Measurement of the Threatened Biodiversity Existence Value Output: Application of the Refined System of Environmental-Economic Accounting in the Pinus pinea Forests of Andalusia, Spain
Barbara Gołębiewska
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper discusses the method of economic estimation of biodiversity existence value on the example of threatened species in Andalusia. The authors propose to consider the price that people are willing to pay for the preservation of threatened species as an exchange price and to make appropriate additions to the SEEA-EA methodology. This is an extremely relevant issue for the practical biodiversity conservation and SEEA-EA development and implementation at the national level.
The work deserves publication, but significant corrections of the text are needed.
General comments
1) The paper is overloaded with specific economic terms and indicators. Since the journal is not focused exclusively on economic topics, the significance of these indicators for biodiversity conservation practice should either be explained if they are necessary to achieve the goal of the article, or they should be shortened in the text and tables and sent to supplementary materials.
2) The INTRODUCTION does not sufficiently characterize the current state of research on the issue under consideration. The authors refer primarily to the shortcomings of the current version of SEEA-EA. There is no analysis of recent years publications on the existence value of biodiversity and the WTP for threatened species. Five cited papers are self-citation. This makes it difficult to explicitly formulate the novelty and necessity of the study. A significant part of this section refers, rather, to sections METHODS, RESULTS and DISCUSSION.
3) The Section 2 "Concepts and valuation methods…" reveals only the conceptual approach of the authors to biodiversity valuation. Monetary estimates, which are then discussed in the article, were obtained in previous works of the authors. The methods by which they are obtained are not described here. For readers' understanding, it would be useful to briefly explain how were the “choice experiment method” and “simulated exchange value method” (lines 214-215) were used and how monetary values from the Table 3 were obtained, for example, values of ecosystem services.
4) The Section 4 “Discussion” cannot be considered complete. It contains a critique of the SEEA-EA (although this issue has already been discussed in the INTRODUCTION) and a discussion of the uncertainty of the valuation. There is no discussion of conclusions for biodiversity management that can be drawn from the results presented in the Section 3. What follows for the management of biodiversity in Andalusian pine forests from the distribution of forest areas (Tables 1 and 2), the monetary values of numerous indicators in Table 3, the spatial distribution of NOS (Fig. 3)?
5) Authors use different names for discussed service making text difficult to read. If authors introduce a new type of ecosystem service, it is desirable to explicitly define it somewhere and then use only this name.
6) To refer to biodiversity, the authors use a mixture of terms of species, genes, varieties, assets (highlighted in the PDF). These are different levels of biodiversity and they play different roles for the well-being of people, are familiar to people to varying degrees, people have different ideas about genes and species. It is not clear what is being said at the beginning of the article. This mixture of terms hinders understanding. Further, when discussing the results, it becomes clear that we are talking about species. What does «unique genetic variety of species” mean? This phrase is used many times in the text (highlighted in PDF). IS it diversity of species or diversity of subspecies, populations genes within species? Or is it generalized regional gene pool? What is their uniqueness? Are they endemic to Andalusia or pine forests? Evolutionary relics? Perform unique ecological functions?
7) The Table A2 contains interesting results when some species have been rated many times more than others. Why do respondents want to save these particular species? A few words about this would be useful for understanding WTP for endangered species.
Minor comments
L. 22 – 23. It is advisable to briefly explain the reason for this result.
L. 86. The reference17 needs to be clarified
L. 96 – 124. This text belongs, rather, to the sections METHODS, RESULTS and DISCUSSION
L. 130 – 172. The Section 2.1 uses different names for discussed service and mixes the concepts of species, genes, varieties, assets (highlighted in the text). If the rest of the article is about the evaluation of species, then why discuss genes here? If the authors here wanted to emphasize the most general nature of their approach, wouldn't it be easier to use the term biodiversity without going into the details of its definition? In general, the section can be greatly reduced by expressing in a simpler and more explicit form the proposal of the authors to consider the willingness to pay (actual payment) fees/taxes for biodiversity conservation as transaction price for its existence.
L. 134. Are only endangered species important? The existence of the biosphere, large biomes (eg, tropical forests), widespread species (eg, wolves, elk, bears) is not important?
L. 146 -147. This phrase is incomprehensible. Here we are talking about the value of one gene? Is this a resource for genetic engineering? What is "genetic environmental asset"?
L. 173. Section 2.2. This section is overloaded with economic terms (there are about 30 of them in Figure 2). It is difficult for a reader who is not a deep specialist in economics to understand this. Since the journal is not specifically focused on economic research, it would be useful to explain the essence of this section in a general language, referring to Figure 2 for specialists.
L. 178. Incomplete sentence?
L.190-197. Figure 1. To facilitate understanding of this figure by non-specialists in economics, it is better to label the axes in full (Y - price of not increasing by 1 number of threatened species; X - the number of threatened species), or indicate it in the caption to the figure.
L.214. What is “landscape conservation service”?
L. 218. It would be helpful for readers to describe very briefly this experiment.
L. 221. Are these species included in the Andalusian Red Book? Another red list?
L. 228. What is meant “MWTP of the landscape”? Is it about landscape ecosystem services or landscape as such?
L. 268. This is a table, not a figure. “Biodiversity” is not a service. Need another name
L.320. Inappropriate title. The results of past and current forest management in the region are not the results of your research. This description of study area is best placed in the METHODS section.
L. 322- 353.The first three paragraphs are a description of the study area and refer to the METHODS section.
L. 389. Table 2. It is better to place PAs in Table 3 in the same order as in the above text
L. 395. Section 3.2. This section uses a large number of specific economic indicators, the meaning of which is not always clear to biologists and practitioners in the field of nature management and biodiversity conservation. Thus, the significance if indicators for biodiversity conservation should be explained. If some indicators are not needed, it is better to shorten them in the text and in the table 3 and leave them in the supplementary materials.
L. 496 – 498. People are willing to pay for the conservation of widespread species, and not just endangered ones. This is a limitation of the method discussed here, applied specifically to threatened species.
L. 643. Need to fix the link. This document cannot be found on the site https://seea.un.org/
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
[Land] Manuscript ID: land-1784233
REVIEWER 1
- Comments and Suggestions for Authors
[Reviewer comment 1.1]
The paper discusses the method of economic estimation of biodiversity existence value on the example of threatened species in Andalusia. The authors propose to consider the price that people are willing to pay for the preservation of threatened species as an exchange price and to make appropriate additions to the SEEA-EA methodology. This is an extremely relevant issue for the practical biodiversity conservation and SEEA-EA development and implementation at the national level.
The work deserves publication, but significant corrections of the text are needed.
[Authors response 1.1]
We appreciate this recommendation and the text has been revised considerably affecting the redistribution of content between sections and the removal of content referring to capital gain. The changes introduced advise us to change the title of the previous version of the article to the new “Measurement of the threatened biodiversity existence value output: application of the refined System of Environmental-Economic Accounting in the Pinus pinea forests of Andalusia, Spain”
- General comments
[Reviewer´comment 2.1]
The paper is overloaded with specific economic terms and indicators. Since the journal is not focused exclusively on economic topics, the significance of these indicators for biodiversity conservation practice should either be explained if they are necessary to achieve the goal of the article, or they should be shortened in the text and tables and sent to supplementary materials.
[Authors´response 2.1]
New para in sub-section 4.3: “A part of the academic community and the statistical offices of the United Nations does not accept the simulated transaction price of the final consumed output of the threatened biodiversity preservation services. We show in this article that this omission is not based on the advances made in recent decades with regard to methods of valuing public services without market prices. It is true that the measurement of the environmental benefit of biodiversity requires the conjunction of multiple methodologies and complex subjective modeling, the total cost of the production function and the simulated demand of passive consumers. Intuitively explaining this complexity of measuring the benefit generated by the consumed final output of threatened biodiversity justifies the fact that certain assumptions and simplifications must be adopted in the reasoning and development of the non-market output valuation methods.”
At the risk of losing simplicity, we prefer to keep the current qualitative developments of the article in the main text and avoid incorporating supplementary material into the article.
[Reviewer´comment 2.2]
The INTRODUCTION does not sufficiently characterize the current state of research on the issue under consideration. The authors refer primarily to the shortcomings of the current version of SEEA-EA. There is no analysis of recent years publications on the existence value of biodiversity and the WTP for threatened species. Five cited papers are self-citation. This makes it difficult to explicitly formulate the novelty and necessity of the study. A significant part of this section refers, rather, to sections METHODS, RESULTS and DISCUSSION.
[Authors´response 2.2]
The subject of the article is to estimate the simulated exchange value of the biodiversity output in the dominant Stone pine forests of Andalusia
We are not aware of published literature by other authors on the existence-value output of threatened biodiversity.
We believe we are not committing self-citation bias by presenting five published references of our own.
The novelties of the article's concept and valuation method are the development of production and income generation accounts beyond the SEEA with the application of our rSEEA. The practical novelty is evident from the fact that there are no publications on the existence value of individual threatened Stone pine species on a regional scale in the literature.
The interest for the management of the research is to report the value-existence of the output of the threatened biodiversity in the design and application of the Strategic Plan for the Stone pine in its distribution area in Andalusia [26].
The text of the introduction has been written thinking of a reader not accustomed to the economic concept of biodiversity existence value output. The introduction has been shortened by moving the results paragraphs to section 5 of conclusions. The biodiversity environmental asset sub-section of section 2 has been eliminated due to the suppression of the estimation of capital gains in the new version of the article. The text of the conclusions section of the first version of the article has been moved to the discussion section 4.3.
[Reviewer´comment 2.3]
The Section 2 "Concepts and valuation methods…" reveals only the conceptual approach of the authors to biodiversity valuation. Monetary estimates, which are then discussed in the article, were obtained in previous works of the authors. The methods by which they are obtained are not described here. For readers' understanding, it would be useful to briefly explain how were the “choice experiment method” and “simulated exchange value method” (lines 214-215) were used and how monetary values from the Table 3 were obtained, for example, values of ecosystem services.
[Authors´response 2.3]
The descriptions of the “choice experiment method” and “simulated exchange value method” methodologies have been developed in detail in [12]. Figure 1 incorporates the synthesis of the supply and demand values that allow estimating the output of the threatened biodiversity in an aggregated way for the stone pine of Andalusia.
Table 1 presents the definitions of the accounting concepts and equations that relate the calculations of the variables in Table 4. The terms used are the usual ones of references [1] and [5]. The names of the concepts of the economic variables have been “vulgarized” without modifying their concepts in the SNA [1] and the SEEA [2].
[Reviewer´comment 2.4]
The Section 4 “Discussion” cannot be considered complete. It contains a critique of the SEEA-EA (although this issue has already been discussed in the INTRODUCTION) and a discussion of the uncertainty of the valuation. There is no discussion of conclusions for biodiversity management that can be drawn from the results presented in the Section 3. What follows for the management of biodiversity in Andalusian pine forests from the distribution of forest areas (Tables 1 and 2), the monetary values of numerous indicators in Table 3, the spatial distribution of NOS (Fig. 3)?
[Authors´response 2.4]
The Andalusian government manages the biodiversity of the stone pine prioritizing the generation of the output that satisfies the demand of Andalusian consumers conditioned by the objective of avoiding the increase in the number of threatened species in the period (see Fig. 1).
Our interest is to offer an overview and having presented micro-scale georeferenced results of the benefit of biodiversity is to demonstrate that the same economic measurements presented at a regional scale in Table 4 can be estimated at a micro scale.
[Reviewer´comment 2.5]
Authors use different names for discussed service making text difficult to read. If authors introduce a new type of ecosystem service, it is desirable to explicitly define it somewhere and then use only this name.
[Authors´response 2.5]
We have reduced as far as possible the synonymy of economic variables and names composed of several words. It is not our objective to review the polysemy of the concept of environmental benefit (one of them being the term “ecosystem service”). We introduce the reader to our concepts and omit the definitions of other authors. The polysemy presented in the literature of the monetary concept of ecosystem service is paradigmatic. The latter is used by some authors as a synonym for output at transaction price and others use it as a synonym for environmental benefit at transaction price or as consumer surplus outside the transaction price metric.
[Reviewer´comment 2.6]
To refer to biodiversity, the authors use a mixture of terms of species, genes, varieties, assets (highlighted in the PDF). These are different levels of biodiversity and they play different roles for the well-being of people, are familiar to people to varying degrees, people have different ideas about genes and species. It is not clear what is being said at the beginning of the article. This mixture of terms hinders understanding. Further, when discussing the results, it becomes clear that we are talking about species. What does «unique genetic variety of species” mean? This phrase is used many times in the text (highlighted in PDF). IS it diversity of species or diversity of subspecies, populations genes within species? Or is it generalized regional gene pool? What is their uniqueness? Are they endemic to Andalusia or pine forests? Evolutionary relics? Perform unique ecological functions?
[Authors´response 2.6]
The species is defined by its single gene and therefore the terms threatened single genetic variety and threatened species are synonymous. It is not our concern at this time to differentiate the sub-species that is listed as a species in our research. The list of individual species in the Appendix shows all those that have been assessed in [24].
In the table of the Appendix that values the species, it is shown that they are found in other areas and not only in the stone pine. Few are endemic to Andalusia. This study is found in [24].
In Table A2 of the Appendix that measures the transaction values of the species, it is shown that they are also found in other types of forests in Andalusia. In [24] the sources of the elaboration of the threatened species in the types of forests of Andalusia are detailed in depth.
[Reviewer´comment 2.7]
The Table A2 contains interesting results when some species have been rated many times more than others. Why do respondents want to save these particular species? A few words about this would be useful for understanding WTP for endangered species.
[Authors´response 2.7]
New paragraph in subsection 2.2: “The benefit of the threatened biodiversity at the scale of Andalusian forests is the same for all individual species, the forest area distribution of each of these individual species being where differences arise in this regard. The environmental benefit is obtained by subtracting the produced benefit from total benefit. The produced benefit is imputed according to a subjective real profitability rate of 3% of the government's public spending investment in the management of biodiversity for each type of forest at the scale of the micro-tiles of the Forest Map of Spain for Andalusia [18].”
- Minor comments
[Reviewer´comment 3.1]
- 22 – 23. It is advisable to briefly explain the reason for this result.
[Authors´response 3.1]
New text incorporated in subsection 3.2; “Since the same species are present in both areas, the reason is that there is more public spending on preserving biodiversity in protected areas and therefore more produced benefit (PB) from produced capital and employee labour cost (LC).”
[Reviewer´comment 3.2]
- 86. The reference17 needs to be clarified
[Authors´response 3.2]
The reference is not 17 but 5 (United Nations et al., 2021).
[Reviewer´comment 3.3]
- 96 – 124. This text belongs, rather, to the sections METHODS, RESULTS and DISCUSSION
[Authors´response 3.3]
We keep the methods texts in the introductory section 1 revised to facilitate the reader's understanding of the developments of concepts and valuation methods in section 2. The result texts of the introduction have been moved to section 5 of conclusions.
[Reviewer´comment 3.4]
- 130 – 172. The Section 2.1 uses different names for discussed service and mixes the concepts of species, genes, varieties, assets (highlighted in the text). If the rest of the article is about the evaluation of species, then why discuss genes here? If the authors here wanted to emphasize the most general nature of their approach, wouldn't it be easier to use the term biodiversity without going into the details of its definition? In general, the section can be greatly reduced by expressing in a simpler and more explicit form the proposal of the authors to consider the willingness to pay (actual payment) fees/taxes for biodiversity conservation as transaction price for its existence.
[Authors´response 3.4]
New text in section 1 of the introduction: “The biodiversity existence value output (hereinafter biodiversity output) refers only to the species preservation services at the transaction price stated by Andalusian passive consumers of these services. Thus, we do not measure the environmental benefits of the species incorporated in other outputs, such as, for example, the recreational and cultural landscape “.
We define the first time that the term biodiversity existence value output appears in section 1 of introduction in a complete way that we value the unique genetics of the species and not the other attributes that consumers value and from this complete definition we use from now on the term biodiversity output in its place for simplicity, except in some cases to remember the full definition.
We have extensively revised the text of section 2 on valuation concepts and methods. The incorporated changes have reduced the number of words by almost a quarter compared to the previous version of section 2.
[Reviewer´comment 3.5]
- 134. Are only endangered species important? The existence of the biosphere, large biomes (eg, tropical forests), widespread species (eg, wolves, elk, bears) is not important?
[Authors´response 3.5]
A species is a biological natural asset that can contribute to biodiversity output and environmental benefits incorporated as inputs into other outputs. We do not treat other species other than those that inhabit the stone pine forests of Andalusia. The reason for not referencing other species is that we do not know that their biodiversity outputs have been measured. In this article our objective focuses solely on the output of the biodiversity that is present in the stone pine forests of Andalusia. Nevertheless, other outputs from Andalusian stone pine forest are considered in an article in preparation by the authors.
[Reviewer´comment 3.6]
- 146 -147. This phrase is incomprehensible. Here we are talking about the value of one gene? Is this a resource for genetic engineering? What is "genetic environmental asset"?
[Authors´response 3.6]
Authors Response We assume in this article that the number of threatened species, the demand for services of the threatened biodiversity of Andalusian consumers and the transaction price do not vary in the future. The biodiversity (or genetic) environmental asset is the discounted net present value at a real rate of 3% over an infinite time horizon of the environmental benefit. However, we have eliminated the measurement of the environmental asset of biodiversity because there was no change in its value in the period.
[Reviewer´comment 3.7]
- 173. Section 2.2. This section is overloaded with economic terms (there are about 30 of them in Figure 2). It is difficult for a reader who is not a deep specialist in economics to understand this. Since the journal is not specifically focused on economic research, it would be useful to explain the essence of this section in a general language, referring to Figure 2 for specialists.
[Authors´response 3.7]
It is an almost impossible task to express the concepts of the economic accounts of biodiversity in general language (perhaps vulgar) without damaging the content and turning the article into a sum of generalities without precise meaning. The average academic reader and experts with some management experience can, with the explanations in Figure 1 and Table 1, follow the results and discussion sections with a better understanding from the profound changes introduced in this sub-section 2.2. The authors are economists and we interact with other academics in the biological sciences to understand their articles with the reasonable effort required of academic colleagues and other experts. The references are also complementary to delve into the economic concepts applied in the measurement of the biodiversity output of the Andalusian Stone pine forest.
[Reviewer´comment 3.8]
- 178. Incomplete sentence?
[Authors´response 3.8]
Phrase removed in this review.
[Reviewer´comment 3.9]
L.190-197. Figure 1. To facilitate understanding of this figure by non-specialists in economics, it is better to label the axes in full (Y - price of not increasing by 1 number of threatened species; X - the number of threatened species), or indicate it in the caption to the figure.
[Authors´response 3.9]
It seems to us that the reference to the demand and supply prices of the biodiversity output can be named as value on the vertical axis and as number of species on the horizontal axis. The layout of Figure 1 has been almost completely modified to make it easier for an average reader to understand.
[Reviewer´comment 3.10]
L.214. What is “landscape conservation service”?
[Authors´response 3.10]
The concept of landscape conservation service output refers to all the natural-biologically based outputs of an area, except the biodiversity output, which are currently enjoyed and for which the consumer is willing to pay a "safety" premium (additional consumer tax above current public spending). The output of the landscape is the sum of the additional consumer's tax (ACT) and the total cost (CT) of the government in public landscape conservation. We include a brief definition of landscape in the introduction as it is not the subject of this article.
[Reviewer´comment 3.11]
- 218. It would be helpful for readers to describe very briefly this experiment.
[Authors´response 3.11]
It is beyond the scope of this article to briefly explain the choice experiment method and the applied simulated exchange value method described in the supplementary material to [12]. New text incorporated in subsection 2.2: “An intuitive definition of the choice experiment applied is that the consumers are presented with a choice of preservation through the payment of an annual “fee” of their choice over a period of 30 years to ensure that the output of biodiversity does not decline (the number of species threatened or lost does not increase), to guarantee that the current situation is maintained, they pay an “insurance premium” as additional consumer tax (ACT) in order for the government to invest and therefore prevent the decline in the number of wild species in risk of extinction.”
[Reviewer´comment 3.12]
- 221. Are these species included in the Andalusian Red Book? Another red list?
[Authors´response 3.12]
Other complementary lists have been used. It is explained in [24].
[Reviewer´comment 3.13]
- 228. What is meant “MWTP of the landscape”? Is it about landscape ecosystem services or landscape as such?
[Authors´response 3.13]
Explained above. It is not the object of the article to measure the output of landscape conservation in the period by the concept of insurance premium to guarantee a government management that maintains the condition and extension of the stone pine of Andalusia, at least, for thirty years as a legacy of current generations to future generations [20].
[Reviewer´comment 3.14]
- 268. This is a table, not a figure. “Biodiversity” is not a service. Need another name
[Authors´response 3.14]
Figure 2 is renamed as Table 1. The indicators have been thoroughly reviewed and all those derived from capital gains have been eliminated. The acronyms were also modified to facilitate the reading of the economic variables in an almost vulgar way and without affecting the concepts and results of the variables.
[Reviewer´comment 3.15]
L.320. Inappropriate title. The results of past and current forest management in the region are not the results of your research. This description of study area is best placed in the METHODS section.
[Authors´response 3.15]
This sub-section 3.1 briefly describes the background of the government management of the Stone pine in Andalusia to contextualize the measurements of its extension, associated tree vegetation and type of protection. Although it could be included as a subsection of section 2, on this occasion we do not consider it appropriate for having oriented the methods section to measuring the output of biodiversity. Thus, we decided to keep section 3.1 in section 3 of results.
[Reviewer´comment 3.16]
- 322- 353.The first three paragraphs are a description of the study area and refer to the METHODS section.
[Authors´response 3.16]
We have explained above the reasons for keeping this subsection in the same section 3 as it is now.
[Reviewer´comment 3.17]
- 389. Table 2. It is better to place PAs in Table 3 in the same order as in the above text
[Authors´response 3.17]
Table 4 has been reorganized and the rows affected by the capital gain deleted.
[Reviewer´comment 3.18]
- 395. Section 3.2. This section uses a large number of specific economic indicators, the meaning of which is not always clear to biologists and practitioners in the field of nature management and biodiversity conservation. Thus, the significance if indicators for biodiversity conservation should be explained. If some indicators are not needed, it is better to shorten them in the text and in the table 3 and leave them in the supplementary materials.
[Authors´response 3.18]
The management of endangered species responds to the demands of society that governments try to satisfy by incurring public spending. Inform the design and implementation of public spending based on the economic variables recognized by the national accounts (System of National Accounts) and the recommendations of the System of Environmental-Economic Accounting (SEEA), both United Nations methodologies, is the justification for the use of the economic variables of this research in the previous version. In this new version, Table 4 presents the acronyms that have been modified in depth and although they maintain numerous coincidences of the names of the economic terms with the SNA and SEEA, others have been vulgarized, notably the term of benefit instead of net operating surplus (NOS), produced benefit (PB) instead of net operating surplus of manufactured capital (NOSm) and ecosystem service (ES) for environmental benefit (EB).
Table 4 is a simplification of the economic results that are considered necessary. All indicators that do not affect net value added have been eliminated. All variables have been defined in Table 1.
[Reviewer´comment 3.19]
- 496 – 498. People are willing to pay for the conservation of widespread species, and not just endangered ones. This is a limitation of the method discussed here, applied specifically to threatened species.
[Authors´response 3.19]
This statement is not correct. We estimate the existence value of the output of threatened biodiversity. And this value is only in demand when the species is at risk of extinction (see the development in [20](Fig. 1). The choice experiment and simulated exchange value methods are applicable to all threatened species and natural habitats. The reason why only threatened species contribute to the existence value output is simply because a consumer does not pay a premium for a future service that he knows in the period that his current offer is guaranteed to exist in the future as well.
[Reviewer´comment 3.20]
- 643. Need to fix the link. This document cannot be found on the site https://seea.un.org/
[Authors´response 3.20]
Correct link added:
https://seea.un.org/sites/seea.un.org/files/documents/EA/seea_ea_white_cover_final.pdf
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear Authors,
The article discusses economic valuation at transaction price of biodiversity. It is relevant and interesting topic, nevertheless, the paper needs improvement.
Detailed comments:
Line 55: Specialized institutions and experts…. The authors write "institutions," so include more literature, not only [7]
The description of the research methodology is "mixed up" in the literature review and introduction, etc. The authors must organize the research methodology
The introduction is not written correctly (among others: there is a description of the methodology)
Line 162: bracket ), there aren't (
Line 178: The ecosystem trustee (government) total ordinary costs (TCo). Explain please
There are no sources under the Figures and Tables
Data from 2010 were used for the research. Please explain why such "old" data?
Line 227: what does Fig S12 mean, is it from reference [12]? please explain
It is the same in 230-231 (Table S3) i 371 (Figs.3, 4, 5), where are Figures 4 and 5
Line 268: why Figure 2 and not the Table ...?
line 396-398: Subsection 3.2, first paragraph - this is a description (repetition) of the methodology
Line 427-444: Table 3 was cited for 8 times in each sentence. For what purpose? This is a description of the research results obtained and only one sentence relates to Figure 3. It should be explained
Chapter 4 - Discussion ... actually refers to one literature item [5] - United Nations. This is an incorrect discussion or needs to be justified
Line 605: which means "et al." in literature [5] United Nations et al.?
Why in [13], [14] and [20] (Bibliography) is 2020a, 2020b and 2020c. There are numbers in the text as a reference
Only 33 references, 8 of which are self-citations, many important items were omitted: e.g.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.039
https://doi.org/10.1890/120144
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101118
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149028
Atkinson, G., Obst, C. 2017. Prices for ecosystem accounting…..
Barton, D. et.al. 2019. SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision Expert Consultation….
and much more that can be used in the literature review and discussion
The conclusions should be related to the content of the article
Please correct the Bibliography as per the guidelines for authors (e.g. bold year itp.)
Author Response
[Land] Manuscript ID: land-1784233
REVIEWER 2
- Comments and Suggestions for Authors
[Reviewer comment 1.1]
Dear Authors,
The article discusses economic valuation at transaction price of biodiversity. It is relevant and interesting topic, nevertheless, the paper needs improvement.
[Authors response 1.1]
We appreciate the reviewer's comments that help us improve our article as much as possible.
- Detailed comments
[Reviewer comment 2.1]
Line 55: Specialized institutions and experts…. The authors write "institutions," so include more literature, not only [7]
[Authors response 2.1]
Our purpose here is to draw attention to the interest of the environmental accounts of the ecosystems with the reference to a political authority of the highest representation such as Gro Harlem Brundtland. This is not the place to dwell on references. Although we also mention in institutions the United Nations and Eurostat.
[Reviewer comment 2.2]
The description of the research methodology is "mixed up" in the literature review and introduction, etc. The authors must organize the research methodology
[Authors response 2.2]
The authors prefer to briefly incorporate the key conceptual aspects of the research in the introduction. This encourages the potential reader to continue reading the text in detail in the methods and results sections. The methods section has been significantly modified without affecting the variables needed to measure net value added. All text and variables in the methods and results sections linked to capital gain have been removed
[Reviewer comment 2.3]
The introduction is not written correctly (among others: there is a description of the methodology)
[Authors response 2.3]
The economic concept of the existence value output and its methodology is the main motivation for this research. Since Land is not a journal specialized in economics, this organization of the article is preferred to another in which the concepts and methods are not presented summarily in the introduction. This is also the recommendation of some recognized experts in the standard writing of scientific articles. We decided to keep in the introduction contents of intuitive definitions of concepts and measurement methods of biodiversity output.
[Reviewer comment 2.4]
Line 162: bracket ), there aren't (
[Authors response 2.4]
This editing error has been corrected.
[Reviewer comment 2.5]
Line 178: The ecosystem trustee (government) total ordinary costs (TCo). Explain please
[Authors response 2.5]
It is explained in subsection 2.2 that the TCo is the total cost that affects the final consumed output of biodiversity.
[Reviewer comment 2.6]
There are no sources under the Figures and Tables
[Authors response 2.6]
The sources are own elaboration. In this case we do not consider it necessary to explain more than the own references that are presented in the text of the article.
[Reviewer comment 2.7]
Data from 2010 were used for the research. Please explain why such "old" data?
[Authors response 2.7]
There is no other information. The 2010 data correspond to the RECAMAN project (see RECAMAN project georeferenced AFs results tables and maps at:
https://recaman.agenciamedioambienteyagua.es/VICAF/visor.html.
[Reviewer comment 2.8]
Line 227: what does Fig S12 mean, is it from reference [12]? please explain
[Authors response 2.8]
Fig. S12. Non-parametric function for revenue from landscape conservation and threatened biodiversity preservation in [12].
[Reviewer comment 2.9]
It is the same in 230-231 (Table S3)
[Authors response 2.9]
Table S3. Extended production account of Andalusian forests (2010) in [12]
[Reviewer comment 2.10]
i 371 (Figs.3, 4, 5), where are Figures 4 and 5
[Authors response 2.10]
In [26](Fig. 3, p. 32, Fig. 4, p. 40, Fig.5, p. 40).
[Reviewer comment 2.11]
Line 268: why Figure 2 and not the Table ...?
[Authors response 2.11]
Replaced the name with Table 1.
[Reviewer comment 2.12]
line 396-398: Subsection 3.2, first paragraph - this is a description (repetition) of the methodology
[Authors response 2.12]
The text introduces the reader to the context of the description of the results.We decided to keep this paragraph as an introduction to the subsection.
[Reviewer comment 2.13]
Line 427-444: Table 3 was cited for 8 times in each sentence. For what purpose? This is a description of the research results obtained and only one sentence relates to Figure 3. It should be explained
[Authors response 2.13]
Unnecessary repeated references have been eliminated from Table 4. Fig. 3 corresponds to reference [26] and is nothing more than complementary information that is not the object of analysis in this research.
[Reviewer comment 2.14]
Chapter 4 - Discussion ... actually refers to one literature item [5] - United Nations. This is an incorrect discussion or needs to be justified
[Authors response 2.14]
The way we present the references is not correct. In the first paragraph, references [5], [17] and [19] are presented. The edition of the three references has been corrected.
[Reviewer comment 2.15]
Line 605: which means "et al." in literature [5] United Nations et al.?
[Authors response 2.15]
The author of [5] does not explain who et al. is. In the previous version of the month of February 2021 the author is UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA).
[Reviewer comment 2.16]
Why in [13], [14] and [20] (Bibliography) is 2020a, 2020b and 2020c. There are numbers in the text as a reference
[Authors response 2.16]
An editing error has been made and has been corrected.
[Reviewer comment 2.17]
Only 33 references, 8 of which are self-citations, many important items were omitted: e.g.
[Authors response 2.17]
This statement is not correct. The suggested references are not relevant to the measurement of biodiversity output.
[Reviewer comment 2.18]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2014.05.039
[Authors response 2.18]
This reference is not relevant to the objective of this article of valuation of the transaction price of the biodiversity existence value.
[Reviewer comment 2.19]
https://doi.org/10.1890/120144
[Authors response 2.19]
This reference is not relevant to the objective of this article of valuation of the transaction price of the biodiversity existence value.
[Reviewer comment 2.20]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2020.101118
[Authors response 2.20]
This reference is not relevant to the objective of this article of valuation of the transaction price of the biodiversity existence value.
[Reviewer comment 2.21]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008
[Authors response 2.21]
This reference is not relevant to the objective of this article of valuation of the transaction price of the biodiversity existence value.
[Reviewer comment 2.22]
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149028
[Authors response 2.22]
This reference is not relevant to the objective of this article of valuation of the transaction price of the biodiversity existence value.
[Reviewer comment 2.23]
Atkinson, G., Obst, C. 2017. Prices for ecosystem accounting…..
[Authors response 2.23]
This reference is relevant because it deals with the transaction price of the products consumed without market prices. This concept is incorporated by the same authors in the updated references [5] and [17].
[Reviewer comment 2.24]
Barton, D. et.al. 2019. SEEA Experimental Ecosystem Accounting Revision Expert Consultation….
[Authors response 2.24]
This reference is not included in the article because it is updated by the same authors in references [5] and [17].
[Reviewer comment 2.25]
and much more that can be used in the literature review and discussion
[Authors response 2.25]
In our research we do not review the literature on physical and monetary accounts from the perspectives of exchange value and the well-being of all ecosystem outputs. Our objective is to take into account the relevant literature that, from a theoretical perspective, addresses the valuation of the transaction price of the existence value (and only of this value) of the multiple environmental benefits provided by wild species at risk of extinction.
[Reviewer comment 2.26]
The conclusions should be related to the content of the article
[Authors response 2.26]
The text of the conclusions has been moved to section 4 of discussion. The text in Section 5 conclusions of this revised version is derived from section 1 of Introduction. The new content refers to the methods and results of the content of the article.
[Reviewer comment 2.27]
Please correct the Bibliography as per the guidelines for authors (e.g. bold year itp.)
[Authors response 2.27]
The new version of the article has been edited according to the Land authors' guide.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
