Economics of Peatland Ecosystem Services: A Study of Use and Non-Use Values and People Interplays in Sumatra, Indonesia

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It´s a fine paper which deals with the value estimation of ES for peatlands in Sumatra (Riau-province). In the Introduction the importance of peatlands is described, but mainly for Sumatra. The international importance of peatlands to store and sequester carbon with possible contribution by Sumatra must be added. Impacts on peatland are well described, but missing data on peatland loss after 2015. In this study total economic value (TEV) including indirect services is presented.

In Methods study area is well described and Fig. 3 illustrate the scope of the study. At the end of 2.2 describe short the main aims of the study. 200 households for questionaire and interviews were selected, describe more how the portion and which households (criteria) were selected for each village (randomly?). Methods are well described and documented with Tab. 1. Descriptive data analysis was done and ANOVA-test used for the relation economic value and landscape matrix (distance etc.).

In 3. (Results) with Tab. 3 socio-economic conditions of households is described, also the access to peatland products. It´s new to analyse TEV in relation to landscape pattern with distances to supply units (e.g. oil palm plantations). For groups 1,3,4 there is a significant relationship.

Non-use values obtained by WTP-method must be more described in chapter 3. In discussion a reference on the paper by Merten et al. 2021, where CC mitigation on tropical peatland (Jambi) is a topic, should be included.

Author Response

Thank you very much for the comments. Attached is the point to point response to the comments.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a good paper and provides insight into a significant topic. The main comment is very minor - with a general scan of the text for the use of English which in places requires just a little attention. Some examples are given below, but just check throughout:

P2 LINE 73 Change ‘is’ to ‘are’

P8 Carbon sequestration - change ‘prices’ to ‘price’

P9 Change ‘water uses’ to ‘water use’ – throughout

Acknowledgments – stops after MSc and Dr etc are not required 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally this reads very well but a final check for use and style of English will help - but nothing serious.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comment. We corrected all the spotted errors and had a native English speaker to help prove-reading the paper.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

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

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper presents a study examined the economic value of peatland ecosystem services in Riau province, Indonesia. The main ecosystem services of peatlands were identified, following their classification. Valued use value illustrates the benefits that people derived from the use of ecosystem goods and services, including direct use value representing consumptive use and non-consumptive benefits; and indirect use value derived from ecosystem services that support or protect an economic activity rather than directly providing services or products to people.

The abstract is relatively well summarized, however I recommend including a sentence on the purpose of the paper in the abstract.

I find the documentation of the paper well structured and brings the topic up to date. The aim of the paper and the objectives conclude this chapter. However, here I recommend the inclusion of a sentence on the research hypothesis and what is intended to be brought as a novelty by this study compared to the research presented before.

The research area, the research methodology is quite clear, but I don't understand if it is an original methodology? There are no references to many methods and formulas used. Are these original? if not enter the references for them.

The results are presented quite quickly, however I recommend presenting some colour graphs.

The discussions are well presented.

References must be written uniformly according to the requirements of the journal.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to review this manuscript. At first, I was fascinated by the title of this manuscript, which included landscape interplay that I was interested in. However, after spending one night reading the whole article, I felt a little disappointed and frustrated.

At first glance, the whole manuscript seems to be a large investigative report, and there is some distance from the research article in terms of scientific questions and research frameworks. Sections 3.1-3.3 have low statistical appeal to respondents, residential location and TEV, and these basic statistical analyses can actually be placed in the attached tables.

The case studies in this paper are too individual to give a good explanation. For example, how do different residential locations (landscape characteristics) affect the interaction between residents and peatlands, and what are the responses to the market or climate change?

The introduction lacks sufficient introduction to the innovative points and scientific issues of this paper.

There are still some shortcomings in the understanding of ecosystem services and landscape interplay, especially landscape interplay. In Table 1, these variables are not landscape characteristics at all, but more seem to be residential locations;

The measures of ecosystem services and TEV in Tables 2 and 3 include a large number of residents' behavioral characteristics, which are closely related to the livelihood behavior of this respondent, so the analysis in Part 3.4 cannot fully attribute the differences in TEV to landscape conditions (in fact, residential location);

The sample size of this paper is also small, so we can only do some comparative analysis of differences in SPSS (one-way ANOVA);

I didn't find the corresponding Table 7 on line 506, there should be a problem with the author's chart citation;

The author cites too many references, many of which are not very suitable and not reflected in the literature review or research comparison.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The document is quite expansive, offering both strengths and areas for improvement.

Strengths: It presents a comprehensive and lucid explanation of all the steps taken to arrive at the results. While there are sections that may seem repetitive, simplifying them could enhance clarity. The discussion of the results is commendable, supported by the findings and leading smoothly into the conclusions.

Areas for improvement: Due to its length, there's a possibility that readers might not engage with the document in its entirety and might skip directly to the results and conclusions. Additionally, the abundance of tables, graphs, and images could potentially overwhelm the reader. Consider consolidating these elements where possible or including some in an appendix to streamline the text.

Overall, it's an intriguing study, and with some minor adjustments, it could become even more appealing to readers.