Multi-Criteria Decision-Making Scenario Insights into Spatial Responses and Promotion Under Ecosystem Services

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The research content of this manuscript is interesting and contributes to the field of ecosystem services. But the publication of the paper required some minor revisions. Specific comments are as follows:

1. It is highly recommended that authors include a summary table of all the abbreviations used in the manuscript at the beginning of the manuscript, which will greatly enhance the readability of the manuscript and help readers quickly understand the manuscript.

2.In Table 1, the authors claim to have used questionnaire data, which unfortunately is not explained in detail. In addition, the author did not test the reliability and validity of their questionnaire data, nor did he analyze or display the basic information of the questionnaire objects. This is very careless!

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

We appreciate the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions provided by the editors and reviewers. Their insights have been invaluable in helping us improve the clarity, rigor, and completeness of our paper. In this response, we address each comment in detail, providing explanations, clarifications, and revisions as necessary. We believe that these changes have significantly enhanced the quality of our work.

Here are detailed responses to all comments:

 

REVIEWER 1:

 

The research content of this manuscript is interesting and contributes to the field of ecosystem services. But the publication of the paper required some minor revisions. Specific comments are as follows:

1. It is highly recommended that authors include a summary table of all the abbreviations used in the manuscript at the beginning of the manuscript, which will greatly enhance the readability of the manuscript and help readers quickly understand the manuscript.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have followed your advice and, in accordance with the requirements of Land, added “Abbreviations” after the Conflicts of Interest section and before the References section in the article. -Line 495-503

“

Abbreviations:

MA Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

OWA Ordered Weighted Averaged

DEM Digital Elevation Model

NPP Net Primary Productivity

CASA Carnegie-Ames-Stanford Approach

APAR Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation

InVEST Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Trade-offs

SolVES Social Values for Ecosystem Services

GIS Geographic Information System

”

 

2.In Table 1, the authors claim to have used questionnaire data, which unfortunately is not explained in detail. In addition, the author did not test the reliability and validity of their questionnaire data, nor did he analyze or display the basic information of the questionnaire objects. This is very careless!

 

Response: Thank you very much for your comments. I fully recognize the oversight in my previous submission and deeply regret not providing a detailed explanation of the questionnaire presented in Table 1. To rectify this, I have added Supplementary information, which includes the detailed contents of the questionnaire, as well as the design process of the questionnaire, the research process, and the processing of the questionnaire information. Additionally, an analysis of the basic information of the survey respondents is attached. Hopefully， this will help readers better understand the use of the questionnaire information in SolVES. -Line 140-141

“

questionnaire design and details are provided in Supplementary information S1 and S2.

Supplementary information

S1 Questionnaire design and processing

The final result of the SolVES model is mainly determined by the environmental background values and people's perception of the local area. Among them, people's level of understanding of the local area is obtained through questionnaire surveys.

When designing the questionnaire, the relevant indicators of cultural services to be evaluated were included in the scope of the questionnaire, presented in simple and easy-to-understand questions, so that local residents could better understand them when conducting the survey. The questionnaire includes various aspects such as entertainment, aesthetics, learning, cultural atmosphere, economic development level, sustainable development level, living environment, and people's sense of happiness.

People's perception of the local area is closely related to the actual natural and economic conditions of the area, as well as their own conditions. In order to make the data of the questionnaire more convincing and scientific, we added surveys on the age, gender, and education level of the participants when designing the questionnaire. Age is divided into six stages, namely under 18 years old, 18 to 30 years old, 31 to 40 years old, 41 to 50 years old, 51 to 60 years old and over 60 years old. The level of education is divided into five levels, namely junior high school and below, high school and secondary school, junior college, undergraduate, master's degree and above. After the questionnaire design was completed, we first conducted a trial survey, selecting some people in Qingdao to investigate their level of awareness and satisfaction with the local area. A total of 103 people were selected for the survey, with different ages, genders, and educational levels. Through the trial survey, we have revised the questionnaire based on some suggestions from the respondents regarding the questionnaire questions, in order to make it understandable to people of all ages and educational levels, while also maximizing the content of the questionnaire to express what we want to investigate. The questionnaire is attached in supplementary information S2.

After determining the content of the questionnaire, we set the survey location and route for the questionnaire. Due to China's national conditions, it is impossible to distribute questionnaires to each household by email or obtain survey results from various groups through online surveys. Ultimately, we decided to obtain survey results through manual field surveys. The questionnaire survey was conducted in July 2020 and July 2021, with a duration of approximately 10 days each. The first survey was conducted in July 2020, with a team of six people renting cars to travel from Qingdao to investigate various cities and county centers in the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone, as well as villages along the way. The route starts from Qingdao, passes through Rizhao, Weifang, Dongying, Binzhou, Yantai and Weihai, and finally returns directly to Qingdao from Weihai. Each location is for one day, and some locations can stay for up to two days due to weather and task volume. 836 questionnaires were distributed, and 783 valid questionnaires were received. Due to the consideration that different people may have different understandings and perceptions of the same issue, in order to ensure the validity of the questionnaire, we will survey at least 3 people in each location, who must be local or long-term residents who have a clear understanding of the local situation. At the same time, we tried to involve people of all ages. For local residents who have a deep understanding of the local area, we used interviews to record the problems reported by the masses and the actual situation in the local area. We collected the coordinates and elevation of the survey location using GPS for each questionnaire, in order to obtain accurate location information during later data processing. The second questionnaire survey was launched in July 2021, and the survey site was also the entire Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone. In order to improve efficiency more effectively, the investigation team was divided into two groups. One group went to remote areas with the vehicle to conduct investigations, while the other group mainly conducted investigations in relatively densely populated cities and towns. A total of 1,677 questionnaires were distributed for the second time, and 1,598 valid questionnaires were received. After two questionnaire surveys, a clear understanding of the study area has been obtained.

The answers to the questionnaire questions are mostly designed as lowest, low, medium, high, and highest. We assign scores from 1 to 5 in order from lowest to highest, and we process all the questionnaires using this method. According to the location of each questionnaire, the processed questionnaire points were digitized in ArcGIS, so that each point was distributed on the map, and each point had attribute information such as numerical score, longitude and latitude coordinates, name, number of questionnaires, elevation, and so on. The SolVES model is based on geographic database call data for calculation. Therefore, firstly, users need to load the digitized point feature data, statistical survey data, and environmental feature data into the same geographic database, and then load the geographic database into the specified folder of the SolVES model to complete data preparation. According to the created geospatial database, the entertainment value and aesthetic value of the model itself can be evaluated based on the model's operation manual and principles. The result ranges from 0 to 10, with 0 representing a low value for the location and 10 representing a very high value for the location.

 

S2 Questionnaire used to investigate cultural services

Hello:

We are graduate students from Shaanxi Normal University. We are studying the social value of the regional ecosystem services. Please choose the answers that apply to you. We are very grateful to you for your help!

1. Sex：
2. Man     B. Woman
3. Age：
4. Under 18 years old     B. 18—30 years old     C. 31—40 years old  
5. 41—50 years old     E. 51—60 years old     F. More than 60 years old
6. Level of education：
7. Junior high school and below   B. High school and secondary school   
8. College specialist  D. Bachelor’s degree   E. Master's or doctorate degree
9. Local aesthetic value (including natural scenery and cultural landscape)：
10. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
11. The richness of local biological resources：
12. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
13. Local cultural atmosphere and cultural heritage：
14. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
15. Local economy：
16. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
17. The extent to which local resources are over-exploited：
18. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
19. Your perceptions of the local historical background：
20. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
21. Your perceptions of the local living environment, such as water, air quality, soil fertility and so on：
22. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
23. The degree of local recreation (parks, cinemas, playgrounds, etc.)：
24. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest
25. Living in the local area, your happiness level is：
26. Lowest     B. Low     C. Medium    D. High     E. Highest

”

 

We are deeply grateful to the editors and the reviewers for their meticulous evaluation of our paper and for providing such insightful comments and suggestions. Their feedback has been instrumental in helping us refine our work and enhance its overall quality. We believe that the revisions we have made in response to their comments have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and completeness of our paper.

Once again, we express our sincere thanks to the editors and the reviewers for their valuable contributions to our work.

 

Kind regards,

Keyu Qin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Despite the comprehensive and sophisticated nature of this study, the submitted manuscript is not ready for publication. The primary concern lies in the lack of clarity in the study method and process, making it difficult to interpret the figures and data presented in the Results section. In addition, the purpose of the study is not clear enough, compounded by a confusing study title. Overall, the manuscript requires significant refinement, including revisions to the study title, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions. Please refer to the detailed comments below for revising the manuscript.

 

Specific Comments:

L 43: Include the publication year for Thomas et al. Please check all other references cited in the main texts.

L 80-91: The study's objectives are not clearly defined. The current format presents a mix of the study site, methodology, and study process.

Figure 1: The caption should be more informative. Include a key map showing all of China and indicate the specific study areas. The location of the study site within China is not clear. Additionally, the body text mentions the seaside of the study areas, but there is no indication of a coastal boundary in Figure 1.

L 106-122: Provide specific explanations on how ecosystem services are defined, what their main components are, and how variables were selected to quantify them in this sub-section. This reasoning process would greatly aid the reader in understanding the results and significance of the study. Currently, four types of ecological services are simply listed in Table 1 without explanation.

Table 1: Use "○" for required data instead of "-", and remove the "/" symbol. Clarify whether "Meteorological department" refers to a specific department in China.

L 126-217: Do not use bold text for equations. The rationale for using OWA in this study is unclear, partly because the study process is not adequately explained.

L 189-190: Specify the table number being referenced.

Table 2: There is no clear explanation for how the authors derived the specific numbers in Table 2. Are these randomly generated values? Also, include a legend for “w” and “s” under the table.

L 205: Provide a clear explanation of how the authors determined 20% as the threshold for hotspot and coldspot regions.

L 226-230: Different ecological services have varying units and ranges, but this has not been explained. This issue seems to stem from the lack of clarity in section 2.2.1 regarding the variables used to quantify ecological services. Why was standardization necessary?

L 233-244: What are ecological assets? Are they distinct from ecological services? If this subsection refers to Figure 3, please specify that at the beginning of the section using parentheses.

Figure 3: Is this figure representing standardized values of the sum of the four ecological services? Clarify what the values in Figure 3 represent. This issue is tied to the incomplete explanation of variables and methodology in the Methods section.

Figure 5: What do the yellow areas signify? Clarify the meaning of "decision-making tendencies (?)."

 

L 346-359: The explanation becomes unclear at this point, and I find it difficult to follow the argument. I don’t understand the purpose of Figure 6 at all.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

 

We appreciate the thoughtful comments and constructive suggestions provided by the editors and reviewers. Their insights have been invaluable in helping us improve the clarity, rigor, and completeness of our paper. In this response, we address each comment in detail, providing explanations, clarifications, and revisions as necessary. We believe that these changes have significantly enhanced the quality of our work.

Here are detailed responses to all comments:

 

REVIEWER 2

Despite the comprehensive and sophisticated nature of this study, the submitted manuscript is not ready for publication. The primary concern lies in the lack of clarity in the study method and process, making it difficult to interpret the figures and data presented in the Results section. In addition, the purpose of the study is not clear enough, compounded by a confusing study title. Overall, the manuscript requires significant refinement, including revisions to the study title, objectives, methodology, results, and conclusions. Please refer to the detailed comments below for revising the manuscript.

Specific Comments:

L 43: Include the publication year for Thomas et al. Please check all other references cited in the main texts.

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. We have updated some of the literature information and conducted a thorough review of all literature references throughout the entire text.

 

L 80-91: The study's objectives are not clearly defined. The current format presents a mix of the study site, methodology, and study process.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have reorganized this section to clearly state the research objectives of this paper and the methods used to achieve them. -Lines 81-92.

“

This study aims to evaluate the current status of main ecosystem services in the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone, identify hotspots and coldspots, and provide scientific references for promoting the spatial pattern of the study area. To achieve this goal, we have comprehensively considered the 4 categories of ecosystem services [41]. Specifically, by integrating natural and human factors, the spatialization of cultural services has been achieved [42]; In response to the water shortage problem faced by the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone, special attention has been paid to the water yield service in provisioning service; In view of China's goal of achieving carbon neutrality, carbon sequestration services in regulation services were selected for in-depth research; In addition, biodiversity, as a key supporting service, is also included in the scope of assessment. Based on the evaluation of various ecosystem services, the ordered weighted average multi-attribute decision-making method is introduced to scientifically identify hotspots and coldspots of ecosystem services. Finally, suggestions for promoting the spatial pattern were proposed, aiming to provide scientific basis and theoretical support for the ecological balance and sustainable development of the study area.

”

 

Figure 1: The caption should be more informative. Include a key map showing all of China and indicate the specific study areas. The location of the study site within China is not clear. Additionally, the body text mentions the seaside of the study areas, but there is no indication of a coastal boundary in Figure 1.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have updated the study area map, which now includes a map of China on the left side showing the location of the study area within China; on the right side, the top part displays the detailed location of the study area with updated coastline information, while the bottom part presents the current land use map of the study area. -Line 109.

“

 Please see attached "Response 2.docx"

Figure 1. Study area

”

 

L 106-122: Provide specific explanations on how ecosystem services are defined, what their main components are, and how variables were selected to quantify them in this sub-section. This reasoning process would greatly aid the reader in understanding the results and significance of the study. Currently, four types of ecological services are simply listed in Table 1 without explanation.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have reorganized the subsection 2.2.1 on ecosystem services, starting with an overview of the definition and components of ecosystem services in the first paragraph, followed by explanations of how four types of services are quantified in paragraphs 2 to 5. -Line 113-148.

“

2.2.1. Ecosystem Services

Ecosystem services refer to the various benefits and well-being that ecosystems provide to humanity, either directly or indirectly, through their structures and functions. These services constitute vital connections between human society and the natural environment, serving as the cornerstone for maintaining the Earth's life support system. According to the classification framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem services are categorized into four major types: provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services.

Provisioning services involve the direct provision of material resources to humans by ecosystems, such as food, water, and wood. In this study, considering the water scarcity issue faced by the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone, we specifically focus on water yield. The quantification of water yield is based on the Budyko curve and annual average precipitation [35,38].

Regulating services pertain to the regulatory functions of ecosystems on the natural environment, including climate regulation, air purification, and water purification. In light of China's goals for carbon peaking and carbon neutrality, carbon sequestration is selected as a representative of regulating services. The quantification of carbon sequestration services is achieved by converting the Net Primary Productivity (NPP) calculated using the CASA model [23].

Cultural services refer to the non-material benefits provided by ecosystems to humans, such as aesthetic enjoyment, spiritual fulfillment, and scientific research value. The Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone possesses prominent aesthetic and scientific research value due to its unique natural landscapes and rich cultural heritage. Therefore, aesthetic and scientific research value are chosen as the assessment indicators for cultural services, and the SolVES 3.0 model is employed for simulation. The SolVES model integrates multiple environmental index raster layers, such as the land use type elevation, slope, hillshade, distance to the nearest road, and distance to the nearest water body of year 2022, with people's perception of the local area obtained through questionnaire surveys (questionnaire design and details are provided in Supplementary information S1 and S2) to comprehensively reflect the cultural service value of the region [22].

Supporting services are the foundational functions provided by ecosystems to support other services, such as soil formation, nutrient cycling, and biodiversity maintenance. Biodiversity, as a crucial supporting service, is vital for ecosystem stability and resilience. Biodiversity is assessed using the Habitat Quality model within the InVEST framework, which calculates habitat quality based on land use and land cover (LULC) data and the degree of threats to biodiversity [39, 40].

”

 

Table 1: Use "○" for required data instead of "-", and remove the "/" symbol. Clarify whether "Meteorological department" refers to a specific department in China.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have revised the symbols in the table according to your suggestion, and I have also clarified which specific part is referred to as the "meteorological part".-Line 149-150

“

Table 1. Data required and sources

Service types	Water yield	Carbon sequestration	Biodiversity	Aesthetics and scientific research	Data sources
Remote sensing imagery		○	○		Landsat 8
DEM	○			○	Shuttle Radar Topography Mission
Land use			○	○	Resources and Environmental Science Data Center
Soil type			○		World Soil Database
Evapotranspiration	○	○			China Meteorological Data Service Centre
Temperature		○			China Meteorological Data Service Centre
Precipitation	○				China Meteorological Data Service Centre
Solar radiation		○			China Meteorological Data Service Centre
Slope				○	DEM extraction
Mountain shading				○	DEM extraction
Distance to rivers				○	Buffer analysis
Distance to water bodies				○	Buffer analysis
Cognitive level				○	Questionnaire Survey
Calculation method	InVEST	CASA	InVEST	SolVES
Unit	mm	kg/km2	dimensionless	dimensionless

Note: "○" represents required data

”

 

L 126-217: Do not use bold text for equations. The rationale for using OWA in this study is unclear, partly because the study process is not adequately explained.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have removed the bold formatting from the equations. Additionally, I have included detailed explanations of OWA in sections 2.2.2 and 2.2.3. -Line 153-156 and Line 178-180

“

2.2.2. Ordered weight averaging

Spatial Multicriteria Evaluation refers to the complex spatial operations of multiple evaluation criteria in accordance with certain decision-making rules, combined with geographic information system technology, to effectively balance different decision-making objectives and ensure optimal decision-making[46]. In 1988, Ronald R. Yager of the United States first proposed a multi-criteria decision-making algorithm based on Ordered Weighted Averaging (OWA).

……

2.2.3  Risk and Trade-offs

OWA can provide a set of continuous decision sets for decision makers by fully considering the trade-off effects between different criteria and simulating different decision risks or scenarios[47]. The formulas for calculating risk and trade-offs under different ordered weight choices are as follows:

……

”

 

L 189-190: Specify the table number being referenced.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The table reference has been added to line 216.

 

Table 2: There is no clear explanation for how the authors derived the specific numbers in Table 2. Are these randomly generated values? Also, include a legend for “w” and “s” under the table.

Response: I appreciate your suggestion. I have added the calculation method for the numbers in Table 2 in the section 2.2.4 on different policy scenarios. Additionally, I have included a legend for "w" and "s" below Table 2. -Line 220-225 and Line 236

“

Based on the definitions of risk and trade-off, an optimal set of order weights (scenarios) can be obtained by solving a nonlinear mathematical programming problem consisting of four equations, namely equations (3), (5), (6), and (7). The optimal ordered weights calculated for 11 scenarios set with risk varying from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.1 are shown in the Table 2. S1 to S11 represent 11 scenarios where the risk varies from 0 to 1 in increments of 0.1.

 

Note: S1 to S11 represents different decision scenario, w1 to w4 represent different weight of each ordered raster

”

 

L 205: Provide a clear explanation of how the authors determined 20% as the threshold for hotspot and coldspot regions.

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. The reason for setting 20% as the threshold for hot and cold spot areas is based on the actual situation of the study area and multiple data analysis experiments. I have added an explanation for this in Section 2.2.5 Hotspot and coldspot region identification. -Line 244-254

“

After numerous data analysis experiments, we found that setting the threshold for delineating hotspot and coldspot areas at 10% of the total area results in these areas being excessively scattered and lacking necessary continuity, thus making it difficult to form effective conservation strategies and hindering the implementation and application of practical policies. Conversely, when the selected area exceeds 30% of the total area of the study region, it becomes detrimental to focusing limited resources and efforts on implementing targeted protection for the most ecologically valuable or vulnerable areas. The results from multiple experiments demonstrate that choosing 20% of the study area as the threshold for hotspot and coldspot areas offers multiple advantages, including highlighting extreme values, facilitating comparison and classification, and enhancing the targeted nature of management decisions.

”

 

L 226-230: Different ecological services have varying units and ranges, but this has not been explained. This issue seems to stem from the lack of clarity in section 2.2.1 regarding the variables used to quantify ecological services. Why was standardization necessary?

Response: Thank you for your suggestion. I have added the unit for ecosystem services in the last row of Table 1.

“

Service types	Water yield	Carbon sequestration	Biodiversity	Aesthetics and scientific research
Unit	mm	kg/km2	dimensionless	dimensionless

 

”

 

L 233-244: What are ecological assets? Are they distinct from ecological services? If this subsection refers to Figure 3, please specify that at the beginning of the section using parentheses.

Response: Thank you very much for pointing out the incorrect expression. It was due to my oversight that I used the wrong term. I have now corrected it to the proper expression, which is "ecosystem services". -Line 297-302

“

Therefore, under this scenario, attention is solely focused on the lowest services, i.e., the lowest service type among the ecosystem services. Conversely, Scenario S11 is the opposite, focusing only on the highest service value, i.e., the highest service type among the ecosystem services. It is significant that S1 is very pessimistic, focusing only on the worst service values, leading to policies that are primarily geared towards protection. S11 is very optimistic, focusing only on the highest service values, leading to policies that are primarily geared towards development.”

 

Figure 3: Is this figure representing standardized values of the sum of the four ecological services? Clarify what the values in Figure 3 represent. This issue is tied to the incomplete explanation of variables and methodology in the Methods section.

Response: Yes, this number represents the value obtained after standardizing the 4 services and performing an ordered weighted average calculation. I have added an explanation for this in the text. Thank you for your suggestion. -Line 276 - 285 and Line 290-293

“

When performing an OWA operation, it is necessary to ensure that all values involved in the calculation have the same units and range. If the units of quantification for different ecosystem services are not unified, then directly performing weighted average calculations will be meaningless, as the values of different units cannot accurately reflect their relative importance during the weighting process. Through standardization, it can be ensured that all the values involved in the calculation have the same units and ranges, making the weighted average calculation more accurate and meaningful. Figure 2b shows the spatial distribution patterns of four ecosystem services after standardization processing.“

……

By sequentially applying the four weight values to the four new grid rankings (arranged from highest to lowest for the four types of standardized ecosystem services at the same grid location) and summing them up under each scenario, we can obtain 11 scenarios of the spatial patterns of the weighted average values (Figure 3).

”

 

Figure 5: What do the yellow areas signify? Clarify the meaning of "decision-making tendencies (?)."

Response: The yellow areas represent the development-prone protected zones. In order to more clearly convey the distinctions between the four colors, we have reorganized Section 3.5 of the article. We have added an explanation of the four tendencies in the first paragraph and a detailed explanation of the four colors in the second paragraph. -Line 369-375 and Line 393-408

 

L 346-359: The explanation becomes unclear at this point, and I find it difficult to follow the argument. I don’t understand the purpose of Figure 6 at all.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The analysis here primarily focuses on a detailed examination of the land use classification results in coldspot and hotspot regions under different scenarios, aiming to demonstrate the impact of optimizing land use structure on enhancing ecosystem services. We have also added explanations in the text. -Line 412-415

“

A detailed analysis of the land use classification results for both coldspot and hotspot regions was conducted under different scenarios. The findings show that protecting cropland and forest land within the study area, as well as promoting the land use structure, play crucial roles in enhancing ecosystem services.

”

 

We are deeply grateful to the editors and the reviewers for their meticulous evaluation of our paper and for providing such insightful comments and suggestions. Their feedback has been instrumental in helping us refine our work and enhance its overall quality. We believe that the revisions we have made in response to their comments have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and completeness of our paper.

Once again, we express our sincere thanks to the editors and the reviewers for their valuable contributions to our work.

 

Kind regards,

Keyu Qin

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Comments:

L. 80-94. I think the revised study purposes are still not clear enough. Please see my suggestion below; text in red includes questions and additional suggestions.

‘This study aims to evaluate the status of key ecosystem services in the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone in China, identify hotspots and coldspots, and provide scientific guidance for enhancing the spatial pattern (of what? green space? rban pattern?) of the study area. Specifically, we comprehensively consider four types of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. (*Please explain the specific variables used for the four types of ecosystem services in the Methods section. Please remove references from this paragraph, as you have already explained them in the previous paragraph). Hotspots and coldspots of ecosystem services were assessed using the ordered weighted average multi-attribute decision-making method. This study also proposes optimized spatial patterns of green space to support ecological balance and sustainable development in the study area. (*Please add a few lines explaining how the results of this study can be applied in the study area and other cities in general.).

Figure 1. China’ should be within China, not in another country. An explanation is needed in the main text for land cover since you included a land cover map in Figure 1. Also, you need to cite Figure 1 in the main text.

L. 116. Need references for the four types of ecosystem services.

Table 1. ‘Required data and sources’? Please put the units with variables, such as ‘Water yield (mm)’.

L. 148-259. Explain reasons why you need subsections ‘2.2.2 Ordered Weight Averaging,’ ‘2.2.3 Risk and Trade-offs,’ and ‘2.2.4 Different Policy Scenarios’ following subsection 2.2.1. I strongly recommend using similar (or match) wording for subsection titles in method and results sections. Please check if the ‘2.2 Methods’ section is necessary.

Author Response

Dear Editors and Reviewers:

We are deeply grateful for the comments and suggestions offered by you. Your expertise has been crucial in refining the clarity of our paper. In this response, we address each comment, offering explanations, and necessary revisions. We firmly believe that these adjustments have greatly improved the overall quality of our work. Please find the latest revised manuscript with all the changes highlighted within the text in the attachment.

Below, please find our detailed responses to all the comments received:

COMMENTS 1: L. 80-94. I think the revised study purposes are still not clear enough. Please see my suggestion below; text in red includes questions and additional suggestions.

‘This study aims to evaluate the status of key ecosystem services in the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone in China, identify hotspots and coldspots, and provide scientific guidance for enhancing the spatial pattern (of what? green space? rban pattern?) of the study area. Specifically, we comprehensively consider four types of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. (*Please explain the specific variables used for the four types of ecosystem services in the Methods section. Please remove references from this paragraph, as you have already explained them in the previous paragraph). Hotspots and coldspots of ecosystem services were assessed using the ordered weighted average multi-attribute decision-making method. This study also proposes optimized spatial patterns of green space to support ecological balance and sustainable development in the study area. (*Please add a few lines explaining how the results of this study can be applied in the study area and other cities in general.).

Response: Thank you very much for your suggestion. I have re-edited this paragraph based on your suggestions and provided supplementary explanations for the content mentioned in the parentheses that required attention and clarification.

Meanwhile, based on your suggestion, I have removed the two references that were originally used to explain ecosystem services in this paragraph. After the removal, I have also updated the reference list and citation order for the entire document accordingly.

“This study aims to evaluate the status of key ecosystem services in the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone in China, identify hotspots and coldspots, and provide scientific guidance for enhancing the spatial pattern of ecological conservation areas of the study area. Specifically, we comprehensively consider four types of ecosystem services: provisioning, regulating, supporting, and cultural services. Hotspots and coldspots of ecosystem services were assessed using the ordered weighted average multi-attribute decision-making method. This study also proposes optimized spatial patterns of green space to support ecological balance and sustainable development in the study area. Tthis study proposes strategies for optimizing the pattern of ecological conservation areas to support ecological balance and sustainable development in the study area. These optimization strategies are not only applicable to the Shandong Peninsula Blue Economic Zone but also serve as a reference for optimizing the spatial pattern of ecosystem services in other cities. By adopting the spatial pattern optimization strategies proposed in this study, ecological managers and planners can allocate resources more effectively, enhance the overall level of ecosystem services, and promote sustainable urban development.”

 

Comments 2: Figure 1. China’ should be within China, not in another country. An explanation is needed in the main text for land cover since you included a land cover map in Figure 1. Also, you need to cite Figure 1 in the main text.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have revised Figure 1 according to your suggestions and placed the label "China" within the borders of China. Additionally, I have added a brief description of the land use situation in the study area above Figure 1 and referenced Figure 1 in the section where the location of the economic zone is discussed.

“ The cropland in the study accounts for the largest area, followed by urban land. The distribution of forest land, grassland, water area and unused land accounts for a relatively low proportion of the total area.”

 

Comments 3: L. 116. Need references for the four types of ecosystem services.

Response: Thank you for your comments. I have utilized the "Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: Ecosystems and Human Well-Being" mentioned in the text here.

“According to the classification framework of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), ecosystem services are categorized into four major types: provisioning services, regulating services, supporting services, and cultural services [3].”

 

Comments 4: Table 1. ‘Required data and sources’? Please put the units with variables, such as ‘Water yield (mm)’.

Response: Thank you for your comments. The title of Table 1 has been changed to "Required data and data sources" based on your suggestion. Additionally, the units for the ecosystem services have been placed below their respective names.

“

Table 1. Required data and data sources

Service types

Water yield (mm)

Carbon Sequestration (kg/km2)

Biodiversity (dimensionless)

Aesthetics and scientific Research (dimensionless)

Data sources

”

 

Comments 5: L. 148-259. Explain reasons why you need subsections ‘2.2.2 Ordered Weight Averaging,’ ‘2.2.3 Risk and Trade-offs,’ and ‘2.2.4 Different Policy Scenarios’ following subsection 2.2.1. I strongly recommend using similar (or match) wording for subsection titles in method and results sections. Please check if the ‘2.2 Methods’ section is necessary.

Response: Thank you for your extremely helpful suggestions. We have reorganized the headings based on your advice. Specifically, the 2.2 Methods section has been divided into three subsections: 2.2.1 Ecosystem service assessment, 2.2.2 Multi-scenario analysis based on Ordered Weighted Averaging, 2.2.3 Hotspot/coldspot region identification and 2.2.4 Protection efficiency quantification. Under 2.2.2 Multi-Scenario Analysis, we have detailed the contents of items (1)Ordered weight averaging, (2)Risk and Trade-offs, and (3)Hotspot/coldspot region identification and protection efficiency quantification to correspond with the sections in the Results.

 

We are deeply grateful to the editors and the reviewers for providing such insightful comments and suggestions. We believe that the revisions we have made in response to the comments have significantly improved the clarity, rigor, and completeness of our paper.

Once again, we express our sincere thanks to the editors and the reviewers for the valuable contributions to our work.

 

Kind regards,

Keyu Qin