Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear author,

First let me congratulate you to the work on this important topic. I would be glad if your works and publications would bring forward the consideration of CES in daily planning practice.

I have the feeling that there is even more potential for learning in this article and that you could add here and there one / a few more sentences about the "how" and "why" and maybe "who". I made some comments accordingly. Please feel free to use them as source for motivation.

Being aware that I am not a native speaker, I left also a few comments regarding spelling, grammar etc. This might be based on differences in AE and BE. Feel free to judge.

Looking forward to see your article published,

With my best wishes for further work!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

The following changes were done in response to reviewer’s two comments:

I have the feeling that there is even more potential for learning in this article and that you could add here and there one / a few more sentences about the "how" and "why" and maybe "who". I made some comments accordingly. Please feel free to use them as source for motivation.

Please see specific corrections below:

Lines 18-19 sentence reworked

Line 21- et al.

Line 22- ecosystem

Lines 24-25 Table 1 reformatted

Line 87- insert “,” and “works”

Line 92- insert “However,

Line 131 spacing corrected

Line 147 spacing corrected

Line 225- sentence inserted for further explanation

Line 228- spacing corrected

Line 233- sentence inserted for further explanation

Line 244-sentence inserted for further explanation

Line 249- changed to “have”

Line 251- punctuation changed

Line 264- punctuation changed

Line 265-sentence added for further explanation

Line 276- sentence added for further explanation

Line 280- sentence added for further explanation

Line 299- spacing corrected plus sentence extended to quote other sources

Lines 300-301- sentence added about CES integration into landscape planning applications

Line 304- punctuation corrected

Line 312- deleted “Please add”

Line 319 – Deleted “ Declare conflicts of interest or state”

Reviewer 2 Report

This is a useful overview of cultural ecosystem services assessment methodologies. However, the methodology for selecting the studies is not clear. Therefore one wonders how comprehensive this review is. 

I would question the use of referencing in the abstract - this is not good practice.

Why are some of the brackets curly?

Line 18-19 'Also, as part of ecosystems services, are regulatory, provisional and ecosystem support services'. This sentence makes no sense. And it should be provisioning, not provisional!

Line 22 'progression of description of cultural Ecosystem services'. What does progression of description mean?

Line 87 should be 'has', not 'have'

Line 89 should be 'have', not 'has'

Line 112 'imputes' - that is not the right word, and therefore the sentence makes no sense

Line 126-127 'Now what are theoretical underpinnings of landscape aesthetic resource assessment?' This sentence should be removed.

Line 130 sentences should not begin with 'So'

Line 130 do you really mean quantification? The paragraphs that follow appear to be about qualitative assessment, not quantitative

Line 146 sentences should not begin with 'So'

Lines 216-217 'So the next question is how can we utilize the landscape assessment paradigms above as part of cultural ecosystem service assessment?' This discursive style of writing is not appropriate

Line 222 should be authors, not author's

Line 236 should be capital, not capitol

Line 257 sentences should not begin with 'So'

Line 270 the first time you use an acronym you need the full term first i.e. cultural ecosystem services (CES)

Line 289 should be 'the', not 'he'

Author Response

This is a useful overview of cultural ecosystem services assessment methodologies. However, the methodology for selecting the studies is not clear. Therefore one wonders how comprehensive this review is. 

A new Section 2 Methods & Materials has been added that explains how the review was done

I would question the use of referencing in the abstract - this is not good practice.

References are now deleted from the abstract

Line 18-19 'Also, as part of ecosystems services, are regulatory, provisional and ecosystem support services'. This sentence makes no sense. And it should be provisioning, not provisional!

This sentence has been reworked

Line 22 'progression of description of cultural Ecosystem services'. What does progression of description mean?

This has been changed.

Line 87 should be 'has', not 'have'. This has been corrected

Line 89 should be 'have', not 'has'. This has been corrected

Line 112 'imputes' - that is not the right word, and therefore the sentence makes no sense

 This has been corrected

Line 126-127 'Now what are theoretical underpinnings of landscape aesthetic resource assessment?' This sentence should be removed.

Line 130 sentences should not begin with 'So'- This has been changed

Line 130 do you really mean quantification? The paragraphs that follow appear to be about qualitative assessment, not quantitative. This sentence has been changed to delete quantification.

Line 146 sentences should not begin with 'So'. This has been changed.

Lines 216-217 'So the next question is how can we utilize the landscape assessment paradigms above as part of cultural ecosystem service assessment?' This discursive style of writing is not appropriate. This has been changed to not be discursive.

Line 222 should be authors, not author's- This has been changed

Line 236 should be capital, not capitol- This has been corrected

Line 257 sentences should not begin with 'So'. This has been corrected

Line 270 the first time you use an acronym you need the full term first i.e. cultural ecosystem services (CES). This has been done.

Line 289 should be 'the', not 'he'. This has been corrected

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

There are typos in the new sections of text, for example: line 101 - should be pertinent (not pertinant) line 137 - should be are (not aere) line 137 - should be assessment (not assessement) line 242 - should be providing (not prividing) line 255 - should be aesthetic (not aethetic) line 277 - should be intermediate (not internmediate) line 289 - should be identification (not idenification)   Furthermore, there are grammatical errors, for example: line 289 - The results, in both cases, was ... Since the author is referring to five studies, the use of the term both is incorrect (both can only be used for two), and results is plural, so it should be were, not was ... I would rewrite this sentence as follows: These studies identified the key natural and cultural landscape features that were associated with cultural ecosystem service benefits.   line 317 should be has, not have, since the author is referring to the act of incorporating CES in landscape planning (singluar, not plural)   There also still a few curly brackets {} which should be square brackets []  

Author Response

Reviewer 2 response

 

The author wishes to thank the reviewer for detailed comments and manuscript corrections.

 

There are typos in the new sections of text, for example: line 101 - should be pertinent (not pertinant) line 137 –This has been corrected

Should be are (not aere) line 137 – This has been corrected

Should be assessment (not assessement) line 242 – This has been corrected

Should be providing (not prividing) line 255 – This has been corrected

Should be aesthetic (not aethetic) line 277 – This has been corrected

Should be intermediate (not internmediate) line 289 – This has been corrected

Should be identification (not idenification)- This has been corrected

 

Furthermore, there are grammatical errors, for example: line 289 - The results, in both cases, was ... Since the author is referring to five studies, the use of the term both is incorrect (both can only be used for two), and results is plural, so it should be were, not was ... I would rewrite this sentence as follows: These studies identified the key natural and cultural landscape features that were associated with cultural ecosystem service benefits. This sentence has been revised according to the reviewer’s suggestion and the author has carefully gone back through the manuscript to correct grammatical errors.

 

Line 317 should be has, not have, since the author is referring to the act of incorporating CES in landscape planning (singluar, not plural). This has been corrected  

 

There also still a few curly brackets {} which should be square brackets []. The author has gone through the manuscript to correct this where it occurs.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx