Scenario Paths of Developing Forest Carbon Sinks for China to Achieve Carbon Neutrality
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)
The authors have faithfully addressed all the comments raised by the reviewers. These revisions have significantly enhanced the quality and scientific value of the paper. As a result of their diligent efforts, this manuscript is deemed suitable for publication in Land.
Author Response
Thank you for your high evaluation of our revision.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
General Overview:
I am pleased to review the paper “Scenario paths of developing forest carbon sinks for China to achieve carbon neutrality”. The paper needs a few clarifications:
Detailed comments:
1. Abstract and Introduction
- The abstract could use more introductory language which speaks to why this assessment is needed. What exactly is the significance of this issue? It could also describe the methodology used before the results are presented. I would like to hear more about what the implications of the study towards the end of the abstract. Generally, the abstract could benefit from better organization.
- The introduction could also be structured better, and the literature explained in relation to the aim of this study needs to be clearer. The wording in the literature review cites what was done or the aim of the studies but the result and impact were not always clear. The theoretical background of green roofs could also be delved into a bit more. Please extend your introduction section by including the recent references from 2020-2022.
i.e. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.814439 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106949
2. Tables and Figures
The title of the tables and figures needs to be clearer and more descriptive.
All table's titles should be on the top of the tables rather than below. It is important to explain tables and diagrams where necessary. The figures should be clearer.
3. Methods
Methdodly is not clear and it should be elaborated in more detail.
please provide a detail description step by step.
3. Results and Discussion
what is the accuracy of this model and how to evaluate the results?
I would suggest elaborating on Key performance indicators.
The discussion needs to be clearer and more concise.
There must be some figure for the results indicate.
Results should be compared with previously published literature.
What implications does this have for the aim of the study?
General Overview:
I am pleased to review the paper “Scenario paths of developing forest carbon sinks for China to achieve carbon neutrality”. The paper needs a few clarifications:
Detailed comments:
1. Abstract and Introduction
- The abstract could use more introductory language which speaks to why this assessment is needed. What exactly is the significance of this issue? It could also describe the methodology used before the results are presented. I would like to hear more about what the implications of the study towards the end of the abstract. Generally, the abstract could benefit from better organization.
- The introduction could also be structured better, and the literature explained in relation to the aim of this study needs to be clearer. The wording in the literature review cites what was done or the aim of the studies but the result and impact were not always clear. The theoretical background of green roofs could also be delved into a bit more. Please extend your introduction section by including the recent references from 2020-2022.
i.e. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.814439 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eiar.2022.106949
2. Tables and Figures
The title of the tables and figures needs to be clearer and more descriptive.
All table's titles should be on the top of the tables rather than below. It is important to explain tables and diagrams where necessary. The figures should be clearer.
3. Methods
Methdodly is not clear and it should be elaborated in more detail.
please provide a detail description step by step.
3. Results and Discussion
what is the accuracy of this model and how to evaluate the results?
I would suggest elaborating on Key performance indicators.
The discussion needs to be clearer and more concise.
There must be some figure for the results indicate.
Results should be compared with previously published literature.
What implications does this have for the aim of the study?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)
The manuscript is well-written. The results and conclusion are well-illustrated. Only a flow chart of methodology is required for the audience. Some more new research works should be discussed in the discussion chapter. Hence, only a minor revision is needed for the manuscript.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)
It is considered that the new version presented by the authors gives an adequate answer to the main questions previously presented.
It is considered that the new version presented by the authors gives an adequate answer to the main questions previously presented.
This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
As the climate change issue has become a major global environmental issue in recent years, this manuscript is highly significant because it tried to forecast the long-term development trend of China, one of the world's largest economies and carbon-emitting countries, forest carbon sinks and their impact on carbon neutrality.
On the other hand, this manuscript has mainly two challenges: the way of scenario development and the structure of the manuscript.
Regarding the scenarios presented by the authors, there is not much diversity in the scenarios examined. The scenarios are based on three assumptions: routine, accelerated, and strengthened, all of those preconditions are based on the assumption that the policies are proceeding smoothly or at a more accelerated pace. However, as we can see in environmental policies and their results in many countries around the world, they do not always go smoothly according to the policies. Did the authors have to consider scenarios in which forest sequestration did not increase smoothly?
The issue regarding the structure of the manuscript is that the structure of this manuscript does not follow IMRAD. "Discussion" section is usually the section that discusses the facts and implications of the results based on the facts stated in the "Results" or discusses how the results came to be the way they are. The discussion section of this manuscript, however, is a section that clarifies the points to be noted in the scenario. The Discussion section is mostly in Chapter 6.1 and part of Chapter 4. In addition, the objectives of the manuscript are not clearly explained in the introduction. To overcome these issues, the structure of the manuscript needs to be modified significantly. On the other hand, the structure of the abstract follows IMRAD and is easy to understand for readers.
In the following chapters of the manuscript, my comments are described as follows.
1. Introduction：66-71
I recognized that you are criticizing existing studies, but I would like you to explain which studies you are criticizing specifically by showing references.
1. Introduction：77
I think you need to show references as the basis for "many academic studies"
1. Introduction：79-83
The objectives of this study should be clearly stated. In the abstract, the objectives are clearly stated and understandable, but not clearly stated in the main manuscript.
2. Literature review: 220-224
In existing studies, estimates up to 2050 are already discussed. Since these existing studies cover up to 2050, is it not the "near future" something rather than the "current situation"?
3.2.1. Choice of influencing factors
What exactly is meant by "forestry investment" in this manuscript?　Please explain this word in the appropriate section of this manuscript.
3.3. Scenario design: 330-335
In this manuscript, the scenarios presented are those that enhance forest conservation and reforestation such as acceleration and strengthening, in addition to those that are equivalent to routine (BAU). On the other hand, it might also make sense to consider scenarios that did not always proceed as the policy intended? By showing worse scenarios, it could serve as a rationale for clarifying the intent of the policy.
3.3. Scenario design: 350-351
Why did you assumed to be 1% and 2% more than the routine ecological civilization scenario of the China’s annual forest volume
3.3. Scenario design: 367-369
What is the basis for the reduced by 0.5% every 5 years?
4. Results
Since this section describes "results," you should basically only describe matters that are facts-based. For example, 4.4 describes a kind of recommendation, which can be somewhat confusing to read.
5.Discussion and 6.1. Conclusions
This section is not a discussion of this manuscript, but rather a Points to consider section of the scenario. The discussion of this manuscript may be found mainly in 6.1.
Author Response
Please download the attachment to view it. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Having read the first submission, and now having read the revised paper I have no further comments to make as I am satisfied with the submission inits new form
Author Response
Please download the attachment to view it. Thank you very much!
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Based on revision, the quality of manuscript is improving. However, I think authors need more revision particurally, results and deiscussion parts.
Please read following comments and revise manuscript.
3.2.1. Choice of influencing factors
We now provide this information in footnote 3:
↓
Understood. In this line explanation, please include references, as you already mentioned specific examples. And please follow the Instructions of MDPI and “Land” on how to write the footnote.
3.3. Scenario design: 330-335
Thank you for your valuable feedback. We have also thought about setting up worse scenarios when we began this research. But when we examined the literature and statistical data, we found that China's efforts in ecological protection will only strengthen rather than weaken. In that case, we don't think it's necessary to set up a 'worse scenario'.
↓
I understood your explanation. If so, before describing the three scenarios you developed, please explain the situation in China and why you selected only optimistic scenarios.
3.3. Scenario design: 367-369
As stated in our response to the previous question: Currently, there are no documents or scholars studying this, and we are the first to conduct similar research.
↓
I already recognized that your research has originality, but my point for the asking is why you deiced to reduce by 0.5%, not 1 % and 2%.
4. Results
In our analysis of the factors affecting forest carbon sequestration, forest investment and forest volume are two important factors. The forest volume is related to the growth of the forest, and it is not susceptible to human intervention under a given forest area. Forest investment is a variable that can be regulated by the government. Therefore, next we should mainly focus on and analyze the role of forest investment in carbon neutrality. This lays the foundation for the proposal of policy recommendations in the next part in the paper.
↓
I think you still need more revision in these parts. Please read Chapter 4 and describe only the facts in this chapter.
5.Discussion and 6.1. Conclusions
This section is not a discussion of this manuscript, but rather a Points to consider section of the scenario. The discussion of this manuscript may be found mainly in 6.1.
Based on your feedback, we have placed this information in section 5.1.
↓
In my impression, your objectives are slightly misaligned with your objectives. If you want to discuss the consideration points of the scenarios you describe, you need to change your objectives.
