Integrating Landscape Pattern into Characterising and Optimising Ecosystem Services for Regional Sustainable Development

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Dear Authors, dear editors,

I read you manuscript and it was very interesting and enriching. I think that this topic is very important to solve several global challenges. You did a quite good job for Wuhan region that can be adapted and modified for other regions.

But as this is a review I have some minor and one big major note:

Introduction:

I think that it is necessary to give two or three more citations tot he definition of ES. This should be outlined more precisely. Where are your definitions from?

Material and methods:

I cannot say much about your methods. You described what you did and it seems to be the right way. I am also no specialist in statistics.

Results:

You described the results in good tables and figures. That seems to be clear.

Discussion:

There is no discussion? I do not know if this journal needs a discussion but scientific work needs discussions. You do not mirror your results with the global and regional results of other scientists. All your results are out of question when you do not set them into the scientific context. I am not a specialist in your methods and statistics but I want to know how valuable are your results in context tot he knowledge of global research. The is no evaluation possible if we (as readers) cannot balance your results with the global pool of knowledge. Did you do something special, new or fancy? Did you support and strengthen the results of others? Can your results stand ground?

There must be a discussion with a large set of references to global science.

There should be links to biodiversity, climate change, cultural heritage. The UN-Decade of biodiversity and UN-Decade of naturel restoration should be included in this discussion. You should figure out how your results in a homogeneous Chinese region could be adopted to more heterogeneous regions. (You mentioned Ethiopia: That is much more heterogeneous and leads to a higher need fort he inclusion of cultural, traditional and native requirements?). How can you set your results in context with mining regions in South America in DR Congo? How can ES be ensured when other demands (industrial, agricultural, political) do not yet have included this sustainable goals in their minds (South America). What are the linkages of your results to 17 sustainable development goals? How can other regions in the world profit from the results of Wuhan regions? Are there managements plans o improve these ideas and to include the results?

In mine opinion the lack oft he discussion is inacceptable

Conclusion:

Much too long (shorten it to 1/3). It only repeats the results. Unusable as a Conclusion.

Literature:

35 references are not enough. Only 7 of them are not from China or Asia. It is not a regional topic even your study site is in your region. There should be much more references from Russia, Middle East, Europe, Africa, The Pacific-Region, North- and- South America.

Best regards

Author Response

The detailed response is attached for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

To understand the human benefits from ecosystem services in the proposed model, it is useful to better specify the peculiar characteristics of the local landscape in the case study area. In particular, for agricultural land it is important to indicate, (even only in percentage) the types of agricultural crops and variations over time to better understand the results obtained.

Author Response

The detailed response is attached for your reference.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you very much for improving the manuscript. I think we can accept it in present form. Congratulations. All the best for your further work!