Assessing Ecological Compensation Policy Effectiveness: A Case Study in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall, the amount of data and the depth of analysis in this manuscript are sufficient and conform to the writing framework of this type of paper. I have not found errors in techniques and methods, but there are still some problems in the writing method that need to be further solved by the authors.

 

In the Title part, is the standard geographical name "the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region" more appropriate? Please confirm and make a further selection. If modification is needed, it should be unified throughout the text.

 

In the Introduction part, the specific ecological impacts of grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia have not been mentioned. The significance of this study needs to be further highlighted in the Introduction.

Regarding Figures, some details seem unclear. It might be because the pictures in your Word document are not set to be non-compressed. Of course, you can also choose to upload all high-definition pictures as a compressed package to the submission system as an attachment when submitting the revised manuscript. This is also convenient for the journal to select pictures with higher clarity.  

In Table 1, there are some formatting errors, such as no superscripts and so on. For example, kg m-2. Check whether there are similar errors in the remaining parts.

 

Lines 274 - 196, Lines 354 - 366, Lines 417 - 420, the contents of these parts seem to be the content of the Materials and Methods section.  

 

I'm not sure whether Chinese special nouns are suitable in the text and table parts of the Sustainability journal. This requires the authors to further confirm with the journal.

 

Lines 495 - 560, this part of the content needs to be further divided into a writing format with subheadings.

 

In my opinion, the Discussion section was written rather casually and lacked depth. Regarding the writing method of the Discussion section, the authors could read some papers. This Discussion section here requires extensive revisions. In the process of writing the Discussion section, it is necessary to conduct discussions by integrating a large number of references, and it cannot be simply written like this. I did not see a single reference in this section.

 

The manuscripts of the authors lack the Conclusion part.  

 

In the references section, the authors have some formatting errors that need to be carefully checked. For example, several references are lacking page range or Article Number.

Author Response

Review 1

Overall, the amount of data and the depth of analysis in this manuscript are sufficient and conform to the writing framework of this type of paper. I have not found errors in techniques and methods, but there are still some problems in the writing method that need to be further solved by the authors.

Response: We thank the anonymous reviewer for the informative review comments and have addressed the problems in the following paragraphs. 

In the Title part, is the standard geographical name "the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region" more appropriate? Please confirm and make a further selection. If modification is needed, it should be unified throughout the text.

Response: In the revision, we used the standard geographical name "the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region" in the title and its abbreviation, “IMAR,” throughout the text.

In the Introduction part, the specific ecological impacts of grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia have not been mentioned. The significance of this study needs to be further highlighted in the Introduction.

Response: We added the specific ecological impacts of grassland degradation in Inner Mongolia in the first paragraph of Page 2. Moreover, we further highlighted the significance of this study by rewriting the last paragraph of the Introduction on Page 3.

Regarding Figures, some details seem unclear. It might be because the pictures in your Word document are not set to be non-compressed. Of course, you can also choose to upload all high-definition pictures as a compressed package to the submission system as an attachment when submitting the revised manuscript. This is also convenient for the journal to select pictures with higher clarity.  

Response: We reproduced the high-definition maps (figures) and submitted them as a separate compressed file.

In Table 1, there are some formatting errors, such as no superscripts and so on. For example, kg m-2. Check whether there are similar errors in the remaining parts.

Response: We made corrections to the measurement units in Table 1. They are consistent now.

Lines 274 - 296, Lines 354 - 366, Lines 417 - 420, the contents of these parts seem to be the content of the Materials and Methods section.  

Response: We appreciate and agree with the reviewer's suggestions. These paragraphs should generally be introduced in the Materials and Methods section. We moved Lines 275-283 to the Material and Methods section in the revision. However, considering a good number of variables fitted into several hierarchical linear mixed models, separating these models from their results will add difficulties in explaining and interpreting the model outcomes. We kept Lines 354 – 366 and 417 – 420 in the Results section.

I'm not sure whether Chinese special nouns are suitable in the text and table parts of the Sustainability journal. This requires the authors to further confirm with the journal.

Response: We are confirming with the journal.

 

Lines 495 - 560, this part of the content needs to be further divided into a writing format with subheadings.

Response: We rewrote the discussion section with subheadings. For details, see our response to the following question (comments).

In my opinion, the Discussion section was written rather casually and lacked depth. Regarding the writing method of the Discussion section, the authors could read some papers. This Discussion section here requires extensive revisions. In the process of writing the Discussion section, it is necessary to conduct discussions by integrating a large number of references, and it cannot be simply written like this. I did not see a single reference in this section.

 Response: We rewrote the discussion section. We enhanced the discussion and reorganized it under three subheadings:

• Spatial variations of ESAP effectiveness
• Socioeconomic impacts on ESAP effectiveness
• Policy implications of ESAP effectiveness

The manuscripts of the authors lack the Conclusion part.  

Response: We added the Conclusion section in the revision.

In the references section, the authors have some formatting errors that need to be carefully checked. For example, several references are lacking page range or Article Number.

Response: We carefully checked the reference section and added the missing information.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper adopts the conceptual framework of total socio-environmental systems , integrating ecological, climate, and socioeconomic data, and utilizes hierarchical linear mixed models to analyze the interactions between these factors and the Ecological Subsidy and Award Program . The research design is sound, with data sources that are broad and diverse, demonstrating a high level of scientific rigor. The research findings provide new insights into the response mechanisms of the grassland ecosystem in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, with a certain degree of innovation and practical value. In particular, the recommendation for regionally or locally tailored ecological recovery policies offers a theoretical foundation for grassland conservation practices. Overall, this is a good paper, and I have only a few minor suggestions:

• P4 L157: Change "3280 to 3940 feet" to meters.
• L179: Convert "24.85 miles" to kilometers.
• L19: Does productivity determine farmer income, or does farmer income determine productivity?

Author Response

The paper adopts the conceptual framework of total socio-environmental systems , integrating ecological, climate, and socioeconomic data, and utilizes hierarchical linear mixed models to analyze the interactions between these factors and the Ecological Subsidy and Award Program . The research design is sound, with data sources that are broad and diverse, demonstrating a high level of scientific rigor. The research findings provide new insights into the response mechanisms of the grassland ecosystem in the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, with a certain degree of innovation and practical value. In particular, the recommendation for regionally or locally tailored ecological recovery policies offers a theoretical foundation for grassland conservation practices. Overall, this is a good paper, and I have only a few minor suggestions:

Response: We thank the reviewer for the encouraging comments.

• P4 L157: Change "3280 to 3940 feet" to meters.

Response: We changed as the reviewer suggested (from 999.7 to 1200.9 meters).

• L179: Convert "24.85 miles" to kilometers.

Response: We changed as the reviewer suggested (40 kilometers).

• L19: Does productivity determine farmer income, or does farmer income determine productivity?

Response: The reviewer is right that it is hard to establish a causal relationship between grassland productivity and farmer income. Therefore, we changed this sentence to “Available land resources, hospital and medical facilities, and net farmer and herdsman income are the most critical factors positively related to grassland productivity.”

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors need to reconsider the dependent and independent variables used in their analysis. They are use a large number of variables but not oriented to  reflect the effectiveness of subsidy programs. They mention tree programs implemented in 2000, 2001 and 2011 but the analysis can't be used to compare their effectiveness. The analysis is based on 2011 to 2015 pairs of data collected from different sources but not focus on applied measures. The need of data pairs with applied measures and other without measures applied for each type of grasslands. The empirical design of analysis and model used need to be appropriate to hypothesis testing. The authors need to be more focused in discussion of results and to formulate conclusions. The authors use the unexplained acronyms like GIMM and ESWP. 

Author Response

Response: We separated the reviewer’s comments into several questions so that we could address them more specifically.

The authors need to reconsider the dependent and independent variables used in their analysis. They are use a large number of variables but not oriented to reflect the effectiveness of subsidy programs.

Response: We spelled out the dependent and independent variables in their analysis.

“In specific, biomass measures from sample sites are used as the dependent variable. The observed biological characteristics of the samples (cov, height, n_s, temp and pre), including precipitation and temperature, are modeled as the fixed effects in HLMM. To examine the heterogeneities among communities, townships, and counties, three random effects models are built based on CID, TID, and g_type. In addition, one three-level hierarchical model is constructed with the nested spatial units, TID and CID. Furthermore, twenty-three socioeconomic variables (Table 1) are included in an expanded HLMM model (the added county-level explanatory variables as fixed effect with g_type random effect model) to explore how socioeconomic driving factors affect ecological compensation policy effectiveness.”

Four ecological data items were obtained from the field samples: biomass, coverage, height, and number of species. Biomass is the most common proxy of ecosystem productivity, so it has been chosen as the dependent variable.

The reviewer is right that none of the currently available field samples and census data is specifically designed to reflect the effectiveness of subsidy programs. In fact, it is hard to use a single variable to judge their effectiveness. This is a limitation for assessing their effectiveness. We added this limitation in the Conclusion section.

“Note that the socioeconomic variables chosen for this study were confined solely to the statistical data published by the local statistical bureau. In specific scenarios, these indicators fall short of being comprehensive or adequate to reflect socioeconomic impacts on ESAP effectiveness. Moreover, none of the currently available field samples and socioeconomic variables is specifically designed to reflect the effectiveness of subsidy programs. Biomass was chosen as the proxy of grassland productivity; thus, its change could indicate whether ESAP impacted grassland recovery. However, it was by no means a direct measurement of ESAP effectiveness. This is a limitation for assessing ESAP effectiveness with currently available data.”

They mention three programs implemented in 2000, 2001 and 2011 but the analysis can't be used to compare their effectiveness. The analysis is based on 2011 to 2015 pairs of data collected from different sources but not focus on applied measures. The need of data pairs with applied measures and other without measures applied for each type of grasslands. The empirical design of analysis and model used need to be appropriate to hypothesis testing.

Response: The review is correct. The paper mentioned three programs but only explored the Ecological Subsidy and Award Program (hereafter ESAP), which was enacted in 2011. We emphasized this point in the revision (see the last paragraph on Page 3).

The authors need to be more focused in discussion of results and to formulate conclusions.

Response: We fully agree with the reviewer. We have reconstructed the Discussion and Conclusion sections.

The authors use the unexplained acronyms like GIMM and ESWP. 

Response: Many thanks for pointing out these unexplained acronyms. We discovered that ESWP was a misspelling, and its proper term should be “ESAP (the Ecological Subsidy and Award Program).” We made the correction. We didn’t find GIMM. We think GIMM might have been a misspelling of HLMM (hierarchical linear mixed model). It was corrected in the review process.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All of my comments have been addressed well.
Line 145 has an extra punctuation mark; the reference section has inconsistent formatting of DOI, with some including "https://doi.org/". These issues can be resolved during the proofreading stage, and authors should pay attention to them when writing future papers.