Next Article in Journal
Small Scale Fisheries, Dolphins and Societal Challenges: A Case Study in the City of Volos, Greece
Previous Article in Journal
How Threatened Is Scincella huanrenensis? An Update on Threats and Trends
Article
Peer-Review Record

Country Representatives’ Perceptions of the Biodiversity Science-Policy Interface

Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Received: 9 April 2021 / Revised: 27 April 2021 / Accepted: 28 April 2021 / Published: 30 April 2021

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Interesting research on an actual topic. In my opinion the methods can be improved by giving more detail about the survey and the surveyed group: How it was built? Is it a representative survey and if not - comment why? Was the background/experience of the respondents considered? Also - gender, age?

It is not clear why from some countries there are 2 representatives and from other - only one. 

Author Response

Thank you for pointing out some quite fundamental gaps in the methods narrative.

We provide additional detail about how the group were surveyed in lines 85-90 of the edited manuscript (these line numbers are correct  if tracked changes are shown in the document, not in balloons), as follows: “Thereafter, individualized emails were sent to all relevant CBD country representatives, and IPBES country representatives with whom the authors were familiar, to complete the short questionnaire. We did not send follow-up emails when we received no reply. Out of 414 people contacted, 79 responded, for a total of 95 respondents.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The discussion section can be improved in view of the review report being attached herewith.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you for the helpful guidance on improving the discussion in our manuscript. Our responses are provided here in the order that your guidance appears in your review, and in the attached document alongside each comment. Please note that line numbers apply when tracked changes are shown in the text (not in balloons). I tried to upload both the response summary and the edited manuscript, but the system changed the file names and I shows the manuscript under "Author's responses...". I hope that the journal staff can assist with making that clear.

We provided some context to the importance of policy in the conservation of biodiversity (lines 24-27): “Biodiversity is gaining recognition for its role in supporting human livelihoods. Meanwhile global change, mostly through human activities, is increasingly threatening biodiversity. Continued development and refinement of strategies and policies is required to conserve biodiversity adequately, from the local level to the global.”

We noted, in lines 220-222 of the edited manuscript, that effective engagement of scientists in the policymaking process relies on communication of both policymakers’ needs and constraints to scientists, and scientific information from scientists to policymakers: “For effective engagement of scientists in the policymaking process, communication of policymakers’ needs and constraints to scientists is required, as well as communication of scientific information from scientists to policymakers.”

We noted that the various IPBES reports that have been produced since 2016 are likely to have been an important source of collated information for policymakers in lines 200-204: “The perceived adequacy of the quality of the information available to communicate at the SPI may have something to do with the various IPBES reports that have been released since 2016, providing vetted and comprehensive collated information for policymakers. That said, the IPBES reports point to a variety of knowledge gaps that require attention.”

The point about community involvement is well taken. As indicated in the original manuscript, only nine respondents indicated that IPLCs were missing from the process. We expect that estimate would have been much higher if IPLC representatives were surveyed. 

We provide some additional detail and discussion about the types of mechanisms in lines 188-190 of the edited manuscript: “Although the largest single category (27) was documentation of various kinds, the three next most common, collectively amounting to 45, all point to the importance of interpersonal communication.”

In lines 239-241 of the edited manuscript, we noted that recognition of IPLCs and the knowledge that they could contribute to improving our understanding biodiversity and its management is intended, in part, to provide a model for national governments to mimic: “This recognition of IPLCs and the knowledge that they could contribute to improving our understanding biodiversity and its management is intended, in part, to provide a model for national governments to mimic.”

In lines 203-204 we noted that “…the IPBES reports themselves point to a variety of knowledge gaps that require attention”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop