Next Article in Journal
Innovation and Development: An Analysis of Landscape Construction Factors in Quanzhou Maritime Silkroad Art Park
Previous Article in Journal
Measurement and Analysis of Light Leakage in Plastic Optical Fiber Daylighting System
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Revisiting the Value of Various Ecosystems: Considering Spatiality and Disaster Concern

Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3154; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043154
by Kento Komatsubara, Alexander Ryota Keeley and Shunsuke Managi *
Reviewer 2:
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Sustainability 2023, 15(4), 3154; https://doi.org/10.3390/su15043154
Submission received: 8 November 2022 / Revised: 12 January 2023 / Accepted: 7 February 2023 / Published: 9 February 2023

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors,

This manuscript deals with very relevant issues, and it presents scientific soundness.

However, I recommend the following improvements:

Is it possible to improve the sharpness of the maps?

Is it possible to describe what were the selection criteria for personal attribute data?

Is it possible to improve the sharpness of the images?

Could you describe what were the main limitations of the study?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments to Sustainability 2051176

The degree of recognition on the ecosystems’ disaster-prevention and mitigation functions was determined by the Peoples’s willingness to pay (WTP) in this study for the purpose of the contingent valuation study on the use and disaster attributes of ecosystem. The study is interesting, however, the following issues should be concern:

1)    Title: The current title is not appropriate too broad, which is suggested to be modified.

2)    Abstract: The abstract is not clearly stated, which is suggested to be re-written.

3)    Introduction: It is redundant in the current ‘introduction’ section, which is suggested to be concise. The current ‘literature review’ section is suggested to combine into the ‘introduction’ section.

4)    Materials and Methods: still this section is a bit redundant, which is suggested to be concise.

5)    Results and Discussion: Lines 396-397, what is the use and nonuse components of the overall economic value of the ecosystem? This should be well explained in the text. Lines 414-415, is the sentence correctly stated? Still the section of results and discussion is a bit redundant, which is suggested to be concise.

6)    Conclusions: The conclusion should be reorganized to be concentrate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The research topic is interesting and contributes to current risk investigations in the face of geological-geotechnical disasters. The importance in the conservation and restoration of ecosystems to mitigate the effects of different geological disasters is a very broad research topic with great contribution to society. In general, the study presented is good and adequately structured. I have made some suggestions that will enhance the study and improve understanding in future readers. Good work.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Back to TopTop