Response of Ecosystem Service Value to Landscape Pattern Changes under Low-Carbon Scenario: A Case Study of Fujian Coastal Areas
, Yuying Lin 3,4,5, Fazi Zhang 3,4, Shihe Zhang 6, Linsheng Wen 1,2 and Baoyin Li 1,2,*Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Within my limits, I found this to be an excellent paper and impressive research effort. It is conceptually and empirically strong, and framed in a way that gives it policy significance. My limits are in command of the analytical methods employed and the complexs interplay among them. These are well-cited, but I did not have the time to go back to sources and reeducate myself about their development and possible vulnerabilities. In any case, a reader like myself will gain immensely from this paper, while the more expert will be stimulated to inquire into and work upon analyses of this kind.
The paper has typographical errors throughout that call for a very careful editorial identification and correction. I did not have the time to list those I encountered, but such a list would not likely have been complete in any case.
I thank the authors and contributors for great work.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General comment:
The work is not new but well organized and the presentation with great figures makes it interesting to read
Specific Comments
Some sentences are very long thus, a bit difficult to capture its message ( e.g. a Sigle sentence from line 19-23). Brake sentences into pieces
All figure and table caption should be self-explanatory. Some readers are interested only on figures and tables. The captions under figures and tables should be able to explain the content on it and all abbreviations should be explained.
Line 142: Figure 2. Interesting to present it as figure. Would be more readable if in landscape position
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Comments to authors
This manuscript assesses the impact of landscape pattern changes on ecosystem service values (ESV) and conductes land use simulations and ecosystem service values from a low carbon perspective, which is essential for developing land use policies and increasing ecosystem services. But there are also some problems that need to be improved. Specific opinions are as follows:
1. Introduction: It is necessary to further strengthen domestic and foreign research topics, research background, research significance and research progress. Specifically, the first paragraph should directly articulate the research context and value of your current research topic. The second and third paragraphs should describe the progress and inadequacies of current relevant research to facilitate your follow-up research. Paragraph 4 should indicate the issues that need to be addressed in this research, while clarifying the innovative nature of the paper.
2. In 2.3.3, the authors do not seem to explain clearly the specific quantitative characterization of the low-carbon scenario, but only pass over it in general terms. How was the low-carbon model determined, what was the basis, and how was it quantified?
3. Lines 176-179, how is the transfer matrix determined? Please clarify
4. In the second paragraph of 3.1.2, it is puzzling that Figure 7 does not seem to show clearly the changes in landscape pattern indices for different land types? Please check
5. It is puzzling that Figure 7 does not seem to clearly show the change in landscape pattern index for different land types? Please check.
6. The discussion section is the key and difficult point of the article. The paper needs to further discuss and analyze the results of the research. The discussion section of the article needs to be reorganized and integrated.
7. In 4.2, the discussion should also be about deeper understanding and application, and not simply explaining the results and listing previous studies.
8. Policy recommendations should be discussed in detail and with practical implications in an open manner based on the research base and data support of this paper, which seems unfocused and very general.
9. In 4.4, the limitations of the article, the authors should please rethink and improve.
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
The author has revised and improved the manuscript accordingly, and I agree to publish it in the current form.
