Spatial Trade-Offs and Synergies between Ecosystem Services in Guangdong Province, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe study focuses on analyzing the trade-offs and synergies among different ecosystem services and the differences in their degrees of influence, as well as comparing and analyzing their spatial patterns. This study are of great significance for the improvement of the coordination between economic development and ecological protection.This manuscript is generally well written, and need some minor revise.
1.Introduction, need to add there have what method to evaluate the TOS in exist study. Also add the shortage of the existing methods.
2.Study area, need to add ecosystem of GD, such as the forest, water of ecosystem.
3.Methodology need to add the reference.
4.The scale bar of all figure need consistent.
Comments on the Quality of English LanguageMinor editing of English language required
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you for your letter and the reviewers’ comments on our manuscript entitled " Spatial trade-offs and synergies among ecosystem services in Guangdong Province, China " (Manuscript ID: land-2763795). Those comments are very helpful for revising and improving our paper, as well as the important guiding significance to other research. We have studied the comments carefully and made corrections which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections are in the manuscript and the responds to the reviewers’ comments are as follows (the replies are highlighted in blue).
Replies to the reviewer’ comments:
- Introduction, need to add there have what method to evaluate the TOS in exist study. Also add the shortage of the existing methods.
Response：In the introduction section of revised manuscript, we have added relevant content. The relevant contents are as follow:
Ecosystem services are mainly divided into four types: provisioning (food, water, wood, and fuel), regulating (climate, flood, and disease regulation; water purification), cultural (aesthetic, spiritual, educational, and recreational), and support services that are necessary to maintain other types of services (nutrient cycling, soil formation) [23,24]. These services provide personal security, security from disasters, access to re-sources, food, shelter, adequate livelihoods, health, good social relations-social cohesion. For different areas (urban, rural, or wild), the types of ecosystem services concerned are different. Research often focuses on the key service types in the region. The main evaluation methods for ecosystem services are index evaluation, value evaluation, and model simulation (including models UFORE, SolVES, BUGS, ARIES, InVest, EPM, InFOREST, Envision, and EcoMetrix). These methods are widely used globally [25]. Common research methods for identifying ecosystem service trade-offs/synergies in-clude correlation analysis, principal component analysis, root mean square deviation, and bivariate spatial autocorrelation [26,27]. At present, many models have been de-veloped to identify the interrelationships among ecosystem services, such as InVEST, ARIES, ESValue, EcoAIM, EcoMetrix, NAIS, and SolVES [28,29]. Scholars have reported differences in the amount of regional ecosystem services recorded using different measurement methods and the nature and intensity of ecosystem service relationships. For example, the SolVES model requires social questionnaire survey data, and the questionnaire quality directly affects the evaluation results. The UFORE, SolVES, and BUGS models have limitations regarding the spatial scale of the study area. Remote sensing data are applicable to the evaluation of ecosystem services at different spatial scales, but their accuracy is difficult to guarantee. Therefore, selecting the appropriate method for evaluating the relationships among regional ecosystem services is important to ensure accurate results.
- Study area, need to add ecosystem of GD, such as the forest, water of ecosystem.
Response：In the “2.1. Study area” section of revised manuscript, we have added relevant content form lines 129 to 135 as follow: “Guangdong Province is rich in forest resources, with a forest area of 107925.33 km2 as of 2019, accounting for 60.05% of the total area of major land types in the province, including arbor, bamboo, and shrub forests. Guangdong Province has complex and diverse landforms, with hills, platforms, and basins developing between the mountains. The soil types of are diverse, and the zonal distribution is obvious. Zonal soil types are red, latosolic red, and lateritic soils from north to south and include a small amount of yellow soil and yellow brown soil.” Form lines 141 to 146, “The spatial distribution of rainfall shows a high trend in the south and low in the north. Guangdong Province is rich in water resources, with a total water resource amount of 2068.2 × 108 m3 in 2019. There are numerous rivers, mainly in the Pearl River Basin, the Hanjiang River basin that only flows into the sea, and the rivers along the east and west coasts. There are 60 branches and tributaries at all levels with a catchment area of more than 1000 km2.”
- Methodology need to add the reference.
Response：In the “2.2. Methodology” section of revised manuscript, we have added relevant reference as follow:
- Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA). Ecosystems and Human Well-Being. Washington, DC: Island Press, 2005.
- Ouyang, Z., Zhang, L., Wu, B., Li, X., Xu, W., Xiao, Y., Zheng, H., 2015. An ecosystem classification system based on remote sensor information in China. Acta Ecol. Sinica. 35(2), 219–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.5846/stxb201407281527.
- Zhang, L., Xiao, Y., Zheng, H., Xu, W.H., Lu, F., Jiang, L., Rao, E.M., Xiao, Y., Wu, B.F., Zeng, Y., Ouyang, Z.Y., 2018. A spatial dataset of ecosystem services in China (2010). Chinese Scientific Data, 3(4), 2018-09-06. https://doi.org/10.11922/csdata.180.2017.0145
- Zhang, J.J., Zhu W.B., Zhu, L.Q., Li, Y.H., 2020. Multi-scale analysis of trade-off/synergy effects of forest ecosystem services in the Funiu Mountain Region. Acta Geographica Sinica, 75(5), 975-988.
- The scale bar of all figure need consistent.
Response：In the revised manuscript, we have revised the scale bar of all figure.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe article addresses an important topic - trade-offs and synergies in landscape environmental services. The authors provide a sound methodology of remote sensing, correlation for degree of synergy,and raster GIS.
The authors need to define environmental services at the start of the article, not section 4.3 and provide more detail: 4 major kinds: Provisioning – food, water, wood, fuel; Regulating: climate regulation, flood reg, disease reg, water purification; Support – nutrient cycling, soil formation; and Cultural – aesthetic, spiritual, educational, recreational
These are connected to providing: personal security, security from disasters, access to resources, food, shelter, adequate livelihoods, health, good social relations – social cohesion
Pg 3 The five kinds of environmental services the authors discuss: carbon sequestration, water retention, soil retention, food production, and bio-diversity conservation are a subset of ecosystem services and should be noted as such.
Figure 3 on the correlations is very good, as is Figure 4..
Fig. 5 is a bit confusing. High carbon sequestration together with low water retention does not make sense to me. Forests are very good at both. This does not appear to be the case in the Figure 5 maps (nothern Guangdong). Please correct.
Comments on the Quality of English Languageminor English editing needed.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsVery interesting and well-documented article. Appropriate statistical and cartographic methods were used. I have a few comments that the authors should consider before printing.
2.1 Study area
- There is no discussion of soil conditions.
- I suggest one paragraph on socio-economic characteristics, in particular population density, and level of urbanization.
- The authors often refer to cities that are not on the maps. The cities are of different sizes and the conclusions presented may flow from this fact. Figure 1 could be supplemented with the location of the cities in question, indicating their size.
- Inference would also be facilitated by the presentation of indicators of forest cover, hydrology, food production, level of urbanization, and topography of the area on the maps in this chapter.
2 Study area and methods
There is no adequate description of the statistical methods used, in the scientific literature
The Pearson correlation
Local Moran's I
Values were processed without dimensionality, and all values ranged from 0 to 1
3.1 Spatial differentiation of ecosystem
Table 2 could be strengthened with descriptive statistics of the features (min, max, mean, and standard deviation)
Paragraph ditches 211-226 only discuss the values found in Table 2, there is no discussion of Figure 2, where the maximum values reach 1164. It seems to me that the visualization (color selection) on the Carbon sequestration map should be improved
Similar comments to the following ecosystem services.
3.2 Ecosystem service
I have doubts whether the Pearson correlation r-value of (r = 0.389, r = 0.299, r = 0.258, P < 0.05) can be called strong. This coefficient takes values from -1 to 1. What would the authors call a correlation of r=0.87?
The results are statistically significant - this is important information - but not strong. The coefficients of determination are below 15%
This is important because the authors often write about "strong positive correlations"
4.1 Analysis of spatial diversity
The authors write "Owing to the influence of different natural and socio-economic conditions, different ecosystem services in Guangdong Province showed clear spatial differences." I think the analysis had too weak references to socio-economic conditions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsAbstract
1 – The abstract has some flaws and needs some improvements to be clearer. The research problem and the research question should be clearer. The aim of the project should be identified, as well as the main conclusion.
Introduction
2 - The introduction has structural flaws and needs improvements to be more clear. The research problem and its context should be framed in order to get a better understand of the research question.
3 - What is the research question? The research question does not appear clearly evidenced for the reader to understand the reason for the study.
4 - The main objective of the research should be identified in a clear way at the end of this section.
5 - The state-of-art is too limited regarding the relation between ecosystem services and urban green infrastructure/urban sprawl, which play a very important role in spatial planning currently.
6 - Here, are some suggested studies to be analysed related within two key research topics before mentioned that should be add in the state-of-art.:
6A - Green Infrastructure/urban sprawl:
Chanchitpricha, C., & Fischer, T. B. (2022). The role of impact assessment in the development of urban green infrastructure: a review of EIA and SEA practices in Thailand. Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal, 40(3), 191-201.
Marando, F., Heris, M. P., Zulian, G., Udías, A., Mentaschi, L., Chrysoulakis, N.,. & Maes, J. (2022). Urban heat island mitigation by green infrastructure in European Functional Urban Areas. Sustainable Cities and Society, 77, 103564.
Barbosa, V., Suarez, M., Chica-Mejía, J. E. (2022). The growing suburban sprawl in large Latin American cities: applying space syntax to the case of the northern peripheral region of Bogotá. Journal of Settlements and Spatial Planning, 37-49
Donati, G. F., Bolliger, J., Psomas, A., Maurer, M., & Bach, P. M. (2022). Reconciling cities with nature: Identifying local Blue-Green Infrastructure interventions for regional biodiversity enhancement. Journal of Environmental Management, 316, 115254.
Tian, L., Li, Y., Yan, Y., & Wang, B. (2017). Measuring urban sprawl and exploring the role planning plays: A shanghai case study. Land use policy, 67, 426-435.
Conclusions
7 – In which way the main results could contribute to environment planning policies? What could be the new research lines by taking this research?
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 4 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe improvements and response to the comments and suggestions were well addressed.
