Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP: A Review of Best Practices, Challenges, and Recommendations
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Dear authors,
Thank you for this interesting paper. The article reviews different methods of valuing ecosystem services as non-marketed agricultural products in order to be incorporated in the measurement of agricultural total factor productivity (TFP). It gives at the end some future recommendation. The paper has been previously published as a working paper on 3rd of June 2020 (Bostian, Moriah and Lundgren, Tommy, Valuing Ecosystem Services for Agricultural TFP (June 3, 2020). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3673149 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3673149)
Thematic content:
- The paper seems like a review paper from the abstract although this is not explicitly mentioned. The title implies that it is a research article. Please make it explicit in the title and while choosing the type of the article that it is a review paper or I might understand it wrong.
- In the abstract, it is missing the novelty of the study. Why it is important. What is the research gap that you address?
- L50 – L65 has nothing to do with the research??!!!
- Please update the link to worldklems in the first footnote.
- Please provide a better quality for Figure 3.
Language and style:
- Please all abbreviations should be defined the first time you use it in the text (Check the title and in the abstract).
- Please check with the editor if you have to comply with the reference style or not since the style you used does not match with the recommended one by the journal.
- L44 OECD? Please define OECD (organization for economic cooperation and development).
- L452 SNA? Please define SNA (system of national account) and NPV (net present value).
Author Response
Please see attached pdf for changes/corrections. Our responses are highlighted in yellow below.
The paper seems like a review paper from the abstract although this is not explicitly mentioned. The title implies that it is a research article. Please make it explicit in the title and while choosing the type of the article that it is a review paper or I might understand it wrong.
Response: We have now made it more clear in the title that this is a review article.
In the abstract, it is missing the novelty of the study. Why it is important. What is the research gap that you address?
Response: We have tried to clarify the novelty in the abstract. Thank you for that valid comment.
L50 – L65 has nothing to do with the research??!!!
Response: Fixed.
Please update the link to worldklems in the first footnote.
Response: Check.
Please provide a better quality for Figure 3.
Response: Figure 3 is now in higher resolution. However, it is adapted from a source article (referenced) and the quality can only be made so good.
Language and style:
Please all abbreviations should be defined the first time you use it in the text (Check the title and in the abstract).
Response: Check.
Please check with the editor if you have to comply with the reference style or not since the style you used does not match with the recommended one by the journal.
Response: Checked.
L44 OECD? Please define OECD (organization for economic cooperation and development).
Response: Done.
L452 SNA? Please define SNA (system of national account) and NPV (net present value).
Response: Done.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
It is an interesting article and may be consider to publish in the journal after resolving the following comments and suggestions:
Comments
- Authors’ need to format the article as per the style of the MDPI, particularly Sustainability
- Please write the full meaning of all abbreviations first then use as abbreviate form
- What do you mean TFP in the title of the article, please write full meaning instead of abbreviate form
- ‘Abstract’ must be improve by adding the significance, methodology, results and conclusion of the study
- In the present form of the ‘Introduction’ is poor. Author; should add related earlier findings to prove the hypothesis of the study. Also must be clearly mention the objectives of the study at the end of the Introduction.
- Methodology of the study is not clear; therefore authors should clearly rewrite the methodology before resubmission
- The present form of the article is not clear for Results and discussion section
- The quality of all figures is very poor and must be improved before resubmission
Author Response
Thank you for your comments. Our responses are highlighted in yellow below. The revised manuscript is attached (changes/additions marked).
Comments
Authors’ need to format the article as per the style of the MDPI, particularly Sustainability
Response: Done.
Please write the full meaning of all abbreviations first then use as abbreviate form
Response: Done.
What do you mean TFP in the title of the article, please write full meaning instead of abbreviate form
Response: We feel it's ok to have the TFP abbreviation in the title as it is explained immediately under in the abstract. We want to avoid an excessively long title. Let us know if this is unaccceptable, then we change of course.
‘Abstract’ must be improve by adding the significance, methodology, results and conclusion of the study
Response: We have clarified the significance and conclusion but since this is a review it does not really have a methodology or result discussion to improve.
In the present form of the ‘Introduction’ is poor. Author; should add related earlier findings to prove the hypothesis of the study. Also must be clearly mention the objectives of the study at the end of the Introduction.
Response: We have tried to accommodate the reviewer on these matters, see revised, attached manuscript.
Methodology of the study is not clear; therefore authors should clearly rewrite the methodology before resubmission
Response: Again, this is a review article and does not have a methodology section in the sense that we need to explain the empirical framework of our study. We have made it more clear in title, abstract and introduction that this is a review, not a research article.
The present form of the article is not clear for Results and discussion section
Response: This has been improved in the revised manuscript, see attached pdf.
The quality of all figures is very poor and must be improved before resubmission
Response: We have tried to improve the quality of the figures as much as possible in the revision, see manuscript.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Accept in present form
