Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Coupled Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-Being in Gansu Province Counties and the Factors Affecting Them
, Yanni Liu 1, Jiale Yu 1 and Xuehong Li 1
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe document is a comprehensive, well-executed study offering significant insights into the relationship between ecosystem services and human well-being in Gansu province counties. It is well-structured, with tables and figures supporting the data presented and formal (academic) language. Nice work, although following these comments may enrich the document:
1. Careful proofreading to improve clarity and conciseness.
2. Figure 5, page 12. It is a strong visual aid, but I am not sure if I understand the breakpoint used. Please briefly explain what and how you identify those categories for unfamiliar readers.
3. I think section 3.3.1, page 12, is insightful, but the narrative could be improved. For example, you could emphasize relevant trends or observed anomalies.
4. I miss specific policy recommendations derived from these findings.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English is required. This paper would strongly benefit from careful proofreading and more concise paragraphs for clarity.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for carefully considering our manuscript entitled “Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Coupled Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being in Gansu Province Counties and the Factors Affecting them” (ID: sustainability-3055790), and for giving us opportunity to revise it. We have done our best to revise the manuscript, and invited native English speakers to check the manuscript for grammar, style, and grammar. At the same time, we have provided cover letters for each reviewer's comments separately to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and our responses to the referees’ comments. We have uploaded the revised manuscript. We hope that the manuscript has been satisfactorily improved and accepted for publication in your journal. The next page is response to reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThis manuscript taking 87 counties in Gansu Province as an example, the article explores the spatial and temporal characteristics of ecosystem services and human well-being, analyses the coupling relationship between the two and the influencing factors, and provides policy recommendations for achieving regional sustainable development.. The topic is interesting and practical, but I recommend the authors to address the following issues:
1．In the introduction section, the third and fourth paragraphs are too brief in the author’s description of the scientific problem addressed by this study and the purpose of the study, and it is recommended that further additions and condensing be made to better highlight the significance of this study.
2．Please double-check the last two columns of the row headings in table 2, why are they “Specific indicators”? Is it wrong? Please ask the authors to change it according to the actual content.
3．In lines 187-189, the authors should add relevant references to clarify the specific methodology for the calculation of county human well-being indicators.
4．In lines 239-240, the authors simply indicate in their analysis of the results that the value of ecosystem services of grassland and woodland is showing an increasing trend, why is it increasing? The author should provide additional explanations in appropriate places.
5．The authors should pay attention to the correct citation format in the article, such as “Xie Gaodi ” in line 152 and “Tian Jianguo and Zhou Lilei [34-35]” in line 177, which are not standardized. It is recommended that the authors make uniform changes to the similarities throughout the text, and it is recommended that the authors check the full text.
6．Please correct “100×104/km2” in line 286 and suggest that the authors check the whole text.
7．In lines 332-337, the authors notes that counties with high levels of human well-being show an expanding trend, and suggests that the authors add an analysis of the reasons for the expansion at the appropriate place.
8．Please correct line 371, “(Fig. 6)”, to make it consistent with the rest of the text, and suggest that the authors check it in full.
9．In the discussion section, the authors make the same policy recommendations for the Longzhong and Longdong regions; are the socio-economic development conditions of these two regions identical? Do the policy recommendations need to be more specific? It is suggested that the authors should put forward more targeted and practical policy recommendations based on the research results and regional characteristics.
10．The authors should pay attention to the standardization of the production of the illustrations and the consistency of their presentation, such as the inconsistency between the scale in figure 5 and the scale in figure 7, and the need to capitalize the first letter of the legend. Authors are advised to examine carefully the full text of the figures.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for carefully considering our manuscript entitled “Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Coupled Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being in Gansu Province Counties and the Factors Affecting them” (ID: sustainability-3055790), and for giving us opportunity to revise it. We have done our best to revise the manuscript, and invited native English speakers to check the manuscript for grammar, style, and grammar. At the same time, we have provided cover letters for each reviewer's comments separately to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and our responses to the referees’ comments. We have uploaded the revised manuscript. We hope that the manuscript has been satisfactorily improved and accepted for publication in your journal. The next page is response to reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe interactions between ecosystem services and human well-being are crucial for strengthening ecological protection and achieving superior quality of development. The coupled coordination degree model and geographically weighted regression were used to analyze the spatial and temporal differences of ecosystem services and human well-being in 87 counties of Gansu Province. Some findings are interesting, and however, there are still some flaws need to be amended.
1. Abstract. It is recommended to add the theoretical and practical implications of research to highlight the novelties of manuscript.
2. Introduction. It is recommended to address the main study objectives, to supplement literature reviews on methodology, content and significance of the research to emphasize the novelties of manuscript.
3. Data sources. It is recommended to clarify data processing, coordinates and resolution, and relevant parameters setting.
4. Research methodology. It is recommended to streamline the description of the profile of Gansu Province in the research methodology and move this part to the study area.
5. The research methodology on coupling harmonization should be streamlined and highlight the relative degree of development.
6. The academic terms like “forestland” and “woodland”, “waters” and “water”, “unused land” and “unutilized land”, “unused land” and “unutilized land” should be consistent back and forth.
7. Regarding to indicators including “Urban disposable income/Rural disposable income”, “Per capita net income of rural residents (yuan)”, etc., it is suggested to explain why some indicators are “per capita” and some are “total”, and figure out the basis for the selection of expenditure indicators.
8. In line 316, it is hard to compare the results applying natural break method to classify the data in 2000, 2010 and 2020.
9. Discussion section. It is suggested to strengthen the discussion on influencing factors by comparison of the results with relevant researches.
10. Conclusion. Lines 522-530 of the conclusion are lengthy and need to be streamlined to highlight the novelties.
11. It is recommended to add results of the relative degree of development in the discussion and conclusions.
12. The language needs to be polished.
Comments on the Quality of English Language
The language needs to be polished.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
We are grateful to the editor and reviewers for carefully considering our manuscript entitled “Spatial and Temporal Variations in the Coupled Relationship between Ecosystem Services and Human Well-being in Gansu Province Counties and the Factors Affecting them” (ID: sustainability-3055790), and for giving us opportunity to revise it. We have done our best to revise the manuscript, and invited native English speakers to check the manuscript for grammar, style, and grammar. At the same time, we have provided cover letters for each reviewer's comments separately to explain, point by point, the details of the revisions to the manuscript and our responses to the referees’ comments. We have uploaded the revised manuscript. We hope that the manuscript has been satisfactorily improved and accepted for publication in your journal. The next page is response to reviewers' comments.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe authors have fully addressed my comments raised in the previous round.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #2：
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. Please find attached the author reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsSome concerns have not been addressed.
1.Introduction. It is recommended to supplement literature reviews on methodology, content and significance of the research to emphasize the novelties of manuscript.
2. Point 1 in discussion needs to be strengthened.
3. Conlusions need to be streamlined to highlight the novelties rather than to repeat the results.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required.
Author Response
Dear Reviewer #3:
Thank you very much for your constructive comments. Please find attached the author reply.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
