You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
MDPIMDPI
Search all articles
by
  • Davide Marino1,
  • Antonio Barone1 and
  • Margherita Palmieri2
  • et al.

Reviewer 1: Anonymous Reviewer 2: Anonymous Reviewer 3: Jelena Ćalić

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editors,

The topic of this study – verifying the "park effect" in national parks through long-term temporal and spatial comparison methods – holds significant theoretical and practical value. The research design is conceptually sound, and the data foundation is relatively solid. However, the overall clarity of the manuscript requires further enhancement. My suggestions are as follows:

  1. On Line 97, "[39]" should be replaced with the "author's name".
  2. The concept of the "park effect" first appears in section 1.3 of the introduction (Line 181). It should be explained earlier, in either section 1.1 or 1.2. Alternatively, if an explanation already exists elsewhere, the concept should be explicitly highlighted there. The authors refer to a specific "park effect" – how should this specificity be understood?
  3. The reference to "Fig. 1" on Line 194 is incorrect; it seems a figure describing the methodological steps is missing. The authors are requested to add this.
  4. In Lines 213-215, what are the unit economic coefficients? The authors should present these values, citing the source literature or their own experimental data. This method often overlooks the spatial heterogeneity and non-linear relationships in ecosystem service supply. Furthermore, how were the results of the ecosystem service valuation based on these coefficients validated? Could the authors please elaborate on this?
  5. Figure captions should be placed below the figures. Please check and correct this throughout the manuscript.
  6. In section 3.1, the multi-temporal analysis of land use changes could also be presented using a transition matrix. Visualizing key results (e.g., with trend charts, spatial distribution maps) is recommended to improve readability. Additionally, the analysis is predominantly based on area changes and percentages, lacking inferential statistical tests. It is impossible to determine whether the observed differences inside versus outside the parks are statistically significant or merely due to random variation.
  7. The discussion section provides insufficient analysis of the mechanisms behind the "park effect". Is it linked to factors such as park management plans, funding, or community participation? It is recommended to explain this by incorporating specific case studies or policy contexts.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Authors Responses:

  • Introduction has been improved : see 1.2
  • Methods: We have improved this paragraph. Thanks to your suggestion
  • Results: The results of the present study have now been rendered much clearer. Expressions of gratitude are extended to the reviewers for their invaluable contribution to the review process of the manuscript.
  • Figures and Tables: we provided to incorporate the required format for tables

 

The topic of this study – verifying the "park effect" in national parks through long-term temporal and spatial comparison methods – holds significant theoretical and practical value. The research design is conceptually sound, and the data foundation is relatively solid. However, the overall clarity of the manuscript requires further enhancement. My suggestions are as follows:

  1. On Line 97, "[39]" should be replaced with the "author's name".

Response 1: We replaced the reference number with the author’s name (Line 101).

  1. The concept of the "park effect" first appears in section 1.3 of the introduction (Line 181). It should be explained earlier, in either section 1.1 or 1.2. Alternatively, if an explanation already exists elsewhere, the concept should be explicitly highlighted there. The authors refer to a specific "park effect" – how should this specificity be understood?

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. We introduced the concept of the “park effect” in Section 1.2 (Lines 167-175), which is further referred to in paragraph 1.3 (now Line 169-177).

  1. The reference to "Fig. 1" on Line 194 is incorrect; it seems a figure describing the methodological steps is missing. The authors are requested to add this.

Response 3: Thanks for this comment, we have correct by eliminating the reference to fig.1.

  1. In Lines 213-215, what are the unit economic coefficients? The authors should present these values, citing the source literature or their own experimental data. This method often overlooks the spatial heterogeneity and non-linear relationships in ecosystem service supply. Furthermore, how were the results of the ecosystem service valuation based on these coefficients validated? Could the authors please elaborate on this?

Response 4: Thank you for the suggestion.  We have added specific references to our previous studies, in which we developed the methodology for extracting, reviewing and applying economic unit coefficients. In this reference, we also validated the results obtained by comparing them with those of other similar studies
As you suggested, we have also included table 1 (Line 266) with the final coefficients used in this work.
In the text (Line 225-236), we explain that using coefficients associated with CLC level III, reweighted according to the specific land use macroclasses in parks, is an attempt to mitigate the spatial heterogeneity problem typically found in works that use the benefit transfer approach (as you suggested).

 

  1. Figure captions should be placed below the figures. Please check and correct this throughout the manuscript.

Response 5: Thanks, we have modified it (Now Line 296-302). We have incorporated the required format for tables 3 and 4.

  1. In section 3.1, the multi-temporal analysis of land use changes could also be presented using a transition matrix. Visualizing key results (e.g., with trend charts, spatial distribution maps) is recommended to improve readability. Additionally, the analysis is predominantly based on area changes and percentages, lacking inferential statistical tests. It is impossible to determine whether the observed differences inside versus outside the parks are statistically significant or merely due to random variation.

Response 6: Thank you for pointing this out. In other previous articles published by our group, we opted to use transition matrices to represent changes. In this case, we decided it would be better to represent the absolute and percentage changes in tabular form. In our opinion, this makes it easier to read, also in relation to the presentation of the results. Whereas, to address the comment on statistical inference, we complemented the analysis with a directional sign test (see from line 232 to 236 in section 2 and from line 392 to 400in section 3.1).

  1. The discussion section provides insufficient analysis of the mechanisms behind the "park effect". Is it linked to factors such as park management plans, funding, or community participation? It is recommended to explain this by incorporating specific case studies or policy contexts.

Response 7: We thank the reviewer for the suggestion. We revised the Discussion section by linking the “park effect” to other mechanisms, such as management plans and funding, and we have provided some case study examples.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Editor and Authors,

I reviewed Marino et al.'s article on park effect in Italy. Based on the current state of the article I suggest minor revision. I have the following comments:

Line 33. Change i in Italy’s name to capital.

Line 215. What scientific literature? Please provide the list of literature you used to describe these vaules and please provide more insights how you calculated the €/ha values.

Line 242. Fig 1. I suggest to show the SNAI areas in the map too.

Line 282. What is NO in here? I guess you wanted to write NP.

Line 350. Tab. 4 There is Agricoltural production instead of Agricultural

Line 404. There is a capital O in „On the other” for apparently no reason.

Line 408. There is a „.” between „scapes” and „of” instead of space.

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Authors Responses:

  • Introduction has been improved : see 1.2
  • Methods: We have improved this paragraph. Thanks to your suggestion
  • Results: The results of the present study have now been rendered much clearer. Expressions of gratitude are extended to the reviewers for their invaluable contribution to the review process of the manuscript.
  • Figures and Tables: we provided to incorporate the required format for tables

 

I reviewed Marino et al.'s article on park effect in Italy. Based on the current state of the article I suggest minor revision. I have the following comments:

  1. Line 33. Change i in Italy’s name to capital.

Response 1: Thanks for this suggestion. We did it.

  1. Line 215. What scientific literature? Please provide the list of literature you used to describe these values and please provide more insights how you calculated the €/ha values.

Response 2: Thank you for the suggestion. As you suggest, we have expanded the method of applying the coefficients and  added  specific references to our previous studies, in which we developed the methodology for extracting, reviewing and applying the unit economic coefficients.  We have also included table 1 with the final coefficients used in this work (243-254).

 

  1. Line 242. Fig 1. I suggest to show the SNAI areas in the map too.

Response 3: We have considered including this figure as suggested, but we believe that it would not be legible given the scale required to represent all parks. Thank you for your suggestion, however.

  1. Line 282. What is NO in here? I guess you wanted to write NP.

Response 4: Thanks for this suggestion. Wed did it (Line 334).

  1. Line 350. Tab. 4 There is Agricultural production instead of Agricultural

Response 5: Thanks for the suggestion. We have changed it (now Table 5, Line 412).

  1. Line 404. There is a capital O in „On the other” for apparently no reason.

Response 6: Thanks for this suggestion. We have changed it (Line 474

  1. Line 408. There is a „.” between „scapes” and „of” instead of space.

Response 7: We did it (Line 477).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Overall structure is correct.

Although the language is mainly clear, there are some details to be corrected, shown in the file as comments.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Thank you very much for taking the time to review this manuscript. Please find the detailed responses below and the corresponding revisions/corrections highlighted in the re-submitted file.

Authors Responses:

  • Introduction has been improved : see 1.2
  • Methods: We have improved this paragraph. Thanks to your suggestion
  • Results: The results of the present study have now been rendered much clearer. Expressions of gratitude are extended to the reviewers for their invaluable contribution to the review process of the manuscript.
  • Figures and Tables: we provided to incorporate the required format for tables

 

 Line number refer to land-3913093-review. Pdf

Our reviews are annotated in the revisioned MS

  1. Line 74 it is enough to say invasive species, "alien" is superfluous

Response 1: Thanks for this suggestion (Line 78).

  1. Line 137 provision of provisioning

Response 2: Thanks for this suggestion. We changed the “provision” in “the supply” (Line 141).

  1. First paraph of 2. Materials:  This has to be rephrased. Why is it underlined? And fig.1 is a map, not explanation of the step.

Response 3: Thanks for this suggestion. We have removed “fig.1” (Line 209).

  1. Line 208 _ add “and”

Response 4: Thanks for this suggestion (Line 223).

  1. Line 219 : why mushrooms?

Response 5: the supply of mushrooms is used as a proxy for the more general supply of woodland wild food products.

  1. Line 238: “is” correct with “are”

Response 6: Thanks for this suggestion. We have corrected it (Line 289).

  1. Line 249 : which is the reference of the base map?

Response 7: Thanks for this suggestion. It is our own elaboration (Line 296-302).

  1. Line 268 : what is this exactly?

Response 8: Thanks for this suggestion, we specified this term (Line 321)

  1. Line 276: eliminate “.”

Response 9: Thanks for this suggestion. We did it (Line 328).

  1. Tab 2 “scarse” correct with “Scarce”

Response 10: Thanks for this suggestion. We have corrected it (now Table 3, Line 329).

  1. Line 302 check grammar (expansion took place...+has occurred)

Response 11: Thanks for this suggestion. We have correct with

” Data on changes between 1960 and 2018 show that forest expansion in National parks affected all SNAI areas, with an overall increase of 2,258.7 km², occurring particularly in peripheral regions (+1,009.9 km²)” (Line 354-356)

  1. Line 321 grammar” As it regards the scrublands, in markedly declining,”

Response 12: Thanks for this suggestion. We have correct with

“As for scrubland, in sharp decline,” (Line 375).

  1. Tab agricultural instead of agricoltural

Response 13: Thanks for the suggestion. We have corrected it (now Tab. 5, Line 414

  1. Tab 4: why are mushrooms so important?

Response 14: the supply of mushrooms is used as a proxy for the more general supply of woodland wild foot products. In terms of economic value, it is among the least significant services, but it is nevertheless present. It should be noted that the forest component in national parks is very significant in terms of surface area.

  1. Line 423 However, ” net of the above”

Response 15: Thanks for this suggestion. We removed the sentence (Line 492).

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors and Editors,

Following this round of revisions, the manuscript has shown significant improvements in methodological transparency, robustness of results, and depth of discussion. The authors have provided positive and reasonable responses to the vast majority of the review comments. I recommend Minor Revision before acceptance. Please ask the authors to make the following final minor adjustments based on the suggestions below:

  1. Add the reference "[39]" after the phrase "drawing upon the work of Lucatelli".
  2. Suggestion for the Title: Replace the period after "effect" with a colon. The title should read: "Searching for the park effect: An analysis of land use change and ecosystem service flows in national parks in Italy".
  3. It is recommended to condense the key content of Step 1 and Step 2 from the "2. Materials and Methods" section into a single flowchart to facilitate quicker comprehension for readers.

Author Response

Comments 1: [Add the reference "[39]" after the phrase "drawing upon the work of Lucatelli"].

Response 1:. [We did. Thanks]

Comments 2: [Suggestion for the Title: Replace the period after "effect" with a colon. The title should read: "Searching for the park effect: An analysis of land use change and ecosystem service flows in national parks in Italy"].

Response 2: [We agree. Thanks for your suggestion]

Comments 3: [It is recommended to condense the key content of Step 1 and Step 2 from the "2. Materials and Methods" section into a single flowchart to facilitate quicker comprehension for readers].

Response 3: [Thanks. We agree with this comment. We added a flowchart in a new  subparagraph (2.1) and now “Area of study” is in 2.2.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx