Transformative Change Needs Direction

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article links the SDGs and the Aichi Targets in its analysis in order to assess policy scenarios and identify pathways for a sustainable future. The paper builds on recent global scientific endeavours, reviews relevant literature, bridges across conceptual approaches, and use modelling and cost-benefit analysis to derive conclusions. I believe that both the approach and the conclusions of the paper are novel and worth of publishing. However, reading through the manuscript and the supplementary materials, I started to wonder whether a longer format would be more suitable for this paper - especially because I feel that some information which is now presented in the supplementary file are critical to understand the conceptual background and the methodological approach of this study.

Below I list three topics where I felt some gaps in the manuscript - but actually all necessary details are shared in the supplementary text...

- the ms suggests using the plural values of nature against which the 6 scenarios can be assessed. I am happy with this choice, but I don't think the main text gives a strong argument why to use the values of nature as a common denominator, and also does not detail how it understands the plural values of nature. These are all very nicely decribed in the supplementary material though, so probably it would be sufficient to elevate some parts of the supplementary to the main text. E.g. in section 2 you could mention the IPBES values assessment as a third milestone, which gives you a solid ground on why to bring in the plural values approach. Then, when the scenarios are presented in the box, you could add details on which values are more relevant to each of the scenarios.

- in sections 4 and 6 the authors briefly mention the used methods and provide links to the supplementary material. Please revise the references to the supplementary material as now in the main text you refer to S2 and S3 but actually headings in the supplementary file ranges from A to D. Also, some parts of the supplementary text are not referred in the main text (e.g. the typology of values) although these contain very important information which is critical for the understanding. So please make sure that you always refer to the correct part of the supplementary text.

- I understand that as a Perspective paper this ms focuses on the main results and their interpretation, but because the analysis was also done in a novel, integrative way, I think it would be important to note some lessons learnt on the 'hows' in the main text. In the supplementary document you reflect upon some potential constraints, and very clearly detail how you ensured robustness. This is great, and I would suggest, again, to elevate some of these points from the supplementary to the main text (e.g. about weighting policy scenarios against values, or calculating a societal CBA). This could help your readers to evaluate the merits (and the challenges) of your approach even if they do not go through a 20 pages long supplementary file).

Specific comments:

- page 1, first line after the headline Introduction: I think it is unnecessary to put the UN before IPBES (although IPBES is hosted by the UN, it is established by governments...)

- supplementary material: you have a heading D in the supplementary file, but no content can be found there (probably left there just by mistake)

-  a small formatting issue: some words are written in much bigger letters than others which should be corrected before publishing

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Review

The paper performs a review and meta-evaluation of modelled future scenarios for Europe and Central Asia based with a focus on the IPBES grouping of six scenarios. The evaluation is based on a review of 37 studies and a set of 37 indicators drawn from the Aichi (20) and SDG (17) indicator sets. Based on the evaluation, some general conclusions and policy advice are made on the importance of directing transformation pathways for the regions considered. While the paper is interesting, conducting a meta analysis of studies from a nature/biodiversity lens incorporating IPBES scenarios and the SDGs, there are several shortcomings that need to be addressed.

Major revisions:

Firstly, please include the methodology of the study in the paper. Currently, it appears as supplementary information, however, in my opinion this is the core contribution of the paper and should be included in the main body of the text.

Secondly, on the methodology, there is need to clarify the degree of overlap in the indicators sets of the 37 studies selected for the review. At present, this is hidden through use of percentages in Table S.2. Please include absolute values and information on indicators gaps across the studies.  In addition, in Figure A.1., how was the plural assessment arrived at? I.e., what weights did you give to the three value dimensions? You mention limitations associated with the assessment of instrumental and relational dimensions yet these are not specified for the reader. 37 indicators were selected for the study. Please include a table describing the selected indicators and how these were grouped according to the value dimensions.

Thirdly, 17 indicators were used to assess the impact on the SDGs (one indicator for each goal). However, several of the goals combine policy objectives that can conflict. For example, SDG2 aims to achieve food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture yet these objectives can conflict, for example, when food supply is expanded in an unsustainable manner. Similarly, SDG7 seeks to deliver universal, affordable and clean energy, however, the nature of the interactions between these objectives depends importantly on the types of energy technologies used. Please explain what indicators were selected for each goal and how an overall assessment of progress on that goal was arrived at. If as alluded to, the focus is on the ecological dimension of each goal, please detail how this informed the selection of SDG indicators.

Third, the study arrives at some general conclusions about sustainable transformations for the regions considered, however, it is clear from the bibliography that the authors have not really engaged with the literature in sustainability on this topic. I would suggest referencing this literature where relevant. See the following publications and references therein

Sachs, J.D., Schmidt-Traub, G., Mazzucato, M., Messner, D., Nakicenovic, N. & Rockström, J. (2019) Six transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Nature Sustainability, 2 (9), 805– 814.

Horan, D. (2019) A new approach to partnerships for SDG transformations. Sustainability, 11 (18), 4947.

TWI 2050 (The World in 2050). (2018) Transformations to achieve the sustainable development goals. Report prepared by The World in 2050 initiative. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA), Laxenburg.

Finally, the paper might benefit from connecting to the emerging literature on integrated assessment modelling that employs SDG indicators in the policy evaluation. I am not aware of any study that incorporates a comprehensive biodiversity/nature perspective into these assessments. If that is the case, I think it would be worth mentioning this in your contribution to the literature. See, for example,

Van Soest HL, Van Vuuren DP, Hilaire J, Minx JC, Harmsen MJ, Krey V, Popp A, Riahi K, Luderer G (2019) Analysing interactions among sustainable development goals with integrated assessment models. Glob Transit 1:210–225

Soergel B, Kriegler E, Weindl I, Rauner S, Dirnaichner A, Ruhe C, Hofmann M, Bauer N, Bertram C, Bodirsky BL, Leimbach M (2021) A sustainable development pathway for climate action within the UN 2030 Agenda. Nat Clim Chang 11(8):656–664

 

Minor revisions:

There are some minor formatting errors throughout the text. Please amend these.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

It is a good analytical synthesis of the comparison of the different future scenarios for sustainable development. I believe that the manuscript could be improved, and the authors provide more details of the used methodology, as well as the theoretical foundation of this methodology. This type of information is valuable for repeating similar work in the field of comparing future scenarios.The text has letters with different font types, please correct it in the final version. Congratulations!

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for considering the comments. I think that the paper reads much better now and will be more accessible to a wider audience.

There are a few things that i wanted to point out and that you may want to consider:

Minor:

-        Figure 2. In SDG indicator assessments, performance is typically represented in radar diagrams as the higher the distance from the centre the better is the performance on that goal.

      I recommend the following amendment (or an appropriate variation of it) to this sentence on Page 4. A given scenario has an impact on a certain value indicator (derived from the review), and THE WEIGHT ASSIGNED TO this indicator reflects to a certain extent the policy priorities institutionalized through the SDGs and ATs (AS weightS ARE derived from the policy documents)

-        You might want to include the following addition to this sentence in the final paragraph of the conclusion: “more robust knowledge on the connection between scenarios and their impacts is needed, as well as on the interactions between the GOALS AND targets themselves [25]”.

Author Response

Dear "reviewer 2"

Thanks a lot for spotting and pointing out these issues, we have corrected and adapted these: 

• Figure 2. In SDG indicator assessments, performance is typically represented in radar diagrams as the higher the distance from the centre the better is the performance on that goal.

=> good point, we have added this to the caption to make this clear

•       I recommend the following amendment (or an appropriate variation of it) to this sentence on Page 4. A given scenario has an impact on a certain value indicator (derived from the review), and THE WEIGHT ASSIGNED TO this indicator reflects to a certain extent the policy priorities institutionalized through the SDGs and ATs (AS weightS ARE derived from the policy documents)

=> very elegant clarification, we adapted this as suggested

•       You might want to include the following addition to this sentence in the final paragraph of the conclusion: “more robust knowledge on the connection between scenarios and their impacts is needed, as well as on the interactions between the GOALS AND targets themselves [25]”.

=> added correction. thanks!