Priorities and Interactions of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) with Focus on Wetlands
, Amanda Desormeaux 4, Johanna Hedlund 2, James W. Jawitz 4, Nicola Clerici 5, Luigi Piemontese 2, Jenny Alexandra Rodríguez-Rodriguez 6, Jesús Adolfo Anaya 7, Juan F. Blanco-Libreros 8, Sonia Borja 1, Jorge Celi 9, Sergey Chalov 10,11, Kwok Pan Chun 12, Matilda Cresso 1, Georgia Destouni 1, Shimelis Behailu Dessu 13, Giuliano Di Baldassarre 14, Andrea Downing 2, Luisa Espinosa 6, Navid Ghajarnia 1, Álvaro G. Gutiérrez 16, Amy Hansen 17, Zahra Kalantari 1, Adnane Labbaci 19, Lucia Licero-Villanueva 6, Kathryn McCurley 4, René Price 13, Sorain J. Ramchunder 21, Constanza Ricaurte-Villota 6, Erasmo Rodríguez 24, Jorge Salgado 25, A. Britta K. Sannel 1, Ana Carolina Santos 26, Samaneh Seifollahi-Aghmiuni 1, Ylva Sjöberg 1, Josefin Thorslund 1, add
Show full author list
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper has an overall good quality and is well written. Please check minor typing errors such as:
line 139: title
lines 223 & 226: the words "wetlandscapes" and "wetlands" are written in a wrong way.
line 328: wrong number of the Figure. Figure 8 is not in the paper, the correct reference is Figure 7.
Nevertheless, few improvements could make more clear and understandable the research.
Hereafter my comments:
Chapter 2: please provide information on the case studies selected in order to understand better the results.
Chapter 2.1: please consider to include a supplementary material with detailed information on the contents of the survey
Chapter 2.3: please provide information on the cluster analysis used.
Table 1: please clarify the contents of the "type" column.
Author Response
We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our manuscript and suggest improvements for publication. We answer the comments of Reviewer 1, point-by-point in the attached document.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This is an excellent paper on the relation between SDGs and Wetlands. I suggest that the paper can published after minor revisions only.
The conclusion section needs to be revised, i.e. at the moment this section is too long, also it reads more like a (partly) repetition and (partly) continuation of the discussion section. I suggest providing the key conclusions in form of bullet points.Author Response
We thank the reviewer for taking the time to read our manuscript and suggest improvements for publication. We answer the comments of the Reviewer point-by-point in the document attached.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
