Ecological Suitability of Island Development Based on Ecosystem Services Value, Biocapacity and Ecological Footprint: A Case Study of Pingtan Island, Fujian, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the paper provides some interesting and useful evaluation for the sustainability of a small island. The conclusions are straightforward, however, the English could be improved for clarity on all conclusions. 

 

Specific comments:

Line 148 - EQ generally refers to equivalence factor there seem to be many typos confusing equilibrium factor and equivalence factor. Please change all references of EQ to equivalence factor and remove all reference to “equilibrium factor”. This issue occurs many times throughout the paper. And in table 5.

Reference #64 is used on line 246 to suggest 12% of biocapacity should be set aside for biodiversity conservation. This is a very dated reference, and original authors of the paper currently do not adopt this convention due to its arbitrary nature, especially when using this factor in respect to specific ecosystems. It would be better not to deduct 12% and state that some amount must be conserved for the biodiversity and integrity of ecosystems. E.O Wilson maintains that 50% of land must remain wild – and this is equally arbitrary..

Line 282 – “it becomes necessary to balance these by controlling the population…” is extremely prescriptive. Controlling the population is an active prescription, while the outcome of having a lower population is the result that will truly lessen total EF and increase BC per capita. There are ways to achieve a lower population without controlling population. This language should be changed to be acceptable.

Conclusion #2 also refers to controlling population – and should be rephrased.

Reference #44, referring to EQF and YF factors, values and EF methodology should refer to the most recent publication:

Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., Mancini, M., Martindill, J., Medouar, F.Z., Huang, S., Wackernagel, M. (2018), Ecological footprint accounting for countries: Updates and results of the national footprint accounts, 2012-2018. Resources, 7(3), 58.

Author Response

Overall, the paper provides some interesting and useful evaluation for the sustainability of a small island. The conclusions are straightforward, however, the English could be improved for clarity on all conclusions. 

[Response] Thanks so much for your detailed reviews that have indeed helped us to improve this manuscript greatly. Revised places have highlighted in yellow. We hope this paper has been revised properly in consideration of all your comments and suggestions. This paper was sent to a native English speaker for overhaul.

Specific comments:

[Comment 1] Line 148 - EQ generally refers to equivalence factor there seem to be many typos confusing equilibrium factor and equivalence factor. Please change all references of EQ to equivalence factor and remove all reference to “equilibrium factor”. This issue occurs many times throughout the paper. And in table 5.

[Response] We apologized for confusing English terminology “equivalence factor” and “equilibrium factor”, and they were corrected now.

[Comment 2] Reference #64 is used on line 246 to suggest 12% of biocapacity should be set aside for biodiversity conservation. This is a very dated reference, and original authors of the paper currently do not adopt this convention due to its arbitrary nature, especially when using this factor in respect to specific ecosystems. It would be better not to deduct 12% and state that some amount must be conserved for the biodiversity and integrity of ecosystems. E.O Wilson maintains that 50% of land must remain wild – and this is equally arbitrary.

[Response] This is a very useful suggestion. We modified the calculation formulas (Line 186-192). However, a certain number is needed in the calculation of per capita BC. We have searched for related literature. Some of them are not set aside any biocapacity, while most of literature which are set aside biocapacity for biodiversity conservation still used 12% in calculation. Therefore, we still used 12% in the calculation and explained at Line 192-194.

[Comment 3] Line 282 – “it becomes necessary to balance these by controlling the population…” is extremely prescriptive. Controlling the population is an active prescription, while the outcome of having a lower population is the result that will truly lessen total EF and increase BC per capita. There are ways to achieve a lower population without controlling population. This language should be changed to be acceptable.

[Response] We apologized that we cannot understand what you mean by “There are ways to achieve a lower population without controlling population”. Maybe you mean there are ways to realize the result that lessen total EF and increase BC per capita, and controlling the population is just one of them. We changed this sentence into “Strategies, such as population control, agriculture relocation and pollution reduction, should be adopted to balance the EF and BC of the island” (Line 321-322)

[Comment 4] Conclusion #2 also refers to controlling population – and should be rephrased.

[Response] Here was changed into “strategies can also be taken to reduce the ecological footprint.” (Line 368)

[Comment 5] Reference #44, referring to EQF and YF factors, values and EF methodology should refer to the most recent publication:

Lin, D., Hanscom, L., Murthy, A., Galli, A., Evans, M., Neill, E., Mancini, M., Martindill, J., Medouar, F.Z., Huang, S., Wackernagel, M. (2018), Ecological footprint accounting for countries: Updates and results of the national footprint accounts, 2012-2018. Resources, 7(3), 58.

[Response] According to the suggestion, factors have been updated. EF and BC are recalculated. Related contents were adjusted, too.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This case study analyses ecosystem service values, ecological footprint and biocapacity using time-series remotely sensed and statistical data at Pingtan Island, China. And after discussing the underlying meanings, this paper proposed a new measurement framework of the ecological sustainability.

I can judge this study has an academic originality and proper logic form.

However, this paper has several points to be corrected and brushed up. These are the following,

Table 4 “Raw Material supply”: “- +” may be “- -“.

       “Air Regulations” : “- +” may be “- -“.

Table5 Why the word “Equilibrium factor” are underlined?

L205 The color of period after “(table 5)” should be black.

Figure 5 The comment on provisioning service is double copied and the comment on cultural service is missing.

L211- 244 The author(s) should discuss the issue on cultural services in the main text.

 

Author Response

This case study analyses ecosystem service values, ecological footprint and biocapacity using time-series remotely sensed and statistical data at Pingtan Island, China. And after discussing the underlying meanings, this paper proposed a new measurement framework of the ecological sustainability.

I can judge this study has an academic originality and proper logic form.

[Response] We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comments to improve this paper. Revised places have highlighted in yellow. We hope this paper has been revised properly in consideration of all your comments and suggestions.

However, this paper has several points to be corrected and brushed up. These are the following,

[Comment 1] Table 4 “Raw Material supply”: “- +” may be “- -“.

       “Air Regulations” : “- +” may be “- -“.

[Response] We apologized for the careless mistakes. Thank you for your reminding. It has been corrected.

[Comment 2] Table5 Why the word “Equilibrium factor” are underlined?

[Response] It was a typo and has been corrected now.

[Comment 3] L205 The color of period after “(table 5)” should be black.

[Response] Thank you for your careful reading. The color is changed.

[Comment 4] Figure 5 The comment on provisioning service is double copied and the comment on cultural service is missing.

[Response] Thanks. We have corrected Figure 5 based on your suggestions.

[Comment 5] L211- 244 The author(s) should discuss the issue on cultural services in the main text.

[Response] Thanks for your suggestion. One paragraph was added in Section 5.1 to discuss the influences of island development on cultural services. (Line 272-276)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The submitted manuscript is of international interest as it opens new perspectives and approaches for investigating sustainable development conditions of small islands under the severe stress from limited resources.

Yet, additional efforts are necessary to improve the quality of the paper submitted to such a highly-ranked journal. My comments and suggestions for specific lines are given in italics below:

Line 48: “marine comprehensive resources” - definition is required

Lines 53–54. “The ecological suitability of island development has attracted widespread attention.” Reference is needed, e.g., Povilanskas, R., Armaitienė, A., Dyack, B., Jurkus, E. (2016). Islands of prescription and islands of negotiation. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 5(3), 260-274

Lines 66–67: “However, direct measures and assessments of the ecological suitability of island development are very limited” – this argument must be explicitly grounded explaining the reason for such a hindrance

Lines 70–71: A broader perspective on coastal sustainability indicators is necessary, cf. e.g., Karnauskaitė, D., Schernewski, G., Schumacher, J., Grunert, R., Povilanskas, R. (2018). Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe using an indicator based tool; Journal of Coastal Conservation 22, 549-570

Lines 74–76: “ecological footprint (EF) and biocapacity (BC)” - definition is required

Line 106 “Methods and data.” A flowchart visualizing the consequent steps in the process of calculating ESV, EF and BC is required

Line 150: “Data comes from government statistics.” A separate paragraph validating the quality and reliability of the data is necessary.

Line 170: There should be a hypothesis for testing provided with the text given in the initial part of Chapter 5.2 (lines 246–250) to be moved from Discussion to Methods

Lines 288–290. “Thus, it can be used to help determine the ecological suitability of island development. In recent studies, the indicators of lakes, wetlands, and water demands of rivers were chosen to determine the ecological suitability of development[70,71].” Additional reference is necessary to broaden and enhance argumentation: Clara, I., Dyack, B., Rolfe, J., Newton, A., Borg, D., Povilanskas, R., Brito, A.C. (2018). The Value of Coastal Lagoons: Case Study of Recreation at the Ria de Aveiro, Portugal in comparison to the Coorong, Australia; Journal for Nature Conservation 43, 190-200

Lines 320–327: The principal conclusion must provide the statement regarding the testing of the quantitative hypothesis, i.e. if and to what degree the development on the Pingtan Island is ecologically suitable based on the calculation results.

Author Response

The submitted manuscript is of international interest as it opens new perspectives and approaches for investigating sustainable development conditions of small islands under the severe stress from limited resources.

[Response] We would like to thank you for your constructive comments concerning our article. These comments are all valuable and helpful for improving our article. All the authors have seriously discussed about all these comments. According to the comments, we have tried best to modify our manuscript. Revised places have highlighted in yellow.

Yet, additional efforts are necessary to improve the quality of the paper submitted to such a highly-ranked journal. My comments and suggestions for specific lines are given in italics below:

[Comment 1] Line 48: “marine comprehensive resources” - definition is required

[Response] What we want to express here is that social and economic development of island mainly focused on marine biological resources such as fishery and aquaculture, and nowadays development involves broader marine resources such as harbor construction, bathing beach, coastal landscape, water recreation and so on.

We apologized that the expression made you confuse. It had been changed into “With the progress in marine science and technology, the social and economic development of islands has changed from previous era, which depended on marine biological resources to the current era depends on the comprehensive development of marine resources” (Line 48-51)

[Comment 2] Lines 53–54. “The ecological suitability of island development has attracted widespread attention.” Reference is needed,

e.g., Povilanskas, R., Armaitienė, A., Dyack, B., Jurkus, E. (2016). Islands of prescription and islands of negotiation. Journal of Destination Marketing and Management 5(3), 260-274

[Response] Reference has been added.

[Comment 3] Lines 66–67: “However, direct measures and assessments of the ecological suitability of island development are very limited” – this argument must be explicitly grounded explaining the reason for such a hindrance

[Response] Government statistics data are mainly in administrative unit, it’s hard to obtain data of island only, such as yield data, economic data. Therefore, direct measures and assessments of the ecological suitability of island development are seldom, only in county-level islands. The reason has been explained and the expression has been changed. (Line 69-71)

[Comment 4] Lines 70–71: A broader perspective on coastal sustainability indicators is necessary, cf.

e.g., Karnauskaitė, D., Schernewski, G., Schumacher, J., Grunert, R., Povilanskas, R. (2018). Assessing coastal management case studies around Europe using an indicator based tool; Journal of Coastal Conservation 22, 549-570

[Response] The advice is very useful. As island is a significant part of coastal zone, research on island development is closely related to coastal sustainability. The perspective had been added. (Line 72-75)

[Comment 5] Lines 74–76: “ecological footprint (EF) and biocapacity (BC)” - definition is required

[Response] Definition has been added. (Line 80-81, 84-86)

[Comment 6] Line 106 “Methods and data.” A flowchart visualizing the consequent steps in the process of calculating ESV, EF and BC is required

[Response] Flowchart has been added (Figure 2).

[Comment 7] Line 150: “Data comes from government statistics.” A separate paragraph validating the quality and reliability of the data is necessary.

[Response] Thanks a lot for suggestion. Data in the calculation of EF was government statistics data such as Population, yield of crops. It is collected from government’s publication. Details of data and data sources are in Supplemental Information.

[Comment 8] Line 170: There should be a hypothesis for testing provided with the text given in the initial part of Chapter 5.2 (lines 246–250) to be moved from Discussion to Methods

[Response] The hypothesis is now in Methods (Line 194-197).

[Comment 9] Lines 288–290. “Thus, it can be used to help determine the ecological suitability of island development. In recent studies, the indicators of lakes, wetlands, and water demands of rivers were chosen to determine the ecological suitability of development[70,71].” Additional reference is necessary to broaden and enhance argumentation:

Clara, I., Dyack, B., Rolfe, J., Newton, A., Borg, D., Povilanskas, R., Brito, A.C. (2018). The Value of Coastal Lagoons: Case Study of Recreation at the Ria de Aveiro, Portugal in comparison to the Coorong, Australia; Journal for Nature Conservation 43, 190-200

[Response] Reference has been added.

[Comment 10] Lines 320–327: The principal conclusion must provide the statement regarding the testing of the quantitative hypothesis, i.e. if and to what degree the development on the Pingtan Island is ecologically suitable based on the calculation results.

[Response] The statement has been added. After discussion, we think a common rule in conclusion is better, so that we put a common statement without referring to Pingtan Island here. (Line 364-365)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

The manuscript proposes a framework to evaluate ecological suitability of human development in islands. The topic is surely interesting as islands (and coastal areas in general) suffer for intense urbanization and human impacts. However, the paper needs mojor improvements before to be published. following my comments:

- Language style and grammar need to be improved. Some paragraphs are hard to read and consequently difficult to follow. Several sentences need to be rephrased (e.g. L17-18, L239-240, and many others) or have repetitions (e.g. L44-50).

- It is not clear how ESV calculation was "corrected accoridng the situation of Pingtan Island". For what I understood, ecosystem service values were derived by Xie et al. who used a beneft trasfer approach (correcting Costanza et al values). Such approach has several and important limitations that should be at least discussed. See for example Aschonitis et al 2016 and Plummer 2009

Aschonitis et al (2016). Criticism on elasticity-sensitivity coefficient for assessing the robustness and sensitivity of ecosystem services values. Ecosystem services, 20, 66-68. Plummer (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 38-45.   - The authors largely use acronims (ESV; BC; EF, etc) that are not explicited. A list of acronims used in text is needed.   - "3.3 Calculation of EF and BC". The assumpations and theory on which the equations are absed on should be better explained.   - L179-184: reclamation is a very important issue in land cover/use change topic. I suggest to discuss the topic more in deep citing international literature   - Not clear how the values reported in Table3 were calculated.   - L227-228: "The reduction of provisioning services could be compensated from external after island development". This would generate additional impacts due to transport. Are these impacts somehow accounted in your method? if yes, how the results could change?                  

Author Response

The manuscript proposes a framework to evaluate ecological suitability of human development in islands. The topic is surely interesting as islands (and coastal areas in general) suffer for intense urbanization and human impacts. However, the paper needs mojor improvements before to be published. following my comments:

[Response] Thank you for your positive comments on our manuscript. Based on the suggestions, we have made an extensive modification on the revised manuscript. Detailed revision was shown as follows. Revised places have highlighted in yellow.

[Comment 1] Language style and grammar need to be improved. Some paragraphs are hard to read and consequently difficult to follow. Several sentences need to be rephrased (e.g. L17-18, L239-240, and many others) or have repetitions (e.g. L44-50).

[Response] We apologized for that, and this paper was sent to a native English speaker for overhaul.

[Comment 2] It is not clear how ESV calculation was "corrected accoridng the situation of Pingtan Island". For what I understood, ecosystem service values were derived by Xie et al. who used a beneft trasfer approach (correcting Costanza et al values). Such approach has several and important limitations that should be at least discussed. See for example Aschonitis et al 2016 and Plummer 2009

Aschonitis et al (2016). Criticism on elasticity-sensitivity coefficient for assessing the robustness and sensitivity of ecosystem services values. Ecosystem services, 20, 66-68.

Plummer (2009). Assessing benefit transfer for the valuation of ecosystem services. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 7(1), 38-45.  

[Response] This is a very useful suggestion. Ecosystem service values derived by Xie et al. (2015) were general parameters. Since vegetational types, crop types are different in different regions, the parameters must be selected and modified according to the situation of study area. The selected and modified rule has been explained in the Methods. (Line 146-152)

[Comment 3] The authors largely use acronims (ESV; BC; EF, etc) that are not explicited. A list of acronims used in text is needed.  

[Response] Thanks. We have added the list after Key Words. (Line 32-36)

[Comment 4] "3.3 Calculation of EF and BC". The assumpations and theory on which the equations are based on should be better explained.

[Response] The equations are commonly calculation formulas of EF and BC. Therefore, we didn’t explain in detail. Thank you for your reminding and we have added references for these two equations. You can find details in Reference #45:

Toderoiu, F. (2010). Ecological footprint and biocapacity–Methodology and regional and national dimensions. Agricultural Economics and Rural Development, 2, 213-238.

[Comment 5] L179-184: reclamation is a very important issue in land cover/use change topic. I suggest to discuss the topic more in deep citing international literature  

[Response] We appreciated for your suggestion. Reclamation can remedy the limitation of lack of land for more economic benefits. However, it also leads to many ecological problems such as enormous loss of vegetated coastal wetlands. We have discussed reclamation more in Section 5.1 (Line 277-284).

[Comment 6] Not clear how the values reported in Table3 were calculated.

[Response] This is the selected and modified result from parameters derived by Xie et al. (2015). The selected and modified rule has been explained in the Methods. (Line 146-152)

[Comment 7] L227-228: "The reduction of provisioning services could be compensated from external after island development". This would generate additional impacts due to transport. Are these impacts somehow accounted in your method? if yes, how the results could change?  

[Response] Thanks for your opinion. Compensation from external has many limitations. We have stated in the text (Line 307-308).
This study mainly forces on the part which cannot compensate from external. They are related to the ecological restricting factors during island development. External compensation is put forward as strategies to relieve the ecological pressure. Therefore, we didn’t account and discuss a lot on the limitations of external compensation. This is a considerable issue and we may do a research on it in the future.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 4 Report

The authors addressed all my previous comments and suggestions. I don't have further comments to arise except one.

I reccomand to add a specific section on the limitiations of the approach and how these can be considered acceptable. For example, the use of benefit transfer method for ES value was largely used and abused in literature. The literature previuosly suggested provide suitable arguments for the dicussion.

Author Response

The authors addressed all my previous comments and suggestions. I don't have further comments to arise except one.

[Response] We would like to express our sincere appreciation for your careful reading and invaluable comment to improve this paper. Revised places have highlighted in yellow. We hope this paper has been revised properly in consideration of your comment and suggestion.

[Comment] I reccomand to add a specific section on the limitiations of the approach and how these can be considered acceptable. For example, the use of benefit transfer method for ES value was largely used and abused in literature. The literature previuosly suggested provide suitable arguments for the dicussion.

[Response] Thanks for your suggestion. Ecosystem services are the benefits that people can obtain from ecosystems, and they change as the ecological environment changes. Thus, they can be indicators of ecological environment. (Line 79-81). The method indeed has some limitations, such as regional differences and uncertainties. We have modified the parameters (Line 143-152) and explained the uncertainties (Line 157-158 and 285-287). Besides, the limitation of proposed framework is added. It is suitable for islands that develop rapidly, including Pingtan Island, with rapid land use change and high pressure on ecological environment (Line 350-353).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf