The manuscript discusses incorporating ecological connectivity into spatial planning within England's Nature Recovery Network (NRN). It delves into the development of Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRSs) across different regions, examining various methodologies and levels of complexity. Through interviews with practitioners and a thematic analysis of LNRS documentation, the paper identifies key challenges and proposes alternative approaches for integrating connectivity into these strategies. The aim is to establish a more standardised and actionable framework for nature recovery efforts that can be consistently applied across different regions in England.

The manuscript is highly relevant to current conservation efforts, especially within the context of the "30 by 30" initiative and the pressing need to enhance biodiversity connectivity at a national scale. The authors comprehensively analyse the methodological approaches used in different LNRSs, offering valuable insights into practitioners' challenges. This thorough analysis is particularly useful for identifying gaps and proposing improvements. The manuscript's engagement with LNRS practitioners is of utmost importance, as it ensures that the findings and recommendations are not just theoretical but are rooted in real-world challenges and experiences, thereby enhancing the applicability of the results. The synthesis of recommendations for LNRS practitioners is practical and well-grounded in the challenges identified through the study. The proposed three-step methodology offers a clear pathway for improving connectivity integration in spatial planning.

Areas for improvement in my assessment

While the manuscript mentions the use of thematic analysis and coding in Atlas TI, it would benefit from a more detailed explanation of the coding process and how themes were identified and validated. In addition, the manuscript could be strengthened by engaging more deeply with the theoretical frameworks underlying ecological connectivity and spatial planning. A more robust discussion of how the proposed methods align with or diverge from established theories in landscape ecology could provide a stronger foundation for the recommendations.

The manuscript acknowledges the limited consultation with stakeholders outside the core analytical team. A more in-depth discussion of how stakeholder engagement could be integrated into the planning process and the potential benefits and challenges would be valuable. The conclusion could be more explicit in summarising the essential findings and their implications for future research and practice.

In practical terms, and if feasible, the manuscript would gain value if the authors could elaborate on how "real stakeholders" would be involved in all or some of the recommendations (section 4). So far, they sound theoretically valid, but they are eventually challenging for practitioners to grasp.

In addition, the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit discussion of how the recommendations for integrating connectivity into spatial planning (as outlined in Figure 2) align with or diverge from the goals of the "30 by 30" initiative, which aims to protect 30% of land and sea by 2030. A more explicit discussion of this alignment or divergence would provide a stronger foundation for the recommendations and enhance the manuscript's overall coherence.

Please ensure that the manuscript highlights how the proposed connectivity strategies support the expansion and management of protected areas, a fundamental aspect of the 30 by 30 initiative. This should involve explaining how the connectivity framework assists in identifying priority areas for protection and managing ecological networks that contribute to broader conservation targets. Additionally, please address any potential challenges or conflicts that may arise when implementing connectivity-focused planning within the framework of the 30 by 30 initiative.

The conclusion of the manuscript could be strengthened by further exploration of how the proposed recommendations could be adapted and applied in other regions, such as Europe or North America. This may involve providing recommendations for stakeholder engagement, data management, and the integration of local knowledge into connectivity planning. Additionally, it is essential to discuss how the recommendations could be adapted to the varied ecological and policy contexts within Europe.

This manuscript investigates how ecological connectivity is integrated into England’s Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS), the regional mechanisms for delivering the Nature Recovery Network (NRN). Through semi‑structured interviews with practitioners across eight strategic areas and thematic analysis of fourteen spatial planning reports, the authors identify three dominant methodological approaches—habitat network mapping, focal‑species connectivity modelling, and systematic conservation planning—and the practical barriers (data limitations, opaque expert elicitation, capacity constraints) encountered in their application. Drawing on practitioner reflections, the paper offers five key recommendations, including adopting functional connectivity, standardising workflows for reproducibility, employing systematic expert‑elicitation methods, supplementing local knowledge with empirical data, and establishing knowledge‑sharing workshops to demystify technical tools.

Brief
Expanding the discussion of stakeholder engagement, equity considerations, and pathways for policy uptake to address the “blank space” of social dimensions identified by practitioners.

Please define all acronyms at first mention, and streamline narrative repetition—particularly in the Introduction and Results sections.

Please consider, if realistic/feasible, suggesting practical steps, required resources, and potential timelines for each recommendation to assist policymakers and practitioners in implementation.

Additional comments
Definitions The manuscript alternates between “structural” and “functional” connectivity but does not rigorously delineate their ecological implications. I recommend adding a brief paragraph that (a) defines each term in the context of landscape ecology, (b) explains when one is more appropriate than the other, and (c) cites key foundational studies (e.g., Tischendorf & Fahrig 2000 for structural connectivity; Bélisle 2005 for functional connectivity). This will ensure readers fully grasp why you recommend “functional connectivity” in your first recommendation.
https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706.2000.900102.x
https://doi.org/10.1890/04-0923

Systematic Conservation Planning (SCP) While SCP is introduced as one of three approaches, its core algorithmic logic (e.g., Marxan or Zonation-based site-selection heuristics) is not described. Please include a concise description of: (i) how SCP integrates cost layers, biodiversity features, and representation targets; and (ii) why it generates more spatially efficient networks compared to simple resistance‑based least‑cost models.

Line of Reasoning

Introduction → Methods Linkage The Introduction frames broad policy–practice gaps, yet the transition into your specific methodological comparison feels abrupt. I suggest inserting a bridging paragraph that (a) articulates the research questions explicitly (e.g., “Which connectivity methods are most readily operationalised by LNRS teams, and what barriers do they encounter?”) and (b) maps each question to the corresponding data source (interviews vs. spatial assessments).

Results → Recommendations The Results section presents three separate approach evaluations and practitioner barriers in parallel. To improve coherence, consider reorganising as sub‑sections under each method: “Methodology,” “Practical Barriers,” and “Suggested Improvements.” For example, this would help readers see that opaque expert‑elicitation affects both focal‑species models and SCP.

Resistance Surface Construction Authors mention generic-species resistance layers but omit critical parameters (e.g., how resistance values were assigned to land‑cover types, whether values were derived from empirical movement data or expert judgment). Please detail the value range (e.g., 1–100), justification for score assignment, and any sensitivity analyses performed.

Expert Elicitation Protocols The paper flags “opaque” expert‑elicitation (4.2 Expert elicitation) as a barrier but does not describe the protocols used by practitioners. Were workshops structured using Delphi, Nominal Group Technique, or survey questionnaires? A short table contrasting these methods—including typical participant numbers, question formats, and consensus thresholds—would significantly strengthen the practical take‑away.

Acronym Definitions Ensure all acronyms (e.g., LNRS, NRN, SCP) are spelt out at first use in both the abstract and main text.

"Circuit theory " appears in passing. Please define it better. The two main algorithms used by LNRS practitioners are least-cost paths and circuit theory models (Siggery et al., 2019; Still et al., 2022; TVERC, 2020).

I doubt whether the authors also need to provide further details on the "Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) sets Targets 2 and 3." Are these Targets clear enough? Do you think that when the reader reaches section 6.? Beyond the LNRS - are these easy to grasp?

Perhaps in section 6, the authors want to reflect on their highly valuable - Figure 2: - workflow beyond England, for example, other countries, including EU members. Figure 2, as a framework/roadmap, is excellent, but it would be even better to read a reflection on how it can support other geographies.

“incorporating quantitative measures of ecological connectivity when developing spatial plans remains a key challenge”—is well‑supported in this study. However, to more directly demonstrate how the authors’ findings advance the practice of connectivity‑informed spatial planning (particularly as illustrated in Figure 2), the manuscript would benefit from a more explicit linkage between results and improved planning outcomes.

Enhance Figure 2 Narrative

Currently, Figure 2 juxtaposes spatial outputs without guiding the reader through key features. Consider annotating the graphic—either in the caption or as call‑outs—to highlight:

Zones of highest predicted movement (e.g., thickest corridor delineations)

Areas where the three methods converge or diverge in priority ranking

How these spatial patterns should inform decision‑making (e.g., “Areas A and B should be targeted first because all three models identify them as critical pinch‑points”).

Introduce a small, stand‑alone box (e.g., “From Model to Management”) that prescribes step‑by‑step instructions on how practitioners can move from raw connectivity metrics to actionable planning recommendations.