Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Services Value in Urban Agglomerations Using Land Use/Cover Change Analysis: Case Study of Wuhan in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have reviewed the manuscript and found that the subject is interesting but that manuscript is poorly written, hard to read, and with many typos and grammar errors (even though I am not native speaking English). The manuscript does not appear as a scientific paper, but rather as a study report. Need to insert more of a ‘scientific’ flavor.

 

I suggest that authors should revise the material, avoid acronyms where possible, and avoid too detailed presentation of numbers.

 

Below are my comments and suggestions:

 

1.      Title: I suggest a better title - 'Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Services Value in Urban Agglomerations Using LUCC Analysis: A Case Study of Wuhan in China'

2.      The abstract should be significantly shortened (30-40%). Avoid the same wording several times, and almost all acronyms should be deleted. Rewrite the last sentence, and follow it with a sentence about what next should be done from the research standpoint.

3.      In 'Introduction', give a reference/explain what IDRISI software is (paragraph before the last one, line 78 page 2). Completely rewrite the last paragraph and align 'past' and 'future' times, that is, avoid wording indicating what was done and what will be done in the same research.

4.      In 'Literature review' there are repetitions of text presented in 'Introduction'. Recombine texts and avoid repetitions.  

5.      Improve writing style, make it more concise, and reduce acronyms usage. An example is 3x of  'Wuhan Urban Agglomeration' on p. 4, lines 177-181: 'Combined with the characteristics of Wuhan Urban Agglomerations, the equivalent factor was corrected, and the ecosystem service value (ESV) of Wuhan Urban Agglomerations was quantitatively evaluated. The impact of land use/land cover change (LUCC) on the value of ecosystem services in Wuhan Urban Agglomerations was analyzed...', etc.

6.      The term 'Wuhan Urban Agglomerations' is massively used in the manuscript. Can be replaced with 'study area' and applied only where necessary because the reader knows where research happens.

7.      Align referencing style within the manuscript with the journal standard, i.e. use brackets [ ] instead of names and years.

8.      Add a figure with a map of China and the position of Wuhan. Maybe to combine it with the Fig. 1.

9.      Change the subtitle 'Research methods and data sources' to 'Study area and research methodology' or 'Study area, research methods and data processed'   

10.  Fig. 3 is unclear. Improve the quality of all figures. Each must be self-explanatory and properly referenced in the text.

11.  Mathematics. Use the same font in text as in math relations. If in the formula it is Italic, in the text it must also be Italic. Everywhere and consequently.

12.  Check all tables and their numbers and references in the text. Some are missing.

13.  The conclusion and discussion should be divided, rewritten, and shortened. A clear indication should be given regarding the future research agenda.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Title: I suggest a better title - 'Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Services Value in Urban Agglomerations Using LUCC Analysis: A Case Study of Wuhan in China'.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have changed the title of the article to 'Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Services Value in Urban Agglomerations Using LUCC Analysis: A Case Study of Wuhan in China'.

Comments 2: [The abstract should be significantly shortened (30-40%). Avoid the same wording several times, and almost all acronyms should be deleted. Rewrite the last sentence, and follow it with a sentence about what next should be done from the research standpoint.]

Response 2: Thank you for pointing this out. We quite agree with this comment. After consideration, we have trimmed down the abstract to 231 words by removing some of the abbreviations to make it look more concise.

Comments 3: [In 'Introduction', give a reference/explain what IDRISI software is (paragraph before the last one, line 78 page 2). Completely rewrite the last paragraph and align 'past' and 'future' times, that is, avoid wording indicating what was done and what will be done in the same research.]

Response 3: Thank you for pointing out this problem in manuscript. We have given a reference/explanation of what the IDRISI software is in the ‘Introduction’. We have also completely rewritten the last paragraph to align the ‘past’ and ‘future’ time and to avoid wording that indicates what has been done and what will be done in the same study.

Comments 4: [In 'Literature review' there are repetitions of text presented in 'Introduction'. Recombine texts and avoid repetitions. ]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. To address your concerns, we have deleted text in the Literature Review that duplicates the Introduction. The text has been regrouped and duplication has been avoided.

Comments 5: [Improve writing style, make it more concise, and reduce acronyms usage. An example is 3x of 'Wuhan Urban Agglomeration' on p. 4, lines 177-181: 'Combined with the characteristics of Wuhan Urban Agglomerations, the equivalent factor was corrected, and the ecosystem service value (ESV) of Wuhan Urban Agglomerations was quantitatively evaluated. The impact of land use/land cover change (LUCC) on the value of ecosystem services in Wuhan Urban Agglomerations was analyzed...', etc.]

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comments. We quite agree with you. Therefore, we have reduced the corresponding abbreviations in the article to make it look more concise. For example, we have made the following changes to the example sentence you suggested: ‘Combined with the characteristics of Wuhan Urban Agglomerations, the equivalent factor was corrected, and the ESV of Wuhan Urban Agglomerations was quantitatively evaluated. The impact of LUCC on the value of ecosystem services in Wuhan Urban Agglomerations was analyzed...', etc.

Comments 6: [The term 'Wuhan Urban Agglomerations' is massively used in the manuscript. Can be replaced with 'study area' and applied only where necessary because the reader knows where research happens.]

Response 6: Agreed. We have replaced part of the Wuhan urban agglomeration in the article with the study area to emphasize this point.

Comments 7: [Align referencing style within the manuscript with the journal standard, i.e. use brackets [ ] instead of names and years.]

Response 7: Thank you for your valuable comments. We quite agree with you. Therefore, we have carefully revised the citation format of references in the article in accordance with the journal's reference citation requirements.

Comments 8: [Add a figure with a map of China and the position of Wuhan. Maybe to combine it with the Fig. 1.]

Response 8: Thank you very much for your suggestion, but considering that the study area of this study is the Wuhan City Circle and does not involve other regions, the images in this study already show the study area well, so they have not been modified here.

Comments 9: [Change the subtitle 'Research methods and data sources' to 'Study area and research methodology' or 'Study area, research methods and data processed']

Response 9: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Taking into account the content of the third part of the article, we change the subtitle 'Research methods and data sources' to 'Study area and research methodology'.

Comments 10: [Fig. 3 is unclear. Improve the quality of all figures. Each must be self-explanatory and properly referenced in the text.]

Response 10: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have tried to improve the clarity of Figure 3 and the quality of the figures as much as possible, as well as explaining the figures in the legend. Figure 3 reflects land-use changes due to the conversion of different land-use types, where the numbers 1-6 indicate arable land, forest land, grassland, watersheds, built-up land and unused land, respectively. In the legend, 12 represents the area where arable land is converted to forest land, 21 represents the area where forest land is converted to arable land, and so on.

Comments 11: [Mathematics. Use the same font in text as in math relations. If in the formula it is Italic, in the text it must also be Italic. Everywhere and consequently.]

Response 11: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we modified the formatting accordingly to ensure that the characters in the text and formulas used the same fonts.

Comments 12: [Check all tables and their numbers and references in the text. Some are missing.]

Response 12: Thank you so much for your careful check. We quite agree with you. We carefully scrutinized the article to ensure that every figure、table and the corresponding references were mentioned in the text and that no figure, table or reference was omitted. Moreover, we refer to the journal's reference formatting requirements to correctly format the references.

Comments 13: [The conclusion and discussion should be divided, rewritten, and shortened. A clear indication should be given regarding the future research agenda.]

Response 13: Agree. Thank you very much for your suggestions, and we have split, rewritten, and shortened the conclusions and discussion, and have tried to be as clear as possible about our future research agenda. And we have specified in our conclusions specific actions to be taken to minimize the negative impacts of land use change on the value of ecosystem services.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Thank you for the opportunity to review your article titled "Research on Evaluation and Prediction of Ecosystem Services Value in Urban Agglomerations based on LUCC." I appreciate the effort and dedication you have put into this important research. To further enhance the clarity, coherence, and impact of your paper, I would like to offer the following recommendations:

Dear authors,

Line 5. The abstract could be more concise, by eliminating some technical details, thus becoming more accessible to readers.

Line 104. The literature review section is detailed, but could be improved by organizing the cited studies thematically so that it is easier to follow the connections and contributions of each study to the researched field.

Line 186. I recommend to write explicitly the aim and the objectives of the study, as well as the research questions, so that the article has clarity.

Line 187. The methodology is well explained, but could be improved by including a flowchart illustrating the main steps of the research. This could help visualize the process and clarify the relationships between the different components of the methodology.

Page 4. The figures are inserted explicitly in the text before inserting the image (Eg. In figure 1 it is observed...).

Page 9. Figure 3 is not explained enough - the color code.

Page 11. The discussion is comprehensive, but could be extended by including some comparisons with other similar studies, thus highlighting the uniqueness and relevance of the results obtained. A more detailed discussion of the practical implications of the results for policy and urban planning might also be useful.

Page 16. When you want to emphasize certain elements in a figure, you can circle them with a visible color.

Page 16. Figure 6 does not provide information on the differences, so it seems useless.

Page 16. Conclusions could be improved by clearer formulation of recommendations for future research and practical implications. For example, specifying concrete actions that local authorities should take to minimize the negative impact of land use changes on the value of ecosystem services.

By addressing the suggested improvements, your paper can achieve greater clarity and impact, contributing to the field.

Best regards!

Author Response

Comments 1: [Line 5. The abstract could be more concise, by eliminating some technical details, thus becoming more accessible to readers.]

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comments. We quite agree with you. Therefore, following your suggestion, we have eliminated some technical details and process descriptions and reduced the abstract to 231 words. The cuts have been made to make it look more concise and understandable.

Comments 2: [Line 104. The literature review section is detailed, but could be improved by organizing the cited studies thematically so that it is easier to follow the connections and contributions of each study to the researched field.]

Response 2: Thank you very much for your suggestion. It is true that a literature review by topic is a common and logical way to write a literature review, but the literature review part of this study has its own internal logic, and the contexts are progressive and closely related, so it is possible to show the logic of the text more clearly without adopting the topic division form of writing.

Comments 3: [Line 186. I recommend to write explicitly the aim and the objectives of the study, as well as the research questions, so that the article has clarity.]

Response 3: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable suggestion/ comment. Therefore, we rewrote the sentence to separate the purpose and goals of the study from the research questions to make the article seem clearer.

Comments 4: [Line 187. The methodology is well explained, but could be improved by including a flowchart illustrating the main steps of the research. This could help visualize the process and clarify the relationships between the different components of the methodology. ]

Response 4: Thank you for pointing out this problem in manuscript. Therefore, we have improved this study by adding a flowchart illustrating the main steps of the study. The research process was visualized and the relationships between the different components of the methodology were clarified.

Comments 5: [Page 4. The figures are inserted explicitly in the text before inserting the image (Eg. In figure 1 it is observed...).]

Response 5: Thank you for your valuable comments. We quite agree with you. Therefore, we have carefully scrutinized the content of the article to add the missed introductions to the charts and make sure that every chart is mentioned in the text.

Comments 6: [Page 9. Figure 3 is not explained enough - the color code.]

Response 6: Thank you for your rigorous comment. We quite agree with you. Therefore, we have tried to improve the clarity of Figure 3 and the quality of the figures as much as possible, as well as explaining the figures in the legend. Figure 3 reflects land-use changes due to the conversion of different land-use types, where the numbers 1-6 indicate arable land, forest land, grassland, watersheds, built-up land and unused land, respectively. In the legend, 12 represents the area where arable land is converted to forest land, 21 represents the area where forest land is converted to arable land, and so on.

Comments 7: [Page 11. The discussion is comprehensive, but could be extended by including some comparisons with other similar studies, thus highlighting the uniqueness and relevance of the results obtained. A more detailed discussion of the practical implications of the results for policy and urban planning might also be useful.]

Response 7: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have split, rewritten, and shortened the conclusions and discussion, and have tried to be as clear as possible about our future research agenda.

Comments 8: [When you want to emphasize certain elements in a figure, you can circle them with a visible color.]

Response 8: Thank you for your rigorous comment. After some consideration, we think the effect can be achieved without the circles in the graph. So we have left this point unchanged. Thanks again for your valuable suggestions.

Comments 9: [Figure 6 does not provide information on the differences, so it seems useless.]

Response 9: Thank you for your valuable comments. We quite agree with you. Although the graphs don't look too different to the naked eye, we can still see the difference between the two graphs based on the legend. Thanks again for your suggestions on this.

Comments 10: [Conclusions could be improved by clearer formulation of recommendations for future research and practical implications. For example, specifying concrete actions that local authorities should take to minimize the negative impact of land use changes on the value of ecosystem services.]

Response 10: We gratefully appreciate for your valuable comment. To address your concerns, we have refined the policy recommendations in the discussion section by specifying concrete actions that should be taken by local authorities to minimize the negative impacts of land-use change on the value of ecosystem services. For example, the cost of the de-farming of arable land could be further increased in the future, and different parts of the community, such as agriculture and transportation, could establish a data-sharing platform based on big data technology to enhance communication and collaboration to address the challenges posed by land-use change.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear authors,

 

I congratulate you on the complex study you have carried out. The subject addressed is very topical in China and all over the world.

The presented study addresses an essential theme in the context of sustainable development: the valuation of ecosystem services (ESV) in relation to land use/land cover changes (LUCC). The research focuses on the Wuhan Urban Agglomerations in China, providing a detailed analysis of territorial transformations and their impact on long-term ecosystem services.

The research provides a comprehensive analysis of ESV, considering both temporal and spatial dimensions. By constructing a land use transfer matrix, the study manages to reveal the major conversions between different land use categories and identify the main trends in this process.

The ecosystem services valuation method is well-founded, and the adjustment of the equivalent factor to calculate the ESV specific to each land use type adds more precision and relevance to the results.

Implementing the CA-Markov model to predict ESV in the years 2035 and 2050 adds practical value to the study, providing useful insights for future planning and environmental policy development.

The study highlights the significant transformations from 2012-2021, with a notable migration of cultivated land to forest land, probably due to reforestation policies. This aspect emphasizes the direct impact of human interventions on the landscape and, implicitly, on ESV.

The data indicate a general decrease in the total value of ESV, with an unbalanced spatial distribution ("low in the west and high in the central and eastern regions"). The significant reduction of the hydrological regulatory value, in particular, draws attention to the critical issues related to the reduction of the water surface.

Predictions suggest that although the spatial distribution of ESV may remain constant, continued land use transformations may exacerbate the overall reduction in ESV. This aspect emphasizes the need for adaptation and management measures to mitigate negative environmental impacts and support sustainable development.

The study initiates an integrative framework for ESV assessment, providing valuable insights for regional sustainable development. The research highlights the close link between land use changes and ecosystem services, providing data and predictions that can guide policy decisions and environmental management. However, it is necessary for future studies to continue exploring this complex relationship in order to develop effective strategies for the conservation and sustainable use of natural resources.

I agree with the publication in the current version.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewers for recognizing our research topic and research content. At the suggestion of the reviewers, we carefully considered all the reviewers' comments and revised the manuscript accordingly. 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most (not all )of my suggestions  are accepted and manuscript is significantly improved.

I suggest restructuring the final part of the manuscript and to divide discussion from conclusions. Discussion should be longer and  given before conclusions.

Additional proofread (removal of grammar errors that still exist) rand style improvement is strongly advised. 

Author Response

Comments 1: [I suggest restructuring the final part of the manuscript and to divide discussion from conclusions. Discussion should be longer and given before conclusions.]

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have reorganized the final section by separating the discussion section from the conclusion section, fitting in an additional discussion section and placing the discussion section before the conclusion section. Thanks again for your comments!

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Congratulations!

Author Response

We are very grateful to the reviewers for recognizing our research topic and research content.  Thank you again for your previous valuable comments!