Multiscale Ecological Zoning Management with Coupled Ecosystem Service Bundles and Supply–Demand Balance, the Case of Hangzhou, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I think this article is an excellent piece of research. First of all, it is an important topic that not only involves the protection and management of the ecosystem of the metropolitan area, but also provides guidance for the division and management of the ecological zoning of the metropolitan area. Secondly, the method in this paper is relatively reasonable and scientific, and the methodological framework constructed is concrete and feasible. Third, the figures and tables in this paper are rich and detailed, showing clear findings and results of the research. Finally, the discussion and conclusion of this paper are also very solid, and the corresponding suggestions are given in combination with the local policies and plans of Hangzhou. However, there are still two deficiencies in this article, and it is recommended to be accepted after minor revisions. The specific recommendations are as follows:

1.     Table 1: The table shows that the data used in this study are inconsistent in terms of year and resolution. So how are these inconsistencies handled? e.g., how can data be processed from 1km resolution to 30m resolution? And will year inconsistencies lead to calculation errors? In short, please further improve section 2.2 to improve the scientific and rigorous methodology.

2.     3.3. Quantifying ES-demand: Indeed, the demand for ES in metropolitan areas is related to socio-economic factors such as the level of urbanization, population, economic conditions, etc. However, the ES demand derived from the comprehensive evaluation of these general indicators does not accurately reflect or even include the level of ES demand for specific individual ES in the metropolitan area and its residents. In other words, I think and recommend that the above indicators be involved in the assessment of individual ES demands, which is obviously not a problem. But it doesn't seem theoretically possible to use them to directly evaluate the total amount of the ES demand. For example, if the five ES types of ES supply assessment have changed, will the assessment of ES demand method remain the same? If so, this obviously sounds unreasonable and unscientific. After all, the author emphasizes the ES supply and demand matching perspective in this article, but if the ES types are not matched, then this proposition will obviously not be realized.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I want to make some suggestions about the article “Multiscale ecological zoning management with coupled ecosystem services bundles and supply-demand balance, a case of Hangzhou, China”, to help authors to improve it.

In the abstract, I think that this sentence is too long “This paper focuses on three real problems: mismatch of ES supply and demand evaluation, mechanical and subjective delineation of ecological zoning, and rough management strategies, and constructs a multi-scale ecological zoning management framework of "comprehensive evaluation of supply and demand, ecological zoning, and enhancement of human well-being", which is based on multi-source data and the ArcGIS platform, and synthesizes the methods of the InVEST model,  the SOM method, matching of supply and demand, and the evaluation of the degree of coordination 26 to be applied to the ecological management in Hangzhou City.” . As a minor suggestion, if possible, it would be arranged unless in two phrases. In general, the abstract is a bit long.

Keywords may be organized in alphabetic order. As a suggestion, try to avoid the repetition of the words of the title in the keywords. This strategy can help to increase the visibility of the paper.

Citations along the text should follow the style of the journal, please check guide for authors.

Introduction provides enough information to understand the objectives pursue. However, talking about land and ESs, I miss the mention of soil as one of the most important providers of ESs and directly related to land use.

Section 2 is well organized and describes the origin of data properly. Please, when possible, the use of abbreviations and acronyms such as GDP (gross domestic product) and others, for the first time, indicate its meaning. Thanks.

In section 3, I agree with the methodology used and explained. It is obvious that several changes can be done depending of the different approaches, but, in my opinion, this is a good framework. I think that it is not necessary to use blue letter in the tables 2 and 3 and in the rest of the text (citations, etc…). Probably this will be checked during the editing process. Just a comment, the use of the acronym SOM (section 3.5) would be confused because it is the same for Soil Organic Matter. However, as it is explained in the article, I believe it is not necessary to change along the text.

Considering the results, I have nothing to add but some discussion maybe orientated to the problem of the scale when using data from several sources and it is needed to harmonize all of them. Probably, results can be different in part, using different scales.

Finally, the conclusions, taking into consideration some issues regarding the format, are written in such a way the seems a list of remarkable items. I think that conclusions maybe re-written in other way but, which it is most important, highlight the impossibility of this methodology and the possibilities of application in other areas.

References should follow the style of the journal. Please check them.

As minor comments:

It is desirable to avoid cutting the words at the end of a sentence in such a way that makes difficult to read them, for instance line 71 man-agement. But I understand that it is a question of the template. This is also found in other lines of the text.

Check the format of the text, the spacing at the beginning of a paragraph and others. For instance, in the introduction you have used different spacing at the beginning of the paragraphs.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author conducts effective ecological zoning management based on the evaluation of supply and demand of various ecosystem services, which helps to achieve a win-win situation of ecological protection and economic development. However, there are still some issues that need to be addressed:

 

1. Is there any reference for the accuracy of evaluating several ecosystem services, such as water production services, why choose a Z-value of 1.35? Are there many indicators (Table 2-7) that have been localized?

 

2. Secondly, is it appropriate to use only three indicators for superposition in the assessment of ecosystem service needs? For example, how to explain the demand for habitat quality? Is it reasonable to use these three indicators for several ecosystem service needs? Is the high-value area in the spatial distribution of demand consistent with the actual situation?

 

3. Figures 3 and 4 show the spatial distribution of supply and demand of ecosystem services at different scales. From the article, it can be seen that county-level analysis was conducted first, followed by grid scale analysis. How did the two transform into scales? I feel that it should be a grid based analysis followed by a county-level analysis, please consider the author.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Suggest breaking down long sentences to make expression more concise.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx