Please see the attached pdf file.

The study design addresses a pertinent and policy-relevant research question, namely, whether eco-engineering, or "nature-inclusive," enhancements included in floating offshore wind technology increase social acceptability and, if so, the willingness to pay for co-benefits by households. The design and research question are strong, the attributes are well-chosen, and the underlying behavioural assumption appears sound, namely, that individuals with very negative attitudes toward offshore wind will tend to select the status quo, regardless of the ecological and economic co-benefits.

The study, however, needs some improvement in its current form for methodological rigor and clarity, which would allow it to pass a peer-review process:

• The study, although it is present in a lengthy way, needs more clarifications on the design of the discrete choice experiment, which, in its current form, does not allow for replicability and raises concerns over its validity. For instance, the authors could include a list of the choice cards used in the study, the exact wording of the status quo option, a discussion of the experimental design approach taken, and details on randomization, blocking, and measures taken to prevent respondent fatigue and attribute non-attendance.
• From an econometric standpoint, the use of a conditional logit model without addressing the issue of repeated choice tasks by respondent is questionable. At the very least, clustered standard errors by respondent should be reported and acknowledged, or a panel mixed logit (random parameters) or latent class model could be used (or at least discussed) to address heterogeneity in preferences and segments of the sample, which would also be consistent with the later discussion of status quo propensity.
• Communication of the results, specifically the WTP, could be clarified. Since the biodiversity and fisheries impacts are expressed as percentage changes, the WTP values are technically expressed as percentage points. Consider reporting the WTP values corresponding to policy-relevant changes (e.g., +10 percent biodiversity, +5 percent fisheries income) and a range of bundles, along with confidence intervals.
• Finally, there are some internal inconsistencies in the results that affect the overall credibility of the findings. Table 6 has an error in the “>4 times status quo” column, which incorrectly sums to 49 instead of 449. The results in the Spearman correlation table are questionable and should be tightened or removed. If the table is retained, the issue of multiple testing should be addressed. The ZINB model, given the bounded range of 0 to 8, is questionable and not ideal. Consider a different model, perhaps a bounded model, or integrating status quo behaviour into the choice model.