Ecosystem-Model-Based Valuation of Ecosystem Services in a Baltic Lagoon: Long-Term Human Technical Interventions and Short-Term Variability
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsEnvironments-339283 Model-based valuation of ecosystem services in a Baltic lagoon: long-term human interventions and short-term variability
This is a good integrative study combining all four ecosystem services over three different periods of navigational channel changes. The authors are to be commended for including difficult to assess cultural ecosystem services with the other biophysical ecosystem service modelling and assessment. The following comments are meant to improve the article for publication.
Introduction
Line 81- the authors should explain why the Oder Lagoon was ideal for the test case study.
Lines 83-90 – the study objectives are clear.
Study site and methods
Lines 211-212 The authors could explain why the same input data was used for the different channel depth/draft conditions
Lins 227-233- a diagram would be very useful to show the data streams relationship to assessment methods.
Lines 253 to 256- do the authors mean 3.3. and 3.4 sections versus chapters.
Lines 289- given that there is no transferable literature for monetization of certain recreational and landscape aesthetic cultural ecosystem services – brief overview of the challenges from key literature sources would be useful such as the following citations:
Marcinkeviciute, L.; Pranskuniene, R. 2021. Cultural Ecosystem “employing” available natural resources, i.e., the ecosystems. Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania). Sustainability 13:123 https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010123
Rodrigues J. G. et al. Marine and Coastal Cultural Ecosystem Services:
knowledge gaps and research priorities. One Ecosystem 2: e12290
Doi: 10.3897/oneeco.2. e12290
Smardon R. C. 2021. Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review. Land10:1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111123
Results
Lines 476-477 as stated water transparency and population/tourism density is only applicable to the current scenario. Does this pose a problem with interpretation of the results?
Discussion
Lines 650-653 there is a good discussion of the limitations of the recreation quality index and aesthetic quality index plus the differentiation between tourist and local population.
It would seem that this would be a good point to talk about future research to improve cultural ecosystem service assessment -either here or in the conclusion.
Conclusion
Same point as above plus other future research needs to improve the modelling plus ecosystem service assessment for such applications
Author Response
Reviewer 1
Environments-339283 Model-based valuation of ecosystem services in a Baltic lagoon: long-term human interventions and short-term variability
Response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please find our response and modifications below:
Introduction
Line 81- the authors should explain why the Oder Lagoon was ideal for the test case study.
Response: We added:
“The Oder Lagoon is not only one of the largest Baltic lagoons, it is of outstanding socio-economic importance and a prime example for the changes and transformations that took and take place during the last centuries. Therefore, it can be considered as ideal test case.”
Study site and methods
Lines 211-212 The authors could explain why the same input data was used for the different channel depth/draft conditions
Response: We added the text:
“The ERGOM model simulations covered the years 2010–2019, representing a shipping depth/draft of 10.5 m in the Świna Channel. Simulations for the same 10-year period were repeated under the assumed conditions of the future 12.5 m depth and the historic post-1880 depth of 6 m. While the historic and future scenarios employed different bathymetries, all simulations were based on the same input data (e.g., weather, river discharge) from the years 2010–2019. This approach overcomes the problem of lacking reliable historical weather and discharge data and enables a direct analysis of the mere consequences of the channel deepening.”
Lines 227-233- a diagram would be very useful to show the data streams relationship to assessment methods.
Response: Figure 1 has been complemented with a sketch of the conceptual approach.
Lines 253 to 256- do the authors mean 3.3. and 3.4 sections versus chapters.
Our explanation was mis-leading and modified into:
The ecosystems services “wild plants and products” were estimated using literature-based calculations. The detailed literature data is indicated in chapter 3.3.
The ecosystem service “transportation” accounts for the lagoon's role in providing space and enabling shipping activities. The calculations are explained in chapter 3.4 and were based on existing literature data and statistics [47,62,63].
Lines 289- given that there is no transferable literature for monetization of certain recreational and landscape aesthetic cultural ecosystem services – brief overview of the challenges from key literature sources would be useful such as the following citations.
Response: This suggestion and the literature have been picked-up in the discussion (see below).
Marcinkeviciute, L.; Pranskuniene, R. 2021. Cultural Ecosystem “employing” available natural resources, i.e., the ecosystems. Services: The Case of Coastal-Rural Area (Nemunas Delta and Curonian Lagoon, Lithuania). Sustainability 13:123 https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13010123
Rodrigues J. G. et al. Marine and Coastal Cultural Ecosystem Services:
knowledge gaps and research priorities. One Ecosystem 2: e12290
Doi: 10.3897/oneeco.2. e12290
Smardon R. C. 2021. Ecosystem Services for Scenic Quality Landscape Management: A Review. Land10:1123. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10111123
Results
Lines 476-477 as stated water transparency and population/tourism density is only applicable to the current scenario. Does this pose a problem with interpretation of the results?
Response: We see the point. Our explanation was misleading and we changed it into:
“The total aesthetics ecosystem index comprises sub-indices for eutrophication (summer chlorophyll-a concentration), water transparency, population and tourism density. Population and tourism density reflect the real current state with a channel depth of 10.5 m and are assumed to be similar for other two deepening scenarios.”
Discussion
Lines 650-653 there is a good discussion of the limitations of the recreation quality index and aesthetic quality index plus the differentiation between tourist and local population.
It would seem that this would be a good point to talk about future research to improve cultural ecosystem service assessment -either here or in the conclusion.
Conclusion
Same point as above plus other future research needs to improve the modelling plus ecosystem service assessment for such applications
Response: We renamed a chapter into “4.4 Relevance, transferability and research needs” and added the text:
“The availability of suitable ecosystem models and their application provide a strongly improved and consistent database for the calculation of several provision and especially regulating services. Despite that, there is still space for further developments, since these models are usually restricted to lower trophical levels, focus on the water body and do not include benthic organisms and nearshore habitats. However, a major scientific challenge remains the inclusion of cultural ecosystem services. A re-cent review by Smardon [92] underscores their benefits and importance, with a focus on landscape aesthetics, but addresses shortcomings, as well. One deficit exists with respect to quantifying, visualizing and valuing cultural ecosystem services [93]. For coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services, a review by Garcia Rodrigues et al. [94] names several other deficits, such as a lack of integrated valuation assessments or insufficient links to benefits in human wellbeing. As a consequence, a generally applicable methodology for estimating different cultural ecosystem services does not exist. The few examples that address comparable lagoons address only some aspects and/or remain too conceptual [95] and suffer from the problem of a limited transferability [84].”
In the conclusion we added:
“The high quantitative and monetary importance of regulating services, namely nutrient retention, suggests that these ecosystem services and potential changes, resulting from the implementation of human interventions, need to be taken into account in the planning process of measures. They should be considered in Environmental Impact Assessments.”
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThank you for the opportunity to review this article. The topic is original and address a specific gap in the field.
The research objectives are clearly expressed and appropriately contextualized in relation to the global scenario.
The authors utilized a modified version of the coupled circulation and biogeochemical model documented by Neumann et al. The circulation component is based on the Modular Ocean Model (MOM5.1), while the biogeochemical component employs ERGOM version 1.2. For the study, the model was specifically adapted for the Oder Lagoon, featuring a high horizontal grid resolution of 150 m.
Practical significance of the proposed approach for managing the lagoon is that some of the calculation methods can be adapted and transferred to other lagoon systems. For similar large lagoons in the Baltic region, monetary values for selected ecosystem services can be directly estimated using comparable methodologies.
The references cited in this manuscript are appropriate and relevant to this research.
Meanwhile, there are some disadvantages.
Introduction section. I suggest the authors discuss more about the inconsistent findings reported in previous researches and how they will go to fill the gaps found on the past literature.
Methodology. The author(s) should provide a step-by-step account of their research methods. Because at the moment, the basic methodological elements of the article are not clearly stated, explained and justified.
Results. I believe that the numerical data analysed can be organised and included in the matrix precisely in order to give it more prominence and not to disperse it throughout the text, as is the case now.
Conclusion and Discussion. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed. It is recommended to discuss in this section what does the proposed approach add to the subject area compared with other published material.
Author Response
Reviewer 2
Response: Thank you for your comments and suggestions. Please find our response and modifications below:
Introduction section. I suggest the authors discuss more about the inconsistent findings reported in previous researches and how they will go to fill the gaps found on the past literature.
Response: We expanded the text in the introduction:
“Since coastal lagoons are world-wide considered as highly important ecosystems, many publications on ecosystem services exits and address a wide spectrum of questions [15-18]. This is true for Baltic lagoons, as well [19-21]. Existing assessments of ecosystem services face several significant challenges. For instance, data is often insufficient, heterogeneous, and difficult to compare. Variations in data across individual ecosystem services, combined with inadequate spatio-temporal resolution, further ex-acerbate the problem. As a result, complementary estimations, statistical analyses, and expert knowledge are frequently required to fill these gaps. Additionally, the methods used to calculate individual ecosystem services vary in robustness and reliability, making cross-comparisons problematic. These shortcomings have been widely documented [22,23] and substantially limit the acceptance and practical applicability of ecosystem service assessment outcomes.
We expanded the discussion chapter to address deficits and research needs:
“The availability of suitable ecosystem models and their application provide a strongly improved and consistent database for the calculation of several provision and especially regulating services. Despite that, there is still space for further developments, since these models are usually restricted to lower trophical levels, focus on the water body and do not include benthic organisms and nearshore habitats. However, a major scientific challenge remains the inclusion of cultural ecosystem services. A re-cent review by Smardon [92] underscores their benefits and importance, with a focus on landscape aesthetics, but addresses shortcomings, as well. One deficit exists with respect to quantifying, visualizing and valuing cultural ecosystem services [93]. For coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services, a review by Garcia Rodrigues et al. [94] names several other deficits, such as a lack of integrated valuation assessments or insufficient links to benefits in human wellbeing. As a consequence, a generally applicable methodology for estimating different cultural ecosystem services does not exist. The few examples that address comparable lagoons address only some aspects and/or remain too conceptual [95] and suffer from the problem of a limited transferability [84].”
Methodology. The author(s) should provide a step-by-step account of their research methods. Because at the moment, the basic methodological elements of the article are not clearly stated, explained and justified.
Response: Figure 1 has been complemented with a sketch of the conceptual approach.
Results. I believe that the numerical data analysed can be organised and included in the matrix precisely in order to give it more prominence and not to disperse it throughout the text, as is the case now.
Response: We complemented information on the appendices that provide the required overview:
“The calculated ecosystem services, based on the model simulation results and the complementing socioeconomic data are fully documented in Appendix A. The subsequent monetary ecosystem services are presented in Appendix B. Because of the methodological and conceptual heterogeneities the following chapters address comparable groups of ecosystem services.”
Conclusion and Discussion. The conclusions are consistent with the evidence and arguments presented and they address the main question posed. It is recommended to discuss in this section what does the proposed approach add to the subject area compared with other published material.
Response: We renamed and expanded the discussion chapter 4.4 into “Relevance, transferability and research needs” and added text on innovation and research needs:
“The availability of suitable ecosystem models and their application provide a strongly improved and consistent database for the calculation of several provision and especially regulating services. Despite that, there is still space for further develop-ments, since these models are usually restricted to lower trophical levels, focus on the water body and do not include benthic organisms and nearshore habitats. However, a major scientific challenge remains the inclusion of cultural ecosystem services. A re-cent review by Smardon [92] underscores their benefits and importance, with a focus on landscape aesthetics, but addresses shortcomings, as well. One deficit exists with respect to quantifying, visualizing and valuing cultural ecosystem services [93]. For coastal and marine cultural ecosystem services, a review by Garcia Rodrigues et al. [94] names several other deficits, such as a lack of integrated valuation assessments or insufficient links to benefits in human wellbeing. As a consequence, a generally appli-cable methodology for estimating different cultural ecosystem services does not exist. The few examples that address comparable lagoons address only some aspects and/or remain too conceptual [95] and suffer from the problem of a limited transferability [84].”
In the conclusion we added:
“The high quantitative and monetary importance of regulating services, namely nutrient retention, suggests that these ecosystem services and potential changes, resulting from the implementation of human interventions, need to be taken into account in the planning process of measures. They should be considered in Environmental Impact Assessments.”
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Comments and Suggestions for AuthorsThe manuscript has been sufficiently improved to warrant publication in Environments
