Ecosystem Services Multifunctionality: An Analytical Framework to Support Sustainable Spatial Planning in Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper presents a major effort to propose a multifunctional framework for the territorial assessment provision of Ecosystem Services (ES). It links the sustainability perspective with urban planning, which is highly valued. The data stem from the CORINE Land Cover maps, and there were used data for Italian provinces as the case study. The methodology defines a spatial model based on three aggregate indices (abundance, diversity and richness).
The significant findings of the study concern the spatial mapping of the three abovementioned indices. The authors achieved to map static (for the year 2000) and dynamic  (changes in 2018) perspectives in Italy. The paper's contribution is the methodology of SE's spatial analysis, which is also transferable to other countries. The results could be used in the practice of sustainable urban planning. 
I genuinely appreciate the methodological and analytical part of the paper. The author did a good job explaining the methodology deeply and clearly. However, I cannot judge the quality of the model because I'm not deeply delved into the topic of spatial models.
The shortcoming of the paper is its theoretical part. I wish the authors had provided us with a more robust theoretical background. The authors should explain more clearly how their study builds on past studies. It would be helpful to elaborate more on the definition of ecosystem services. The source, which could be useful is:
Hasan, et al. (2020) Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environmental Development, Volume 34, 2020, ISSN 2211-4645,
The authors have to explain better the limitations of the methodological approach and the results in the context of their potential use in spatial planning. 
I recommend revising the abstract to add more specific information (e.g. concept of the three indices). Because after reading the abstract, I expected different content of the paper than it was.
In the manuscript don't work the references ("reference source not found), but this is probably just the technical issue.

The yet not published reference (number 22) need to use the term “in press” after the title in the reference list.

The paper was generally well written, with a compelling topic, coherent macrostructure, solid methodology, and beneficial findings. I recommend it for publication with minor revisions. 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your valuable advice and suggestions which led to a significant improvement of the paper. We made changes and additions to the whole document, trying to implement the suggestions of the reviewers and also to improve the form of the work.

Specifically, below are the answers to your comments.

This paper presents a major effort to propose a multifunctional framework for the territorial assessment provision of Ecosystem Services (ES). It links the sustainability perspective with urban planning, which is highly valued. The data stem from the CORINE Land Cover maps, and there were used data for Italian provinces as the case study. The methodology defines a spatial model based on three aggregate indices (abundance, diversity and richness).The significant findings of the study concern the spatial mapping of the three abovementioned indices. The authors achieved to map static (for the year 2000) and dynamic  (changes in 2018) perspectives in Italy. The paper's contribution is the methodology of SE's spatial analysis, which is also transferable to other countries. The results could be used in the practice of sustainable urban planning. I genuinely appreciate the methodological and analytical part of the paper. The author did a good job explaining the methodology deeply and clearly. However, I cannot judge the quality of the model because I'm not deeply delved into the topic of spatial models.

Thank you for your appreciation of our work. As a result of the revisions, we have modified the introductory paragraph by strengthening the description of the innovative contribution the research intends to make and the research gap to which it is intended to contribute in order to improve the integration between spatial planning and the ES framework.

The shortcoming of the paper is its theoretical part. I wish the authors had provided us with a more robust theoretical background. The authors should explain more clearly how their study builds on past studies. It would be helpful to elaborate more on the definition of ecosystem services. The source, which could be useful is:

Hasan, et al. (2020) Impact of land use change on ecosystem services: A review. Environmental Development, Volume 34, 2020, ISSN 2211-4645

The aim of our work is to propose an innovative approach to the analysis of spatial transformations that contributes to a greater integration between spatial planning and the ES methodological framework. The novelty of the research therefore lies in the integration of indices formulated in the field of ecology and the ES framework in order to obtain a synthetic spatial representation of the complex dynamics underlying ES multifunctionality, able to  support sustainable planning thinking and to inform thoroughly decision-making processes concerning territorial governance. This potentially contributes to a better understanding of the effects of spatial transformations and land use changes in terms of supply capacity of multiple ES. Analyses related to the monitoring of land use and urbanization processes are in facts currently limited to the perspective of increasing artificial surfaces. However, several authors highlight the importance of better characterizing these processes e.g. in terms of spatial fragmentation, social and/or environmental costs. The effort made in the paper goes precisely in this direction: to provide an analytical framework of the effects of land use change based on the three dimensions of ES multifunctionality.

In this paper we have therefore preferred not to go into the assessment of the individual ecosystem services considered, which have been the subject of extensive study in other works published by the same authors and cited in the paper.

 

The authors have to explain better the limitations of the methodological approach and the results in the context of their potential use in spatial planning.

Thanks for the suggestion, the conclusions have been integrated highlighting some limitations of the work

I recommend revising the abstract to add more specific information (e.g. concept of the three indices). Because after reading the abstract, I expected different content of the paper than it was.

Thanks for the suggestion, the abstract has been supplemented by explaining the methodology used based on the three aggregate indices (abundance, richness and diversity).

In the manuscript don't work the references ("reference source not found), but this is probably just the technical issue.

The yet not published reference (number 22) need to use the term “in press” after the title in the reference list.

Thank you, all bibliographic references have been checked

The paper was generally well written, with a compelling topic, coherent macrostructure, solid methodology, and beneficial findings. I recommend it for publication with minor revisions.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

I have reviewed the manuscript, "Ecosystem Services Multifunctionality: an analytical frame-2 work to support sustainable spatial planning. Insights from the 3 Italian case study" by Angela Pilogallo and Francesco Scorza.

From my understanding, the authors present a model to assess the effects of landuse changes to ecosystem services.

Please find below some overall comments and suggestions for improvement of the paper:

1. The main critique of the manuscript in its current form relates to the poor quality of English language and style. For this reason, I found it quite difficult to follow parts of the text and cannot fairly review certain parts of the paper (e.g. methodology, results) until the language is significantly improved.
2. Some parts of the manuscript assume prior knowledge or require further detail. For example, I am not sure why the minimum statistical unit of Italy is at the provincial level nor what the 'NUTS statistical units' represent.
3. The reserach question(s) and aim(s) were ambiguous - these should be explicitly outlined in the introduction.
4. The significance and how the research addresses gaps or expands upon prior knowledge is also not clear and should be made more explicit.
5. The text in the figures are much too small to read and font size should be increased. The figure cross references have also not printed correct and show up as an "error".
6. There are a few minor comments and markups in the attached.

In conclusion, I would recommend first employing the services of an English interpreter to improve the language issues and then submitting for another review.  

 

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

thank you for your valuable advice and suggestions which led to a significant improvement of the paper. We made changes and additions to the whole document, trying to implement the suggestions of the three reviewers and also to improve the form of the work. The title and abstract have also been changed.

Specifically, below are the answers to your comments:

1. The main critique of the manuscript in its current form relates to the poor quality of English language and style. For this reason, I found it quite difficult to follow parts of the text and cannot fairly review certain parts of the paper (e.g. methodology, results) until the language is significantly improved.

Thanks for the recommendation. Following suggestions from you reviewers, the paper has been completely revised, including the English language. 
Your understanding of the paper is correct: we propose a model to assess the effects of land-use changes on multiple ecosystem services by aggregating them into three indices (abundance, richness and diversity) formulated within ecological disciplines. 

2. Some parts of the manuscript assume prior knowledge or require further detail. For example, I am not sure why the minimum statistical unit of Italy is at the provincial level nor what the 'NUTS statistical units' represent.

Thanks for your suggestion. The minimum statistical unit of Italy is the municipal level. We have adopted the Provinces because they constitute the minimum unit at European level. This choice is motivated by the intention to make the work replicable at the European scale, since the historical series of Corine Land Cover maps is also available for the same territorial extension. 

"NUTS" stands for "Nomenclature of territorial units for statistics" and is a term adopted at European level to standardise the reference to  territorial units considered for the acquisition and publication of statistical data.  

3. The reserach question(s) and aim(s) were ambiguous - these should be explicitly outlined in the introduction.

Thank you for your suggestion, a paragraph has been added to the introduction explaining the research gap in the current analytical framework of land take. 
In the introduction the purpose of the work was already described but changes have been made to make it more understandable.  

4. The significance and how the research addresses gaps or expands upon prior knowledge is also not clear and should be made more explicit.

Thank you for your suggestion, the introduction has been integrated in order to better place the work within the existing literature. 

5. The text in the figures are much too small to read and font size should be increased. The figure cross references have also not printed correct and show up as an "error".

Thanks for the suggestion. The figure describing the methodological flowchart has been replaced and, as indicated in the attached file, the caption has been supplemented. All references to figures in the text have also been checked. 

6. There are a few minor comments and markups in the attached.

Thank you, all suggestions in the annex have been considered. Changes have therefore been made to the text, figures and captions. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The following points will be provided:

- Title:  The title is good. But I think the title below could be better.

Ecosystem services multifunctionality: an analytical frame-work to support sustainable spatial planning in Italy

- Abstract:  The abstract is appropriate. However, it is advisable to mention "research method (methodology)" in the abstract (What was the “research method”?)

- Keywords: Good.

- Introduction: In the introduction, it is necessary to address the novelty of the research? It should be emphasized from different angles. Also explicitly specify what is the problem statement?

- Area of study: Good.

- Methodology: What was the kind of research method in this study (Paradigm, type, data, time, gathering data, …). Also, the figures need to be presented more clearly.

- Results: This section is very useful and clear provided.

- Conclusion: Please mention the research limitations at the end of this section.

Author Response

Dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable advice and suggestions which led to a significant improvement of the paper. We have made changes and additions to the whole document, trying to implement the suggestions of the reviewers and also to improve the form of the work.

Specifically, below are the answers to each of your comments:

 

- Title:  The title is good. But I think the title below could be better.

Ecosystem services multifunctionality: an analytical frame-work to support sustainable spatial planning in Italy

 

Thank you, we changed the title. It actually looks better for us.

 

- Abstract:  The abstract is appropriate. However, it is advisable to mention "research method (methodology)" in the abstract (What was the “research method”?)

 

Thanks for the suggestion, the abstract has been supplemented by explaining the methodology used based on the three aggregate indices (abundance, richness and diversity).

 

- Keywords: Good.

 

Thank you, we are glad that the work is appreciated

 

- Introduction: In the introduction, it is necessary to address the novelty of the research? It should be emphasized from different angles. Also explicitly specify what is the problem statement?

 

Thank you for your suggestion. Following your advice we modified the introduction paragraph highlighting the innovative aspects of our work and the research gap concerning the planning discipline to which we intend to contribute with the ES multifunctionality approach measured by the three indices.

 

- Area of study: Good.

 

Thank you, we are glad that the work is appreciated

 

- Methodology: What was the kind of research method in this study (Paradigm, type, data, time, gathering data, …). Also, the figures need to be presented more clearly.

 

Thank you for your comment. The methodology used in this work and schematized in the flowchart (Figure 3) is based on the conceptualization proposed by Holting et al.  and on the three indices of abundance, richness and diversity that we consider "the three dimensions of ES multifunctionality". These three constitute aggregate indices, since they provide an overview of the provision of multiple ES. The novelty lies in linking these aspects to the processes of urbanization and land use change described in the section on the study area. In this paper we have therefore preferred not to go into the assessment of the individual ecosystem services considered, which have been the subject of extensive study in other works published by the same authors and cited in the paper.

 

- Results: This section is very useful and clear provided.

 

Thank you, we are glad that the work is appreciated

 

- Conclusion: Please mention the research limitations at the end of this section.

Thanks for the suggestion, the conclusions have been integrated

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I believe the author's have made extensive efforts to improve the language, structure and clarity of the research study. I am satisfied that this research study is suitable for publication. 

Comments for author File: Comments.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

The paper fulfills the stated purpose presented in the introductory chapter. The literature review, as well as the methodology employed, along with the data used in the paper, are all fit and correspond to the research paper objectives.  The paper is highly interesting and recommended for publishing.