Are Countries Ready for REDD+ Payments? REDD+ Readiness in Bhutan, India, Myanmar, and Nepal

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript titled: “Are Countries Ready for REDD+ Payments? Armoring REDD+ Readiness in Bhutan, India, Myanmar, and Nepal” intends to compare the readiness of the mentioned countries to implement Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest 9 Degradation (REDD+) mechanism towards limiting global warming. The subject of the study is very interesting and the manuscript is well-organized as a peer-review paper very. However, there are some essential problems with this manuscript making it unacceptable for publication with this form. The main problems are listed below section by section:

Abstract:

Methodology is very limited and unclear that needs to be revised and expressed clearly.

Introduction: 

The main problem in this section is about writing. Wrong punctuations, improper spaces, typos, grammar problems (e.g. Lines: 39, 44, 49, 50, 54, 73, 82) are not neglectable. 

The aim (s) of the study is not presented clearly in this section.

 

Materials and methods:

- The same above-mentioned problems about writing are still observed in this section.

- I this this section is incomplete because the total number of questionnaires and the statistical society are not expressed clearly. 

- No statistical analysis has been used to compare the results.

Results and Discussion:

- The results are very simple and is limited to some figures as a report not an output of analysis.   

- I recommend to re-write this section after using an appropriate statistical analysis.

Conclusion:

- The framework of this section is the same to the previous section.

- Conclusion section must summaries overall findings, highlight the important takeaways from the study and point out the problems and questions remaining.

- Repeating background information and present new arguments or documentation is not recommended.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachement

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper evaluates readiness progress, identification, and prioritization of readiness gaps in Bhutan, India, Myanmar, and Nepal. This study aims to assess the readiness of Bhutan, India, 1Myanmar, and Nepal to effectively implement REDD+ at the national level. The research content has certain value. At present, the manuscript is still not up to the published level. The main problems are as follows：

1..In general, the manuscript redaction is confused, messy and deficient. Grammar must be revised and correct.

2.The results and analysis of the abstract are not very logical and lack the final conclusion of the

manuscript.

3.The introduction has too much content, and it is very confusing and has no focus. At present, people can't understand the consciousness the author wants to express

4.The results and analysis are too simple. They simply describe the facts without well summarizing the deep rules of these data.

5.The manuscript lacks discussion, so the author is suggested to increase the discussion part

6.Because there was no information about replicates, I could not trust on data and some data had no error bar. The manuscript had no statistic analysis? Then, how can you conclude that was significant or not (for most figures and table).

7.The content of the conclusion part is too much, and it is repeated with the result part. So far, it is not a conclusion

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

REDD+ is a very interesting problem. The authors have done extensive research on it, but there are some issues that must be revised before publication。

   (1) The REDD+ summary statement needs more digital details to show related actions progress.

   (2) Questionnaire design details should follow the relevant paradigm and be reported in “2.1. Designing and survey”.

（3）The questionnaire statistical analysis should be reported in the mnuscript.

  (4) The research main question  lack of necessary description of the research process.This topic is original in the field. It address a specific apply in the field.

   (5) This manuscript specifically uses a questionnaire to conduct the study, but lacks the necessary reporting of the research process. For example, statistical information on the questionnaire, etc.

   (6) The findings provide the necessary reporting of the process of their investigation, but the lack of statistical information to support them may be confusing to the authors.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The paper can be considered to be accepted if the authors respond to these comments carefully.

 

[Small point]

1) Check missed punctuation. (in Line 49 and 189)

2) In Table 1, the classification of indicators according to readiness category is ambiguous.

3) Section 2.1 exists because Section 2.2 exists. Where is Section 2.2? This composition confuses the reader. (Section 1 also is in the same vein)

 

[Big point]

4) Explain in detail the type, range, and other characteristics of the indicators presented in Table 1.

5) In Figure 8, there is a statistically significant difference between countries or readiness?

6) Discussion of the results is necessary for dissemination of the manuscript. Add self-critism with the results of the analysis to the discussion section.

7) An explanation of future research is a good way to provide readers with new insights. Add future research to the conclusion section.

8) Research literature is old. Please use the new articles for 2021~2023 and move on to the edge of knowledge.

 

Ex. new articles

- Amuyou, U. A., Wang, Y., Bisong, F., & Antonarakis, A. S. (2021). Livelihood Impacts of Forest Carbon Protection in the Context of Redd+ in Cross River State, Southeast Nigeria. Sustainability, 13(9), 5081.

- Lu, S., Zhang, C., Dong, J., Adil, M., & Lu, H. (2022). Assessing Elevation-Based Forest Dynamics over Space and Time toward REDD+ MRV in Upland Myanmar. Remote Sensing, 14(23), 6117.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The author has revised some of his comments as required, but the innovation of this study is not enough on the whole. The whole manuscript is more like a brief review, without a good in-depth analysis based on the existing research. Moreover, the manuscript is chaotic expression, and many of the revised traces are still in the manuscript, resulting in many places can not clearly understand the author's meaning.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

I believe that the revised manuscript is an improvement over the submitted manuscript.

This paper should still be revised to these comments <see comment 3)> carefully.

1) Check missed punctuation

    -> I checked.

2) In Table 1, the classification of indicators according to readiness category is ambiguous

    -> revised to be more clear.

3) Section 2.1 exists because Section 2.2 exists. Where is Section 2.2?

    -> Revision is required.

4) Explain in detail the type, range, and other characteristics of the indicators presented in Table 1.

    -> I checked.

5) In Figure 8, there is a statistically significant difference between countries or readiness?

   -> I checked.

6) Discussion of the results is necessary.

    -> I checked.

7) Add future research to the conclusion section.

   -> I checked the revised conclusion section.

8) I checked.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx