Economic Valuation of Fish Provision, Wastewater Treatment, and Coastal Protection in the Israeli Mediterranean Sea

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Introduction
The aim of the research is not explained. 
Section 2.3, rows 184-185 give evidence to the aim: explore sustainable management of the fishing effort in the Israeli Mediterranean, under different climate change scenarios. If so, I would expect to be introduced to climate change scenarios.

Materials and Methods 
Materials and methods are very general. The literature is well known since 30 years. Having expressed the aim of the research, I invite to go more in deep with the methodology assuming that TEV and economic valuation methods are well known.
Methodology should be improved.

Results
I suggest using thousands as the unit of scale of Figure 2.

With regards to section 3.2, please provide the cited probabilistic model.

Pay attention to capital letters (row 268, 286).

With regards to section 3.3, please improve the economic valuation by listing the costs taken into account in table 4. 

I suggest enriching the description of the data the researchers have chosen to collect in line with the literature; the method of data collection; the economic processing models. At this point in time, this information requires a greater level of depth and detail.

Author Response

Dear reviewers,

We would like to thank you for your comments.

Reviewer #1: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Introduction
The aim of the research is not explained. 
Section 2.3, rows 184-185 give evidence to the aim: explore sustainable management of the fishing effort in the Israeli Mediterranean, under different climate change scenarios. If so, I would expect to be introduced to climate change scenarios.

Reply: thank you for your comment. We explained the research objective, lines 124-128.  We also updated the literature background with recent papers.

Materials and Methods 
Materials and methods are very general. The literature is well known since 30 years. Having expressed the aim of the research, I invite to go more in deep with the methodology assuming that TEV and economic valuation methods are well known.
Methodology should be improved.

Reply: We have expanded the "Materials and Methods" section to provide a more detailed explanation of the methodologies employed in our paper.

Results
I suggest using thousands as the unit of scale of Figure 2.

Reply: thank you for your suggestion, however we present all our results in NIS, and not with thousands.

With regards to section 3.2, please provide the cited probabilistic model.

Reply: after checking our model, it seems that there is no need for probabilistic model. Therefore, we deleted it.

Pay attention to capital letters (row 268, 286).

Reply: changed.

With regards to section 3.3, please improve the economic valuation by listing the costs taken into account in table 4. 

Reply: we extended section 3.3 and listed the different costs.

I suggest enriching the description of the data the researchers have chosen to collect in line with the literature; the method of data collection; the economic processing models. At this point in time, this information requires a greater level of depth and detail.

Reply: thank you for your suggestions. We extended the data description for each service.

Reviewer 2 Report

The study is devoted to the topical issue of assessing marine and coastal ecosystem services. The text is written in clear and well-understood English. The main drawback of the manuscript is the lack of a proper description of the evaluation methods used. Because of this, it is not clear how and on the basis of what data the results were obtained. There are also a number of other shortcomings (listed below) that need to be corrected.

1) Abstract: It is advisable to supplement it with a brief summary of the main estimates obtained.

2) Introduction: Why are you talking about Total Economic Value (TEV) (lines 89-90, 97, 122-123, Figure 1) if it was not evaluated in the work? You only estimated use values (direct and indirect) of three ecosystem services. There is nothing in the text about the assessment of their non-use values. In the introduction, it is desirable to clearly state the objectives of this study.

3) Materials and Methods: There is no proper description of the data and methods used.

- It is necessary to list what data you used: data on the abundance and dynamics of fish populations, data on their catch, data on the discharge of pollution into the sea, the basis for the maps obtained, the relationships between the parameters used to build probabilistic models. I didn't find any of this in the text. 

- It is also necessary to briefly characterize (and not just name) the MMEY, EwE and MSE modesl used. What species of native and invasive fish were considered? What indicators of their dynamics and climate influence on it were used? How was the trophic level estimated?

- Similar issues should be briefly described for the evaluation of water treatment services. How did you evaluate the ability of ecosystems to absorb/neutralize N and P?

- What data are the maps (Fig. 5 and 6) based on?

- Subsection 2.1 includes a general description of methods of economic valuation that have been well known for many years and are of little use in this article. It is enough to briefly indicate which specific methods were used to evaluate the three services you assessed.

4) Results: 

- Due to the fact that the goals of the work and the methods used were not clearly defined, it is not clear what purpose the received recommendations pursue? From the text below, one can guess that you are talking about some sustainable mode of use of fish populations. However, the purpose of the recommendations should be stated explicitly at the very beginning of the work.

- What is the difference between recommended efforts BAU RCP 4.5 and RCP 4.5 as well as between BAU Ozer and Ozer? It should be explained, probably also in the METHODS section

- Subsection 3.2 and Table 3: Where did the estimates of efficiency of pollutants removal (80% and 20%) come from?

- Subsection 3.3 and Table 4: What do the estimates of %of reefs replacement mean and where do they come from? What does maintenance cost mean and where do these estimates come from?

- Fig. 6 shows a small fragment of the explored coast. Are the estimates of coastal protection ES obtained only for this fragment or for the entire coast?

5) The Conclusions section turned out to be so small that it is better to combine it with the section Discussion, if it is allowed by the rules of the journal

6) Line 98 – the reference [8] applies to MAE, but not to IPBES and TEEB

7) Line 110 - If the previous estimates are preliminary and rough, then how do you know that they overestimate the services? It is advisable to briefly explain why the error may be in this direction.

8) Line 245-246 - 

9) Line 250 – Fig.4, not Fig. 3

Author Response

Reviewer #2: Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Reviewer, we would like to thank you for your valuable comments.

We extended the methods and results are requested.

The study is devoted to the topical issue of assessing marine and coastal ecosystem services. The text is written in clear and well-understood English. The main drawback of the manuscript is the lack of a proper description of the evaluation methods used. Because of this, it is not clear how and on the basis of what data the results were obtained. There are also a number of other shortcomings (listed below) that need to be corrected.

Reply: dear reviewer, thank you for your valuable comments. We tried to describe and extend the methods section in order to be clearer.

1) Abstract: It is advisable to supplement it with a brief summary of the main estimates obtained.

Reply: thank you for your suggestion – we added the main results.

2) Introduction: Why are you talking about Total Economic Value (TEV) (lines 89-90, 97, 122-123, Figure 1) if it was not evaluated in the work? You only estimated use values (direct and indirect) of three ecosystem services. There is nothing in the text about the assessment of their non-use values. In the introduction, it is desirable to clearly state the objectives of this study.

Reply: thank you for your comment. We explained why the economic valuation of these ecosystem services important for deriving the TEV and or marginal values. We deleted figure 1.

3) Materials and Methods: There is no proper description of the data and methods used.

- It is necessary to list what data you used: data on the abundance and dynamics of fish populations, data on their catch, data on the discharge of pollution into the sea, the basis for the maps obtained, the relationships between the parameters used to build probabilistic models. I didn't find any of this in the text. 

Reply: we extended the methods and added both on the paper and the appendix data and information. After examining our valuation process, we found that the probabilistic models are not relevant for our calculation.

- It is also necessary to briefly characterize (and not just name) the MMEY, EwE and MSE modesl used. What species of native and invasive fish were considered? What indicators of their dynamics and climate influence on it were used? How was the trophic level estimated?

Reply: we provided explanation of the MMEY, EwE and MSE on the methods section. We do not explain the trophic level issue as it is calculated by the model based on diet composition. We have provided a couple of reference for the reader to further explore if desired

- Similar issues should be briefly described for the evaluation of water treatment services. How did you evaluate the ability of ecosystems to absorb/neutralize N and P?

Reply: Thank you. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of our wastewater treatment method, we have expanded its explanation. Our approach involved utilizing the wastewater sewage sludge/residuals tax paid by various municipalities.

- What data are the maps (Fig. 5 and 6) based on?

Reply: We deleted fig 5 and 6.

- Subsection 2.1 includes a general description of methods of economic valuation that have been well known for many years and are of little use in this article. It is enough to briefly indicate which specific methods were used to evaluate the three services you assessed.

Reply: We focused, now, only on our relevant methods.

4) Results: 

- Due to the fact that the goals of the work and the methods used were not clearly defined, it is not clear what purpose the received recommendations pursue? From the text below, one can guess that you are talking about some sustainable mode of use of fish populations. However, the purpose of the recommendations should be stated explicitly at the very beginning of the work.

Reply: we tried to defined better our research objectives and extend the methods and results to be more clear.

- What is the difference between recommended efforts BAU RCP 4.5 and RCP 4.5 as well as between BAU Ozer and Ozer? It should be explained, probably also in the METHODS section

Reply: Text briefly explaining the EwE approach and the relevant model has been added to the methods section. We do not explain the trophic level issue as it is calculated by the model based on diet composition. We have provided a couple of reference for the reader to further explore if desired.

 Similar issues should be briefly described for the evaluation of water treatment services. How did you evaluate the ability of ecosystems to absorb/neutralize N and P?

Reply: Thank you. To provide a more comprehensive understanding of our wastewater treatment method, we have expanded its explanation. Our approach involved utilizing the wastewater sewage sludge/residuals tax paid by various municipalities

- Subsection 3.2 and Table 3: Where did the estimates of efficiency of pollutants removal (80% and 20%) come from?

Reply: we changed and explained our new estimations.

- Subsection 3.3 and Table 4: What do the estimates of %of reefs replacement mean and where do they come from? What does maintenance cost mean and where do these estimates come from?

Reply: we extended the explanations, hope now it is more clear.

- Fig. 6 shows a small fragment of the explored coast. Are the estimates of coastal protection ES obtained only for this fragment or for the entire coast?

Reply: we delete fig 6.

5) The Conclusions section turned out to be so small that it is better to combine it with the section Discussion, if it is allowed by the rules of the journal

Reply: combined.

6) Line 98 – the reference [8] applies to MAE, but not to IPBES and TEEB

Reply: we updated the reference and cite also the IPBES and TEEB.

7) Line 110 - If the previous estimates are preliminary and rough, then how do you know that they overestimate the services? It is advisable to briefly explain why the error may be in this direction.

Reply: since these estimates are based on Benefit Transfer or other estimations, not divided into the different ecosystem services.

8) Line 245-246 - Line 250 – Fig.4, not Fig. 3

Reply: changed.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

row 110: add square bracket 

row 114: the amount is expressed in euro. please harmonise the monetary unit of measure. in case you decide to adopt the NIS, provide the exchange rate in euro and/or dollar.
The same, for row 240.

row 288, 343, 411 and 415: I suggest avoiding the mention of private companies.

rows 353-356: Please consider whether it is appropriate to quote this paragraph.

row 358-359: amounts are provided in dollar and NIS.

rows 362-372: I suggest to review the sentences trying to synthetize.

rows 379-385: If you want to provide a picture of the habitat I suggest moving it to the beginning of the section.

I would like to suggest harmonising the sections. It seems to be perceived that those who wrote sections 1-2.1 and 3.3 are different from those who wrote 2.2-3.2.
Section 3.1 and 3.2 do not provide estimates in an analytical manner as is the case in section 3.3 with the help of data and tables. Please harmonize the content of these sections.

Author Response

Reviewer #1:

We would like to thank you for your valuable comments. We believe that your comments improved our paper.

Row 110: add square bracket 

Reply: done.

row 114: the amount is expressed in euro. please harmonise the monetary unit of measure. in case you decide to adopt the NIS, provide the exchange rate in euro and/or dollar.
The same, for row 240.

Reply: we added the exchange rate for euro to NIS.

row 288, 343, 411 and 415: I suggest avoiding the mention of private companies.

Reply: we prefer to leave the company name since our calculations are partially based on their prices and costs.

rows 353-356: Please consider whether it is appropriate to quote this paragraph.

Reply: thank you, we will leave it as it is.

row 358-359: amounts are provided in dollar and NIS.

Reply: changed. Thank you for noticing.

rows 362-372: I suggest to review the sentences trying to synthetize.

Reply: rephrased. Thank you.

rows 379-385: If you want to provide a picture of the habitat I suggest moving it to the beginning of the section.

Reply: thank you, but I think the picture relevant for the conclusion of this section.

I would like to suggest harmonising the sections. It seems to be perceived that those who wrote sections 1-2.1 and 3.3 are different from those who wrote 2.2-3.2.
Section 3.1 and 3.2 do not provide estimates in an analytical manner as is the case in section 3.3 with the help of data and tables. Please harmonize the content of these sections.

Reply: thank you for you suggestion, but section 3.1,3.2 and 3.3 are separate, therefore the calculation is different. The tables for section 3.2 are presented at the appendix.

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors substantially corrected and supplemented the text in accordance with the comments. However, in some cases, they did not answer the questions asked.

Line numbers are for the revised version of the manuscript with the indicated corrections made by the authors

1.      Materials and Methods: The authors have well explained how they valued the ES of eutrophication prevention and ES of reefs. However, questions about the methodology for modeling and estimating the fish yield remained unclear: e. g. where did the data on fish populations and their catch come from? and what are 41 functional groups of fish? If the authors used data on fish populations and their catches from the publications Corrales et al., 2017 and, this should be explained directly and clearly. If the authors used models and data of Corrales et al, it should be clearly explained how the models in this publication differ from those.

2.      Results, section 3.1: The authors didn't fix the confusion with the scenarios. In one case, there are four of them (Fig. 2, 3), as it is written in the Methods section. In the other, there are three scenarios (Fig. 1). The names of the scenarios in the figures are different (for example, in Fig. 3A, there are “local scenario” not mentioned in the text, and I tried to guess that the point here is that graph shows local fish dynamics). From the figures it is not immediately clear what is the difference between BAU RCP 4.5 and RCP 4.5; and between BAU Ozer and Ozer. It took some work to understand that RCP 4.5 here is actually the scenario of recommended maximum yield for RCP 4.5. The same with “Ozer” scenarios. All these flaws make it difficult to understand the results. It is necessary to unify the names of the scenarios so that it is immediately clear which scenarios are mentioned. For example, call them BAU RCP 4.5; MMEY RCP 4.5; BAU Ozer and MMEY Ozer. And it is better to give these names in the Methods section, and then use only them.

It is necessary to explain why in Fig. 1 only three, not four scenarios

3.      Results, section 3.1: The discrepancy between the objectives of the recommended fishing scenarios and the results obtained needs to be explained. In the Methods section, it is determined that the recommended fishing scenarios are aimed at providing MMEY (line 208), i. e. maximum economic yield of the entire fished biomass, i. e. maximization the fishers’ profits (line 225). The results contradict this, since the application of MMEY scenarios led to a decrease in total profit (line 345, fig.2). This requires an explanation. Why did it happen

4.      Discussion and conclusions: I advise to add the main estimates of ecosystem services obtained by the authors, as well as the main results of the application of the recommended fishing scenarios for the service of fish production.

Minor comments (the quotation marks are direct quotations from the revised version of the manuscript that the comments refer to).

Line 34-35. “…the value of Nitrogen are 16-96M NIS” - perhaps this refers not to the cost of nitrogen, but to the ecosystem service for preventing eutrophication due to nitrogen pollution?

Line 35-36. “Finally, it proposes ECOncrete as an engineering restoration solution…” - the name of the company in the abstract is only confusing, as at this stage readers don't know what “ECOncrete” is. I advise you to remove this name from the abstract

Lines 120-121. “The results, however, represent only a crude and often overestimated values…” - why not insert your answer (i.e.: “since these estimates are based on Benefit Transfer or other estimations, not divided into the different ecosystem services”) into the text so that other readers do not have this question?

Lina 210. “Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) module…” - does it include a module for calculation of MMEY? It would be nice to mention it, if so…

Lines 220-221. “The Ecosim model used for the current study included 41 functional groups…” - If these are models, including data on fish population dynamics and catches, from publications of Coralles et al (2017, 2018), this should be clearly explained. Are the 41 functional groups of fish you used identical to those used in the Coralles et al models? If these are some other models, please explain them and the data you used.

Line 225. “… various fished groups…” - what are these groups: are these 41 functional groups or are they just the two groups (local and invasive spp) that are mentioned in the results section?

Lines 236 and 239. Here it is better to leave the mention of Ozer in the text, otherwise it will not be clear what scenario is referred to in section 3.1.

Line 341. For ease of understanding of the text by readers, it is better to briefly repeat here what purpose the recommended fishing scenarios have.

Lines 346-347. In my opinion, it will be clearer if this sentence is rephrased, for example, as follows: a decrease in total profit under MMEY scenarios occurs along with an increase in artisanal profit (Fig. 2)

Line 348. What do you understand by "ecological gains"? From the following text it is clear that this is probably an increase in the biomass of fish, but it is better to explain it here.

Lines 445-446. “The results clearly show that for the surveyed ecosystem 445 services, most economic values tend to be concentrated along the continental shelf” - The results don't show this.

Author Response

The authors substantially corrected and supplemented the text in accordance with the comments. However, in some cases, they did not answer the questions asked.

Line numbers are for the revised version of the manuscript with the indicated corrections made by the authors

1. Materials and Methods: The authors have well explained how they valued the ES of eutrophication prevention and ES of reefs. However, questions about the methodology for modeling and estimating the fish yield remained unclear: e. g. where did the data on fish populations and their catch come from? and what are 41 functional groups of fish? If the authors used data on fish populations and their catches from the publications Corrales et al., 2017 and, this should be explained directly and clearly. If the authors used models and data of Corrales et al, it should be clearly explained how the models in this publication differ from those.

Reply: we used Corrales et al, as you suggested we mentioned in the text and explained it.

2. Results, section 3.1: The authors didn't fix the confusion with the scenarios. In one case, there are four of them (Fig. 2, 3), as it is written in the Methods section. In the other, there are three scenarios (Fig. 1). The names of the scenarios in the figures are different (for example, in Fig. 3A, there are “local scenario” not mentioned in the text, and I tried to guess that the point here is that graph shows local fish dynamics). From the figures it is not immediately clear what is the difference between BAU RCP 4.5 and RCP 4.5; and between BAU Ozer and Ozer. It took some work to understand that RCP 4.5 here is actually the scenario of recommended maximum yield for RCP 4.5. The same with “Ozer” scenarios. All these flaws make it difficult to understand the results. It is necessary to unify the names of the scenarios so that it is immediately clear which scenarios are mentioned. For example, call them BAU RCP 4.5; MMEY RCP 4.5; BAU Ozer and MMEY Ozer. And it is better to give these names in the Methods section, and then use only them.

It is necessary to explain why in Fig. 1 only three, not four scenarios

Reply: we revised the charts and text to better communicate the different scenarios. The four scenarios are now referred to as ‘MMEY RCP 4.5’, ‘MMEY Ozer’, ‘BAU RCP 4.5’ and ‘BAU Ozer’, 

3. Results, section 3.1: The discrepancy between the objectives of the recommended fishing scenarios and the results obtained needs to be explained. In the Methods section, it is determined that the recommended fishing scenarios are aimed at providing MMEY (line 208), i. e. maximum economic yield of the entire fished biomass, i. e. maximization the fishers’ profits (line 225). The results contradict this, since the application of MMEY scenarios led to a decrease in total profit (line 345, fig.2). This requires an explanation. Why did it happen

Reply: The MMEY effort levels aim to maximize fishing revenues but using effort levels that will maintain the fishing stock. This is achieved with a reduction of effort, which inevitably leads to reduced profits.

4. Discussion and conclusions: I advise to add the main estimates of ecosystem services obtained by the authors, as well as the main results of the application of the recommended fishing scenarios for the service of fish production.

Reply: we added the main estimates of the ES we assessed and discussed it.

Minor comments (the quotation marks are direct quotations from the revised version of the manuscript that the comments refer to).

Line 34-35. “…the value of Nitrogen are 16-96M NIS” - perhaps this refers not to the cost of nitrogen, but to the ecosystem service for preventing eutrophication due to nitrogen pollution?

Reply: thank you. Yes. I changed it.

Line 35-36. “Finally, it proposes ECOncrete as an engineering restoration solution…” - the name of the company in the abstract is only confusing, as at this stage readers don't know what “ECOncrete” is. I advise you to remove this name from the abstract

Reply: yes. You are right, thank you for noticing. I deleted as suggested.

Lines 120-121. “The results, however, represent only a crude and often overestimated values…” - why not insert your answer (i.e.: “since these estimates are based on Benefit Transfer or other estimations, not divided into the different ecosystem services”) into the text so that other readers do not have this question?

Reply: thank you. I added.

Lina 210. “Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) module…” - does it include a module for calculation of MMEY? It would be nice to mention it, if so…

Lines 220-221. “The Ecosim model used for the current study included 41 functional groups…” - If these are models, including data on fish population dynamics and catches, from publications of Coralles et al (2017, 2018), this should be clearly explained. Are the 41 functional groups of fish you used identical to those used in the Coralles et al models? If these are some other models, please explain them and the data you used.

Reply: identical, mentioned on text, answered your #1comment.

Line 225. “… various fished groups…” - what are these groups: are these 41 functional groups or are they just the two groups (local and invasive spp) that are mentioned in the results section?

Reply: These are specific groups within the 41 functional groups of he model that are fished. They include both local and invasive species.

Lines 236 and 239. Here it is better to leave the mention of Ozer in the text, otherwise it will not be clear what scenario is referred to in section 3.1.

Reply: done.

Line 341. For ease of understanding of the text by readers, it is better to briefly repeat here what purpose the recommended fishing scenarios have.

Reply: added.

Lines 346-347. In my opinion, it will be clearer if this sentence is rephrased, for example, as follows: a decrease in total profit under MMEY scenarios occurs along with an increase in artisanal profit (Fig. 2)

Reply: thank you. Changed.

Line 348. What do you understand by "ecological gains"? From the following text it is clear that this is probably an increase in the biomass of fish, but it is better to explain it here.

Reply: explained in text.

Lines 445-446. “The results clearly show that for the surveyed ecosystem 445 services, most economic values tend to be concentrated along the continental shelf” - The results don't show this.

Reply: changed.

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Now everything is clear!

Wish you luck!

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for your valuable comments, they improved our paper.

Best wishes,

Shiri