Assessing the Potential Impacts of Urban Expansion on Hydrological Ecosystem Services in a Rapidly Urbanizing Lake Basin in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall paper is a very interesting but author should need for editing language and remove the grammar errors with update the references.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: Overall paper is a very interesting but author should need for editing language and remove the grammar errors with update the references.

Response 1: The authors would like to thank you for your recognition of the significance of our paper, and your constructive comments and suggestions which have substantially improved the quality of this manuscript. In the Introduction part, we added several recent references in Page 4, Line 63-71, Line 74-77 & Page 5, Line 78-84 & Page 6, Line 102-115. In the Discussion part, we also added several recent references in Pages 28-30, Line 445-468 & Pages 31-32, Line 492-516. In addition to the revision of the content of our manuscript, we have carefully proofread the language throughout the paper, and reduced the length of the manuscript by removing some wordy expressions, and some figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article proposes a methodology of territorial analysis for urban development planning from an environmental point of view, which is absolutely necessary. The methodology of analysis of conditioning factors is appropriate and is in line with what is required in some countries as a prerequisite for any urban planning action. Environmental studies are absolutely necessary for sustainable urban planning.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: The article proposes a methodology of territorial analysis for urban development planning from an environmental point of view, which is absolutely necessary. The methodology of analysis of conditioning factors is appropriate and is in line with what is required in some countries as a prerequisite for any urban planning action. Environmental studies are absolutely necessary for sustainable urban planning.

Response 1: The authors would like to thank you for your recognition of the significance of our paper, and your constructive comments and suggestions which have substantially improved the quality of this manuscript. In addition to the revision of the content of our manuscript, we have carefully proofread the language throughout the paper, and reduced the length of the manuscript by removing some wordy expressions, and some figures.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

This is good paper - it attempt to model the impact of urbanisation to the hydrological ecosystem services (HES) using spatial visualisation using inVEST and CLUE-S prediction and simulation models. The uniqueness of this paper is they attempt to model the prediction output according to three scenarios from national policies related to agriculture and forestry.

I think the paper is too long - up to 37 pages - where the discussion on the results could be written in compact, full of argument in a short subsections. 

one of this paper discussion is to produce simulation based on 4 scenarios - perhaps, a literature review of the policies could be explain in section 2.0 literature review.

The discussion of this paper lack of the the limitation of findings, what are their future recommendation and further details how the findings is crucial to support national and global agenda.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 3 Comments

Point 1: This is good paper - it attempt to model the impact of urbanisation to the hydrological ecosystem services (HES) using spatial visualisation using inVEST and CLUE-S prediction and simulation models. The uniqueness of this paper is they attempt to model the prediction output according to three scenarios from national policies related to agriculture and forestry.

Response 1: The authors would like to thank you for your recognition of the significance of our paper, and your constructive comments and suggestions which have substantially improved the quality of this manuscript. In addition to the revision of the content of our manuscript, we have carefully proofread the language throughout the paper, and reduced the length of the manuscript by removing some wordy expressions, and some figures.

Point 2: I think the paper is too long - up to 37 pages - where the discussion on the results could be written in compact, full of argument in a short subsections. 

Response 2: Thank you for this valuable comment. Discussion part has been revised in compact (Pages 28-30, Line 440-468 & Page 31, Line 491-496). In addition, we reduced the length of the manuscript by removing some wordy expressions in Discussion and the Figure 4.

Point 3：one of this paper discussion is to produce simulation based on 4 scenarios - perhaps, a literature review of the policies could be explain in section 2.0 literature review.

Response 3：Thank you for this valuable comment. A literature review of the policies has been added in the revised manuscript (Pages 5-6, Line 85-101). In the Introduction part, we also added several recent references in Page 4, Line 63-71, Line 74-77 & Page 5, Line 78-84 & Page 6, Line 102-115.

Point 4: The discussion of this paper lack of the limitation of findings, what are their future recommendation and further details how the findings is crucial to support national and global agenda.

Response 4: Thank you very much for this comment. In the revision, we have added a section "Limitation of findings ", in which we discussed the limitations of our analysis and findings (Pages 31-32, Line 498-516)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In introduction  section, line no. 52,  author will add more references

1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-021-10032-x

2)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658077X21000321

3)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-021-01425-1 

As per the suggestions author have refined the whole paper.

 

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: In introduction section, line no. 52, author will add more references

1) https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12665-021-10032-x

2)https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1658077X21000321

3)https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13201-021-01425-1

As per the suggestions author have refined the whole paper.

 

Response 1: Thank you very much for recommending references to us. We have carefully read these highly recommended references, and added them in the Introduction section (Page 3, Line 52-53).