A Dynamic Evaluation of Ecosystem Services Value in the Beijing–Tianjin–Hebei Region Based on Scarcity Modification of Spatiotemporal Supply–Demand Influence

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper deals with an important topic and it seems to be a good contribution to the field, despite several papers have been previously published on the same topic. I am concerned with the innovation that seems to be lack in this paper and, therefore, I would like to have a strong justification to support this paper publication. I am challenging the authors to go beyond their results and to clearly define, in its introduction and conclusion sections, which makes this work different from the previous one and why its publication is undeniable.

 

Secondly, another concern relates to the introduction section: I found the introduction quite confusing and unfocused. It should be reorganized to, first, introduce the concept of ecosystem services and the need to assess the impacts of changes in supply and demand; secondly, should emphasize why the scarcity effects of spatiotemporal supply-demand and why it is important and necessary; thirdly, which is the innovative component of the current study by clearly identify its gaps. I am not saying that these topics are not present, but they are really fragmented.

Currently, the introduction section seems quite descriptive, and like the previous studies, a lot of technical concepts and acronyms make it hard to follow the rationale that supports this paper.

 

Material and methods (section 3): This section seems well presented but it needs to be checked by a statistician.

 

All figures need to be replaced. The current ones are not can't read.

 

Good luck

Author Response

Thanks for the comments of the reviewers, who gave us a deeper understanding of the paper and promoted the improvement of the paper. According to the opinions, we have explained the paper in detail. Please see the following modification description and the specific modification of the article.

Modification comments1:

（1）This paper deals with an important topic and it seems to be a good contribution to the field, despite several papers have been previously published on the same topic. I am concerned with the innovation that seems to be lack in this paper and, therefore, I would like to have a strong justification to support this paper publication. I am challenging the authors to go beyond their results and to clearly define, in its introduction and conclusion sections, which makes this work different from the previous one and why its publication is undeniable.

Modification Description：The introduction and conclusion have been improved.

Modification comments2:

Secondly, another concern relates to the introduction section: I found the introduction quite confusing and unfocused. It should be reorganized to, first, introduce the concept of ecosystem services and the need to assess the impacts of changes in supply and demand; secondly, should emphasize why the scarcity effects of spatiotemporal supply-demand and why it is important and necessary; thirdly, which is the innovative component of the current study by clearly identify its gaps. I am not saying that these topics are not present, but they are really fragmented.

Modification Description：The introduction has been improved. All the suggestion has been accepted.

Modification comments3:

Currently, the introduction section seems quite descriptive, and like the previous studies, a lot of technical concepts and acronyms make it hard to follow the rationale that supports this paper.

Modification Description：The introduction has been improved. All the suggestion has been accepted.

 

Modification comments4:

Material and methods (section 3): This section seems well presented but it needs to be checked by a statistician.

Material and methods has been checked.

All figures need to be replaced. The current ones are not can't read.

Modification comments5:

All figures has been replaced.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper provides an interesting overview of the valuation of ecosystem services using the example of a selected area in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei region of China, together with an estimate of the cost of ecosystem services for that area over the past decade. The research methodology is well explained and illustrated. The methodological framework of the paper was also shown and explained in detail in the paper. The results and the discussion are well presented and supplemented by illustrations in the form of tables and diagrams, which show the essence of the problem. I think the work meets the requirements of the journal and, after a small correction, is suitable for publication in Land MDPI journal.

Small notes:

I suggest to formulate a clear research goal of the research and clarify it in chapter 1.

In Figure 1 the signatures of the province are missing. It is unclear what is represented in the rectangle.

In Figure 3, the “Y” for the word supply is missing.

Figures 4 – 8 are illegible. I propose to improve the quality of images or to enlarge the descriptions and illustrations a little.

The caption for Figure 5 contains the abbreviation “Fig. 5.”

It is not explained with which grafic/spatial program for preparing the images in given study was used. Is it a authors own elaboration or on the basis of geodata, which one? Please explain and clarify in the figures description or in methods.

It would be interesting to compare the given case study under investigation with another area, such as in China, which has similar economic and spatial conditions. However, due to the extensive overview of the casy study in a particular paper, it may be worthwhile for the authors to study it further in another paper. If spatial and statistical data allow this, it would also be interesting to show the problem of this research area after 2015 in the future research.

Author Response

Thanks for the comments of the reviewers, who gave us a deeper understanding of the paper and promoted the improvement of the paper. According to the opinions, we have explained the paper in detail. Please see the following modification description and the specific modification of the article.

Modification comments1:

I suggest to formulate a clear research goal of the research and clarify it in chapter 1.

Modification Description：The research goal of the research was clarified in the introduction.

Modification comments2:

In Figure 1 the signatures of the province are missing. It is unclear what is represented in the rectangle.

Modification Description： The signatures of the province are supplemented.

Modification comments3:

In Figure 3, the “Y” for the word supply is missing.

Modification Description： Figure 3 has been modified.

Modification comments4:

Figures 4 – 8 are illegible. I propose to improve the quality of images or to enlarge the descriptions and illustrations a little.

Modification Description All the figures has been replaced.

Modification comments5:

The caption for Figure 5 contains the abbreviation “Fig. 5.”

Modification Description：The caption for Figure 5 has been modified.

Modification comments6:

It is not explained with which grafic/spatial program for preparing the images in given study was used. Is it a authors own elaboration or on the basis of geodata, which one? Please explain and clarify in the figures description or in methods.

Modification Description：The grafic/spatial program for preparing the images has been supplemented in methods.

All the figures are processed in ArcGIS.

Modification comments7:

It would be interesting to compare the given case study under investigation with another area, such as in China, which has similar economic and spatial conditions. However, due to the extensive overview of the casy study in a particular paper, it may be worthwhile for the authors to study it further in another paper. If spatial and statistical data allow this, it would also be interesting to show the problem of this research area after 2015 in the future research.

Modification Description：Thank you for your suggestion. This part will be added in the later research.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments are in the attachment. 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thanks for the comments of the reviewers, who gave us a deeper understanding of the paper and promoted the improvement of the paper. According to the opinions, we have explained the paper in detail. Please see the following modification description and the specific modification of the article.

Modification comments1:

Title: Title does not look professional. This is long and hard to get the meaning. Please change the title.

Modification Description：The title has been changed into: A dynamic evaluation of ecosystem services value in the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Region based on scarcity modification of spatio-temporal supply-demand influence.

 

Modification comments2:

Abstract: Abstract does not come up with a problem statement and objectives. Please add them in the abstract. Please make a clear especially in take home message on it.

Modification Description：The problem statement and objectives have been added in the abstract.

 

Modification comments3:

Key words: Key words are repeated with title. For Example: ecosystem services value; spatio-temporal influence. Please do not repeat with title.  

 

Modification Description：Key words and title have been changed.

 

Modification comments4:

Introduction: The introduction section does not properly address the global and regional problems and global review is limited. Please go through the recent global literatures and articulate the problems in a proper way. Some global literature can be reviewed and cited:

The evolution of ecosystem services: a time series and discourse-centred analysis.

Modification Description：

It complements the current research progress related to ecosystem services and emphasizes the research significance of this study.

 

 

Modification comments5:

Methodology: Why do you choose the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (BTH) region, China as the case study site? Please make clear methods and rational for choosing this (you put only one rational and add few with literatures). You can enrich your paper adding national documents in study site section. You can also consult some of the ecosystem services paper to write these types of methods.  

Modification Description：The basis for the location selection of case studies in Beijing Tianjin Hebei region of China is added, and the relevant research progress in Beijing Tianjin Hebei region is supplemented

Modification comments6:

Results: The results section looks good however, maps are so small and not clear, and not understandable. Could you please use clear map so that it is clearer and just explain the major changes in the results. Your figure is not clear. Please make it clear.

Discussion: Discussion is abrupt and please do result wise discussion.    

Conclusion: Looks fine but add some take home message to policymakers.

Modification Description：

All the figures have been replaced.

The discussion has been improved.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for properly addressing my comments.