-->PONE-D-25-51781-->-->Finding Space for Rewilding: Nature Futures Scenarios Reveal Ecological Opportunities Based on Plural Values of Nature from Participatory Processes-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Quintero Uribe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

Dear authors,  -->--> -->-->Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS One. Based on the comments of both reviewers there are several critical aspects that need to be addressed. Please refer to all comments and suggestions by the reviewers.

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miguel Inácio

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf.

2. Thank you for stating in your Funding Statement:

“The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816). LQ-U was supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme “Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks” (MSCA-ITN-ETN, grant no. 813904), and from the FEdA programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no. 16LW0064K).”

Please provide an amended statement that declares *all* the funding or sources of support (whether external or internal to your organization) received during this study, as detailed online in our guide for authors at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submit-now.  Please also include the statement “There was no additional external funding received for this study.” in your updated Funding Statement.

Please include your amended Funding Statement within your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Thank you for stating the following financial disclosure:

“The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816). LQ-U was supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme “Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks” (MSCA-ITN-ETN, grant no. 813904), and from the FEdA programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no. 16LW0064K).”

Please state what role the funders took in the study.  If the funders had no role, please state: "The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript."

If this statement is not correct you must amend it as needed.

Please include this amended Role of Funder statement in your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

4. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript:

“The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816). LQ-U was supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme “Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks” (MSCA-ITN-ETN, grant no. 813904), and from the FEdA programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no. 16LW0064K).”

We note that you have provided additional information within the Acknowledgements Section that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. Please note that funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows:

“The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of iDiv funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG-FZT 118, 202548816). LQ-U was supported by funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 Programme “Marie Sklodowska-Curie Innovative Training Networks” (MSCA-ITN-ETN, grant no. 813904), and from the FEdA programme of the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) (grant no. 16LW0064K).”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

5. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document. You should list all authors and all affiliations as per our author instructions and clearly indicate the corresponding author.

6. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information.

7. We note that Figures 1, 3 & 4 in your submission contain [map/satellite] images which may be copyrighted. All PLOS content is published under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which means that the manuscript, images, and Supporting Information files will be freely available online, and any third party is permitted to access, download, copy, distribute, and use these materials in any way, even commercially, with proper attribution. For these reasons, we cannot publish previously copyrighted maps or satellite images created using proprietary data, such as Google software (Google Maps, Street View, and Earth). For more information, see our copyright guidelines: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/licenses-and-copyright.

We require you to either (1) present written permission from the copyright holder to publish these figures specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license, or (2) remove the figures from your submission:

a. You may seek permission from the original copyright holder of Figures 1, 3 & 4 to publish the content specifically under the CC BY 4.0 license.

We recommend that you contact the original copyright holder with the Content Permission Form (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=7c09/content-permission-form.pdf) and the following text:

“I request permission for the open-access journal PLOS ONE to publish XXX under the Creative Commons Attribution License (CCAL) CC BY 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Please be aware that this license allows unrestricted use and distribution, even commercially, by third parties. Please reply and provide explicit written permission to publish XXX under a CC BY license and complete the attached form.”

Please upload the completed Content Permission Form or other proof of granted permissions as an "Other" file with your submission.

In the figure caption of the copyrighted figure, please include the following text: “Reprinted from [ref] under a CC BY license, with permission from [name of publisher], original copyright [original copyright year].”

b. If you are unable to obtain permission from the original copyright holder to publish these figures under the CC BY 4.0 license or if the copyright holder’s requirements are incompatible with the CC BY 4.0 license, please either i) remove the figure or ii) supply a replacement figure that complies with the CC BY 4.0 license. Please check copyright information on all replacement figures and update the figure caption with source information. If applicable, please specify in the figure caption text when a figure is similar but not identical to the original image and is therefore for illustrative purposes only.

The following resources for replacing copyrighted map figures may be helpful:

USGS National Map Viewer (public domain): http://viewer.nationalmap.gov/viewer/

The Gateway to Astronaut Photography of Earth (public domain): http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/sseop/clickmap/

Maps at the CIA (public domain): https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/index.html and https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/cia-maps-publications/index.html

NASA Earth Observatory (public domain): http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/

Landsat: http://landsat.visibleearth.nasa.gov/

USGS EROS (Earth Resources Observatory and Science (EROS) Center) (public domain): http://eros.usgs.gov/#

Natural Earth (public domain): http://www.naturalearthdata.com/

8. If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

-->2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: No

**********

-->5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: This paper explores the highly topical issue of rewilding, which is crucial in the context of the global biodiversity crises and international policy commitments (e.g. EU Nature Restoration Law). The study is based on participatory scenario development that reveal pluralistic value perspectives of rewilding activities and opportunities to use local knowledge to identify the possible co-benefits and trade-offs of such practices. The paper is well written and clearly structured, providing a good overview of the conceptual basis of the topic as well as a clear description of the methodology, results and their interpretation in relation to future land use and its planning policy. I consider the paper acceptable for publication in the journal, after addressing few minor points:

1) Figure S1 illustrates very well the steps applied in the study, therefore I would suggest including it in the main part of the text.

2) Figure S3 is referred in the text as “S2 Figure”.

3) Caption of the Figure 2: Perhaps the sentence “The circles represent how often specific actions were mentioned in different scenarios” could be removed since the next sentence repeats the same information.

4) Line 386: “The distribution of the three scenarios covered only 1.91%” – does this refer to the overlap between the three scenarios?

5) Lines 536-537: “The research method demonstrated in this study aided in identifying” - it looks like that this sentence is incomplete.

6) Discussion: Authors highlight that participatory processes of scenario development can support adaptive decision-making and local acceptance of landscape transformations. However, the study involved only nine key stakeholders from agriculture, forestry, nature conservation, and administrative institutions. Perhaps the authors could elaborate on whether there is any evidence about the acceptance of the rewilding among public and farmers and what actions would be necessary to promote the implementation of the proposed restoration measures in practice.

Reviewer #2: This study presents a methodological framework, based on the Nature Futures Framework, for participatory scenario development in rewilding initiatives, applying it to the context of the German Oder Delta — a topic that is certainly worth exploring. However, my main criticism concerning the manuscript is that the methodology remains rather abstract. Thus, I found the manuscript to be very difficult to follow and understand. In addition, the study context and broader scientific relevance are not sufficiently presented.

For instance, the location of the study area and major land uses are introduced. However, the local context and need for rewilding the German Oder Delta remain unclear. Furthermore, it should be explained why changes over 30 years are considered in the study area.

In the methodology, the authors state that the scenario development process consisted of four phases, including (1) participant identification and sampling, (2) development of scenario storylines, (3) semi-structured interviews, and (4) data analysis. Each phase is described in a subchapter of the methodology chapter. However, at several points the authors only refer to the supplementary material, without providing sufficient information in the manuscript. For instance, a “Net-Map tool” was applied identify stakeholder groups. The resulting network map is presented in supplements. Yet, there is not information about the applied tool or how the resulting map was used in the study. Its is also not clear, why it is not presented in the results. Furthermore, the involvement of stakeholders in the development of the scenarios storylines is mentioned in the methodology (phase 2) and several times in the discussion. Yet, it is not clear who these stakeholders are and if there is an overlap with the interviewed stakeholders. Were the interviewees involved in developing the scenarios? Or were the scenarios already completed when having the interviews?

There is a nice Figure in the supplementary material (S1 Fig.) which visualizes the steps. This could be moved to the main text and modified to show who (authors, project participants, stakeholders, etc.) was involved in each step. Yet, it is a little confusing that the authors mention four steps in the method, but then refer to a Figure that shows 5 steps.

Please clarify the terms Narratives, Scenarios, scenario storylines, and Actions and Key themes? It was not clear for me if they partially refer to the the same aspects, or if there is a clear distinction

Some more specific comments:

Figures & Tables

- Please review and correct the scales that are shown in the figures (e.g. Figure 1)

- “S2 Figure” (referred to in Line 159) is missing is the supplementary material

- There are several spelling mistakes in Table S5. Please review and correct

- In Lines 237-238 it is stated that the template and maps used in the stakeholder interviews are provided in S5 Table. However, the maps seem to be lacking.

- There is a word missing in the caption of Fig. 4

- Meaning of different colours 3 and 4A should be explained

Spelling mistakes, etc.

- Carefully check the supplementary material for mistakes

- Be consistent in the use of American or British English

- Spell abbreviations in full, when they occur for the first time (e.g. GDPR)

- L398: correct “stakeholdersr”

- L403 – correct “on a large scale studies”

**********

-->6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->PONE-D-25-51781R1-->-->Finding Space for Rewilding: Nature Futures Scenarios Reveal Ecological Opportunities Based on Plural Values of Nature from Participatory Processes-->-->PLOS One

Dear Dr. Quintero Uribe,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

ACADEMIC EDITOR:  -->--> -->-->Dear authors, thank you for accommodating all the queries and making all the necessary changes.  -->-->Please follow the recommendations of Reviewer 2, who has suggested only minor revisions.  -->-->

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by May 14 2026 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:-->

• A letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

-->

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

As the corresponding author, your ORCID iD is verified in the submission system and will appear in the published article. PLOS supports the use of ORCID, and we encourage all coauthors to register for an ORCID iD and use it as well. Please encourage your coauthors to verify their ORCID iD within the submission system before final acceptance, as unverified ORCID iDs will not appear in the published article. Only  the individual author can complete the verification step; PLOS staff cannot  verify ORCID iDs on behalf of authors.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Miguel Inácio

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Journal Requirements:

If the reviewer comments include a recommendation to cite specific previously published works, please review and evaluate these publications to determine whether they are relevant and should be cited. There is no requirement to cite these works unless the editor has indicated otherwise.

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

-->Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.-->

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

-->2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented. -->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously? -->

Reviewer #1: N/A

Reviewer #2: N/A

**********

-->4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.-->

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.-->

Reviewer #1: (No Response)

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

-->6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)-->

Reviewer #1: I acknowledge that the manuscript has been significantly improved, and I would like to thank the authors for carefully considering the reviewers’ comments. However, before publication, I would recommend that the authors carefully review the text to avoid repetitions in both phrasing and content, particularly in the introduction.

Reviewer #2: The authors have improved the comprehensibility of the methodology and provided more clarity by defining used terms.

There are still a few points that require minor revisions:

Line 200 should be: "...which consisted of two"

Line 379: correct "Deltaand"

Line 380: should it be strength or strengths?

In Table 2: Please explain the meaning of two numbers (e.g., 12;3 and 8;1) indicated for Netmap Relevance and Relevance for some interviewees.

**********

-->7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review?  For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.-->

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

To ensure your figures meet our technical requirements, please review our figure guidelines: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures

You may also use PLOS’s free figure tool, NAAS, to help you prepare publication quality figures: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/figures#loc-tools-for-figure-preparation.

NAAS will assess whether your figures meet our technical requirements by comparing each figure against our figure specifications.

-->

Finding Space for Rewilding: Nature Futures Scenarios Reveal Ecological Opportunities Based on Plural Values of Nature from Participatory Processes

PONE-D-25-51781R2

Dear Dr. Quintero Uribe,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager® and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. For questions related to billing, please contact billing support.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Miguel Inácio

Academic Editor

PLOS One

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors,

Thank you for addressing all aspects from the reviewers.

I consider now the manuscript ready to be accepted.

I would like to call the attention however, in the introduction pleas write the acronyms first time in extent, e.g., EU, IPBES, GBF.

Please correct this in the proofing stage.

Reviewers' comments: