Localized Sustainable Development Goals Changes and Their Response to Ecosystem Services—A Case of Typical Southern Hilly Regions in China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This is a good-quality paper that needs minor editing. 

Here are these minor corrections: 

- abstract: rephrase this sentence "This study not only provides valuable insights 21 for sustainable development in Ganzhou and other regions of China but also contributes Chinese 22 wisdom and solutions to global SDG implementation." The other part (from the word "but" on) sounds a bit pretentious, so change it to more neutral tone.

- introduction: list all 17 global SDGs, right after first mentioning them (lines 35-36)   

- introduction: This study takes Ganzhou as an example, known for its unique southern hilly eco- 95 systems with rich biodiversity and complex ecological processes. Provide reference(s) for the statement. 

- M and M section: Figure 1. Explain the elements in the legend, i.e. what is "communal ecosystem" as a category?

- Data sources: are all the sources open-access, and are there some constrains related to their processing and publishing?

- Figures 3 and 4, the text and numbers within are small and barely readable (fix resolution / size of these figs)

- Conclusion: this section is focused on the Ganzhou region (and period between 2005 and 2020), but you should provide more general conclusion, recommend how this research can communicate or serve as a guideline for a similar research that could be done in the future elsewhere. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It is quite an interesting manuscript, and thank you for giving me an opportunity to review this manuscript. The authors tried to figure out the ES contributions toward SDGs. The aim was clearly identified, and methods and spatial statistics were also presented properly. Basic worries were lying in classifying independent and dependent variables, but this matter looked inevitable in ecosystem-related studies. Here I put some minor comments for the authors.

1. Global SDG indicators are sometimes very rough scale and they usually do not fully represent the sustainable development status. Although authors adopt some indicators from existing literature, I think it will be good to add some selection processes more precisely.

2. Many core references come from China, but the article should contain global consensus. Therefore, I would like to recommend some more international references. In addition, please check some errors of citation software - some mistypo

3. Discussion - Please add some limitations and weaknesses of this study. This is an important point

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

(1) In the Introduction, the research gap mentions "there remains a lack of in-depth research on how ESs respond to SDGs under specific geographic and ecological conditions." However, Dai et al. (2024) [14]'s research on the Qinghai Tibet Plateau also belongs to this category. It is not necessary to conduct research on the South China region just because the Qinghai Tibet Plateau does not belong to the South China region.

(2) The last paragraph of the Introduction does not indicate the necessity of this study. Ganzhou is located in the southern mountainous and hilly area, with a remote geographical location, backward infrastructure, low social development level, and high incidence of poverty. It is a typical poverty-stricken concentrated area. There is a large population here, and the land available for development and utilization is limited to narrow river valleys, posing significant challenges to sustainable development.

(3) Study area, it is recommended to appropriately cite literature for background information, such as climate.

(4) The coordinates in Figure 1 are incomplete, missing E and N. There is no subgraph abc. The legend in the right figure does not have a title, such as ecosystem type, and is missing the year.

(5) Formulas 1 and 2 are used to standardize indicators, but Table 1 does not show which indicators have positive and negative effects.

(6) Lines 158-159, Wm is calculated based on the entropy weight method, with only a simple description, but no formula or calculation explanation.

(7) Is there any difference in the data between Figure 2 and Figure 3?

(8) Is there any literature or statistical data on the reasons for 286-292. Because your SDG calculation data is based on statistical yearbooks and is based on county-level non statistical units, not grid scale. Unable to support the content of the discussion.

(9) There is a large amount of qualitative description or speculation in the discussion, without literature or data support. It is recommended to optimize.

(10) The discussion did not compare relevant research.

(11) Based on the content of the article, the title doesn't seem very appropriate. Perhaps consider "Localized sustainable development goals changes and their response to ecosystem services- a case of typical southern hilly regions in China". This is just a suggestion.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author quickly and thoroughly revised the article, and I am happy to see it published.

(1) Reference [23] may be "Terrain gradient response of landscape ecological environment to land use and land cover change in the hilly watershed in South China (2023, Ecological Indicators)". Please check.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx