INTRO: The abstract presents an exploration into relevant and important topic. The choice of case study is well argued. Language is clear and generally the abstract is well-written.
MERITS: Spatial scale covering the whole country is of particular value of this study, so is the use of empirical data. Exploration into more than just biodiversity (inclusion of carbon sequestration and hydrological functions) is definittely a plus. In general multi-criteria analysis on such scale for several management options already warrants arguements in favour of this study. Conclusions pointing out the need for consulting stakeholders
CRITIQUE: From the text I do not see any problems with the abstract.
DISCUSSION: However, the arguement for the study would have been stronger if selection of ecosystem services included some from social perspective, such as recreation, cultural heritage. It is also unclear to what extent differnet stakeholders were involved in the process, but I am looking forward to listening to the presentation to find out.
- - -
INTRO: The manuscript highlights three key pressures on peatlands: forestry, bioenergy and peat industries. These pressures often result in increased GHG emissions, biodiversity loss and environmental loading. In Finland 60% of the peatland area has already been drained for forestry, thus posing a problem of utmost importance for the environment of the country.
MERITS: The abstract makes mention to the use of country-wide spatial data to estimate the impact of the peatland uses in different environmental parameters, and to optimize the uses so that they are cost-efficient and protect biodiversity as well as ecosystem services.
In addition, the authors state that they will demonstrate a 'multicriteria decision support tool' which could be able to visualize the different trade-offs related to peatland use.
CRITIQUE: Both the 'country-wide spatial data' and the 'multicriteria decision support tool' were not described deep enough. Despite the restriction that the length of the abstract gives, the authors could give shortly the name of the equipment or technique used for gathering the spatial data, and give some brief overview / examples of how the support tool was structured.
DISCUSSION: This research is very important for Finland considering the large amount of peatlands, their current state and economic importance.
The research has potential to help in optimizing the use of different types of peatlands. However, such types were only mentioned in the title but not in the body of the abstract. It would be good that the authors provided some reference or example to the type of peatland vs the criteria fed to the support tool.
The research could be improved by describing shortly some details about the 'decision support tool' and explaining how it is adaptable to different kind of peatlands.
- - -
INTRO: There is high pressure on Finnish peatlands due to forest, bioenergy and peat industries. Forestry activities have altered peatland biodiversity, environmental loading and greenhouse gas emissions. The authors estimated and predicted the impact of the latter parameters in various peatland land uses using a country-wide spatial dataset. Additionally, they numerically optimised cost-efficient peatland land uses taking into account their biodiversity, ecosystems services and monetary value, which seems to be case dependent.
MERITS: The merits of this study are the extension of its spatial dataset, which covers the whole country, and developing a mutlticriteria decision for the characterisation of peatlands that takes into account their biodiversity, ecosystem services and monetary value.
CRITIQUE: It would have been interesting to see some sort of brief description about the seven peatland land uses referred in the abstract.
DISCUSSION: I consider this study to be highly relevant for the national level, both in ecological and economic perspectives, as peatland ecosystems represent 30% of the Finnish land cover. This study is also relevant beyond Finnish borders, as it can have a use in additional countries within the boreal region with similar peatland ecosystems.
