Spatial-Temporal Evolution and Influencing Factors Analysis of Ecosystem Services Value: A Case Study in Sunan Canal Basin of Jiangsu Province, Eastern China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to read your interesting article. I believe that the subject (ES valuation) is of relevance, the article is well structured, and the methods and their application seem sound. Results are duly discussed.

 

As the only weak point, I feel that some suggestions should be added regarding implications/contributions/relevance for land use management. Maybe a short 4.3 section on this subject, renumbering the limitations section to 4.4. 

 

Notes for revision 

Abstract: 

Several acronyms are introduced without introducing their original meaning - ESV, MPI, ATE, APR, NPP, GDP, POP. 

 

Lines 269-271 - Can you provide a reference/link to the ecological restoration projects "returning farmland to forest, grassland, and lake”? 

 

Figure 3 - Given that acronyms were presented in Table 1, at the beginning of the Methods section, I suggest adding the definition of acronyms again in the legend of the figure, for more fluid reading. Otherwise, the readers need to go back and forth between sections, with a long (9) list of acronyms, which makes it harder to memorize. 

 

Grid size note: 

In line 220 you mention a 10km x 10km scale grid for the Panel quantile model, while in line 325 you mention a grid scale of 1km x 1km for the analysis of ESV spatial distribution. I suggest adding to the methods section (maybe at the end of section 2.2) information on the grid size used in the main analysis (which I imagine is the 1km grid size). And perhaps clarify in section 2.3.4. the need to aggregate data into a 10km grid for the Panel quantile model. 

 

Table 5 and Figure 6 - Similar to the Figure 3 situation, as acronyms of impact factors were defined in section 2.2, I suggest adding the definition of the acronyms in the legend of the table. For figure 6, if you colour the plots by main groups, might increase legibility (Natural condition factors/variables: NPP, ATE, APR; Land use patterns’ factors/variables: MPI; Socio-demographic factors/variables: POP, GDP) 

 

Lines 436-439 - I believe there is an error in the text, when you mention: “the more complete the land use structure, the greater the ecosystem service capacity in low ESV zones, while the more complete the land use structure, the weaker the ecosystem service capacity in high ESV zones.” You use “the more complete” sentence related to land use structure in two supposedly opposite situations, so I imagine that in one of them the text should be the opposite, e.g., more vs. less. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on this manuscript. These comments will be very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Below is our reply to these comments; the authors’ reply is shown in red text and all the changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper analyzes the temporal and spatial evolution of ecosystem service value and its influencing factors in the Sunan Canal Basin of Jiangsu Province, which is is located in the Yangtze River Delta Economic Belt. The following questions are worth referring to:

In line 14-15, it is recommended to write it in 5 years.

In line 15, the abbreviation of ESV appears for the first time. Even in the summary, you need to write the full name first and then the abbreviation. There are also MPI, ATE, APR and NPP.

In line 26, whether the "values" in "ESV values" are repeated.

In lines 102 and 174, there is an error "Error! Reference source not found." Please check the full text.

In Section 3.1, although the description of area change of different land use types is more detailed, it is recommended to consider making a table for clarity.

Where the chart is involved, the text seems to be separated from the chart. When the text refers to the content of the chart, please check the full text.

In line 254, arable land should not be equal to farmland.

Line 286, whether 4.46 is -4.46%.

In line 319, it is recommended to display the ordinate in Figure 3.

In line 326, p in p-value should be italicized.

In line 349, Figure 4, Taihu Lake presents a grid grid. Is it because the grid data rows and columns are not aligned? If so, will the accuracy of the results be affected?

In line 421, the trend of APR using signal does not conform to the figure, but the numerical display is indeed acceptable. Consider adjusting the ordinate of Figure 6b.

In the discussion, the comparison of different studies can be considered appropriately.

References format needs to be reconfirmed.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to extend our thanks to Reviewer 2 for providing useful and valuable feedback on our paper, which certainly helps us improve our paper. We hope that our replies clarify all points raised by Reviewer 2. Below is our point-by-point reply to these comments; the authors’ reply is shown in red text and all the changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The article describes the impact of landscape changes and factors influencing changes in the value of ecosystem services in a case study. For this, it uses secondary data of changes in Land Use.

The main problem of the presented work is its very simple research design, which does not bring new research methods or significant results. Of course, it is beneficial to quantify the effects of changes in the Land Use of the landscape. But the scientific level at which the authors performed it is very low. Neither the research methodology nor the results are worthy of the quality of the journal Remote Sensing.

The methodology and results, in addition to simplification, are also invalidated by the fact that the article is full of unsubstantiated or well-known statements. So it does not come with anything new for the international scientific community.

Table 1, containing the ESV equivalent factor, needs more detailed commenting on the listed financial values ​​of individual groups of ecosystem services. For example, I find it alarming that the second highest value is Waste treatment for water resources. Is this value not so high at the expense of other ecosystem services?

I really miss the scientific quality analysis of the factors influencing the value of ecosystem services, which is presented in the title of the article

The article also shows shortcomings in terms of formality. Missing references are the first point. The second point is the missing legend for the water surface grid in Figure 4.

The first point of literary sources - Costanza and Robert seems very unprofessional.

Table 4 – Differen land use contribution rates is incomplete if there are no Built-up areas that significantly influence this contribution

Domestic (Chinese) sources dominate the bibliography. The authors therefore lack a relevant international overview.

The article is not uninteresting. Its content is suitable for presentation to the government of the model area and teaching. However, the article does not bring anything new to the scientific community. Its professional and scientific value does not reach the quality of the journal Remote sensing, and therefore I recommend rejecting it and sending it to another journal.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 3,

We would like to thank you for the valuable comments on this manuscript. These comments will be very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript. We have carefully revised the manuscript according to your comments. Below is our point-by-point reply to these comments; the authors’ reply is shown in red text and all the changes are highlighted in the revised manuscript by using the track changes mode in MS Word. Thank you again for taking the time to review our manuscript.Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear authors, 

Thank you for your answers, updates, and clarifications regarding my comments to your article. I believe that your article is good for publishing. 

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 1,

We feel great thanks for your professional review work on this manuscript. These comments will be very helpful to improve the quality of the manuscript.

Kind regards,

Reviewer 2 Report

Please add the content of LULC resolution and accuracy.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer 2,

We would like to extend our thanks to you for providing useful and valuable feedback on our paper, which certainly helps us improve our paper. Below is our point-by-point reply to these comments.

Point 1: Please add the content of LULC resolution and accuracy.

Response 1: Thank you for your kind suggestions. We agree with your advice. We have added the description of the resolution of LULC in the revised manuscript (Line 133). The specific modifications are as follows:

Land use data for the five periods of 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2019, are obtained from the Resource and Environment Science Data Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn/) at a resolution of 30 m.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors have prepared extensive explanations for each comment without incorporating the comments into the text. Therefore, the quality of the article has not changed. An example of the authors' low level is their comment on the "Robert and Costanza" point. The authors didn't even understand that it is one person - Robert Costanza. So it is not two authors.

The quality of the article has not changed and therefore I cannot recommend it for publication.