Reforestation Opportunities in Indonesia: Mitigating Climate Change and Achieving Sustainable Development Goals

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

1. What is the author´s opinion on the optimal species composition of the stands used for reforestation? Please, improve the discussion on topic of reforestation costs and possibilities for future economic use of stands.
2. Discuss the use of Acacia mangium in terms of monoculture stand. Has the impact of monoculture on the water management functions of the forest and on ecological stability been investigated?
3. The abbreviation “BAU” is used for the first time without explanation in the abstract. It could be explained.
4. Unify the abbreviation for hectares. The right form is “ha”, not “Ha”.
5. The symbol “delta” in the equation no. 2 (line 163) is as if deformed.
6. Table 3 (line 323) needs formal adjustment. Please, unify the figure sizes. Next, it would be useful to add a small space between the images so that they do not merge.
7. Figure 3 (line 360). Please, provide a higher resolution image.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

General Comments

Highly interesting and relevant, well structured manuscript

Detailed Comments

The presentation of the results might be improved at some points:

Tables 1, 3: add scale indication of the map/areal image, add the source and spatial resolution of the displayed data, add a comment on the result of the validation in the table and in the text. This would help the reader understand which part of the area had been classified by the digital product and which of part of this classification is regarded by the study authors to be corretly and wrongly classified and for what reason.

Fig. 2: The Three scenario could be merged into one x-y graphic with error bars. The meaning of the error bars (e.g. simple uncertainty interval, standard deviation at 95% significance level, or ....) in the figure caption.

There are some points where the text might been written slightly more consice,

e.g. line 211 ff : labelling the statment a bit more, who refined? This study or [9]

e.g. line 215 : 'turned out to be not applied' or 'turned out to be not applicable'?

Table 2: add 'values' after 'accumulation' to make clear that these values were assumed as a working approach (based on whatever) and applied.

4. Conclusions

line 407: 'NDC' might be written unabbreviated in the conclusion to allow readers to get the main result without reading the whole article.

line 408: Indicate the reference, e.g. BAU for which area, Indonesia?

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Please see the attachment.

Thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx