Identifying Key Indicators for Monitoring Water Environmental Services Payment Programs—A Case Study in Brazil

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript reports valuable information on identifying key indicators for monitoring water environmental services payment programs.

Some indication for the authors.

1) Reorder and revise tables. They must be clear and readable..

2) Write on the tables the right meaningful numbers for decimal values.

3) Improve images quality of PCA.

4) Did authors considered the inclusion of an indicator or parameter which is representative of the studied area? In practice, could be also considered an characterizer indicator for areas with particular environmental situation?

The referee suggests a check to the final version of the manuscript.

Author Response

According to recommendations, the following changes were made:

1. The tables were revised and, where possible, their size was adjusted to improve visualization.
2. All tables have been adapted to the standard of two decimal places.
3. The images have been enlarged as much as possible to fit the page.
4. Yes, specific indicators could be used for each area, according to the need for the method. The areas have particularities that must be considered so that the method is applied in the best way

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Journal Name: sustainability

Recommendation: Minor

Manuscript Id: sustainability-2349637

Comments to Authors

The manuscript entitled, “Identifying key indicators for monitoring water environmental services payment programs – a case study in Brazil” is based on a case study of a rural property participating in a PES-Water scheme in Brazil, and uses water, soil, and vegetation quality data to establish the relevant indicators. This work is good and well written but needs some specific improvement. Therefore, the publication of this work in its present form is not recommended for the publication in materials journal and can be justified after the authors consider the following points.

The following are some specific comments regarding the work covered in this manuscript.

1.     In the abstract uses the phrase "something in the monitoring of its actions" which could be more specific. It would be better to clearly state what is lacking in the current monitoring of PES initiatives that inhibits their efficiency.

2.     In the same sentence, "using economic incentives [2, 1]" should be "using economic incentives [1, 2]"

3.     In the third sentence of the introduction, "Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity & Ecosystem Services (IPBES) [3]" should be "Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) [3]"

4.     The textural class of soil is given in terms of sand, clay, and silt percentages, but it does not provide information about the particle size distribution, which is necessary to classify the soil accurately.

5.     The text states that the leaf area index (LAI) was used to determine the variability in vegetation cover. However, LAI is not a measure of vegetation cover, but rather an index of vegetation density or leaf area per unit ground area.

6.     In section 3.3, the Pearson coefficient was used to analyze the correlation between soil, water, and vegetation properties. However, it does not indicate which variables were used to calculate the coefficient, nor does it provide any statistical significance level for the correlations found.

7.     The text implies that very acidic soils tend to have excess manganese, which affects the aerial part of vegetation by compromising their photosynthetic capacity. However, this is not always the case, and the effect of soil pH on manganese availability depends on many factors, including the type of soil, organic matter content, and redox potential.

8.     In section 4.1, the paper discusses the occurrence of high values and absence of behavioral differentiation for the parameter of total coliforms at the sampling points. The authors mention that the microbiological quality of natural waters tends to be compromised by the absence of plant protection that would act as a barrier for runoff. However, the paper fails to differentiate between fecal and non-fecal coliforms, which are two distinct groups of bacteria that have different implications for water quality.

9.     The paper discusses the results of a factor analysis that identified the parameters responsible for fluctuations in water quality in different areas. However, the paper fails to provide any information on the specific methods used for the factor analysis, such as the choice of variables or the statistical techniques employed.

10.  The authors also make a factual error when they state that the NMP/100 mL of total coliforms in the water sample from Varre-Sai, Rio de Janeiro, showed contamination, whereas the Brazilian standard for recreational water quality allows up to 1,000 NMP/100 mL of total coliforms.

 

Given the above-mentioned points, the current version of the manuscript is recommended minor revision before the publication in the sustainability Journal.

 

Author Response

According to recommendations, the following changes were made:

1. Lacks specificity. The initiatives are very generic and end up not considering all relevant points for the study in question
2. The remark was placed correctly and the change was made.
3. Done.
4. The presentation in the format of percentage of sand is adjusted to g/kg, thus showing the measurement of each part of soil (sand, silt and clay).
5. Perfect observation. The text has been adjusted as per the note.
6. The soil, water and vegetation variables used, as well as the correlation coefficient used, can be found in the footnotes of Figure 3.
7. Done.
8. The text was read again and the amounts mentioned were verified.
9. The statements in the footnote of Table 5 were added.
10. A review of the text regarding coliforms was carried out and the values ​​found were 1600/100mL and, according to the observation presented, contamination is evident.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf