Multi-Scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the City Level from the Perspective of “Production–Living–Ecological” Spaces: A Case Study of Haikou, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Review Report
I had the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled “Multi-scenario Simulation and Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value at the city level from the perspective of ‘production-living-ecological’ spaces: A case study of Haikou, China” (land-2300073).
The manuscript's intent is to explore the response mechanisms of ecosystem services under different urban development scenarios from the perspective of “production-living-ecological” spaces (PLES). This research contributes to providing an important reference for optimizing the urban land use structure and maintaining the stability of ecosystem services. I felt confident that the authors performed actual and careful spatial data processing. However, I have to point out that the topic of the manuscript is similar to many other articles. So, the innovation of this manuscript is not prominent. I recommend that a major revision is warranted. I ask that the authors to explain my concerns and specifically address each of my comments in their response.
My review below suggests some improvements.
1. Abstract: The phrase “urban green space” may be inaccurately used.
2. Keywords: Maybe one or two more keywords should be considered adding.
3. Introduction:
1) The review is not organized enough, especially the third and fourth paragraphs.
2) “relationship between PLES and ESV” should be reviewed more detailed.
4. Materials and Methods:
1)The relationship between formula (3) and formula (4)(5) is not clear.
2) Is it reasonable to simulate the scenario after 15 years through 10 years of data, and is there sufficient support for such processing.
5. Results: 1)Why you choose 500m×500m grid.
2) Too many abbreviations are not explained clearly, and the readability of the figures especially 4,5,6,8 is too poor
6. Discussion: Evaluation method of ESV in many other papers consider the varies in different research regions at different times. Maybe you should explain why you not.
7. Conclusion: The last two sentences of the first paragraph in the conclusions part are repeated.
8. There are many mistakes in this manuscript, such as in line 81, line 159, line 193,line 391, line 440 and so on. The manuscript must be reviewed carefully.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript is addressing an important aspect of urban ecosystem services (ES). The topic is studied here with interesting research methods. The manuscript is also describing a very interesting and, in my opinion, relevant for such considerations case study. Moreover, the manuscript is well structured. On the other hand, the topic of urban ES has been so far studied by various scholars and it’s not easy to find a research gap in it. I have some doubts if the Authors managed to find and describe one. Beside this uncertainty, I have some few suggestions and doubts and I would like to kindly ask the Authors to clarify before the draft can be considered for publication.
The research has unfortunately delivered some trivial and easy to predict findings, like “indicating that the net transformation of urban green space to built-up areas is the main reason for the loss of ecosystem services” (l. 24-25). Every expert working with ES is aware about such conclusion and one do not need to run complicated and demanding modelling to confirm it again. Other example is in lines 517-519: it is not a surprise that EC scenario described in a way that it aims to support green urban development, has been successful in it.
The research works with 3 different scenarios, described in point 2.3.4. However, it is not clear to me in which time span the scenarios were described. I guess they should be future scenarios, constructed on the careful analysis of past data – this is at least what I have in mind with the word “scenario” used in planning research. Moreover, as described in methods section, the study uses probability concept, which in my opinion suggests talking about future states. Please clarify this aspect.
How the PLES classification system (table 1) was constructed? How the points explaining about production, ecological and living values were assigned to each classes presented here?
L. 157-159: “(…) considering that the conversion between some land types, especially construction land to water bodies, is costly and rarely happens, so this research mainly restricted the transfer of other land use types to water and wetlands, and the rest of the land types can be exchanged spatially” This sounds like a simplification which can influence the research results. Please provide strong arguments supporting it.
Please try shortening the results section.
Please limit the number of figures in the results section and bring some of the figures into an annex.
Section 4.3 must not read like a set of recommendations for local authorities that emerged from a project. Instead, please think about some generalizations interesting for a broader scientific community and not limited to the case study city or China alone.
Do you know about other cities located beyond China which are dealing with similar challenges? If yes, how such cities have been addressing challenges similar to the ones you described in your research? Can the lessons learned from your study be applied in non-Chinese contexts? If yes, under what kind of conditions?
The conclusive section should not repeat the research findings but needs to focus on take home messages interesting for a wider scientific community. Please re-write this part of the manuscript.
Unclear sentences:
L. 60-61: “However, most studies focused on the land use in single form and ignored the formation process of land decision-making, which contributed to the lack on holistic considerations” – Why such a combination of facts influence holistic considerations? Considerations concerning to what?
L. 67-68: “To avoid the ecological deterioration caused by unreasonable land use policies, China proposed to build efficient production space, suitable living space, and beautiful ecological space in 2012” – this sounds like an advertising slogan and not like a scientific statement. Please avoid such sentences, or please re-write them.
Technical comments:
1. Please do not use such a large number of abbreviations in the text. They are confusing. Please stick to the most common like ES.
2. Please check the consistent use of abbreviations.
3. For a better readability, the abbreviations (if they must be used) should be explained in a figure caption.
4. L. 87 (Linang) – proper citation is missing.
5. There are some spelling and typo mistakes in the text. Please check this again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
1.formula (4) is incorrect.
2. A shorthand's spelling meaning should be marked when it first appears. There are many such mistakes in line 60, and Figure 4.
3. It was not carefully revised, so it is suggested to carefully check the obvious mistakes again.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
