“Realization–Feedback” Path of Ecological Product Value in Rural Areas from the Perspective of Capital Recycling Theory: A Case Study of Zhengjiabang Village in Changyang County, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors have performed a case study over a part of China for the realization-feedback path of ecological product value from the perspective of capital recycling theory. The study is important in terms of the enhancement of the economic value of the nation. This article falls within the scope of the Journal. However, some of the major observations are as follows which can be addressed to improve the scope of the manuscript.

1.     In the abstract, instead of directly coming to the finding, describe the objectives of the study. Moreover, the title of the manuscript needs to revise and removed the term “research” because it's obvious, it's a research article.

2.     P1L42, reference must be provided for the statement “By focusing on poverty and green development, the “World Development Report 2003: Sustainable Development in a Changing World, the World Bank” made an early note that if policies are not improved, environmental pressures may upend the development process and reduce the quality of life for all people”

3.     P2L64, Put the reference for the same “The “2021 Annual Report: From Crisis to Green, Resilient, and Inclusive Recovery” from World Bank highlights the importance of eco-capital markets and sustainable green development”

4.     P2L73, according to Daly?? Can you define the term “Daly”

5.     Fig. 1, the geo-coordinates to the map are missing.

6.     The representation of the research framework could be improved by the representation of the flow diagram (in split form for each section). (If possible)

7.     Authors are advised to make paragraphs within the range of 15-250 words only based on specific information (especially in the results part). It will help the reader to understand the objective line more precisely.

8.     Although detailed information about the concept is provided in the results section, statistical analysis related to the proof of concept is missing. Are the authors giving the concept or having some kind of outcome? Please justify clearly.

9.     As per the title and abstract of the manuscript, the stats must be provided related to the aforementioned parameters. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

1. The introduction could be shortened by cutting out unnecessary information. For example, the section on the history of ecosystem services could be shortened or eliminated.

2.The introduction could be more focused by narrowing the scope to a specific topic, such as the value realization path for ecological products in rural areas. This would make the introduction more cohesive and easier to understand.

3.References should be give for this statement: However, sustainability problems in government taxation, license trading and ecological compensation are found in 62 the practices of many countries"

4. the problem statement failed to highlight the need to study from the perspective of capital cycle theory.

5. There is very little information on the methodology, which is critical in any research presentation. e.g research method justification, case study selection criteria, type of case study chosen etc.

6. Several facts need to be cited. 

e.g. " First, this product or service can bring utility to human beings. Second, this product or service must be scarce."

"Based on the theory of capital circulation, Costanza proposed that ecological capital stock can produce service flows for human well-being improvement."

The English is decent and appropriate

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

I have finished reviewing the manuscript, “Research on the "realization-feedback" path of ecological product value from the perspective of capital recycling theory: A case study of Zhengjiabang village in Changyang County, China”. The authors have studied the transformation of ecological products for environmental conservation and economic growth. However, the manuscript writing is poor. The results are interesting and referenceable for making and amending conservation strategies and management. The authors need to do a thorough reading of what they are doing. Many of the assertions are hypothetical and have nothing to do with the study. In the document, I've highlighted a few locations that want attention.

Specific comments

The introduction is too general and should be improved.

In methodology need some statistical analysis for clarification of authentication of results.

In addition, time is wasted on making very complex graphs and drawings. What new information do these graphs provide.

Authors should say much more about the links between their data and the topic of the call, grounding their discussion in the scientific literature.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 4 Report

Considering the review of the article, the following suggestions are proposed to the authors:

Abstract: refer to the procedure that has been developed to obtain the results mentioned.

Be careful with long paragraphs, it is recommended that they are no longer than 15 lines to make the reading more comfortable and not tiring.

Citations are as footnotes, check the way they are requested by the journal.

Citations are as footnotes, check the form in which the journal asks for it, for example, it should be like this: Nanping Ecological Bank[^24], it should be: Bank [24]

Check that the comma that was separated in line 104 where it says discussion on , the....

Line 325: separate the Figure from the text is overlapped.

Figure 2 is not cited before being placed, please cite it as Figure 2....

What are the main conclusions to be drawn from the figure? What do you want to communicate with it?

Line 433: Figure 3 is not cited before it is posted, please cite it as Figure 3.....

Line 502: The discussion of the results should be with more reference authors, it is only done with a comparative work, it is suggested to increase to have more comparative empirical work against the one proposed by the authors.

Author Response

请参阅附件。

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

In this resubmitted article, the authors have an extensive revision.