Comparing the Effectiveness of Biodiversity Conservation across Different Regions at County Scale

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

The comments are taken into account, except for the following:

"3 Correlate the assessment of anthropogenic impact with the integration indicators used. For example, the attempt

"Table 1 Land Use Classification". compare with China's "EF" data.

Answer: Thank you for your suggestion. Correlation of the assessment of anthropogenic impact with

the integration indicators used is an interesting area of research. We will study this in the future."

It is necessary to establish how subsidizing support can affect (apparently positively) to improve the value of the "ecological footprint".

I support the authors that the comparison of the parameters of "sustainable development" ("ecological footprint" and the parameters of subsidy calculations in a separate study. I think that this phrase should be in the conclusion. Comparison of data, even approximate, will increase the value of the research presented in the manuscript.

Author Response

Thanks for your suggestion. The objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of biodiversity across different regions at county level, a far cry from “ecological footprint”. So, we think that there is no necessary to correlate the assessment of anthropogenic impact with the integration indicators used. We will study this in the future. Thank you for your suggestion again.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (Previous Reviewer 2)

 

I would like to thank the authors for the answers on my first round of review. I found a few minor edits necessary, commented below.

- line 115: remove blank space before the comma;

- line 119: same before ‘period’;

- line 116: According to the aim of this study, we performed reclassification to the data (see Table 1);

- Table 1: Are really necessary the numbers before land use types in the first column? Further, tt is incomprehensive those numbers in 2 and 3nd columns;

- line 128: established;

- line 124: in this paper (lower case);

- line 190: ‘ … 0.70 and 0.63, respectively;

- line 206: ‘comparisons’ (lower case);

- lines 211-212: incomprehensive second sentence in legend of Figure 4;

- line 218: larger that of Chayu and Cuona counties; (further, double ‘that’ in sentence);

- line 224: - lines 211-212: incomprehensive second sentence in legend of Figure 5;

- lines 239-241: sentence needs re-writing because it is hard to follow;

- line 244: blank space in wrong place;

- line 269: in this study (lower case).

 

I found a few problems yet with the quality of English Language that should be verified/addressed.

Author Response

Reviewer 2 #

1.line 115: remove blank space before the comma;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

2.line 119: same before ‘period’;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

3. line 116: According to the aim of this study, we performed reclassification to the data (see Table 1);

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it according to your suggestion.

4. Table 1: Are really necessary the numbers before land use types in the first column? Further, it is incomprehensive those numbers in 2 and 3nd columns;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. Firstly, the numbers before land use types in the first column are really necessary. The numbers before land use types in the first column and the second column are the 1st level classes and 2nd level classes of the original data. We have added 1st level classes and 2nd level classes in the Table 1. Those numbers in 3nd columns are the data after our reclassification according to the 2nd level classes.

5. line 128: established;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

6. line 124: in this paper (lower case);

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

7. line 190: ‘ … 0.70 and 0.63, respectively;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

8. line 206: ‘comparisons’ (lower case);

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

9. lines 211-212: incomprehensive second sentence in legend of Figure 4;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

10. line 218: larger that of Chayu and Cuona counties; (further, double ‘that’ in sentence);

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

11. line 224: - lines 211-212: incomprehensive second sentence in legend of Figure 5;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

12. lines 239-241: sentence needs re-writing because it is hard to follow;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised the sentence.

13.  line 244: blank space in wrong place;

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

14.  line 269: in this study (lower case).

Response: Thanks for your suggestion. We have revised it.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Currently, the global assessment programs "Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB)" - a global study initiated by the G8 countries - have been proposed. This international initiative should draw attention to the global economic benefits of biodiversity.

Also an accepted integral impact assessment is - ecological footprint (EF) were formulated in 1992 by Canadian ecologist and economist William Reese. The "ecological footprint" is defined as a measure of human impact on the environment, which allows us to calculate the size of the adjacent territory necessary for the production of the environmental resources consumed by us and the absorption of waste. The "ecological footprint" already exceeds the biological capacity of the Earth by an average of 1.5 times; in Russia – almost 2.5 times, and in the most intense and anthropogenic loaded region of the country – the Volga basin – 4.3 times. For China, there is also an analysis of the EF parameter (Han et al., 2023).

I recommend correlating the indices used by the authors to calculate subsidies with the integral indicators of diversity, anthropogenic transformation and criteria of sustainable development used.

The methodological approach based on the assessment of the differences "before and after" subsidizing is correct, which was shown for comparison by the EIS system "Region" for the Volga River basin in different years (Kostina, 2017). For example, the EIS "Region" System based on static data for the Volga River basin assessed the parameters of diversity, the impact of various types of load, and also assessed the ecological footprint by administrative units. Based on the data obtained, a mechanism is proposed - an algorithm for calculating ecosystem services within a separate municipal district of the region (Rozenberg et al., 2021), using the example of the Samara region (Kudinova et al., 2021), as well as the distribution – provision of protected areas (Sidorov et al., 2021).

Recommendations.

1. I believe that the presentation of the material will complement a brief analysis of the methods of assessing diversity for the base for calculating indices.

2. Consideration of the subsidy mechanism as a component of the ecosystem services market.

3. Correlate the assessment of anthropogenic impact with the integration indicators used. For example, EF for "Table 1. Land use classification." compare with data on "EF" of China.

I recommend the manuscript for publication.

Note.

Han J., Dalaibaatar E.A Study on the Influencing Factors of China’s Ecological Footprint Based on EEMD–GeoDetector. Sustainability 2023, 15, 6680. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15086680

Rozenberg A.G., Kudinova G.E., Kostina N.V. [et al.] Monetary valuation of rare plant species in the specially protected natural areas by example of the Samara Region (Russia). IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science: 4th Conference on Actual problems of specially protected natural areas, Togljatti, 17–18.09.2020. Vol. 607. Togljatti: IOP Pablishing, 2020. P. 012013. DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/607/1/012013.

Sidorov A.A., Kudinova G.E., Kostina N.V. Accessibility of protected natural areas of regional significance: a case study from Samara Oblast, Russia. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 818, Togliatti, 28–30.04.2021. Bristol: IOP Publishing, 2021. P. 12050. DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/818/1/012050.

Kudinova G.E., Kostina N.V., Yurina V.S., Khasaev G.R. Environmental and economic model for sustainable development of a region (the case of Samara Oblast) IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science 818, Togliatti, 28–30.04.2021. Bristol: IOP Publishing, 2021. – P. 12026.  DOI 10.1088/1755-1315/818/1/012026.

Reviewer 2 Report

Manuscript lacks line numbers which make it difficult to point out suggestions. Overall the abstract is incomprehensive because we cannot understand where this study is applied. Such absence of information is also clearly shown in the last paragraph of the Introduction section and keeps so along the text. Note that throughout the manuscript ‘biological function areas’ is often used but without definition. Figure or table legends are too short to understand what they are showing (in other words, I cannot understand tables, mainly, but that applies also to figures).

Abstract

- what ‘central government’?

- what ‘Biodiversity National Key Ecological Functional Areas’?

- 131 counties from where?

Introduction

- page 2, 1sth paragraph: ‘there was’?

Study Area

- ‘major vertebrates’ (instead major species); further, why are these areas defined in terms of major vertebrates?

Conservation effectiveness index

- incomprehensive sentence (“Because the central government ….”) needing review;

Hot spot analysis

- needs reference and method description;

Results

- ‘apparently difference’? What is this? (in CEI across counties)

Conclusions

I cannot see how a list of abbreviated names can inform biological conclusions for the reader;

Minor edits needed:

- page 4: search for ‘rater’ (replace for raster);

- page 5: remove was used (after ArcGis);

- page 6: It (instead ‘t represents’);

- page 6: “a better biological background”.

I found many errors of quality of English language and strongly suggest to the authors to submit text to scientific proofreading and editing.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

your manuscript deals with a global important issue for nature conservation and PAs management. However, there are many shortfalls that make difficult to understand your context as well as your outcomes.

Firstly, your abstract does not resume comprehensively your study. I strongly suggest rewriting it.

Secondly, key aspects related to your context are not well described. Specifically, what transfer payments are and how they work? What type of protected areas BNKEFAs are? Are they part of a broader Chinese conservation policy? When these PAs have been created? Why do you use “habitat quality” as proxy of biodiversity?

Thirdly, your method is based on three key indexes: habitat quality, reference condition index and conservation effectiveness index. So, one would expect that you introduce these concepts and methods in a more thoroughly way, providing the theoretical background of concepts and methods and justifying your choice of using and calculating them. Moreover, the overall methodology should be better described.

Fourthly, your results are presented at county scale, but the objective of your study is assessing PA effectiveness. Is there any way to calculate habitat quality, reference condition index and conservation effectiveness index at PA scale (by calculating mean value?)? I would recommend including an analysis at PA scale. This would greatly improve your analysis providing outcomes to better discuss your results.

I understand that transfer payments are distributed at county scale, but who distributes this resource? How does this mechanism works? Moreover, are these seven PAs managed only at county scale or they are managed by a specific conservation body? This should be made clear since in terms of conservation efforts fragmenting payments across counties could threaten PA effectiveness. All these considerations should be included in your discussion considering that your results are showing a great variability among PAs and counties of each PA.

Specific comments are in pdf attached.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf