Research on Forest Ecological Product Value Evaluation and Conversion Efficiency: Case Study from Pearl River Delta, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

Dear Editor,

I have seen the revised  version of this paper and I agree  to be published. 
Fo4 any further  information  pleplease  contact  with me. 

Author Response

Thanks for your kindly suggestion.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments to the Author 

Find my comments below: 

 

The aim of this manuscript is to detect the changes of ecosystem services of the so called “Forest Ecological Products (FEP)” between 2000 and 2015 in the Pearl River Delta of China. Actually, it is interesting to address the values of so called “Forest Ecological Products (FEP)”. However, what are really so called FEP? and how to quantify the values of so called FEP? Why the ecosystem services calculated by Invest model was used to measure the values of FEP because the directly of the FEP such as timber products and indirectly of FEP such as No Timber Products are difficult to be quantified. Generally, this work needs substantial improvement in several related critical matters. Particularly, the writing of this manuscript is very poor. There are many grammar errors and many special terms are hard to be understood. The language of this paper should be edited and clarified by English native speakers. 

 

1) Title should be changed. I don’t understand what is that means of “realization efficiency”. The title normally includes three components, output, variables and samples of this study.

 

2) line 11-12, Abstract, “Exploring the scientific and effective path to realize the value of forest ecological products (FEP) in this region is of great significance for the green development.” Actually, I don’t clearly understand what is that mean of this sentence? And what is DEA model?

 

3) Section 1, what are main findings of the previous studies which have evaluated the values of FEP and what methods were used and. What are the advantages and dis-advantages of those methods and so on. All those questions are not clearly addressed. Thus, what the research gaps, what are the research questions and objectives are not clear. Again, what’s that mean of the “value realization” of ecological products? And why the PRD was selected as study area?

 

4) section 2.1, the map of the study area should be presented.

 

5) Section 2.2.2, again, what is the DEA model and what is the full name of DEA model? what are the inputs of this model and what are the outputs in this study? What’s Malmquist index and how to be calculated? All those questions are not clearly addressed in this section.

 

6) Summary, this manuscript is poor organized and poor writing. It needs to be substantial improved.

The language of this paper should be edited and clarified by English native speakers.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Dear Authors and Editors,

 

I appreciate the opportunity to review the article "Research on Forest Ecological Product Value Evaluation and Realization Efficiency: Case Study from Pearl River Delta, China." The article delves into a novel and intriguing subject, yet it is marred by several significant shortcomings.

 

1. Section 1 is composed in broad terms, lacking clarity on the existing global issue, solutions adopted in other countries, and the specific objectives set by the authors. A more comprehensive literature analysis is warranted.

 

2. Kindly provide a map depicting the research area to enhance spatial context.

 

3. The research methodology is ambiguously outlined. After reading the methodological description, I find it challenging to replicate the study in my own research.

 

4. Elaborate in greater detail on the data sources utilized.

 

5. How was the calculation performed for Formula 1? Which software tools were employed?

 

6. The overall process of obtaining the data presented in Section 3 remains unclear.

 

7. It is advisable to segregate the sections titled "Discussion" and "Conclusions."

 

8. The "Discussion" section appears quite feeble. Please incorporate comparative analysis of the obtained data with other regions in China and around the world. Describe the research limitations as well.

 

9. Ensure the proper formatting of the reference list.

 

10. In its current state, the article appears quite deficient and requires a substantial overhaul and expansion. Its focus appears to be narrowly regional. Perhaps its primary value could stem from the research methodology, potentially applicable to other regions worldwide.

 

 

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

This article entitled "Research on Forest Ecological Product Value Evaluation and Realization Efficiency: Case Study from Pearl River Delta, China", deals with the evaluation and efficiency of forest ecological products in a territory of China. The authors present some objectives and methodology that we consider correct. In results they make a comparative analysis on the socioeconomic performance of organic products. We consider the upward trend in the use of ecosystem services in China to be published to be of high interest. The authors speak of the value of ecological forest products in a generic way, but we have not seen that the authors present specific information on the diversity of ecosystem services, in the field of ecological forest products, for example on forest flora, vegetation, possible forest species with agricultural and industrial interest. The work would be greatly improved if the authors included this information in the discussion section. On the other hand, the discussion and conclusions section should be separated into two different sections. Regarding the discussion section, it is very poor in references, since they only discuss reference 36, so the new information they include could be discussed in this section and include the appropriate references.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

Esteemed authors,

 

I find satisfaction with the responses provided to the majority of my queries. However, I respectfully request comprehensive elucidations for the following points:

 

1. Figure 1: A potential typographical error appears to exist in the term "Dleta." The legibility of the annotations within Figure 1 is suboptimal. It is suggested to contemplate either augmenting the image dimensions or enlarging the font size of the labels to enhance readability.

 

2. Table 3: It is essential to incorporate the sources of the data with corresponding references either within the bibliography or via hyperlinks.

 

3. Concerning Formula 3, if the formula specifies coefficients A, B, and C, it is imperative to elucidate whether these coefficients vary across distinct global regions. In the event that these coefficients remain constant, it is advisable to integrate their numerical values directly into Formula 3. Furthermore, kindly specify the source of Formula 3.

 

4. Formulas 4, 5, and 6 lack comprehensive explanations regarding the components encompassed within these mathematical expressions.

 

5. In accordance with scholarly convention, please include a citation reference in square brackets [ ] at line 203.

 

While the methodology section has improved in terms of clarity, it still warrants further refinement. I recommend that the authors consider presenting a graphical schematic of the research process, delineating the sequential progression of the study step by step.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.doc

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Very good paper with innovative approaches at very important cultural and environmental services  of the green infrastructure consisting mainly by forests and trees. This is a valuable case study which must  be donated  from the responsible  authorities worldwide in order to support similar projects especially in areas with lack of urban and periurban green spaces.

It is very important because this research based on a real evaluation of a good practice example showing the way for the solution of problems connected with the recent health and environmental crisis.