Evaluation of the Equity and Regional Management of Some Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Main Urban Area of Xi’an City
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The research provides interesting results regarding evaluating many parameters of the equity and regionalization Management Critical Ecosystem Services of Xi’an City.
There are only minor errors in the work, but I recommend changing:
- title Evaluation the Equity ... Evaluation of the Equity
- abstract - about 300 words maximum
- L 36 Ecosystem services was, change to Ecosystem services were
- The authors write very long sentences; I recommend splitting the sentences to understand the text better.
It would be appropriate to add which species of trees most often occurred in the monitored area.
As this is a case study, I consider the research to be interesting and well-arranged. A more detailed and long-term analysis will provide valuable information on equity and regionalization Management of Critical Ecosystem Services.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
Broad comments to the authors:
The manuscript titled: “Evaluation the Equity and Regionalization Management of Critical Ecosystem Services of Urban Green Space：A Case Study of Xi’an City” investigates distribution of four ecosystem services in some districts of Xi’an City. Overall soundness of idea is good, but the execution of this idea in article is quite low. Hypothesis should be stated in an introduction part of the article. Statistical analysis of data is non-existent which is big disadvantage of this article. Sample of five districts that were analyzed is quite different as two of them (Weiyang and Baqiao) have really high percentage of green areas and in others the green areas are quite scarce (Figure 4). It seems that this could reflect to the results.
Literature could be more abundant especially regarding Discussion part of article. This part of manuscript as it is more focused on methods comparison and clustering method than is on explanation of research questions regarding ecosystem services. In this way the title is misleading to the readers as it is leaning to some parts of manuscript while neglecting others. Low quality of discussion also makes comparison of this article with other difficult as no data on green area per sqm or capita is provided as it is common of other articles that deal with this topic.
Quality of English language is quite low and I would suggest to authors to have native speaker go through whole articles. Other option is to have manuscript checked by professional editing service There is one sentence that goes through six lines (L394-399) which is absurd.
Figures should be of better quality. The style of manuscript also needs improvements. The circle with number style should be avoided as it creates confusion since there is multiple places in text where it is mentioned.
Specific comments to the authors:
L2-3 Title is not right in my opinion. It is confusing as There is mentation of equity and on some places you write fairness. Are these terms synonyms? Why not use only one of them? In this way as it is stated your manuscript title and results are difficult to follow and relate. Second thing is that it seems it is only part of Xi’an city that was investigated so it is not complete case study of this area. What are critical ecosystem services? Are there some ecosystem services that are more critical than others??
L12 differentiation of human beings?? Very unclear expression
L13 ecological environment??
L22 you mention plants but only trees were investigated in this study?
L36 It is Holdren and Ehrlich not Holden and Ehrlic
L46-47 Unclear sentence?
L73 “cannont achieve better results” Why? Can you further explain this other than fragmentation?
L141 green arbor plant? Do you mean trees?
Paragraph 2.4. Evaluation of the Fairness. It reflects to location quotient which is referenced by work of Carrol et al. But their formula is quite different from yours? Can you further explain this?
L164 qualities?
L229,236 Which correlation coefficient?
Table 1. Position of column “Specific parameters” is not right. It should be described in text or as note under the table.
L286-286 “services to be improved” is written twice is same sentence.
L394-399 Unclear and too long sentence
L507 Latin names should be written in italics
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Dear authors,
Overall quality of paper and English language is significantly improved. It is visible that extensive editing of manuscript was done and that translates to better overall presentation.
Title of the manuscript has been changed, but I do not agree with title and usage of word critical ecosystem services. Even though authors explained that they do not perceive some ecosystem services more critical than others, that term remained in the title. This way you are introducing new term that was not described before and there should be very good reason for this decision. You have failed to provide such and therefore it should be omitted from the title. Instead of ‘critical’, word ‘some’ would seem more appropriate. Second remark regarding title that it should include Case study as this is appropriate for this research. Proposal for title would be: Evaluation of the Equity and Regional Management of Some Urban Green Space Ecosystem Services: A Case Study of Main Urban Area of Xi’an City.
Again, critical ecosystem services are repeated on few places in manuscript. Authors are advised to check this issue.
Sentences in L320-322 and L327-330 are not direct results of this research and should be integrated with discussion part of manuscript.
There are some minor text issues:
L95 Figures and Tables should be numbered in the order they appear in the text. All Figures and Tables need to be referenced in the text in same style. For instance, Figure 1 is listed as Fig. 1 and for others it is Figure 2, etc.
L87 ‘Using’, a small letter
L138 You measured 1795 trees or total of 1795 measurements were made on ? number of trees? This should be made more clear to readers
L260 … of of Xi’an City.
L293 1km. It must always be a space between the numerical value and unit symbol except the plane angle and percent.
L329 sycamore should not be in italic. Or change Koelreuteria to Golden rain tree
L423 ‘We’, a small letter
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
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.
