The Flows of Nature to People, and of People to Nature: Applying Movement Concepts to Ecosystem Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This article presents an assessment of the people to nature movement while adding a contribution to the ES framework. A lot of work has been made during the last years in this direction, especially in the Ecosystem Service Partnership environment, where it is clear that the Ecosystem Service value approach based on Benefit Transfer method is nowadays poorly useful for supporting decision-making.

Nevertheless, this article does not meet the minimum scientific criteria to be accepted for publication: too vague, too poorly referred and the scientific argumentation around the meet of demand and supply remains at a pure argumentative and unscientific stage. Human and animal behaviour is often associated in an arbitrary way, without considering the strong social implications that citizens consider in their utilization of ES.

Besides, English is poor, too many repetitions are found and the logic sentencing is often odd.

You can see my detailed comments in the attached file.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript titled "The flows of nature to people, and of people to nature: applying movement concepts to ecosystem services" intends to consider how flows of people to nature can be measured to collect the data needed to understand which movement theories best represent how people seek out and access ecosystem services. Moreover, the review aims to improve future modelling of ecosystem services by more explicitly considering how people access potential services and therefore realize them. The gap that the manuscript is trying to fill is that the research so far does not consider the demand or the way in which users could access any ecosystem service, which remains largely unknown. The authors bring together insights from disciplines that might help understand how people move towards ecosystem services, by exploring the potential application of models from human migration, optimal foraging, and landscape connectivity. The authors then assess whether the data needed to determine the ability of these models to represent ecosystem services flows are available.

The research it could be characterized as novel and I think important to the field, it has the appropriate structure and language been used well. In the meanwhile, the manuscript has a very good extent, and it is comprehensive (about 10,000 words). In my opinion it could have some tables and figures – diagrams, only for the monotony.

The title is OK. The abstract reflects well the findings of this study and it has an appropriate length (194 with limit 200 words). The introduction is effective, clear, and well organized; it really introduced and put into perspective what research is negotiating.

The authors seek to understand the processes by which beneficiaries seek out ecosystem services. They focus on large-scale, generalisable theories, presenting possible approaches by which maps, or models of potential ecosystem services supply can be supplemented to capture realised ecosystem services. They bring together insights from disciplines that might help understand how people move towards ecosystem services, by exploring the potential application of models from human migration, optimal foraging, and landscape connectivity.

The results and discussion sections are very good. The argument flows and is reinforced through the justification of the way elements are interpreted. The same applies to the conclusions.

Please, revise the references, many of them does not have the appropriate style, they are missing volume, issue, pages, editors, authors, publishers, doi etc. For example: 1, 4, 9, 10, 22, 42, 45, 51, 57, 62, 63, 65, 75, 84, 86, 91, 102, 112

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

I enjoyed reading this manuscript, which presents innovative ideas that are likely to have strong impact on future studies of ES. I am therefore looking forward to see it published, but feel that some minor issues need to be met first.

The concept of P2N, N2P and transactors is interesting and well explained. However, I recommend discussing it in the context of different types of ES. While this is shown in Table 1 and Fig. 1, a description in the text is also advised. For example, it is apparent in Fig.1, but not spelled out in the text, that both P2N and N2P can apply for a given ES. In the table itself, in situ aesthetics are mentioned as both N2P and P2N, which can be a little confusing if this point is not made clear. I also felt that the discussion might emphasise cultural ES over others.

I think the beginning of the Introduction tends to be over-simplified. ES analysis has already gone a long way since the days of defining ES as total area of certain ecosystem/vegetation types. There are now vast considerations of certain ES-supplying species and their abundances in space, for example by assessing the abundance or biomass of certain ES-providing species.

The application of migration theories is not justified well enough. Visiting a park over the weekend hardly equals relocation one’s centre of life. It felt like you were simply stating that a set of theories at one scale apply to a much smaller temporal or spatial scale. It is probably better to use concepts of movement, economic geography or service accessibility than migration. In this respect, the following section dealing with “human ethology” was far more convincing and well-explained (and I write this from the perspective of a bachelor of geography who did not take a single course in ethology).

In terms of structure, I wonder if it would not be better to make every subsection of Section 2 into an independent section.

Lastly, I felt that a concluding conceptual model (e.g., in the form of a figure) would be a good way to wrap up the paper, with the added benefit of being an appealing graphical abstract.

Minor comments:

Throughout the text, some terms were written in italics and quotation marks, whereas others of equal status were not. First, this is inconsistent. Second, I think it is unnecessary to use both italics and quotation marks.

L 48: “firewood may be collected”

L 66-68: It implies that you consider the water/river itself as the ES, regardless of biotic ecosystem components. There is a debate whether ES can include processes with no biotic input, or are these just “nature services” but not ES. You may consider finding another example (fish in the river?) to bypass this issue, so that the example is clearer to those strongly adhering to the “must be biotic” approach.

L 67: “go to the river”

L 76: “and without” means “and outside it”?

L 86-94: This is correct and nicely explained, but aren’t shops a case of N2P? Again, using these terms in such examples will help clarify them.

L 96-105: Here also, I feel that describing the premise of this paper should include the use of the terms N2P and P2N.

L 143-145: This sentence says nothing really.

L 234-235: Nicely understated. Actually, sociology/psychology is a branch of ethology focused on H. sapiens, and human search for resources is foraging by H. sapiens. Well said!

L 289: Yes, but it also predicts that low-ES areas will be more heavily used if there is more exploitation of ES in richer areas. If everyone goes to watch birds in the same place, I will go watch them somewhere else, even if there are less birds there – simply because I want to watch birds, not people scaring birds away. This is the core difference between IFD and aggregation.

L 296-306: The distinction from MVT is not clear. I think this is just a private case of MVT with a permanent residence. Consider putting this directly after MVT.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

The topic of this manuscript is excellent and worth exploring. Authors did well to answer first objective i.e. bringing together insights from disciplines that might help understand how people move towards ES, by exploring the potential application of models from human migration, optimal foraging and landscape connectivity.

However, I did not find the answer of your second objective i.e. to assess whether the data needed to determine the ability of these models to represent ES flows are available? in section three. This section in very general and hence authors are suggested to mention precisely what kinds of data needed to access these ES and their availability in different circumstances. 

- Also please have a look on reviewed manuscript for additional comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 5 Report

This is an excellent study on the flows of nature to people, and of people to nature. It applies movement concepts to ecosystem services. Before it is publishable I think a minor revision is needed:

1) the only weak poit of this paper is its conclusion. I think authors have many nice theoretical / review findings which could be presented in a more detailed way in the conclusions. Also, a brief limitation of this study and some follow-up research could be mentioned.

2) The theoretical part of the paper is an already good one, but some more examples from developing countries could be given. For instance, for the issue of the global agri-food system there are plenty of studies showing the mobility of hyman to nature, see the case of transhumant shepherds who migrates with their sheep to the mountains - a paper highlights their migration in the Kurdish area; also, a recent paper highlights defending their rights in Romania. Then there is the issue of free roaming dogs or cats which could be mentioned and how dog culling or animal culling could be an ethical issue; in general, animal welfare is important (see bears who are migrating towards marginal mountain urban and rural area) etc. I think several such further examples could complement the existing good ideas in this paper. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

I am consternated but I think this work should be re-submitted as I originally evaluated. I see here and there the changes and I hope that the new version meets the requests of the other reviewers. Basically, the decision is based on the fact that this work wants to define a conceptual approach to ecosystem services in terms of movement and flows. But authors remains on a pure descriptive/argumentative level without basing their evaluations on a deep understanding. The movement and flows of ES can be understood scientifically with a detailed mapping assessment and narrowing the argumentation around 1 or 2 ES at maximum. Therefore, I wish the authors all the best, maybe I am not on the stream of this argumentation. 

Good luck!

Reviewer 4 Report

I am fine with author's efforts to incorporate reviewer's comments during the revision of this manuscript.