How Land-Take Impacts the Provision of Ecosystem Services—The Case of the Province of Monza and Brianza (Italy)

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

At row 129  "The 56% of the territory is urbanized......" should be "56% of the territory is urbanized..."

Explain the achronim DUSAF at its first aperance, page 3, row 131, 

At Table 1, page 6, Make the discription of I_Prov_Arg similar to I_Reg_Nat and 

I_Cult_Land.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Comments on the Quality of English Language

The quality of English is very good

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript. The authors agree with all the comments and have made corresponding changes to the manuscript. Here we present the responses (in red) to the reviewers’ comments.

Review comments

1. At row 129 "The 56% of the territory is urbanized......" should be "56% of the territory is urbanized..."

Many thanks for the suggestion. We changed it as suggested (line 141).

2. Explain the acronym DUSAF at its first appearance, page 3, row 131.

Many thanks for the suggestion. We changed it as suggested (lines 143-144).

3. At Table 1, page 6, Make the discription of I_Prov_Arg similar to I_Reg_Nat and I_Cult_Land.

Many thanks for the suggestion. We changed it as suggested.

4. Table 4. Explain why Medium and Low have equal values.

Many thanks for the suggestion. We have added a note to Table 4.

5. Table 5. How is it possible that there are restriction but the score is 1?

Many thanks for the suggestion. We have added a note to Table 5.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction (lines 32–122) offers a thorough background on the relevance of non-urbanized areas (NUAs) and ecosystem services (ESs). Context sets the study squarely in EU and Lombardy regional frameworks. Referencing of existing literature, however, tends towards impact statements rather than critical synthesis. For example, while a variety of ESs assessment methods are referenced (lines 55–111), the manuscript would be improved by situating the methodology adopted more directly in relation to alternatives: that is, use of the Senes et al. methodology needs to be more clearly justified through explicit comparison against InVEST and other multi-criteria methodologies (proposed revision between lines 89 and 116). Some terminology also appears without formal definition deep into the manuscript (e.g., "land-take"), which should be briefly defined early, perhaps shortly after line 39.

Methodologically (lines 123–261), the workflow is clear, with phases and indices clearly described. The choice of three time thresholds (T0: 1999–2003, T1: 2012–2013, T2: 2021) is largely determined by data availability, but this creates a potential bias in trend attribution that is only briefly alluded to. The authors need to explicitly discuss the implications of using periods rather than specific dates, since this could confound interpretations of rates of change (see lines 162–167). In addition, in the computation of indices (lines 196–238), the composite quality index (CQI*) excludes the I_Reg_Soil index due to data limitations (line 191). This deserves more critical consideration, since the lack of regulating ESs associated with soil could systematically underestimate ES provision; the limits should be emphasized more strongly (lines 238–242), and the authors need to discuss, even briefly, how this omission might be addressed in future work.

The weighting scenarios, developed by means of Analytic Hierarchy Process, are succinctly outlined (lines 251–259). However, stakeholder participation in weight selection is hardly explained. There is the possibility of bias if weights are subjectively assigned or not properly justified by broad stakeholder involvement. The paper would be strengthened by further explanation of the manner in which local planners and other stakeholders were involved (lines 252–254).

The results and discussion section (lines 262–540) is full of quantitative and spatial detail, and the changes in ES indices over the twenty-year period really stand out. Some statements, however, trend unintentionally towards advocacy rather than objective evaluation—particularly where the beneficial impacts of regional policies are discussed, the language occasionally suggests causation that might not be strongly evidenced. For instance, in lines 384–410, rising values for regulating ESs are put down to conservation policy, but alternative drivers (e.g., spontaneous forest regrowth) ought to be acknowledged. Additionally, possible uncertainty in LULC classes arising from photointerpretation is noted late in the conclusions (lines 602–604), but would be more helpful if noted as a limitation close to discussion of results (lines 314–331 and lines 410–444).

Spatial heterogeneity in ES change is well recorded, but the risk of over-estimation of ES provision by only examining NUAs is not raised until line 522, in discussion of CQI*. This should be emphasized throughout the results text, particularly in comparisons of indices for the entire area and NUAs only (e.g., lines 341–364, 388–408, 424–444). Also, conclusions regarding the scope for residual green spaces to "compensate" for losses (lines 489–491, 493–497) would be strengthened by adopting a more critical tone, reflecting the risk of fragmentation, as well as reduced accessibility and connectivity of ecosystem services.

In the conclusion section (lines 541–590), the argument that "natural resource protection policies alone cannot compensate for the loss of ecosystem services due to land-take" (lines 579–585) would be stronger if supported by brief discussion of complementary strategies (urban regeneration, de-urbanization), with corresponding explicit mention of relevant literature. Further, caveats regarding the data sources used are mostly concentrated toward the end of the manuscript (lines 595–604); moving these to the beginning of the methods would increase transparency and critical awareness throughout the manuscript. A final problem of bias is the absence of a counterfactual—although the positive impact of specific policies is outlined, there is little consideration of what would have happened under alternative planning approaches or in provinces with different socio-economic profiles. Recommendations for future research should include comparative studies, ideally in the last paragraph of the conclusion (expand lines 601–603)

Author Response

We are grateful to the reviewers for their constructive comments on the manuscript. The authors agree with all the comments and have made corresponding changes to the manuscript. Here we present the responses (in red) to the reviewers’ comments.

Review comments

1. The introduction (lines 32–122) offers a thorough background on the relevance of non-urbanized areas (NUAs) and ecosystem services (ESs). Context sets the study squarely in EU and Lombardy regional frameworks. Referencing of existing literature, however, tends towards impact statements rather than critical synthesis. For example, while a variety of ESs assessment methods are referenced (lines 55–111), the manuscript would be improved by situating the methodology adopted more directly in relation to alternatives: that is, use of the Senes et al. methodology needs to be more clearly justified through explicit comparison against InVEST and other multi-criteria methodologies (proposed revision between lines 89 and 116).

Many thanks for the indication. We added what the reviewer suggested (lines 111-119).

Some terminology also appears without formal definition deep into the manuscript (e.g., "land-take"), which should be briefly defined early, perhaps shortly after line 39.

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we added a land-take definition (lines 42-45).

2. Methodologically (lines 123–261), the workflow is clear, with phases and indices clearly described. The choice of three time thresholds (T0: 1999–2003, T1: 2012–2013, T2: 2021) is largely determined by data availability, but this creates a potential bias in trend attribution that is only briefly alluded to. The authors need to explicitly discuss the implications of using periods rather than specific dates, since this could confound interpretations of rates of change (see lines 162–167).

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we discussed the implications of using periods rather than specific dates (lines 186-193). We also added in the future work the possibility to test the method using different data available at specific dates (lines 664-665).

In addition, in the computation of indices (lines 196–238), the composite quality index (CQI*) excludes the I_Reg_Soil index due to data limitations (line 191).

Many thanks for the indication. We realized that we were not clear enough in specifying that there are no data available for the different periods considered since the soil characteristics did not change in the last 25 years. We added this specification (lines 212-213).

This deserves more critical consideration, since the lack of regulating ESs associated with soil could systematically underestimate ES provision; the limits should be emphasized more strongly (lines 238–242), and the authors need to discuss, even briefly, how this omission might be addressed in future work.

Many thanks for the indication. We have briefly explained the reasons for the exclusion, in accordance with what was said previously (lines 265-267).

3. The weighting scenarios, developed by means of Analytic Hierarchy Process, are succinctly outlined (lines 251–259). However, stakeholder participation in weight selection is hardly explained. There is the possibility of bias if weights are subjectively assigned or not properly justified by broad stakeholder involvement. The paper would be strengthened by further explanation of the manner in which local planners and other stakeholders were involved (lines 252–254).

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we detailed how the stakeholders were involved (lines 282-285).

4. The results and discussion section (lines 262–540) is full of quantitative and spatial detail, and the changes in ES indices over the twenty-year period really stand out. Some statements, however, trend unintentionally towards advocacy rather than objective evaluation—particularly where the beneficial impacts of regional policies are discussed, the language occasionally suggests causation that might not be strongly evidenced. For instance, in lines 384–410, rising values for regulating ESs are put down to conservation policy, but alternative drivers (e.g., spontaneous forest regrowth) ought to be acknowledged.

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we made the concept more clear (lines 419-425).

Additionally, possible uncertainty in LULC classes arising from photointerpretation is noted late in the conclusions (lines 602–604), but would be more helpful if noted as a limitation close to discussion of results (lines 314–331 and lines (410–444).

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we specified the limitation (lines 344-345). We also slightly corrected the concept in the conclusions paragraph, to make it clearer (lines 660-661).

5. Spatial heterogeneity in ES change is well recorded, but the risk of over-estimation of ES provision by only examining NUAs is not raised until line 522, in discussion of CQI*. This should be emphasized throughout the results text, particularly in comparisons of indices for the entire area and NUAs only (e.g., lines 341–364, 388–408, 424–444).

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we specified this limitation (lines 379, 434-435, and 479-480).

Also, conclusions regarding the scope for residual green spaces to "compensate" for losses (lines 489–491, 493–497) would be strengthened by adopting a more critical tone, reflecting the risk of fragmentation, as well as reduced accessibility and connectivity of ecosystem services.

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we better specified the concept (lines 536-543).

6. In the conclusion section (lines 541–590), the argument that "natural resource protection policies alone cannot compensate for the loss of ecosystem services due to land-take" (lines 579–585) would be stronger if supported by brief discussion of complementary strategies (urban regeneration, de-urbanization), with corresponding explicit mention of relevant literature.

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we added a brief discussion of complementary strategies (lines 636-641).

Further, caveats regarding the data sources used are mostly concentrated toward the end of the manuscript (lines 595–604); moving these to the beginning of the methods would increase transparency and critical awareness throughout the manuscript.

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested also in his7her comment #2, we added this limitation at the beginning of the Materials and Methods chapter (lines 186-193).

A final problem of bias is the absence of a counterfactual—although the positive impact of specific policies is outlined, there is little consideration of what would have happened under alternative planning approaches or in provinces with different socio-economic profiles. Recommendations for future research should include comparative studies, ideally in the last paragraph of the conclusion (expand lines 601–603)

Many thanks for the indication. As the reviewer suggested, we added the recommendations for future research (lines 662-664).

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf