Leveraging Ecosystem Services and Well-Being in Urban Landscape Planning for Nature Conservation: A Case Study of Peri-Urban Dynamics

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

I would like to express my sincere gratitude for the opportunity to review the manuscript titled "Exploring Landscape Dynamics and Adapting to Change: Ecosystem Services in the Developing Peri-urban Area of Harku Municipality, Estonia." I found the manuscript to be a compelling exploration of the social assessment of ecosystem services in peri-urban areas.

The article has been prepared very meticulously, taking into consideration the formal guidelines for scientific papers.
The goal presented in the introduction has been appropriately formulated and is understandable to the reader. Upon reading the abstract, it is easy to discern the subject of the article.

The Introduction section appropriately and comprehensively presents the background of the conducted research and relates it to the article's title. However, I believe that in line 108, it would be appropriate to use the passive voice.

In subsection 2.1, the research area is presented, but I have comments on Figure 2 c,d. They lack scale divisions, and there is a suggestion to improve the symbols a-b for enhanced aesthetics of the figure.

In subsection 2.2, it is not sufficient to merely insert the figure; it is necessary to describe it and cite it in the text.

The Methods section is clear, and the logical sequence of the conducted research is maintained. Each stage of the work is presented appropriately. However, please remember to use the passive voice in lines 166, 171, 229.

I have no comments on the Results section, except for one: in Figure 10, there are different scales, but it is unclear what they are.

The remaining parts of the paper are also well-prepared, with results appropriately commented on. The conclusions are interesting and significant for future research and actions. I believe that the presented results are not only very intriguing but also have practical utility.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article is an interesting take on ecosystem services (ES) research. 

The focus and scope of the research is very clearly defined. The research questions facilitate an understanding of the range of issues considered by the authors.

Indeed, the link between ecosystem services and resident satisfaction is important and can be used in a complementary way to evaluate the effectiveness of infrastructural solutions introduced or alternatively to assess the current state of the environment. 

The quality of the spatial analyses carried out and the quality of the figures generated is of a high standard.

In the results of the study, the authors consistently answer the research questions. A very important element that deserves to be appreciated are the "Recommendations" (chapter 4.1.) that follow from the results obtained, but are also complementary to the approach in the context of ES.

As for the comments, I have a concern that when the authors compare images from different periods (Figure 2, Figure 10), I get the impression that images from different seasons are shown. If the baseline image (historical image) dictates the time of year, then the photo showing the contemporary state should also be at a similar time of year for better readability.

Figure 11 seems to have no correspondence between the map and the legend or in the legend the coloured elements in the figure are shown in shades of grey. 

On the merits of this map, it would be better to show other conflicts besides "active quarries" Is there no problem where development or other infrastructure encroaches into areas of natural value? places where there is conflict should be better highlighted in the legend.

In Figure 1 I suggest using a different order when showing locations - it should be from general to specific. This means that the map of Estonia's location against Europe should be in the top left corner. Maps showing the general location should also be on a linear scale.

The English language of the article is clear and understandable. Any doubts about grammar should be reviewed by a language editor.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1.When abbreviations first appear, write their full name, and when they appear later, only use abbreviations and maintain consistency.

2.It is recommended to list the main content of the Resident Municipality Survey in the form of an attachment, as well as the initial statistical analysis of the survey results, such as the overall analysis of the respondents' gender, occupation, age, income, education level, etc.

3.The research findings did not respond well to the title of this article, such as the types, values, and spatiotemporal patterns of ecosystem services, especially cultural services.

4.The international perspective of this article should be expanded, as well as the reference value of the case study for other similar regions around the world.

5.The correspondence between the so-called "belts" and the Peri urban Area in the article is not clear, and this article only briefly lists the references. Suggest the author to provide a detailed explanation of this.

6.The introduction needs to more clearly establish the gap this study is trying to address.

7.The author should provide some quantifiable results in the abstract along with a constructive conclusive statement with policy implications at the end of the abstract.

8.Conclusion section. Summarize 2-3 key novel insights from this study. Avoid excessive repetition of methods and results.

9.The article has too many figures. I suggest making good use of the supplementary material for this article.

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

The author has responded to all my questions and there are no further suggestions.

Minor editing of English language required.