The Progress and Prospects in the Scenario Simulation Research on the Sustainability of Regional Ecosystem Services Based on a “Safe Operating Space”

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Abstract:

- Include results/review highlights of the study, as well as mention future research directions and recommendations.

Introduction:

- lines 32-33, page 1: What are these various benefits of ES? Provide examples.

- lines 66-68, page 2: Give examples of these "scenarios and models" for assessing the sustainability of future ES.

Section 3:

- Provide a summary table of the discussed reference citations. What are the highlights of the different approaches, advantages and disadvantages, etc? 

Section 4:

- Insert diagram or figure of the "Safe Operating Space" concept.

Section 6:

- lines 305-206, page 6: Cite the mentioned models and discuss briefly in relation to ES.

- Summarize or outline the mentioned studies or approach of ES in table/figure form.

- lines 320-322, page 7: Remove the author enumerations and simply provide the reference number. 

Section 7:

- Only two models were mentioned in the whole study, the "participatory" scenario and the concept of regional "safe operating space"; are there any models available in the literature? If not, it is essential to emphasize the novelty of this work and highlight the unique contribution it makes to the field of ES.

There are no major issues with the English quality of the write-up. 

Author Response

Comment 1:

Abstract:- Include results/review highlights of the study, as well as mention future research directions and recommendations.

Authors’ Response:

As you suggested, we have included results of the study, as well as mention future research directions and recommendations as follows: 

“We found that (1) a number of studies have already started to explore methods for evaluating the sustainability of future ecosystem services; (2) In terms of scenario construction methods, most of the existing studies adopt the global classical scenario downscaling approach, while less consideration is given to the important socio-economic-environmental characteristics of the region itself, which affects the credibility and policy relevance of the scenarios; (3) In terms of sustainability simulation evaluation, most of the existing studies are qualitative comparisons of the sustainability of ecosystem services under different scenarios, while quantitative methods are lacking. To address above identified challenges, future research should combine participatory scenario construction and regional safe operating space…..”. Please see lines 14-23.

Comment 2:

Introduction:- lines 32-33, page 1: What are these various benefits of ES? Provide examples.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your great suggestions.  We have provided examples to illustrate what these various benefits of ES are.

“Ecosystem services (ES) refer to the various benefits (such as food provisioning, air purification, and water retention) that humans obtain from ecosystems, serving as a crucial foundation for human well-being….” Please see lines 37-38.

Comment 3:

Introduction: - lines 66-68, page 2: Give examples of these "scenarios and models" for assessing the sustainability of future ES.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your great suggestions.  We have provided examples of these "scenarios and models" for assessing the sustainability of future ES.

“The integration of scenarios (such as the Shared Socioeconomic Pathways (SSPs)) and models (such as InVEST model) for assessing the sustainability of future ES has become a frontier in ES science.” Please see lines 71-73.

Comment 4:

Section 3:- Provide a summary table of the discussed reference citations. What are the highlights of the different approaches, advantages and disadvantages, etc?

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your suggestions.  We have added a table to summarize the main characteristics of different models for simulating ecosystem services.

Table 1. The main models of ecosystem service simulation and their characteristics.

Comment 5:

Section 4:- Insert diagram or figure of the "Safe Operating Space" concept.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your suggestions.  We have inserted a figure to illustrate the evolution of "Safe Operating Space" concept in line 212 as follows:

Figure 1. the evolution of safe operating space approaches.

Comment6:

Section 6:- lines 305-206, page 6: Cite the mentioned models and discuss briefly in relation to ES.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your suggestions.  We have cited the mentioned models and discuss briefly in relation to ES as follows:

“For example, the combination of spatially explicit terrestrial ecosystem process models (e.g., Agro-IBIS), land hydrological pathway models (e.g., THMB), and lake water quali-ty models (e.g., WQM) can be used to simulate terrestrial and freshwater eco-hydrological processes [11]. The corresponding indicators of the simulated ecosystem processes by the above three linked models can be used to indicate important types of ES in the region.” In lines 318-323.

Comment 7:

Section 6:- Summarize or outline the mentioned studies or approach of ES in table/figure form.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your suggestions.  We have added Figure 2 and Figure 3 to summarize the mentioned approaches of ES. Please see lines 324-325, and lines 363-366.

Figure 2. Steps of "participatory" future scenario building

Figure 3. Schematic diagram of safe operational spatial identification methods for different ecosystem service change trend types, which was derived from Dearing et al. (2014)[38]

Comment 8:

Section 6:- lines 320-322, page 7: Remove the author enumerations and simply provide the reference number.

Authors’ Response:

Done as suggested.

Comment 9:

Section 7:- Only two models were mentioned in the whole study, the "participatory" scenario and the concept of regional "safe operating space"; are there any models available in the literature? If not, it is essential to emphasize the novelty of this work and highlight the unique contribution it makes to the field of ES.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your comments.  Actually both "participatory" scenario and regional "safe operating space" are new approaches developed in the field of sustainability science. The novelty of this study is that we draw on these two new approaches in sustainability science to address two challenges in the future sustainability evaluation of ecosystem services: (1) In terms of scenario construction methods, most of the existing studies adopt the downscaling approach of global classical scenarios, but less consideration is given to the important socio-economic-environmental characteristics of the region itself, which affects the credibility and policy relevance of the scenarios. To address this issue, this project proposes to adopt a "participatory" scenario construction method, which integrates top-down global typical scenarios with bottom-up important socio-economic-environmental characteristics through stakeholder participation to construct scenarios.

(2) In terms of sustainability simulation and evaluation, most of the existing studies are qualitative comparisons of the sustainability of ecosystem services under different scenarios, but there is a lack of quantitative methods. The "safe operating space" is a cutting-edge method for quantitative evaluation of environmental sustainability. However, it is currently applied mostly at global and national scales, and less applied in the field of regional scale ecosystem service sustainability assessment. This project proposes to quantitatively evaluate the sustainability of ecosystem services based on a bottom-up regionalized "safe operating space" approach.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

This article collated research advances in scenario simulation, assessment of ES sustainability, and safe operating space, and proposed a conceptual framework for research into coupling scenario stimulation and safe operating space into ES sustainability assessment. This article makes sense, but there is still room for improvement.

1. In section 2, recent advances in scenario stimulation have been limited mainly to presenting the logic and advantages of its application and have not provided an overview of its main advances from a research perspective, such as its application in other areas (e.g. land use forecasting).

2. In section 5, with regard to some aspects that need to be improved, such as the scenario-construction approach, most of the description has already been covered earlier, and the author should have analyzed it in a more integrated way in relation to practice, rather than simply repeating the previous summary.

3. Line 320-322. When citing a literature, it is only necessary to indicate the first author.

In my opinion, the logic of expression, sentence structure and grammar of the article are generally in line with the requirements

Author Response

Comment 1:

This article collated research advances in scenario simulation, assessment of ES sustainability, and safe operating space, and proposed a conceptual framework for research into coupling scenario stimulation and safe operating space into ES sustainability assessment. This article makes sense, but there is still room for improvement.

Authors’ Response:

We appreciate your valuable comments and suggestions.  We have revised this manuscript accordingly based on your suggestions.

Comment 2:

In section 2, recent advances in scenario stimulation have been limited mainly to presenting the logic and advantages of its application and have not provided an overview of its main advances from a research perspective, such as its application in other areas (e.g. land use forecasting).

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your comments.  I totally agree that we should provide an overview of scenario approaches from a research perspective. Actually, the overview of most research perspective of scenario approaches was in Section 3 “The application progress of scenario simulation methods in the assessment of ecosystem service sustainability.”  Because the focus of this study was to combine scenario approach and ecosystem services. Thus, we only reviewed the application of this method in the field of ecosystem services.

Comment 3:

In section 5, with regard to some aspects that need to be improved, such as the scenario-construction approach, most of the description has already been covered earlier, and the author should have analyzed it in a more integrated way in relation to practice, rather than simply repeating the previous summary.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your great suggestions.  We have deleted the repeating sentences. Please see line 262.

Comment 4:

Line 320-322. When citing a literature, it is only necessary to indicate the first author.

Authors’ Response:

Revised as suggested.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,

I have carefully reviewed your manuscript titled "Progress and Prospects in Scenario Simulation Research on the Sustainability of Regional Ecosystem Services Based on "Safe Operating Space" and appreciate the effort you have put into your work. However, after thorough evaluation, I regret to inform you that I’m unable to accept your submission for publication. The decision is based on the following grounds, which highlight several areas where the manuscript does not meet the scientific standards:

Insufficient literature review: The literature review in your manuscript is not comprehensive enough to provide a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic. It is crucial to conduct an extensive literature search to include relevant studies and ensure the inclusion of up-to-date research. A fundamental problem of this work is the selection of literature. It is not clear in which way the cited studies were selected and according to which criteria the analyses on the individual topics were carried out.

Inadequate critical evaluation of the literature: Your manuscript does not sufficiently analyze and critically evaluate the existing literature. A good review article should go beyond summarizing studies and should provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the reviewed research.

Outdated literature: The references cited in your manuscript are not up-to-date and do not reflect the most current research in the field. It is crucial to incorporate recent studies and findings to provide readers with the latest insights.

I understand that you have invested significant time and effort in your research; however, at this stage, I believe that major revisions are necessary to meet the required scientific standards. 

I encourage you to carefully address the aforementioned issues before considering re-submission.

Best regards,

Author Response

Comment 1:

Insufficient literature review: The literature review in your manuscript is not comprehensive enough to provide a thorough overview of the current state of knowledge on the topic. It is crucial to conduct an extensive literature search to include relevant studies and ensure the inclusion of up-to-date research. A fundamental problem of this work is the selection of literature. It is not clear in which way the cited studies were selected and according to which criteria the analyses on the individual topics were carried out.

Authors’ Response:

Actually, this review is a traditional literature review rather than systematic literature review.  For traditional literature review there is a risk of bias for selecting and interpreting the literature.  However, the quality of traditional literature review is greatly determined by the author’s knowledge system. The corresponding author of this manuscript is an expert in this field, and has published more than 20 articles in this field which has added some confidence for this literature review.

Comment 2:

Inadequate critical evaluation of the literature: Your manuscript does not sufficiently analyze and critically evaluate the existing literature. A good review article should go beyond summarizing studies and should provide an in-depth analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations of the reviewed research.

Authors’ Response:

Actually, we have provided an in-depth analysis of the strengths, weaknesses, and limitations the reviewed research. The following sentences are a few examples:

Lines 82-86: “qualitative storylines help illustrate complex variables that are difficult to quantify in the social-ecological system and are more readily accepted by stakeholders, thus ex-panding the impact of the research. However, using only qualitative descriptions often raises questions about the scientific rigor of the scenarios” (strengths and weaknesses)

Lines 104-107:” Stakeholder involvement is beneficial for integrating different types of knowledge, such as scientific knowledge, perspectives, expectations, and desires. It also facilitates social learning and collective action, thereby better achieving the desired objectives” (stengths)

Lines 130-139:” Regarding scenario drivers, current regional-scale scenario simulation research mostly focuses on the direct drivers such as climate change [21]and land-use change [22] and their impacts on future ES. For instance, a recent review found that over 90% of 52 aquatic ES scenario simulation studies only considered one or two easily quantifiable di-rect drivers, with less consideration for indirect drivers such as population, policy, and economy [23]. The interdisciplinary nature and difficulty in quantification may be signif-icant reasons for neglecting indirect driving factors. However, research suggests that narrative scenarios enriched with indirect driving factors are equally important. In many cases, the degradation of ecosystem services caused by indirect factors may outweigh the influence of direct drivers like climate change” (weakness)

Lines 153-157:” Downscaling the global typical scenario framework facilitates comparability across dif-ferent regional case studies, but this method often overlooks the consideration of re-gionally important social-economic-environmental conditions. Diversified scenarios based on regional key features have important value in attracting residents and deci-sion-makers' participation”(strength and weakness).

Lines 172-183:” In terms of sustainable simulation assessment, there are currently several models (Table 1) available for simulating future changes in ES under different scenarios, such as the INVEST model, TESSA model, IMAGE model, and ARIES model, among others. However, it is still unclear how to determine the sustainability of ES changes under dif-ferent scenarios. Existing studies often qualitatively compare the trends of future ES changes under different scenarios [25-28], and researchers tend to believe that a decrease in ES quantity indicates unsustainability[30]. In fact, based on sustainability theory[3], regional socio-economic development inevitably leads to a certain degree of reduction in ES, but its ecological impacts need to be controlled within a certain range. Determining the reasonable range for the sustainable use of ES is crucial for quantitative evaluation of ES sustainability. The "Planetary Boundaries" concept, defining a "Safe Operating Space," provides a good framework for determining the sustainable utilization range of ES.” (strength and weakness)

Comment 3:

Outdated literature: The references cited in your manuscript are not up-to-date and do not reflect the most current research in the field. It is crucial to incorporate recent studies and findings to provide readers with the latest insights.

Authors’ Response:

Actually, we have cited many new references, such as the follows:

Fang, X.; Wu, J.; He, C. Assessing human-environment system sustainability based on Regional Safe and Just Operating Space: The case of the Inner Mongolia Grassland. Environmental Science & Policy 2021, 116, 276-286, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.12.007.

Liu, Y.; Hou, X.; Li, X.; Song, B.; Wang, C. Assessing and predicting changes in ecosystem service values based on land use/cover change in the Bohai Rim coastal zone. Ecological Indicators 2020, 111, 106004, doi:10.1016/j.ecolind.2019.106004.

Fang, X.; Ma, Q.; Wu, L.; Liu, X. Distributional environmental justice of residential walking space: The lens of urban ecosystem services supply and demand. J. Environ. Manage. 2023, 329, 117050, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.117050.

Hernández-Blanco, M.; Costanza, R.; Anderson, S.; Kubiszewski, I.; Sutton, P. Future scenarios for the value of ecosystem services in Latin America and the Caribbean to 2050. Current Research in Environmental Sustainability 2020, 2, 100008, doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.crsust.2020.100008.

Thorn, J.P.R.; Klein, J.A.; Steger, C.; Hopping, K.A.; Capitani, C.; Tucker, C.M.; Nolin, A.W.; Reid, R.S.; Seidl, R.; Chitale, V.S.; et al. A systematic review of participatory scenario planning to envision mountain social-ecological systems futures. Ecology and Society 2022, 25, doi:10.5751/es-11608-250306.

Watson, L.; Straatsma, M.W.; Wanders, N.; Verstegen, J.A.; de Jong, S.M.; Karssenberg, D. Global ecosystem service values in climate class transitions. Environmental Research Letters 2020, 15, doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ab5aab.

Fang, X.; Wu, J. Causes of overgrazing in Inner Mongolian grasslands: Searching for deep leverage points of intervention. Ecology and Society 2022, 27, 8, doi:10.5751/ES-12878-270108.

Zhong, Z.; Fang, X.; Zhang, Y.; Shu, X.; Guo, D. Mapping Ecosystem Service Supply-Demand Bundles for an Integrated Analysis of Tradeoffs in an Urban Agglomeration of China. Land 2022, 11, 1558.

Reviewer 4 Report

This is an interesting Review on the Ecosystem Services and the Drivers influencing them with the limitation that it covers Chinese conditions only. I could have appreciated a review covering global Ecosystem services. Any way, still I find it a good attempt by the authors. I do not find any fault in this Review only that it needs moderate English Editing which can be done at the editorial level. Therefore, I recommend that the Review be published without any structural changes.

Already mentioned in the report.

Author Response

Comment 1:

This is an interesting Review on the Ecosystem Services and the Drivers influencing them with the limitation that it covers Chinese conditions only. I could have appreciated a review covering global Ecosystem services. Any way, still I find it a good attempt by the authors. I do not find any fault in this Review only that it needs moderate English Editing which can be done at the editorial level. Therefore, I recommend that the Review be published without any structural changes.

Authors’ Response:

We appreciate your valuable comments.  Actually, the review of this literature covering both China context and global ecosystem services.  Our review begins with the global ecosystem service approaches, and then discuss the China context.  Besides, the methods proposed in this study can be applied in any context beyond China context.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

General Comments:

- Most of the previous comments have been addressed. However, there should be a comprehensive discussion of the other models not only focusing on the "participatory" scenario and the concept of regional "safe operating space". Also, give examples of these models in real scenarios, and put them in table form if possible.

- The added figures (Figures 1, 2, and 3) should have been well presented and selected properly. E.g. Why include three images of the evolution of safe operating space approaches in Figure 1 if they mean the same thing? The figures should be redrawn and cite the sources of these images. Simplify Figure 2, it is too wordy. Moreover, discuss Figure 3 properly and improve the representation, what is this all about?

- Add a connecting paragraph or statement of each section to follow cohesively the discussion of the manuscript. 

- The writeup has too many words, if some of the data can be put into tables or figures, it would be much appreciated. Write those with enumerations (with numbers) in bullet form or in tables. 

- Trim down discussions that are not so relevant in the manuscript. (e.g. the abstract and section 6 are too long).  

Improve writeup cohesion. 

Author Response

Comment 1:

Most of the previous comments have been addressed. However, there should be a comprehensive discussion of the other models not only focusing on the "participatory" scenario and the concept of regional "safe operating space". Also, put them in table form if possible.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for this excellent suggestion. In fact, there are many other models that simulating ES, such as the INVEST model, TESSA model, IMAGE model, and ARIES model, among others.  As you suggested, we have summarized the main characteristics of these models in table form. Please see Table 1 in the revised manuscript.

Comment 2:

The added figures (Figures 1, 2, and 3) should have been well presented and selected properly. E.g. Why include three images of the evolution of safe operating space approaches in Figure 1 if they mean the same thing? The figures should be redrawn and cite the sources of these images. Simplify Figure 2, it is too wordy. Moreover, discuss Figure 3 properly and improve the representation, what is this all about?

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your great suggestions for revising the added figures.  We have revised Figures 1,2, and 3 as you suggested.  For Figure 1 we have kept the most representative one of the three images and marked it with a citation.  For Figure 2 we removed most of the explanatory text to make it more concise.  Besides, we explained in detail the meaning of Figure 3 in lines 350-368.

Comment 3:

Add a connecting paragraph or statement of each section to follow cohesively the discussion of the manuscript.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your great suggestions.  We have added a connecting statement of each section to follow cohesively the discussion of the manuscript. Please see lines79-80, lines 117-118, lines 190-191.

Comment 4:

The writeup has too many words. Trim down discussions that are not so relevant in the manuscript. (e.g. the abstract and section 6 are too long).

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your suggestions.  We have deleted some unnecessary sentences to make the manuscript more concise, especially in the abstract and section 6.

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

Thank you very much for the revision of the draft.

As guest editor of the special issues, I guess it is up to you to decide what to do with your review article now.

Unfortunately, I am still not convinced of the scientific content of the report. I lack the classification for which ecosystems and for which ecosystem services what is said applies.

Due to the fact that only simulation models are considered here, the respective scenario building is nevertheless strongly dependent on the chosen models, also on whether they can realize the needs of the people on the ground at all. Much also depends on the chosen level of consideration of the system (micro or macro).

Similarly, it is not clear to me, for example, whether all the current 18 sub-models of InVest have been analyzed or only some of them.

In the literature used, I miss, for example:

Zhou, Z., Liu, D., Sun, Y. et al. Predicting joint effects of multiple land consolidation strategies on ecosystem service interactions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 37234–37247 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18584-6

In my opinion, this text could well be used as part of the editorial of the SI.

Author Response

Comment 1:

Thank you very much for the revision of the draft.  As guest editor of the special issues, I guess it is up to you to decide what to do with your review article now.  Unfortunately, I am still not convinced of the scientific content of the report.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for your feedback and suggestions.  We understand your concerns regarding the scientific content of the review.  We have further revised this manuscript based on your valuable suggestions as much as we can, and hope you can find the revised version satisfactory.

Comment 2:

I lack the classification for which ecosystems and for which ecosystem services what is said applies.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for pointing out this issue.  Actually, the approaches we proposed to assess the sustainability of future ecosystem services applied only to supporting services (e.g., habitat quality), provisioning services (e.g., water yield), and regulating services (e.g., water purification).  We have added related statement in lines 279-281.

Comment 3:

Due to the fact that only simulation models are considered here, the respective scenario building is nevertheless strongly dependent on the chosen models, also on whether they can realize the needs of the people on the ground at all. Much also depends on the chosen level of consideration of the system (micro or macro).

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for pointing out the limitations and uncertainties of the approach proposed in this study.  We acknowledge that the choice of simulation model, the needs of the local population, and the scale of analysis can affect the results and applicability of these methods. We have added this limitation and uncertainty in our revision and suggest that when using this approach, users should explicitly consider the choice of simulation model, the needs of the population, and the scale of the analysis. Please see lines 319-322.

Comment 4:

Similarly, it is not clear to me, for example, whether all the current 18 sub-models of InVest have been analyzed or only some of them.

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for point it out.  In fact, most of the sub-models of InVEST can be used as simulation models for this study, except for the sub-model on cultural services.  To make it clear, we have added related statement in the revised manuscript, please see lines 319-320.

Comment 5:

In the literature used, I miss, for example:

Zhou, Z., Liu, D., Sun, Y. et al. Predicting joint effects of multiple land consolidation strategies on ecosystem service interactions. Environ Sci Pollut Res 29, 37234–37247 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-022-18584-6

Authors’ Response:

Thank you for pointing out the missed literature.  We have cited this literature in the revised manuscript.

Comment 6:

In my opinion, this text could well be used as part of the editorial of the SI.

Authors’ Response:

We appreciate your suggestion to consider using some parts of the text as part of the editorial for the special issue. We will carefully assess the suitability of the text and its alignment with the objectives and scope of the special issue. If appropriate, we will explore the possibility of incorporating relevant sections into the editorial.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

I have no more major comments to address. Just a minor editing on the proper format of the journal (e.g. Figure presentations, tables, layouts, etc.). 

Minor editing required.

Author Response

Thank you very much for your valuable suggestions for this manuscript.  We have further updated the format of the manuscript based on the journal's requirements. 

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear authors,

I do not want to comment on the text again.

However, I have the impression that some of the illustrations were taken directly from other publications. Hence my renewed major concerns:

Is it clarified that the rights for all images from other publications are available? I have not found anything about this in the acknowledgements or elsewhere.

Only when this point is clarified can the document be published. 

Author Response

Thank you very much for this excellent suggestion.  We have included citations in the Figure captions and have stated in the acknowledgments that the Figures were used with the author's permission.

Round 4

Reviewer 3 Report

Dear Authors,
Even if I personally am not convinced of the scientific nature of the text, I do not want to stand in the way of its publication.
Best regards

Author Response

Dear reviewer,  thank you again for your critical comments and suggestions for this manuscript.