Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Reviewer notes in pdf.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Thank you very much for your insightful evaluation and comments on our paper entitled “Quantifying ecological well-being loss under rural-urban land conversion：A study from choice experiment in China” (ID: 741521). Those comments are highly constructive and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied comments point-by-point and have made revisions which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections and responses please see the attachment.

 

Sincerely,

Manman Han，  Min Song

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The quality of this article is very high. I recommend only some small amendments – e.g. something is missing in Table 1 “(such as drought, floods, soil erosion and…”, probably also too many shortcuts were used, so sometimes it is quite hard to recognize their meaning. I recommend adding also something about the quality of life research which is something related to the concept of human well-being.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Thank you very much for your insightful comments on our paper entitled “Quantifying ecological well-being loss under rural-urban land conversion：A study from choice experiment in China” (ID: 741521). Those comments are highly constructive and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied comments point-by-point and have made revisions which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections and responses please see the attachment.

 

Sincerely,

Manman Han,  Min Song

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Is it possible to insert empty questionnaire as appendix?

About English language – Please, make a control. E.g. this sentence could be written better: Face-to-face interviews were employed to collect the questionnaires

Author Response

Dear Reviewer:

 

Thank you very much for your helpful comments on our paper entitled “Quantifying ecological well-being loss under rural-urban land conversion：A study from choice experiment in China” (ID: 741521). Those comments are highly constructive and very helpful for revising and improving our manuscript. We have studied comments point-by-point and have made revisions which we hope meet with approval. The main corrections and responses please see the attachment.

 

Sincerely,

Manman Han,  Min Song

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

 

2.3.3 Experimental schemes

"To design the CE, attributes with multiple levels are combined into alternatives, and a choice set typically contains two or more options. In this research, each choice set includes 1 status scheme (option A, all remain unchanged) and 1 improved scheme (option 227 B, partially or completely improved)".

 

Authors need to discuss the limitations of this binary approach and how this could have impacted the results.

Author Response

Dear reviewer,

Thank you very much for your warmhearted help and guidance for our manuscript entitled “Quantifying ecological well-being loss under rural-urban land conversion：A study from choice experiment in China” (#741521). We have made further modifications carefully according to your precious suggestions, and we hope that the revised manuscript can meet your approval. Revised portion are highlighted in the file “Revised manuscript with track changes”. The detailed (point-by-point) list of the response to your comments is as follows. Please see the attachment.

If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Sincerely,

Manman Han, Min Song

Author Response File: Author Response.docx