INTRO: Combining data on biodiversity (both species and habitat types) and expert knowledge of habitat restoration, this study uses the spatial planning software Zonation to rank Finnish Natura 2000 areas depending on their potential for cost-effective habita improvement.
MERITS: There is a need to identify areas which can be restored in a cost-effective way, in Europe and elsewhere, and the use of conservation planning tools to that end is interesting.
CRITIQUE: The manuscript lacks precision and would require more context, more details on the analysis as well as some key resulst obtained. The manuscript only mentions the use of Zonation and its principles but does not describe how these principles are tackled in the analysis, i.e. how is connectivity taken into account? The authors only mentions results obtained as ' maps, curves of trade-offs and also a ranking list of Natura 2000 areas', which is very vague.
DISCUSSION: I would advise to better describe the context of the analysis (do all Finnish Natura 2000 sites need habitat improvement?) and certainly the analysis itself. What exactly are the data, how was it used in the Zonation framework? What do the results show? Do highest ranking areas have anything in common? Finally, I would like to know how this methodology could be applied elsewhere.
- - -
INTRO: Natura 2000 areas in Finalnd and their 69 different habitat types were ranked in regard to their ecological restoration and nature management based on their potential for cost-effective ecosystem improvement.
MERITS: Ok
CRITIQUE: Ok
DISCUSSION: Conclusions are missing.
- - -
INTRO: The abstract is tasty and presents what looks like a comprehensive study on the priorities to undertake conservation actions in Natura 2000 sites and related habitats across Finland.
MERITS: The use of spatial conservation software although common to identify conservation areas (generally speaking) has not been used to guide management actions.
CRITIQUE: Th results section presents very limited information.
DISCUSSION: -
- - -
INTRO: This study focuses on an evaluation of the Finnish Natura 2000 network for its potential to conserve habitats and species, by considering also functional variables and biodiversity.
MERITS: It is a good approach to evaluate a national network of the N2000, as this should be a functional network that can then most beneficially contribute to an international, EU-wide N2000 area network.
CRITIQUE: It is not clear to me what the ranking is based on, how the results are interpreted and what the authors derive from their knowledge gain through this study.
DISCUSSION: While the topic is of large interest to me, I would love to see some more background on the implementation and the importance of N2000 within Finland (and other countries). Seeing the results/ discussion/ conclusion in the abstract would help to understand how this study contributes to biodiversity conservation.
