Integrating Water Quality Restoration Cost with Ecosystem Service Flow to Quantify an Ecological Compensation Standard: A Case Study of the Taoxi Creek Watershed

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Letter to Authors
water-1674548-v1
Integrating Water Quality Restoration Cost with Ecosystem Service Flow to Quantify an Ecological Compensation Standard - A Case Study of the Taoxi Creek Watershed
Zhenshun Tu, Zilong Chen, Haodong Ye, Shengyue Chen, Jinliang Huang

220404

Dear authors,
I was a reviewer of your previous submission #1588862. Your reply cleared where is the focal point of the conflict of interest.
Delete L571-572. Funding from Fujian governmental projects might give biased contents of this MS. You can see a typical case in a paper published in Scientific Reports (doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-51797-3). You may think it is unusual, but I dare say behaviors of the Chinese government are unusual and extraneous. The governed people including scientists live in controlled blindness. People never foresee their perception is biased by their governments. You may see another example in an IJMS paper (doi:10.3390/ijms14010954). Instead of the current, add a statement that some data sources (Quanzhou City Water Resources Bulletins and Yongchun County Rural Domestic Sewage Treatment Special Plan) were available upon application to and approval from governments.

In addition, there are some other miscellaneous points to be revised. See below.

L121
(http://www.fjyc.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkzl/ndbg/ application) -> (http://www.fjyc.gov.cn/zwgk/zfxxgkzl/ndbg/) upon application

L428
According to the above calculations, (verbose) -> delete

L571-572
The authors declare .. reported in this paper. -> Some data sources (Quanzhou City Water Resources Bulletins and Yongchun County Rural Domestic Sewage Treatment Special Plan) were available upon application to and approval from governments.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear Authors,

I have some comments, questions concerning your paper. I hope that my suggestions will be useful for you.

What do the Authors want to say by “service flow” in these sentences: (1) the ecological compensation based on ecosystem service flow, (2) moreover, compensation research from the perspective of service flow is lacking? And in the next parts of that paper.

Line 484 – Authors wrote that “Water consumption is positively correlated with the economic development of a city”. Please explain and show the results of this correlation calculation. In lines 196-197 there is no this information. What were the variables used in calculating the correlation and what is the result? Moreover, the Author wrote that correlation is from ) to 1, but it can be also a minus value. Pollution from cities included pollution from industry located in the cities? There are pollutant factories - polluters (chemicals etc.) that have an influence on water pollution. Please show wider that aspect of pollution in your paper. Please read some papers, where the correlation was calculated and there is the description of the results.

Line 512 - local pollutant – Authors can add information who is the local polluters because it will be useful for potential researchers and policymakers.

In the conclusion please indicate one sentence, what is important for the researchers and readers.

Line 545 and next – this is a limitation of the research and it can be separated from a conclusion. A conclusion should base on the research, not on the information that was not made.

The paper is well written, but there is a lack of methodology concerning correlation and information about polluters.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is well written. Subject was described and analysed in correct way. My suggestions and advice were took under consideration. Now the paper is more valuable for readers.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

 

The paper is average. Do not actually add much new knowledge but is a good example for the application of such methodology.

The conclusions are very weak in comparison to for example discussion.

 

Row 155 Water yield? Not just runoff?

Row 154. WSS model? SAT is a WSS model? I do not fully understudy this part of the paper.  

Row 504. Why did you put here information about InVest model? You do not use this model in your work. This sentence is unnecessary.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors of this article calculate the watershed ecological compensation of the use of the Taoxi Creek in water ecosystem service flows to residents downstream in the river basin.

The issue is of the most extraordinary importance in the valuation of ecological resources and services in the 21st century, especially for densely populated territories like China. This makes the current study a highly valuable input in the analysis of ecosystem services. The growing demands of developing populations like the Chinese make this type of analysis absolutely imperative for public policy.

The methods used by the researchers and the expertise they show in their field reveal great technical knowledge and rigour. Moreover, the presentation of the paper and the use of the English language are impeccable,

I strongly endorse the publication of this paper in its present form.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your positive response to our study, and we will continue to improve the shortcomings in our research and enhance the rigor of our manuscript. We will strive to apply the results to the management of ecological resources and services in China.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors

Thank you for possibility to read your paper concerning Water Quality Restoration Cost. After reading your interesting paper, I have some questions and suggestions to improve that paper.

Please write also the value in USD or Euro (not only CNY), because it will be easier to understand for wide group of potential readers.

Please check the sentences, because some of them are too long. E.g. lines 47-54.

Authors wrote about water pollution. I would like to ask, where are the water pollutants in this reservoir coming from? In some revers in Africa the pollutants came from industry or human activietes. Please read the paper: Environmental pollution as a threats to the ecology and development in Guinea Conakry. Environmental Protection and Natural Resources/Ochrona Środowiska i Zasobów Naturalnych, 28(4), 27-32. I hope it will be a valuable text for the Authors as well.

Please add some sentences about restauration cost. This is the words from the title, so please explain in the main text, how these cost were calculated (are there any sources of this information?) and so on. There are information: was calculated to be 387 787,180,000 m³. And in the next chapter: When considering both water quality restoration cost and ecological service flows, Taoxi Creek watershed should receive 30.8–59.1 million CNY. How it was calculated?

Please add some more sentences in conclusion, to show the wider contribution for the readers.

Please make internet citations according the mdpi requirements.

I hope that my questions and suggestions will be useful for the Authors, Good luck.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

Letter to Authors
water-1588862-v1
Integrating Water Quality Restoration Cost with Ecosystem Service Flow to Quantify an Ecological Compensation Standard - A Case Study of the Taoxi Creek Watershed
Zhenshun Tu, Zilong Chen, Shengyue Chen, Haodong Ye, Jinliang Huang

220130

Dear authors,
Cost/benefit evaluation of environmental restoration/mitigation is of both scientific and social importance. Your MS deals with this subject from an example of water quality in a small Chinese township. It is thus worth publishing your potentially interesting and important MS in the journal, if adequately written. Your pivotal information (water treatment costs) is, however, borrowed and in a black-box without reference or proper method description. You should provide its data source and how those costs were estimated in the method section. This is equivalent to "control missing", and thus your MS complies with the criterion of major revision. There are also many other miscellaneous issues to be revised. See below for detail. Words in square brackets may be omitted.

L25 keywords
Watershed ecological compensation; water quality restoration cost; Taoxi Creek -> replace
Do not list words which appear also in the title. Duplicate hits upon computer search do not make sense. Give words that do not appear in the title to draw attention from wider readership. Posting words that neither appear in the abstract is better, because even in full-text search/indexing robots may not weigh much on words deeper (posterior) in the text. Hint: environmental offsetting, ecosystem service, hydrology, nutrient load, willingness to pay, water supply service, etc.

L56
Costanza proposed the valuation of ecosystem services in 1997 -> the proposal of valuation of ecosystem services
The merit of numbered citation is to facilitate straightforward read through of your story without disturbed by outflow of author names and publication years.

L80
A reference is necessary for SWAT model.
Geographic Information System -> Geographic Information System (GIS)
See L245,354

L127 figure picture
Fonts in the picture are too small to see. They should be at least equal to or larger than those in the main text.

L129
What is "Class II water quality"? Citation may be better not to bloat your MS.

 

L183
We conducted .. -> continue to the previous paragraph
Reference is needed for SWAT-CUP.

L188-189
Move table 1 to the result section with some additional statements telling its outline, if necessary.

L204
The calibration results for the three hydrological stations are shown in Figures 3-5 -> delete
Wording like "X is shown in figure/table Y" imposes killing readers' times to read such an information deficient sentence telling only that there is a figure/table. You should present an outline or a perspective drawn from the figure/table and cite it in parentheses at the end. You may cite these figures at appropriate statements telling the result outline (around L219).

L207-216
Move three figures to results.

L217
Figures 3-5 show .. Jinjiang watershed (redundant) -> delete

L218-224
The simulated value curves .. flow determination -> move to results

L220
Table 2 lists .. the simulations -> delete
Table may be cited around L223 in parentheses.

L226-228
Move table 2 to results.

L245
ArcGIS
Supplier information is necessary, or is it implemented in SWAT-CUP?

L252
divided the study area into 33 sub-basins and (redundant) -> delete
See L158.

L271-278
The upstream region .. erosion control projects [8] -> move to the discussion section (4.3 ?)
Some revision may be necessary to fit with this rearrangement.

L278-290
We used ..
Making a subsection may be good such as "Cost Estimation".

L281-290
Reference is needed for the water quantity compensation standard. Or otherwise, detailed method description is needed presenting function(s)/equation(s) where necessary.

L317
Figure 7 shows.. at all 28 points -> revise
Show an outline of figure and cite it at the end.

L317,320
Figure 7 ??

L328
average water quality ecological compensation -> average cost of water quality ecological compensation ?
See L393.

L335-337
Figure 8 presents .. and 2019 -> delete
You may cite this figure around L335 or L342.

L341,358,377
Continue to the previous paragraph.

L354
Geographic Information System -> GIS

L355
, which is presented in Figure 9 -> (Figure 9)

L372
, as shown in Figure 10
 -> (Figure 10)

L376
Figure 10 provides .. Jinjiang watershed (redundant) -> delete

L388
What is "Class I"?

L388
Reference is needed for "Fujian Province Water Resources Levy and Use Management Measures".

L393
the water compensation -> [net] benefit of the water compensation ?
See L328.

L399,512
economic compensation -> gross economic compensation ?

L400-402
This implies .. beneficiaries in 2019 (redundant) -> delete

L404
Reference is necessary for this document.

L417
Figures 6 and 7
Make sure which figure.

L418
amount of compensation -> amount[s] to be compensated

L423,427
What is "flat season"?

L428
highest ??

L444
production -> supply ?

L486
Compared with previous studies that considered .. [5,8], the novelty of this study lies .. (long sentence) -> Previous studies considered .. [5,8]. The novelty of this study contrastingly lies ..

L497
construction; thus -> construction. Thus (break sentence here)

L528 data availability statement
Add your own statement following the journal author guide.

L533 acknowledgment
Add some, if necessary. Was the information on costs provided by the local government?

L536
If access to the information on costs was limited to scientists and not opened to public (see L322), it has a conflict of interests. Governments likely open their information to scientists expecting favorable publication, and hence the contents would be biased. Presence of conflicts itself is not always bad. What is really bad is non-disclosure.

L537 references
Check the reference list carefully again from the beginning. Reference lists are frequently hotbeds of errors. You might add, omit or swap citation in the main text on the way internal revision. Numbering of the references might then shift. If so, readers think you are making irrelevant citation. It is the authors' responsibility that all references are properly cited.

L538,etc (many)
Make sure if journal title words are abbreviated where possible.

The following items may be helpful for further discussion.

Abbaspour KC. 2015. SWAT-CUP SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs. EAWAG, Dubendorf, Switzerland.

Douglas-Mankin KR, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG. 2010. Soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) model: Current developments and applications. Trans Am Soc Agr Biol Engin 53(5):1423-1431.

Magara Y. 2009. Water quality standards, and monitoring. In: Kubota S, Tsuchiya Y. (eds). Water Quality and Standards. UNESCO-EOLSS.

Wang Y, Yang R, Li X, Zhang L, Liu W, Zhang Y, Liu Y, Liu Q. 2021. Study on trans-boundary water quality and quantity ecological compensation standard: A case of the Bahao Bridge section in Yongding River, China. Water 13:1488.

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

Letter to Authors
water-1588862-v2
Integrating Water Quality Restoration Cost with Ecosystem Service Flow to Quantify an Ecological Compensation Standard - A Case Study of the Taoxi Creek Watershed
Zhenshun Tu, Zilong Chen, Shengyue Chen, Haodong Ye, Jinliang Huang

220304

Dear authors,
I am sorry to see this deceptive MS. 
In your reply letter "water-1588862-coverletter.docx" with a title "Response to Reviewer 4 Comments", you say "There is really no conflict of interest in our research, so we declared no conflict of interest." (43, L536) You do not, however, provide the data source. The links at L116 and L120 do not point the data source but home-page of the bureaous. Exclusive disclosure of the data is suspected. Unless the authors provide the exact links to the data source open to public, it is highly likely that governments showed their data exclusively to you expecting favorable content. In this case, you must declear there was conflicts of interests. Presence of conflicts itself is not always bad. What is really bad is non-disclosure.
I told the editor that your MS is not acceptable.