Ecosystem Service Valuation for a Critical Biodiversity Area: Case of the Mphaphuli Community, South Africa
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This paper is part of a line of research that is now widely consolidated, in which a certain area, of variable amplitude, is analyzed through the mapping and economic evaluation of ecosystem services. The paper is based on the use of Co$ting Nature 16 V3 tool that allows a service evaluation based on the Land Cover. The analytical part of the paper is well structured and exposed, and of clear results. However this type of research opens up a series of questions to which the paper hardly answers at all, what is the current management system in which the local community is involved? Who are the beneficiaries, both locally and globally, of ecosystem services? Who are the beneficiaries with which PES mechanisms could be activated to help preserve biodiversity and alleviate poverty at local level? Through which governance is it possible to respond to multiple objectives? In addition, there is a lack of a sufficient and homogeneous description of the air that, in addition to land use, can give indications on the ecosystem services generated and the management mechanisms present.
Author Response
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.doc
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments for author File: 
Comments.pdf
Author Response
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors,
I had the opportunity to read and review the manuscript entitled „Ecosystem Services Valuation for a Critical Biodiversity Area, a case of the Mphaphuli Community, South Africa” (ID Land-1910743).
The manuscript aims to identify ecosystem services in the study area (critical biodiversity area) and conduct a valuation of ecosystem services across various land uses cover (LULC) classes. In contrast to other studies conducted in South Africa previously, which focused more on regional and national scales of ecosystem services identification and valuation, this study concentrated on a local scale. The topic is relevant to the journal's scope, in my opinion.
My review below suggests some improvements.
Title: informative and consistent with the study's content.
Abstract: the abstract is clear and reasonable, nevertheless, I miss the more exact formulation of research results: what are the scientific findings?
Keywords: there are a couple of keywords in the title already, so they need to be reconsidered.
1. Introduction: this section provides adequate insight into the research issues.
2. Materials and Methods:
There is no description of how the percentage of beneficiaries who are poor and the GDP of the poor were calculated. What are the criteria for defining critical biodiversity areas?
3. Results and Discussions:
In Tables 3-4, it is difficult to compare the values in the present form because of the rounding and alignment.
There is no clear relationship between total realised economic value, global economic value, and national economic value. Marking the main value categories and subcategories would have been more efficient.
Figure 3: for LULCs' codes, please provide explanations.
Which test showed, for example, that woodlands have a significantly higher economic value than indigenous forests? A description of the test should be included in the Materials and Methods section.
There is no way to check the accuracy of the calculations in the study, only the results of the calculations are reported.
6. Conclusion: Comparisons with findings from studies at regional and national levels would have been interesting. It is true that this was partly done in the Results and Discussion section, but moving it to this section would be more appropriate. In its current form, the Conclusion section fails to fulfill its intended purpose: the conclusion does not equal the summary or recommendations.
Author Response
Please see the attached document
Author Response File: Author Response.doc
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear Authors, my suggestions for improving your article have been taken into consideration, I support the publication of the article.
