Next Article in Journal
Sacred Networks and Spiritual Resilience: Sustainable Management of Studenica Monastery’s Cultural Landscape
Next Article in Special Issue
Ecological Security Patterns Based on Ecosystem Service Assessment and Circuit Theory: A Case Study of Liaoning Province, China
Previous Article in Journal
Climate Change-Driven Spatiotemporal Dynamics of Landscape Ecological in the Qinling Mountains (1980–2023)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Multisensory Health and Well-Being of Chinese Classical Gardens: Insights from Humble Administrator’s Garden
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Trade-Offs, Synergies, and Driving Factors of Ecosystem Services in the Urban–Rural Fringe of Beijing at Multiple Scales

Land 2025, 14(5), 1009; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051009
by Chang Wang 1,†, Siyuan Wang 1,2,3,†, Bing Qi 1, Chuling Jiang 1, Weiyang Sun 1, Yilun Cao 4 and Yunyuan Li 1,*
Reviewer 2: Anonymous
Reviewer 3: Anonymous
Land 2025, 14(5), 1009; https://doi.org/10.3390/land14051009
Submission received: 15 April 2025 / Revised: 2 May 2025 / Accepted: 5 May 2025 / Published: 7 May 2025

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The paper has potential, but it needs to improve the background, explain the method better and make the results more interesting. With careful reading and polishing, the paper can be improved. Revisions are not minor but also not major 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors


This manuscript investigates the trade-offs, synergies, and socio-ecological drivers of ecosystem services (ESs) in the urban-rural fringe (URF) of Beijing at multiple spatial scales using high-resolution data from 2022. The study offers significant implications for spatially explicit land use planning and sustainable ecosystem management. The manuscript is well-structured and presents novel insights into multi-scale ESBs classification and their policy relevance in the context of urban ecological governance in China. However, a few issues related to methodological clarity and presentation of results require minor revisions before the manuscript can be accepted for publication in Land.
1. In the abstract section, I suggest adding a brief introduction to the research background at the beginning.  
2. In Figure 1, a textual description should be added for subfigures a, b, and c.  
3. The resolution of Figure 2 needs to be improved.  
4. Lines 52–55: Many studies have also used Pearson and Spearman correlation analyses to identify relationships among ESs.  
5. I suggest explicitly listing the research objectives at the end of the introduction, for example: “This study aims to…”  
6. The discussion content could be more in-depth, such as focusing on a deeper discussion of mechanisms rather than repeating results.  
7. The conclusion section should highlight the main contributions and key findings of the study rather than repeating the content of the abstract.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors,

Your study is a multi-scale analysis of the spatial patterns of ecological systems, their trade-offs and synergies at the 1 km, 3 km, and city-wide levels. You explore the relationships between ecological systems and socio-ecological drivers across different spatial scales, offering a comprehensive understanding of multi-level differences in ecological systems. Your study provides new insights into the effects of spatial scale on ecological systems, enhances the understanding of socio-ecological drivers shaping ecological systems at various scales, and incorporates scale-dependence of ecological systems into hierarchical governance, contributing to sustainable regional ecological management.

 

It is my pleasure to serve as a reviewer of your study, which is both comprehensive and applicable. In particular, I commend the graphical illustrations.

However, I do have some suggestions for revisions:

 

-In lines 35–37, please replace the keywords Ecosystem service, Trade-offs and synergies, and Urban–rural fringe of Beijing with others, in order to make your paper more accessible to researchers. The mentioned keywords are already included in the title. Kindly select alternative keywords that better reflect and highlight the unique aspects of your work.

-Below Table 2 (between lines 311–312), please clarify the abbreviations used, so that the table can be understood independently of the full text—just as you have done below Figure 4 (lines 364–369).

-In line 333, within the caption for Figure 3, please indicate what the hotspot value ratings represent. While this becomes clear when reading the full paper, many researchers examine figures and tables without reading the entire text.

-In the caption for Figure 7 (lines 447–448), please add an explanation of the labels used in the graphs.

Kind regards

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Back to TopTop