Expert-Based Assessment and Mapping of Ecosystem Services Potential in the Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon Region, Lithuania

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This study assess the ES potentials in by experts’ opinion in the Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon Region, and identify hotspots and coldspots of ES potentials by Gi* statistics, which has certain research value. But there are still many deficiencies in this paper. On the whole, the literature review of this paper is not perfect, and the data analysis lacks depth, so it needs to be major modified.

The major comments are as follows:

1. The research objective of this study is ES potential, which usually refer to the capacity of ecosystems to provide ESs. Some studies used a matrix approach with experts’ opinion to assess the ES potentials. For example:

Hattam C, Broszeit S, Langmead O, et al. A matrix approach to tropical marine ecosystem service assessments in South east Asia[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2021, 51: 101346.

Leitão I A, Ferreira C S S, Ferreira A J D. Assessing long-term changes in potential ecosystem services of a peri-urbanizing Mediterranean catchment[J]. Science of the Total Environment, 2019, 660: 993-1003.

These similar literatures should be reviewed. The differences in results need to be revealed.

2. There is no link between the methodological section and the result action. You should have a one-to-one relationship. First, explain what you are going to do, and in the result section, follow the same order. In this way, we can follow the paper. What’s the relationship between ES potentials and relative importance (RI) of ecosystem services? Assuming the relative importance of ES? (line 275-278).
3. The method of ES potentials should be reflected in the subtitle “2.4. Scoring and Compiling the Values”.
4. When did the experts score? The land data is 2000. Are they consistent?
5. The high/low value of ES cannot be displayed in Gi* statistics. (e.g., high-low). Follow (Qiu and Turner, 2013), we can extract the hotspots (the highest 20% townships) and coldspots (the lowest 20% townships) for each ES. In this way, the distribution of high and low values of ES can be mapped. For example:

Zhang G, Zheng D, Xie L, et al. Mapping changes in the value of ecosystem services in the Yangtze River Middle Reaches Megalopolis, China[J]. Ecosystem Services, 2021, 48: 101252.

Qiu, J., Turner, M.G., 2013. Spatial interactions among ecosystem services in an urbanizing agricultural watershed. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 110, 12149–12154.

6. In this study, 35 ESs were assessed. What is the relationship between ESs (e.g., trade-off, synergism and bundle)? This can be revealed by some basic methodology (e.g., correlation analysis and principal component analysis).
7. The discussion part is lacking logic, so it is suggested that the subtitle should be explained clearly. Moreover, the discussion lacks depth, mainly for the simple results, and does not further explain the underlying reasons.
8. There is no need to write a large number of background of topic in the conclusion (line 431-442).
9. Limitations of the study and recommendation of future study should be added at the end of conclusion.

 

 

Author Response

Please find our comments in the attached Table.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This study presents a comprehensive assessment of ecosystem services provided by a special ecosystem. The most interesting part is the combination of two land use classifications. Practically, the findings are informative. The authors are expected to highlight the scientific importance, especially in terms of methodologic innovation. I have some major comments shown below.  

1. The authors failed to clearly clarify research gaps in either methodology or knowledge after a short literature review. Why is it important to assess and map ESs provided in this specific study area? What is the difference between this expert-based method and previous ones? The second half of the second paragraph summarizes some applications of ES assessment methods, but it would be better if a related review of assessment methods could be separately highlighted.
2. Study area. The Curonian Lagoon is along both Lithuania and Kaliningrad Oblast. If only the Lithuanian part is included, it should be shown in the title.
3. 2.2. What is the spatial resolution of the CORINE land cover data? Why were small habitats reviewed individually? Why were Natura 2020 habitat types that consist of small fragments inappropriate? The related description here is not very clear.
4. 2.4 & 2.5. What the components, such as ei, Pi, and Ii, in the equations represent should be clearly specified. It is better to replace the reference of Morkūnė et al. in preparation with a published one. There should be some similar applications in the literature. The reference of Robbe et al. (2021) is not online available. Was the non-linear transformation based on this paper? If not, the authors are expected to justify the statement about its greater robustness. Why was it a consistent way to only keep scientists’ ratings? Whom was the 21-expert committee formed from? How many farmers were included?
5. Given the priority of Natura 2000 types, in the results and discussion, I suggest the authors make direct comparisons between congeneric land cover types of Natura 2000 and CORINE, for example, Natura forests and CORINE forest and semi natural areas.
6. There are some grammatical errors. For example, two complete sentences cannot be linked with a comma. Use conjunction or change them to two single sentences. In sentences starting with a number, the number should be written as a word. There are also errors in other types. I strongly suggest the authors carefully proofread the manuscript or ask for help from professional services or native speakers. I also suggest changing ES for ecosystem services to ESs, since ecosystem services are countable.

Author Response

Please find our responses in the attached Table. 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Check the format and grammar again.

Reviewer 2 Report

All comments have been well answered.