Regional CO₂ Budget and Abatement Countermeasures for Forest Scenic Spots: A Case Study of the Shenyang National Forest Park

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

In order to clarify the regional CO₂ budget, this study tried to estimate C_{annual emissions} and C_{annual sinks} in the Shenyang National Forest Park, China with a bottom up approach.

I can judge the method is appropriate and results are reliable. I also recognize that this study has some limitations in terms of data collection. However, the authors pointed out these limitations in this paper clearly.

Taking these factors into consideration, I will judge this manuscript is worth to accept if the authors will make some small revisions written below;

All Tables: The figures in the tables should be aligned, not centered

L216:　I can understand what is TC, but TC does not appear in the Equation 2 nor 3. 

L313: CES should be C_ES

L398-: The size of fonts in this line might be different comparing to the other lines.  

Author Response

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.

Our response to your review comments is as follows

1. Thank you for your suggestions. I have modified the alignment of the figures in the table according your suggestions.
2. L216: Thank you for your careful review. Tc should appear in the equation, but it has been left out. We have corrected it.
3. L313: We have corrected it according your reminder.
4. L398: In the article, there was indeed a problem of inconsistent of font size, which has been corrected according to your reminder.

Your suggestions are very helpful to me.

Please see the attachment

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors investigate the carbon budget for a national forest park.  They identify the emissions associated with tourism and the amount sequestered, and report a deficit in sequestration of about 27%, which means that the park is contributing to the greenhouse effect.

In the Introduction, they discuss studies that have examined other areas’ carbon budgets, as well as studies associated with them.  They then describe what they set out to do and describe improvements they believe they have made in terms of analysis.

In Part 2, Study Area, they give a thorough description of the forest park and describe how they obtained data.

Part 3 is Methods.  The authors are careful to distinguish between carbon sources and sinks. Which combine to form a carbon budget and determine atmospheric concentrations.  The authors make good use of figures, sub-headings, paragraph breaks and equations to describe their methods.

In Part 4, Results, the authors add tables to their subheadings, paragraph breaks and figures to describe their findings.  Their presentation technique makes the manuscript relatively easy to follow.

The authors then include a section 5, Discussion where they detail some of the issues their study does NOT include, such as energy associated with exporting commodities. But they also point out where they have included emissions that have been omitted from previous studies.  This section lends credibility to the study, and indicates that the items measured in the carbon budget are truly appropriate for measuring the carbon footprint of a forest park area. 

In the Conclusion, Part 6, the authors point out some ways that the park could be moved to a more carbon neutral tourist destination.  These include the use of natural gas over coal, and composting.

This study was well conceived, carried out and well presented.  I think it will make a favorable contribution to the journal.

Decision: Publish

 

 

Author Response

 Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our manuscript.

Thank you very much for your review, your suggestions are very helpful to me.

According to your suggestion, we have invited language editors to modify the style and spelling of English.At the end of the revised manuscript we attached a certificate of English language editing.

Please see the attachment

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I can say that this manuscript is well revised and English is also improved.

Therefore, I will judge that we can accept this paper in present form.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript is fine and should be published as is.