Spatio-Temporal Dynamics of Water Conservation Service of Ecosystems in the Zhejiang Greater Bay Area and Its Impact Factors Analysis

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This manuscript aimed to clarify the water conservation services and influencing factors in the Zhejiang Greater Bay Area, so as to provide reference and policy inspiration for local improvement of water resources. The data and methods used in the study are well explained. The results are presented clearly. The sensitivity, influencing factors, space grading, and limitations were discussed and thus the conlusions are reliable. The aims are reached in the end.

However, there are some shortcomings and errors in the present version. the English of the manuscript need to be improved. The expressions and figures should also be revised for good quality. The details are as follows:

1) It's NOT suitable to place Fig. 1a, 1b and 1c in the same lat-lon coordinate box. Fig. 1c should be solely lied in the box and its layout be optimized. Scale bars and north arrows needs to be added for different maps in Fig. 7.

2) Line 199-200: Some citations should be added.

3) Some format issues need to be corrected carfully. For example, the paragraphic text after a formula need not blank spaces; a blank space need to be added between a number value and its unit except for %, ℃, etc. throughout the paper; the SCS model should be given its full spelling; "the" definite article should be added before all "Zhejiang Greater Bay Area";  a numbers requires a thousandth sign throughout the paper; etc.

4) Since the Zhejiang Greater Bay Area appears so many times in the article, it's better to use its abbreviation, ZGBA excluding the first.

5) Sequential coding, (a), (b), (c), etc. and their notes should be added if there are more than two subplots (e.g., Fig. 3, 5, 6, and 7).

6) The style of the references are still not compatible to that of Sustainability.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Accept in present form.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

Thank you for your letter and for the reviewers’ comments concerning our manuscript entitled “Spatio-temporal dynamics of water conservation service of ecosystems in Zhejiang Greater Bay Area and its impact factors analysis” (ID: sustainability-1835753). 

We tried our best to improve the manuscript and made other some changes in the manuscript to improve the English and expressive ability. These changes will not influence the content and framework of the paper. And here we did not list the changes but marked in red in revised paper.

We appreciate for Editors/Reviewers’ warm work earnestly, and hope that the correction will meet with approval.

Once again, thank you very much for your comments and suggestions.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The revised version has addressed most of my comments.

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

This manuscript aims to clarify the water conservation services and influencing factors in the Zhejiang Greater Bay Area, so as to provide reference and policy inspiration for local improvement of water resources. However, there are too many shortcomings and errors in the present version. First of all, the English of the manuscript need to be greatly improved. Second, the data used are NOT presented well enough to repeat the study. Third, the methods used in the study need to added the necessary references. Fourth, the results need to be presented more clearly. Additionally, the figures and tables should also be revised for good quality and clarity. At last and most importantly, although the limitations were explained briefly, the uncertainties and sensitivity should be analyzed to make the study better reasonable.

The details are as follows:

1) Line 58-59: not neglect? Line 260: lowest in recent years?

2) Line 72: Replace Invest with InVEST (Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs), and the others with InVEST, paying attention to the spelling.

3) Line 66-69: Revise the sentence to be clearer to the reader.

4) Please revise 2.1. Study Area with the aspects from physical geography to human environment, with an emphasis on the unit errors of statistical numbers (e.g. km2, population).

5) It's better to number the submaps (a, b, c) in Figure 1 and make rivers more visible.

6) Consider the consistency of grammars in 2.2. Data Sources.

7) The citations of all equations used should be added.

8) Line 217-218: Why are the simulation results more accurate?

9) Line 256-257: the sentence is not clear; Line 258-259: Check the grammar of the sentence.

10) Line 266: Is the number 94.6-554.82mm correct? Revise this sentence to be clearer. What are high-level conservation areas?

11) Line 274: What change was observed? Use figures to show it. The results may not be clearly explained.

12) Figure 2 can be used lines in different colors to show the two kinds of values. Figure 4 can not be clearly understood. What is the slope trend and how to calculate it? Figure 5 can be also used different color lines and don't need to compact each subfigure. Its sub-titles are not clear to understand and the last (b) for the construction land should be (d) in Figure 5.

13) The LUCC data need to be demonstrated with a figure. All numerical values and their units should be in consistency of style.

14) No Table 2? Table1, 3, and 4 that are not your results should be added citation references.

15) Where are the NDVI, POP, and GDP data from? How did you get the results in Table 8?

16) The last Figure 6 need to be revised to Figure 7, and the cities in it should be overlaid with boundary lines. The KM need to revise to km.

17) The style of the references are not compatible to that of Sustainability.

Reviewer 2 Report

Zhejiang Greater Bay Area is the main functional area of water conservation in Zhejiang Province, China. It has 44.2% of the ecological red line area of Zhejiang Province. This paper aimed to clarify the water conservation services and influencing factors in the Zhejiang Greater Bay Area. The research obtained some results, e.g. precipitation and evapotranspiration were the main single-factor influencing factors on water conservation, and the interactions between precipitation and vegetation/terrain were the main multi-factor influencing water conservation. In general, the paper presents novel concepts, ideas, and tools. The results are sufficient to support the interpretations and conclusions. The overall presentation is well structured and clear. However, at this stage, I don't think the current manuscript meets the standard of Sustainability, and it needs major revision. 

General concept comments

Some expressions are not clear which confuses the reader. Language needs to be improved. Some figures are too low-resolution to distinguish.    

Specific comments

Abstract: Line19-21, This sentence is too long and includes three commas. We suggest reorganizing this sentence.

Fig.4 and Fig. 5 are hard to distinguish. We recommend the dpi should not be less than 600 and the texts in the figures must be clear.

Some expressions are unclear. For example: In line 234, ‘Only from 2000 to 2005, it increased by 1740 km², with an expansion of 58.47%’; In line 351, ‘natural factors and human activity factors strongly related to it [48-50] …’.

We recommend arranging Formula 7 in two rows.

Spaces are required between data and units. For example line 125, line 242, line 293, line 306, line 307, and line 378.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

 very interesting article, only needs some minor corrections.

The issue of the principles of maintaining the quality of water protection is a very effective tool for maintaining the quality of development.

Mentioning in the introduction, at the beginning of the explanation of the terms used, will allow a better understanding of the differences as well as connections with other research and publications. Without this, the reader may have doubts whether it is about "water conservation" or "water protection". Not every reader and researcher can distinguish it and it should be explained why such nomenclature was adopted.

(Water conservation is the practice of using water efficiently to reduce unnecessary water usage. According to Fresh Water Watch, water conservation is important because fresh clean water is a limited resource, as well as a costly one. As a homeowner, you’re probably already well aware of the financial costs of inefficient water use. Conservation of this natural resource is critical for the environment — and our wallets).

Regarding the translation, the term seems more accurate to me “water protection” then “ water conservation” , “ main functional water conservation” (9). Likewise, a better term is “ the water protection services”   then “ the water conservation services”(13). It is worth comparing the use of given terms in other publications, for example:

https://www.epa.gov/sourcewaterprotection/basic-information-about-source-water-protection

The text description of the legend in figure 4 is illegible. It is possible to enlarge the letters.

The text description in figure 5 is illegible. Maybe it's better to give it up and just describe the result.

Kind regards

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf