Monetized Estimates of the Ecosystem Service Value of Urban Blue and Green Infrastructure and Analysis: A Case Study of Changsha, China
Wondimagegn Mengist
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript shows a process of spatially calculating the monetary value of urban green spaces in a Chinese city. A lot of work was done including green space extraction, valuation, and spatial analysis. I think the authors should at least address the comments below before the paper is considered to be published.
1. The objective of the paper is not clearly clarified. From my point of view, the study is to spatially estimate the value of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. I suggest the authors revise the title, abstract, and introduction to make the objective straightforward.
2. What research gap does the study cover? In the introduction, the scientific innovation or the question to be addressed should be clearly presented based on a literature review.
3. If a numbered format of citation is used, the number cannot be a component of a sentence.
4. What does the legend in Figure 1 represent? Obviously, Figure 1 does not show the study area, which as the authors said is limited to the urban area. The authors should explain how to determine the boundary between urban areas and rural areas.
5. Line 210. How was the equivalent value determined to be 1/7 of the national average grain yield per unit area market value? At least a reference is needed.
6. Not clear: Line 216 the value of each ecosystem service value
7. Line 220 the ecosystem value of … is zero.
8. The English names of the four ecosystem services should be provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services.
9. Water is also extracted and included into LISA. However, water is different from green spaces. It would largely affect the result of LISA, and the paper focuses on the value of green spaces instead of the value of water.
10. The discussion is too short. The results of the value and spatial patterns of urban green spaces are expected to be compared with those from other studies. Or, how are the methods used in this study different from those used in others? How does it make difference?
11. A professional proofread may be needed before publication.
Author Response
Dear reviewer, I have made corresponding modifications according to your comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
I have plagiarism checker software, may you please check that?
Comments for author File: Comments.pdf
Author Response
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for your valuable comments. It is of great significance to improve the quality of manuscripts.I have checked the manuscript
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
A clear list of the authors' detailed responses to all comments is needed. There seems to be only a revised manuscript.
Author Response
Response to Reviewer 1Comments
First of all, I would like to thank the reviewer for your valuable comments. It is of great significance to improve the quality of manuscripts. My modifications are as follows：
Point 1: The author should recheck the grammar sentence pattern throughout the whole MS.
The objective of the paper is not clearly clarified. From my point of view, the study is to spatially estimate the value of ecosystem services provided by urban green spaces. I suggest the authors revise the title, abstract, and introduction to make the objective straightforward.
Response 1: The author rechecked the grammar and sentence pattern of the manuscript, and directly stated that the main purpose of the paper is to monetize the evaluation of the ecosystem service value of urban blue and green infrastructure, provide reasonable suggestions for urban planning, and modify the abstract, title and introduction.
Point 2: What research gap does the study cover? In the introduction, the scientific innovation or the question to be addressed should be clearly presented based on a literature review.
Response 2: Most studies calculate the value of ecosystem services on the basis of land cover/land use, usually ignoring street greening. Roof gardens, unmanaged blue-green infrastructure, etc. also have certain ecosystem service functions. The blank covered in the study is the detailed extraction of blue-green infrastructure distribution in this part of the region. Put forward scientific innovation and problems to be solved clearly in the literature review
Point 3: If a numbered format of citation is used, the number cannot be a component of a sentence.
Response 3:This part has been modified again, and the number is no longer used as the reference part.
Point 4: What does the legend in Figure 1 represent? Obviously, Figure 1 does not show the study area, which as the authors said is limited to the urban area. The authors should explain how to determine the boundary between urban areas and rural areas.
Response 4:The legend in Figure 1 represents the altitude in meters. The study area has been revised. The author wants to express the scope of the study area based on the impervious surface, which is generally consistent with the urban built-up area, and has been revised in this part of the expression.
Point 5: Line 210. How was the equivalent value determined to be 1/7 of the national average grain yield per unit area market value? At least a reference is needed.
Response 5: This is based on the research of Gaodi Xie et al., and references have been added to the paper.
Point 6: Not clear: Line 216 the value of each ecosystem service value.
Response 6: Ecological service value of blue green infrastructure per unit area with different ecological services in Changsha
Point 7: Line 220 the ecosystem value of … is zero.
Response 7: Incorrect statement has been deleted
Point 8: The English names of the four ecosystem services should be provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services.
Response 8: Modified the names of four ecosystem services.
Point 9: Water is also extracted and included into LISA. However, water is different from green spaces. It would largely affect the result of LISA, and the paper focuses on the value of green spaces instead of the value of water.
Response 9: Yes, the water has also been extracted and included in LISA, and has been included in the calculation, so the title of the manuscript now seems inappropriate, and the blue-green infrastructure is more in line with the intent of the manuscript. So I revised the title, introduction and other relevant parts.
Point 10: The discussion is too short. The results of the value and spatial patterns of urban green spaces are expected to be compared with those from other studies. Or, how are the methods used in this study different from those used in others? How does it make difference?
Response 10: The discussion section is added, including the comparison between expected results and other results, the importance of policies and the limitations of research.
Response 11: A professional proofread may be needed before publication.
Response 11: Professional proofreading of articles before publication.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors have addressed the comments. However, there are some typos. The manuscript can be accepted with the typos corrected.
