Cross-Scaling Approach for Water-Flow-Regulating Ecosystem Services: A Trial in Bochum, Germany

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

General

1. The title may not good reflector of the work. It is good if it changes to “cross-scaling approach for water flow regulating ecosystem services"
2. The abstract has too many disconnected ideas/statements/, which don't help to grasp the concepts of the work. Better rewrite it
3. Overall evaluation of introduction
   1. It doesn't give scientific background on the major concepts in the title like supply -demand matching, micro-scale approach
   2. There are different concepts, which are not well describes, example "science-practice gap"
   3. In most of description made hasty generalization
   4. Each paragraph of the introduction describes different concepts without interconnection or interrelation each other
4. The main methodology used in this research is Crossing-scale approach, however it is not well describe, it is good to have brief description on it and its application area
5. The result section has too many methodological descriptions that has to be presented in the methodology section
6. The discussion mainly describe the cons and pros of the approach, rather it is prefer to discussed the results with comparison of the previous related works
7. The conclusion is very shallow, please improve it

 

Specific

1. Line 12-13; list issues in related with ecosystem services as specific for urban area;  however they are work for rural area also; why makes specific for urban? 
2. Line 56-60; it is a paragraph, which site as island in the middle of different ideas, which doesn't give any additive on the context of the easy.
3. Line 88; check the sentence construction
4. Line 113; the map lacks clarity, better if it is developed better resolution and also unambiguous symbology
5. Line 311-325;
   1. the values use to classified the supply and demand to five scales lack scientific background, if they referred from  previous work,  please citied the sources otherwise give scientific background for the boundary values of each scale 
   2. What is the reason the year 1991 selected? What will be the values for other years?

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

An interesting attempt to bridge the "science -practice divide" but  which is let down by inadequate explanation of the foundational hydrological processes being considered....and inadequate biophysical explanation of the metrics used to describe hydrological processes. Overall....too much GIS and  not enough biophysical explanation. But this can probably be fixed without revisiting the GIS  analysis

More detailed comments attached 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

this is a much improved version from the original....well done authors.

However there are still numerous examples of idiosyncratic or incorrect use of english terms. One example is impervious rate....should be impervious ratio. Another is shadowed streets....should be shaded streets...cross scale studies has been emerged...should be-cross scale studies emerged  because of.... The text needs another look over by a native english speaker

Author Response

Thanks a lot for helping us improve our manuscript's English language. We have revised all those incorrect English terms that you mentioned and contacted the MPDI English editing service office for further check of our manuscript.