Integrating Spatial Valuation of Ecosystem Services into Protected Area Management: A Case Study of the Cangshan Nature Reserve in Dali, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript (MS) deals with spatial and temporal prediction of future water yield and nutrient load in the Cangshan Nature Reserve in the 18-creek watershed, China. Based on the evaluated both ecosystem services the authors divided case study area to areas especially important from the perspective of providing both ecosystem services (i.e. core conservation areas), areas to support those corea areas (i.e. buffer zones), ecotourism zones (though they are not defined nor even mentioned in the MS), and other areas (I guess mainly farmland and urban areas). The MS reads well and fluently, the language is ok. My major concerns and minor remarks are listed below. I recommended minor revision of the MS.
Major comments:
Introduction:
The introduction is good, maybe the best part of the MS, it highlights well the background of the topic. Yet, I missed more information why this case study area was chosen for the study. Are studied ecosystem services endangered there? Is there no PA management in this area? I think that this issue should be highlighted a bit more.
Material and methods:
The Methods are given in a short way, but more or less al relative information are given. I missed more explanation of the InVEST model since I am not familiar to it. At least some short information what kind of model it is would be appreciated. Also at least the main reference should be given.
In addition, are water yield model (L192) and nutrient delivery model (L199) actually modules of the InVEST model?
I also think that Table 1 is showing scenario data, thus I recommend to move them to this section.
Text in L212-214 and L229-231 fits also into the Results section. Model validation is often given as results. Though, it may remain also here.
More important is that it is not completely clear to me how CCAs were determined. It is explained, but maybe not enough detailed. For example, I don’t really understand how you got the lines in Figure 4 and how you determine the final results of area %. Please, give more detailed explanation here.
Results:
Results are clear and concise. Would it make sense to show data in Table 2 divided on the reserve area and other areas outside of the reserve?
In Figure 5, beside the core and buffer CCA area you determined also the ecotourism areas. They are not mentioned anywhere before. Why they are not mentioned or why they are shown in the map if they are not of interest of this study? Reconsider this. In addition, explain in the caption what kind of information the number given with each map is delivering.
Discussion:
In my opinion, the discussion is the weakest part of the MS. It does not give an in-depth insight what does your results mean globally nor regionally. I missed the discussion related to the MS title – integration of your results into the regional protection area management. It is partly related to the insufficiently addressed problem in the Introduction.
Minor remarks:
L71: add comma after opportunities.
L71: shouldn’t it be hm squared?
L188: A better tool than which tool?
L225: There is no REW in the equations. Should it be REW instead of RE in equation 3?
L226: What land areas are meant with LA in equation 4? Are they farmland and grassland? Be more specific here.
L308-310: Shouldn’t 108 be given as power?
L333-335: The same as above just with 104.
L348: There are no figure S1 and S2. I guess figures A1 and A2 should be referred here.
Figure 4: In the text you first refer to Figure 4c and then to Figure 4b. Why not change the order of charts in Figure 4?
L367: said? Reconsider this sentence.
Figures A1-A3: Would it be better to be Figures B1-B3 since they are given in the Appendix B?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper addresses an interesting case study on the identification of the areas under different urbanization scenarios and can be used as a reference for other sustainable management of protected areas.
The use of the Scenario Generator module in the InVEST model to predict future land-use change scenarios is adequate as well as the chosen variables. The maps produced are readable and elucidative.
Congratulations to Authors
Author Response
Thank you for your affirmation of my work.appreciate it.
Reviewer 3 Report
The manuscript “Integrating spatial valuation of ecosystem services into protected area management: A case study of the Cangshan Nature Reserve in Dali, China” deals with interesting and topical problem: balance between ecosystem service provision in protected areas and regional development demands. Presented methodology and the results of study are relevant and can be interesting for Sustainability readers. Manuscript is in general well elaborated.
Specific remarks:
Line 33 “services[1]” – insert space when citing literature it should be“service [1]” this remark concern all manuscript.
Line 303 Instead of abbreviation LULC write full name in title of table 2.
Line 308 “ … changed from 2,25x108m3” probably it should be 2,25x108m3 ]” this remark concern all manuscript.
Author Response
Line 33 “services[1]” – insert space when citing literature it should be“service [1]” this remark concern all manuscript.
All spaces have been inserted.
Line 303 Instead of abbreviation LULC write full name in title of table 2.
Revised.
Line 308 “ … changed from 2,25x108m3” probably it should be 2,25x108m3 ]” this remark concern all manuscript.
Revised.
Thank you for reading and correcting.
