Trade-Offs and Synergies between Ecosystem Services Provided by Different Rural Landscape
(This article belongs to the Section Farming Sustainability)
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The paper 'The provision of ecosystem services by different rural landscapes' is interesting, in particular, because of the non-monetary perspective. However, some aspects are not really clear to me. The main issue I have is about the use of MCDA. Although I appreciate the idea, there are not enough details that justified the use. If I interpret correctly, the different morphotypes are the alternatives while the ES are... criteria? They don't look like that to be true... More details about the general approach must be provided.
Some minor remarks:
1) Add some quantitative information in the abstract;
) There are several typos across the text, please, check and correct them
3) ln 113 --> 'The technique can measure': it seems the authors refer to the TEV. However, it is not a technique but more a paradigm or a framework, which needs a specific technique to be assessed.
4) lns 128-134: although I agree with the exclusion of the supporting ES, the authors should better justify their choice.
Author Response
please see attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The references are very old.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
1 The title of the manuscript is incomplete, and the current title of the manuscript would lead the reader to believe that the authors want to address the question "What are the ecosystem services provided by different rural landscapes? and how much?" However, what the authors actually examine in the manuscript is the link between ecosystem services and alternative rural landscapes. Empirical analysis was used to understand the trade-offs and synergies between the ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes. Therefore the authors should have specified in the title what is being studied.
2 The introduction is too short and lacks a literature review and a summary of the literature, so the reader does not know how well the current research has been done? Why do the authors want to do this study? Does this study fill a gap in the existing research? What is the significance of doing this study? For example, the authors appear to have missed a large body of current literature on the "trade-offs and synergies between land use and ecosystem services", leading them to conclude that L27-L30. Reference can be made to the following literature.
[1] Wu Y, Zhang X, Li C, et al. Ecosystem service trade-offs and synergies under influence of climate and land cover change in an afforested semiarid basin, China[J]. Ecological Engineering, 2021, 159: 106083.
[2] Shi M, Wu H, Fan X, et al. Trade-offs and synergies of multiple ecosystem services for different land use scenarios in the yili river valley, China[J]. Sustainability, 2021, 13(3): 1577.
[3] Ma X, Zhu J, Zhang H, et al. Trade-offs and synergies in ecosystem service values of inland lake wetlands in Central Asia under land use/cover change: A case study on Ebinur Lake, China[J]. Global Ecology and Conservation, 2020, 24: e01253.
[4] Shao Y, Xiao Y, Sang W. Land use trade-offs and synergies based on temporal and spatial patterns of ecosystem services in South China[J]. Ecological Indicators, 2022, 143: 109335.
[5] He J, Shi X, Fu Y, et al. Evaluation and simulation of the impact of land use change on ecosystem services trade-offs in ecological restoration areas, China[J]. Land Use Policy, 2020, 99: 105020.
3 Methods section. I do not agree with the multi-criteria approach adopted by the authors in quantifying the ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes. This is because I believe that the methodology is too subjective and does not accurately reflect the ecosystem services provided by the rural landscape. And, even though I agree with the methodology used by the authors, I still have difficulty agreeing with the group of experts the authors interviewed in quantifying ecosystem services. First, the ultimate beneficiary group of the ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes is the rural residents, not the experts. Secondly, I think experts simply cannot make an objective and accurate judgment of the ecosystem services provided by rural landscapes. Instead, I believe that rural residents are the ones the authors should interview because their lives are closely related to the rural landscape and they are the group that can best perceive the magnitude of ecosystem services provided by the rural landscape.
To this end, I have the following suggestions: First, as the authors state, there are monetary and non-monetary methods for assessing ecosystem services. Obviously, what the authors used in the paper is a non-monetary method, and if the method is to be used to accurately quantify ecosystem services, then I suggest that the authors use models such as InVEST, ARIES, and SoLVES, which are currently used internationally. Secondly, in using monetization to assess ecosystem services, I suggest that the authors refer to the method proposed by Costanza.
The methods or models mentioned above, their calculations of ecosystem services are based on land use change, so I think the authors should consider using the above methods to truly address the trade-offs or synergies between rural landscape change and the ecosystem services it provides.
Specific reference can be made to the following literature.
[1] Bagstad K J, Semmens D J, Waage S, et al. A comparative assessment of decision-support tools for ecosystem services quantification and valuation[J]. Ecosystem services, 2013, 5: 27-39.
[2] Costanza R, De Groot R, Sutton P, et al. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services[J]. Global environmental change, 2014, 26: 152-158.
4 Results and Discussion section. Unfortunately, I only saw the results in that section, and not the interpretation and discussion of the results.
5 Conclusion section. Unfortunately, I do not see the authors drawing conclusions in this section. What exactly is the relationship between rural landscapes and ecosystem services in the study area chosen by the authors? What are the similarities and differences between the results obtained and previous studies? These questions are not answered in the conclusion section. In addition, specific policy recommendations are needed to address the findings of the study.
6 It is recommended that the authors include in the manuscript a brief description of the study area, such as the natural environment of the study area, such as climate, hydrology, and soils; and the socioeconomic environment, such as the income of the inhabitants and road density. This is because these are the close elements, especially the natural elements, that influence the provision of ecosystem services in the rural landscape of the study area.
7 The authors need to account for the number of experts interviewed in the manuscript. This is because only a sufficient sample size can make the obtained results credible.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 4 Report
1. The existing literature progress analysis is too one-sided. How can we conclude that there are few relevant studies? The current statement is too one-sided? For this reason, it is suggested that the author should summarize and summarize the existing research results according to different research angles or methods, and extract the results and opinions of researchers, and finally find out the existing scientific problems. According to scientific problems, we can compare the scientificity and progressiveness of our own research.
2. Part 2.1 of the paper describes the relevant theories, but it is very redundant. Some of them should be introduced in the introduction. It is suggested to make a logic diagram or mechanism diagram, which can be simple and clear.
3. There are some grammatical errors in some parts of the article. It is suggested to review the full text, correct the errors, and further improve the quality of the sentence.
4. There are too few references. The number of references is not an absolute standard, but its number can measure the author's early work to a certain extent. Please supplement relevant references and improve them together with the introduction.
5. The discussion and conclusion are too simple and should be supplemented. It is suggested that the discussion part should first objectively evaluate the quality of the study and compare it with relevant similar studies to prove the scientificity and reliability of the study, and at the same time compare the similarities and differences of the research results; The conclusion part needs to elaborate on the highlights of the full text. The current text description is too simple to directly see the highlights and innovation of the research.
Author Response
please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The authors did a massive review of the paper. Actually, they rewrote the paper. The present form is stronger and complete. I suggest publishing the paper in the present form.
Reviewer 2 Report
Authors should consider the MDPI format
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the author did not fully answer my questions, it is clear from the revised manuscript that the author has carefully and thoughtfully revised the manuscript, and I respect the author's ideas. Everything is OK.
