Building with Nature—Ecosystem Service Assessment of Coastal-Protection Scenarios
, Lars Niklas Voeckler 1,3, Leon Lambrecht 1,4, Esther Robbe 1,2 and Johanna Schumacher 1,2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript “Building with Nature - Ecosystem Service Assessment of Coastal Protection Scenarios” addresses a relevant topic that is within the scope of sustainability. The manuscript is well written (although presents minor spelling, and English language problems), is relevant for the field and is well-structured. The approach is appealing but the choice of analyzed protection scenarios is unclear and should be better justified. In this sense, authors should consider the following:
1 - it is not clear why scenarios 2 and 3 (longline mussel farm with a size of 2 ha parallel to the beach and seagrass meadows and submerse macrophytes in front of the beach) were chosen as their efficiency is not discussed or demonstrated. This poses the question if the stakeholders are considering adequate protection options. Authors should discuss this issue further.
2 - As stated by the authors “assessment results itself cannot be regarded as a reliable basis for decision making.” This questions the conclusions stated in the abstract. For example how can “The three scenarios clearly indicate that building with nature can maximize the ecosystem service output and provide benefits to humans, beyond coastal protection and safety?” if “the scores very much depend on the perception of and associations persons have with each scenario”? This issue extents to the other conclusions.
In my opinion the paper should emphasize the benefits of the used approach in relation to “It can structure and support a dialogue between a planner and the public and possibly increase the acceptance of measures.” This is a very useful conclusion that should be exploited further.
Author Response
"The manuscript “Building with Nature - Ecosystem Service Assessment of Coastal Protection Scenarios” addresses a relevant topic that is within the scope of sustainability. The manuscript is well written (although presents minor spelling, and English language problems), is relevant for the field and is well-structured. The approach is appealing but the choice of analyzed protection scenarios is unclear and should be better justified. In this sense, authors should consider the following:
1 - it is not clear why scenarios 2 and 3 (longline mussel farm with a size of 2 ha parallel to the beach and seagrass meadows and submerse macrophytes in front of the beach) were chosen as their efficiency is not discussed or demonstrated. This poses the question if the stakeholders are considering adequate protection options. Authors should discuss this issue further."
Response: This is true. We added a longer paragraph in the introduction (line 67-85) providing explanations why these scenarios are realistic and were chosen.
"2 - As stated by the authors “assessment results itself cannot be regarded as a reliable basis for decision making.” This questions the conclusions stated in the abstract. For example how can “The three scenarios clearly indicate that building with nature can maximize the ecosystem service output and provide benefits to humans, beyond coastal protection and safety?” if “the scores very much depend on the perception of and associations persons have with each scenario”? This issue extents to the other conclusions."
Response: Yes, indeed, we used a wording that implied that the stakeholder views are facts rather than opinions and perceptions. This has been changed throughout the text.
"3 - In my opinion the paper should emphasize the benefits of the used approach in relation to “It can structure and support a dialogue between a planner and the public and possibly increase the acceptance of measures.” This is a very useful conclusion that should be exploited further."
Response: Yes this is true. Having a look at the paper after some time, I saw the need to elaborate on the chances of this approach to structure and maintain a dialogue between a planner and the public/stakeholders. In the introduction we added text that explains present weaknesses in implementing measures and the role of perceptions. The abstract has been revised accordingly and in the discussion we explore it further, especially why measure implementation requires support.
The English language has been revised again.
Reviewer 2 Report
The empirical study using a ES assessment framework in the Covid 19 context is very promissing.
Arguing the absolute quantification of many ecosystem services is difficult, hardly reliable and time-consuming, the authors test two ES assessment with better involvment of stakeholders and experts.
The studied case - southern Baltic coast - is relevant with 2 focus : tourism and/or local economy(mussel fishing)
The 3 objectives are relevant and clear
Authors use other relevant material (additional pictures, complementing formation and background data compiled into Powerpoint-presentations) that deserve to be put in annexe.
The figures (notably 2 ) are very pedagogic
The classification into 3 ES is debatable (why not 4) but argued by the authors (Regulation and maintenance in the same category
It is not clear what is covered by the notion of "cultural services" ( limited to tourism and recreation ?)
Obviously, the method is adapted to the Covid context. There are different survey methods resulted from restrictions during the COVID pandemic.
The main innovative contribution is the methodological framework
The main weaknesses are the following :
- there is a lack of contextualisation ("setting the scene") : the state of the art is weak
- it is a pilote study to test the methodological framework, but with poor results and a lot of bottlenecks and biais, underlined by the authors
- the contribution to the international litterature is limited
- the involvment of stakeholders is vague
There are a few minor weaknesses:
- the term « opinion » vs perception, attitudes, on protection schemes has to be clarified
- Instead of the term « scenario », I would suggest to use the term « management options »
Author Response
“Authors use other relevant material (additional pictures, complementing formation and background data compiled into Powerpoint-presentations) that deserve to be put in annex.”
Response: The Powerpoint-presentations are too big and in a format that is not suitable to be added to this journal. However, we added the text: ‘The Power-point presentation with background information can be obtained on request.’
“The classification into 3 ES is debatable (why not 4) but argued by the authors (Regulation and maintenance in the same category
It is not clear what is covered by the notion of "cultural services" ( limited to tourism and recreation ?)”
Response: In line 126 we explain that we strictly follow the CICES classification. ‘The CICES 5.1 classification is subdivided into the three sections of ‘provisioning’, ‘regulation & maintenance’, and ‘cultural’ ecosystem services.’ The CICES documents provide explanations about the sections and enable us to keep the text short. The ecosystem services representing ‘cultural services’ in our cases are documented in Annex 1.
“Obviously, the method is adapted to the Covid context. There are different survey methods resulted from restrictions during the COVID pandemic.”
Response: Yes, changing COVID contact rules during the assessment process made it hard to follow one strategy. It further hampered a feedback discussion with the stakeholders.
“The main weaknesses are the following :
- there is a lack of contextualisation ("setting the scene") : the state of the art is weak”
Response: The introduction has been expanded and we added a longer paragraph providing explanations why these scenarios are realistic and were chosen (line 67-85). In lines 86-92 we better introduce the need for such methods. We extended the literature list accordingly.
“The main innovative contribution is the methodological framework
- it is a pilote study to test the methodological framework, but with poor results and a lot of bottlenecks and biais, underlined by the authors
- the contribution to the international litterature is limited
- the involvment of stakeholders is vague “
Response: We see the points. Having a look at the paper after some time, we saw the need to elaborate on the chances of this approach to structure and maintain a dialogue between a planner and the public/stakeholders. In the introduction we added text that explains present weaknesses in implementing measures and the role of perceptions. In the discussion we explored it further to emphasis the benefits of the methodology.
“There are a few minor weaknesses:
- the term « opinion » vs perception, attitudes, on protection schemes has to be clarified”
Response: Yes, in deed, we used a wording that implied that the stakeholder views are facts rather than opinions and perceptions. A clearer definition and separation between these terms has been done throughout the text.
“- Instead of the term « scenario », I would suggest to use the term « management options » “
Response: We added an explanation that the scenarios can be regarded as potential management options.
Reviewer 3 Report
This study carried out a systematic questionnaire survey on the ecological effects, natural landscape, and economic services for various scenarios of coastal protection in the southern Baltic Sea region. However, the logic of the writing is very poor, perhaps the method used is not reasonable, or some specific statements are inaccurate, which makes the paper incomprehensible in many aspects.
(1) The most serious problem in this paper is to change the opinions of the respondents as natural facts. For example, the results of the survey can only explain that respondents believe that those coastal protection scenarios have ecosystem service and positive ecosystem changes, but can not confirm that the coastal protection scenarios really have ecosystem service or positive ecosystem changes. Unless you can provide some objective indicators to prove this. For example, there are more species, more biomass, clearer water, etc. In other words, some objective indicators are needed to investigate the state of nature. Investigating people's thoughts yields only their opinions.
(2) Many contradictory aspects can be seen in the Abstract. For example, “The approach turns out to … too subjective to serve within formal planning processes (lines 16-17)”. Does this mean you point out that your approach is too subjective? It seems you are going to propose a new and better approach. But in fact, this study just uses an approach that you may even believe is too subjective.
(3) “The three scenarios … (lines 17-19)” Just read the Abstract, the readers have no idea what three scenarios you are talking about here.
(4) All scenarios in the paper are not designed or built by the authors, so how do “the three scenarios indicate building with nature can maximize the ecosystem service output and provide benefits to humans … (lines 17-19)”. I guess you mean: the questionnaire results regarding the three scenarios indicate that people believe building with nature can maximize the ecosystem service output and provide benefits to humans …
(5) In this paper, the proposed three scenarios will confuse the readers. Looking at Figures 2 and 3, the meanings of the “three scenarios” are different. So when you mention three scenarios, the readers do not know whether you are referring to the three scenarios in Figure 2 or the three scenarios in Figure 3.
(6) “The mussel farming scenario has a positive sum of all ecosystem changes … (lines 17-19)”. Didn't you just say that all three scenarios are positive? When you say this, it seems that only the mussel farming scenario has a positive change.
(7) “Our objectives are to (a) assess the stakeholder opinion … (b) provide potential future … (c) carry out an assessment … (lines 73-77)”. Among them, (a) and (c) are not objectives, but the work that needs to be done to achieve the objectives. I guess you mean: your objective is to provide a potential future …, to achieve this objective, we assess the stakeholder opinion … and carry out an assessment …
(8) Around the objectives, the Abstract or Conclusions do not point out how is the future provided by this paper, nor any suggestions put forward for future development.
(9) Section 2.4 only introduces the group-based approach, but does not explain how the data-based approach is implemented.
(10) In Section 3.1, what is an "expert student"? Are they professionals with relevant knowledge or students studying in relevant majors? The four groups in Section 2.4 do not have the "expert student" group.
Author Response
“(1) The most serious problem in this paper is to change the opinions of the respondents as natural facts. For example, the results of the survey can only explain that respondents believe that those coastal protection scenarios have ecosystem service and positive ecosystem changes, but can not confirm that the coastal protection scenarios really have ecosystem service or positive ecosystem changes. Unless you can provide some objective indicators to prove this. For example, there are more species, more biomass, clearer water, etc. In other words, some objective indicators are needed to investigate the state of nature. Investigating people's thoughts yields only their opinions.”
Response: This has been changed in the abstract and the entire document. The data-based approach used the indicators CICES suggests indicators for measuring ecosystem service changes. However, we did not elaborate on it, because they were not well suitable (line 430-433). But this is a known problem.
Response: To better explain the building with nature options, the introduction has been expanded. We added a longer paragraph providing explanations why these scenarios are realistic and were chosen (line 67-85). In lines 86-92 we better introduce the need for such methods. We extended the literature list accordingly.
“(2) Many contradictory aspects can be seen in the Abstract. For example, “The approach turns out to … too subjective to serve within formal planning processes (lines 16-17)”. Does this mean you point out that your approach is too subjective? It seems you are going to propose a new and better approach. But in fact, this study just uses an approach that you may even believe is too subjective.
(3) “The three scenarios … (lines 17-19)” Just read the Abstract, the readers have no idea what three scenarios you are talking about here.
(4) All scenarios in the paper are not designed or built by the authors, so how do “the three scenarios indicate building with nature can maximize the ecosystem service output and provide benefits to humans … (lines 17-19)”. I guess you mean: the questionnaire results regarding the three scenarios indicate that people believe building with nature can maximize the ecosystem service output and provide benefits to humans …
(5) In this paper, the proposed three scenarios will confuse the readers. Looking at Figures 2 and 3, the meanings of the “three scenarios” are different. So when you mention three scenarios, the readers do not know whether you are referring to the three scenarios in Figure 2 or the three scenarios in Figure 3.
(6) “The mussel farming scenario has a positive sum of all ecosystem changes … (lines 17-19)”. Didn't you just say that all three scenarios are positive? When you say this, it seems that only the mussel farming scenario has a positive change.”
Response: Points 2-6 address the abstract. The abstract has been completely revised. The scenarios have been specified throughout the entire text.
“(7) “Our objectives are to (a) assess the stakeholder opinion … (b) provide potential future … (c) carry out an assessment … (lines 73-77)”. Among them, (a) and (c) are not objectives, but the work that needs to be done to achieve the objectives. I guess you mean: your objective is to provide a potential future …, to achieve this objective, we assess the stakeholder opinion … and carry out an assessment “…
Response: The objectives have been completely revised.
“(8) Around the objectives, the Abstract or Conclusions do not point out how is the future provided by this paper, nor any suggestions put forward for future development.”
Response: We modified the text that the benefit of the methodology is in focus. Background on the choice of measures has been added in the introduction. Perspectives for a concrete measure implementation are briefly discussed (line 503-508).
“(9) Section 2.4 only introduces the group-based approach, but does not explain how the data-based approach is implemented.”
Response: Lines 183 to 186 explain the data-based approach.
“(10) In Section 3.1, what is an "expert student"? Are they professionals with relevant knowledge or students studying in relevant majors? The four groups in Section 2.4 do not have the "expert student" group.”
Response: The term "expert student" has been replaced by data-based. The English language has been revised.
Reviewer 4 Report
The manuscript "Building with Nature - Ecosystem Service Assessment of Coastal Protection Scenarios" by Gerald Schernewski, Lars Niklas Voeckler , Leon Lambrecht , Esther Robbe , Johanna Schumacher presents an interesting investigation on coastal protection assessment along different areas of the southern Baltic coast through a comparative ecosystem service assessment approach. The manuscript is well written, the methods are thoroughly described and introduction/results/discussion are complete. Therefore, I think that the readership of "Sustainability" will find this paper very interesting.
My suggestion, however, is to increase the number of participants in each group (A, B, C, D). Moreover, I strongly believe that the present study would be strengthened by including an economic assessment for each scenario.
Author Response
“The manuscript "Building with Nature - Ecosystem Service Assessment of Coastal Protection Scenarios" by Gerald Schernewski, Lars Niklas Voeckler , Leon Lambrecht , Esther Robbe , Johanna Schumacher presents an interesting investigation on coastal protection assessment along different areas of the southern Baltic coast through a comparative ecosystem service assessment approach. The manuscript is well written, the methods are thoroughly described and introduction/results/discussion are complete. Therefore, I think that the readership of "Sustainability" will find this paper very interesting.
My suggestion, however, is to increase the number of participants in each group (A, B, C, D). Moreover, I strongly believe that the present study would be strengthened by including an economic assessment for each scenario.”
Response: In deed, a higher number of participants, especially reliable experts, would have been beneficial. However, the number of real local coastal protection experts at Rostock university and in the coastal protection agency is limited. We were happy that several agreed to take part in our exercise. To motivate a larger number will only be possible when it comes to a concrete measure implementation.
Yes, but an economic assessment is very labour-intensive and would be another paper. It further would require the new flood protection levels (see line 503-508) as basis. The costs very much depend on the concrete local situation. Estimates for our location would hardly be transferable and therefore scientifically of limited value.
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors' responses are satisfactory; the weaknesses cannot be further improved at this stage as they are more related to the research protocol.
The most important thing is to publish these first results and to continue the research, taking into account the suggestions
Author Response
Yes, thank you.
Reviewer 3 Report
The authors have carefully and thoroughly revised the paper. I believe that the current version of the paper is basically suitable for publication.
My final suggestion is that the authors should make a comprehensive check on the readability of the paper, including the logical coherence between sentences, and the meaning of words will not be misunderstood by readers, etc.
Author Response
"The authors have carefully and thoroughly revised the paper. I believe that the current version of the paper is basically suitable for publication.
My final suggestion is that the authors should make a comprehensive check on the readability of the paper, including the logical coherence between sentences, and the meaning of words will not be misunderstood by readers, etc."
Yes, thank you. We were hardly ever happy with commercial language editing services. Therefore, we followed a different track and asked two colleagues with at least very good English language skills to comment on the manuscript, especially taking into account your suggestions. One colleague is a guest scientist working on very different topics. Aim was to check whether the paper is clear and understandable for externals. The other colleague has its focus on ecosystem services. We received many comments and suggestions (thematically and with respect to language) and they were largely taken into account. For example, several sentences were added that provide more details about the study sites. Additionally, we went through the paper again. Because of the complexity to work with three commented paper versions, we did not keep it in the ‘track changes’ mode.
