Quantitative Evaluation of Ecosystem Services of Urban Street Trees: A Case Study of Shengjing Historical and Cultural Block in Shenyang, China
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments to “Quantitative Evaluation of Comprehensive Benefit of Urban Forest in Cold Region: A Case Study of Shengjing Historical and Cultural Block in Shenyang, China”.
The manuscript deals with an interesting topic, that is, the benefits provided by street trees in Shenyang, China. I appreciated the effort of quantifying these benefits at a very local scale, as more local studies are needed. The methodology is fairly rigorous, and so is the language. However, the manuscript suffers from some structural shortcomings that must be addressed before publication.
Generic comments
Title: I suggest removing Cold Region. Indeed:
1) You rarely remark on this point throughout the manuscript
2) “Cold” doesn’t really mean anything, as it’s extremely subjective. It would make sense if you wrote something like “in the coldest region of China”, which I think it’s not the case.
Introduction and Discussion: The Authors should take advantage of the conceptual framework around Ecosystem services, which has been largely defined over the last decade. Indeed, those in the manuscript that are called Benefits or service functions of forests are ultimately ecosystem services. Plus, you may also add a paragraph in the introduction, briefly reporting the world and national policy concerning ecosystem services; you may also gain some interesting food for thoughts in the discussion section.
Section 2.3: Despite being part of the characterization of the study area, Figure 3 emerges from the field measurements collected by the Authors. Therefore, it’s more appropriate in the Result section. The same applies to Figure 4.
Specific comments
Line 79: It’s correct to introduce the i-Tree model in the Introduction section; however, it should be just a brief description, to allow the reader to understand what it generically is and why it has been used. A more detailed description should be moved to the Materials and Methods. Plus, describing the results obtained for other cities using i-Tree does not belong to the Introduction, nor to the Materials and Methods section; you might report results obtained in other cities in the Discussion, in comparison to your results. Same as for ENVI-met.
Line 159: I don’t feel the need to make an individual section for Aim and research questions (indeed, it’s very rare). Authors might consider moving all the text under this section at the end of the introduction.
Line 315-319: This part does not belong to the Results. As far as I know, this has been largely said in previous sections of the manuscript.
Line 320: I suggest renaming this section to ecological benefit quantification (or Quantification of ecological benefits). Using the word “results” at the beginning of each subsection is pointless, as we are already in the “Results” section.
Line 321-327: This part does not belong to the Results. These are methods.
Line 368-387: This part does not belong to the Results. Here you are explaining (as far as I understand) some technical aspects of the model for the assessment of Thermal comfort. Therefore, this explanation should be moved to the Materials and methods.
Line 399: This part does not belong to the Results. Here you are introducing a new methodology. Indeed you simulate using a specific air conditioning fan to recreate the thermal comfort. Therefore, the part explaining what you did should be moved to the M&M.
Line 345: Here you are presenting a result in the Discussion section. Please move table 6 to the results section.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your comments, all authors of this manuscript agreed to accept and adopt all the suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper Quantitative Evaluation of Comprehensive Benefit of Urban Forest in Cold Region: A Case Study of Shengjing Historical and Cultural Block in Shenyang, China is based on comprehensive research performed and the information/research results presented are therefore of the importance.
The structure of the paper is, to some point, well organized. However, it is not clear the concept on which the paper is built. Actually, what is not clearly presented is the subject of research: within tittle is mentioned "urban forests” and the research is about “street trees”. Taking into account above mentioned limitations, I have to express my opinion that they affect (adversely) scientific soundness of the manuscript.
The figures and tables are informative and of importance for understanding the message of the paper. I would like to stress that I am not commenting the methods used as it not my key expertise. Though, I would like to note that the research is correctly designed and presented research results are contributing to the empirical base related to the subject of the research.
The paper needs to be improved in order to support publication. Suggestions for author/s:
-Tittle: it is not clear why in the tittle you are mentioning “urban forest” and the research is bout “street trees”; it is suggested to the authors to clarify - to revise the tittle or to clearly, within manuscript (introduction primarily), define the “urban forests”; Note: the older versions of the manuscript are considering street tress within tittle what is more in accordance of the subject of the research; it is suggested to clarify and revise;
- Referencing: consider revising some reference; for example, within Introduction line 60 and 61 the references are from 2013 and 2014; are there new one that will support this statement?
- Quality of communication: consider revising the manuscript; for example, “..is desperately needed...”, “...as we all know...” (conclusions) etc. ;
- It is suggested to the authors not to use personal pronouns within manuscript -” we”; consider revising it.
To the authors is suggested to revise paper carefully. In order to support consistence of the paper within the section of Abstract, Introduction and Conclusions should be more clearly emphasized significance of this paper relating to the subject of the research.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much for your comments, all authors of this manuscript agreed to accept and adopt all the suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
In my opinion, the manuscript has been improvd. I have just a few more comments that should be addressed before publication
Line 39: “eliminate environmental pollution” is a strong statement. I would rather say “reduce”.
Line 46: “which forces the street trees of different streets 46 to form the urban forest at the block level.”. I cannot understand what that means. How can trees be forced to form a forest? Please rephrase or remove.
Line 49: “So as to 49 achieve combine its own planning and construction with the environmental carrying 50 capacity of the region, and finally create a win-win situation of ecological environment 51 and urban development”. Please rephrase. Are you sure that both verbs “achieve” and “combine” are needed?
Line 169: What is “it” referring to? To the block? Or to the short streets? Please be clear.
Line 210-213: I really cannot understand what do you mean here.
Line 218: do you mean that you selected the Northeast climate region in the United States? In this case, you should say something like “we selected the Northeast climate region in the United States”.
Line 404-417: you are not discussing your results here
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much again for your comments, all authors of this manuscript agreed to accept and adopt all the suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The paper Quantitative Evaluation of Ecosystem Services of Urban Streets Trees Forest: A Case Study of Shengjing Historical and Cultural Block in Shenyang has been revised taking into consideration suggestions and comments and, consequently, improved.
The structure of the paper is well organized. Within the revised version of the paper the concept on which the paper is built and as well the subject of research, to some point, are adequately presented. The figures and tables are informative and important for understanding the message of the paper along with presented research results that contribute to the empirical base related to the research subject. As I previously stated, I am not commenting on the methods used as it is not my key expertise.
However, the revised paper needs to be improved in order to support the publication. Suggestions for author/s:
- Within the paper should be clearly defined (with adequate reference) urban streets trees, urban forests, ecosystem services, and ecological benefits; what is “ecological construction” (line 38)?; what do you consider under the term “regional green infrastructure”? (lines 46 & 47); please explain how street trees form urban forests (line 124) and what you consider when stating “..for the future urban forests resources planning of city blocks”? (line 435) - Why are you mentioning “urban forests” in this section when research is about street trees? Line 563 - you mentioned that street trees are part of urban forests; suggestion for authors: by providing a clear definition(reference) within the Introduction what do you consider under the term urban forests (urban streets are part of urban forests?) could be achieved clearness within manuscript/within statements where urban forests have been mentioned;
- Lines 71-73 – could support this statement with some other reference as well?
- Quality of communication: to the authors is suggested to revise the whole paper: who are “urban builders”? (line34); “Around the same time…” what do you consider under this statement? (line 81), “this scene” (line 496) etc.;
- It is suggested to clarify within the whole paper:” this study”/does your paper present research results of the study conducted?; within some parts of the manuscript is written “can be obtained”(line 250), “can be finally quantified” (line 263), etc.; please clarify is it “are obtained”? etc.;
- Referencing: still, some parts of the paper are not clear: “Most of the studies …” (line 102), “previous studies...”(line118), “..to the previous research…”(line385),” studies…”(line375) ..etc.: it should be more clear/appropriate if you could provide titles of the studies you refer to and/or as well some other details;
- What do you consider under the term “reasonable planning” (line 502), “reasonably optimize” (line 509), “reasonably select trees..” (line 522)? What “relevant departments” (line 508)?; please specify.
To the authors is suggested to revise the paper carefully. I have to note that I assign major revisions due to the fact that the revised paper still needs corrections/adjustments that will support the consistency of the paper, and scientific soundness, and thus, contribute to the overall quality of the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much again for your comments, all authors of this manuscript agreed to accept and adopt all the suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 3
Reviewer 2 Report
The manuscript Quantitative Evaluation of Comprehensive Benefit of Urban Forest in Cold Region: A Case Study of Shengjing Historical and Cultural Block in Shenyang, China has been revised taking into consideration given suggestions and comments. The structure of the paper is well organized, concept adequately presented, and figures and tables are informative. I have to stress that I am not commenting the methods used as it not my key expertise.
As presented research results are contributing to the empirical base related to the subject of the research it will be of importance to be presented to the wider scientific and academic community. The paper needs minor revision in order to support publication. Suggestions for author/s:
Abstract: Line 13: urban tree or urban tress? please make clear; Lines 17, 19:”. this study took the street…”; did you mean the paper presents the study? please clarify;
Introduction: Line 33: it is not clear to which reference you refer regarding ecosystem service; please clarify (is there national strategy, document that you can refer to?); Line 60: “Research on the various contributions of urban trees has been going on for nearly a century”- how did you come to this information? please clarify (refer); Line 64: “. a political debate between groups and governments…”; what did you mean when stating “political debate”?
Section 2.4: Line 232: “…we selected the Northeast…”; it is suggested not to use personal pronouns;
Section 4: Line 418: “The existing research results…”; did you mean “the research results”?
Section 5: Line 570: “street tree resources…”- please clarify is it street tree or street trees.
Please refer to the Authors guidelines while revising the manuscript.
Author Response
Dear reviewer:
Thank you very much again for your comments, all authors of this manuscript agreed to accept and adopt all the suggestions, please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
