Exploring Expedient Protected Area for Ecosystem Services: Decision-Making Method with a New Algorithm
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The topic of the paper is interesting and important. To be published I would suggest reconsider the paper based on the following my comments:
The abstract must be rewritten. The phrase "risk scenario 6 is selected" should be changed for two reasons. First, we have no idea (from the abstract) what all these scenarios are. Second, the term "optimal" must be changed (see the next my comment). I suggest something like "The expedient protected area scenario with highest trade-off value is selected".
Change "optimal protected scenario" on, for example, "expedient protected scenario" since, strictly speaking, talking about optimality we must introduce the optimality index which is usually formulated as a certain cost function that should be minimize or maximize. This note also applies to "optimal protected area". These are mandatory suggestions.
The word "optimal" in the paper title must be also changed.
The definition of "Ecological services" must be provided.
The definition of "risk" must be provided and explained. There are dozens of "risk" definitions depending on the context. Applying this term, you must have a clear understanding what does it mean. You should explain the range of risk change as well.
The risk value of 0.5 looks trivial. With respect to this, some explanations and discussions must be provided.
Line 48: Why only these factors was chosen? Please explain.
Minor:
Line 17-18: "Ordered Weighted Averaged". Should be "Averaging".
In lines 30, 39, 73 please insert empty space after the dot (check the entire paper).
In lines 566, 73, 76, 81, 137, 150 remove an empty space in front of the dot (check the entire paper).
Line 83: " Multi-criterion". Should be " multi-criterion".
Line 140-142: the equation (1) must be written in one line. Same for other equations.
Line 143: instead of " water production, mm;" should be " water production, in mm;". Same changes should be made for all equations.
Line 177: check the capital letter "A".
Lines 319-320: " The regulation, support, supply and cultural services account for 319 71.31 %, 19.01 %, 5.86 % and 3.81 % of the total ecosystem service value". The question: how you got these numbers?
Line 460: Don’t begin the sentence from "And".
Author Response
Dear Reviewer:
Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments on our contribution entitled "Exploring expedient protected area for ecosystem services:decision-making method with a new algorithm" and for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript.
In accordance with your suggestion and the detailed comments , we have carefully revised the original manuscript, the following is the answer to specific questions, if there are any shortcomings, please correct.
Thanks a lot for your advice and consideration.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This study is very interesting, elegantly executed and relevant.
It would be good to use the word "optimization" early in the paper and abstract, as this is commonly used to describe this type of model.
In general, there are agreement issues with plurals, some minor punctuation issues with periods and commas, and some minor vocabulary issues. (Examples: line 29, line 39, line 60, line 78, line 464 "strangling?")
Around line 52, it is important to define OWA before using it as an abbreviation. Also, a few lines describing to the audience what it is and what other models were comparable or considered is needed before launching into an explanation of why OWA was used in this study.
Line 55 has awkward sentence structure.
Consider making lines 52 to 80 two or more paragraphs.
In the Methods section, each spatial data set used needs to have the format and spatial resolution or scale defined, so people can determine if they are ecologically appropriate.
Lines 327 to 331 of the Results are redundant from the Methods.
Author Response
Dear reviewer,
Thank you very much for your positive and constructive comments on our contribution entitled "Exploring expedient protected area for ecosystem services:decision-making method with a new algorithm" and for giving us the opportunity to revise the manuscript.In accordance with your suggestion and the detailed comments , we have carefully revised the original manuscript, the following is the answer to specific questions, if there are any shortcomings, please correct.
Thank you very much for your advice and consideration.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I accept all of your comments.
