. This is included in tracked changes.

3. As it stands, the article is quite long. I think that major abbreviations are not possible, especially in the context of my proposal, for example, to discuss the study's limitations. However, I also think some passages describing the article's structure could be given mainly in one place (the end of the Introduction) and in a more condensed form. Such references are very helpful for the reader, while in the present form, they are, in my opinion, too long and scattered throughout the article.

The authors accept this recommendation and have amended to discuss the articles structure in one place only, being the end part of the introduction and have removed references to structure from other parts of the article.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Please see comments/edits throughout the PDF document attached. As you will see, I REALLY want to like this paper. I am not trying to be unduly difficult. I think it is well-researched and there is an important "there" there. The problem is in how the argument is made. I cannot make heads or tails of the thesis. I explain further in my comments, but it needs restructuring for clarity of argumentation. I hate to see good research hamstrung by unclear writing, and I feel that is largely the case here.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The authors thank the reviewer for taking the trouble to make detailed annotations. The authors have responded to each matter raised in the annotated PDF in tracked changes provided in the resubmitted draft. The authors acknowledge that clarification of the thesis is important, and have engaged with matters raised by the reviewer. In doing this the authors would also like to reaffirm what the thesis is about. In particular, that regulation of the precautionary principle has not properly engaged with hidden collapse, and in in order to do this a more rigorous approach is required for regulation to address scientific uncertainty and proportionate response to environmental risk. Whilst the authors believe this has been addressed, they also accept that further refinement and clarification of the thesis is possible. This has been provided and each of the reviewers points has been addressed. The only exception is where the reviewer referred to the detail in section one on hidden collapse probably belongs in a separate discussion section on hidden collapse. The authors point out that section one is a discussion section on hidden collapse and properly believes it is being dealt with in the right position in the paper. Apart from that, the authors have responded to each matter raised.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf