Governing Climate Finance in Fiji: Barriers, Complexity and Interconnectedness

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall an important and insightful piece that was a delight to read.

Author needs to fix some minor typos and a few inconsistencies

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you kindly for your thoughtful review and very helpful comments. I agree with all of the revisions suggested. I have incorporated the suggested changes, which I have addressed point by point below.

Re Reviewer 1

(1) Comment: Overall an important and insightful piece that was a delight to read. Author needs to fix some minor typos and a few inconsistencies

(1) Response: Thank you for the kind words as well as the returned paper, which marked up the typos and inconsistencies. All highlighted errors have been corrected and the changes tracked in the manuscript.

Reviewer 2 Report

The climate change issues are the key factors of sustainable development but most of all the main condition of the future humanity existence. Therefore, I find the main purpose of the paper actual and very important.

The article is a comprehensive case study of the island of Fiji in terms of managing climate change. The author analyzes in a thoughtful and well-structured way the multilevel and interconnectedness of barriers related to financing activities against global warming. After reading the paper, I fully agree with the statement that „this conceptual approach, though build from the Fijian context, has great potential in analysing complex climate governance challenges in other Pacific nations, small island developing states and developing nations”.

Comments:

1)        In Methodology section, the Pacific methodology of Talanoa should be better              explain

2)        Line 104-110: I think, it should be move to the Findings and discussion section

3)        Author should consider shortening the Findings and discussion section

       4)     In Conclusion section author should recognize the limitations of their paper                       and emphasize problems for further research.

Author Response

Thank you kindly for your thoughtful review and very helpful comments. I agree with all of the revisions suggested. I have incorporated the suggested changes, which I have addressed point by point below.

Re Reviewer 2

(1)  Comment: In Methodology section, the Pacific methodology of Talanoa should be better explain

(1) Response: Agreed. The manuscript has been updated to elaborate further on Talanoa as a research methodology. 

(2) Comment:  Line 104-110: I think, it should be move to the Findings and discussion section

(2) Response:  Agreed that this paragraph is incongruous in the methodology section. I have cut it because these points are made elsewhere in the findings and discussion section.

(3) Comment: Author should consider shortening the Findings and discussion section

(3) Response: Agreed. I have shortened the Findings and Discussion section. Deletions are tracked.   

(4) Comment   In Conclusion section author should recognize the limitations of their paper and emphasize problems for further research.

(4) Response: Agreed. A paragraph has been added to the conclusion addressing the paper’s limitations as well as a few sentences highlighting areas for future study.

Best,

Kirsty Anantharajah