Assessment of Ecosystem Service Value of the Liaohe Estuarine Wetland

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript presents the case study of a biophysical evaluation of ecosystem services in the Liaohe estuarine wetland in Liaoning Province, China. Despite the emergy-based evaluation of ecosystem services is a novel and interesting topic, the manuscript lacks methodological details to the extent that is not entirely possible to understand and follow the methods used and the rationale behind this kind of analysis. The manuscript might be improved by clearly explaining and discussing how emergy-based evaluation of services differs from other evaluations. A clear definition of emergy is missing, hampering the overall understanding of the analysis. The definition of intermediate and ultimate services is not entirely clear and contrasts with other similar concepts in the scientific literature, causing confusion to the reader. 

Substantial editing of English language is required and the literature review in the Introduction misses most of the studies published so far on emergy and ecosystem services. The structure of the paper is over-schematic, almost resembling a list of bullet points. Discussion is missing, in particular regarding the assumptions and theoretical implications of using emergy for ecosystem service accounting. 

Conclusions are very general and vague. 

Author Response

1. The manuscript presents the case study of a biophysical evaluation of ecosystem services in the Liaohe estuarine wetland in Liaoning Province, China. Despite the emergy-based evaluation of ecosystem services is a novel and interesting topic, the manuscript lacks methodological details to the extent that is not entirely possible to understand and follow the methods used and the rationale behind this kind of analysis.

Yes, you are right. We supplemented the methodological details in Line 123 to 142.

 

2. The manuscript might be improved by clearly explaining and discussing how emergy-based evaluation of services differs from other evaluations.

Thank you for your comment. We explained how emergy-based evaluation of services differs from other evaluations in discussion in Line 333 to 346.

 

3. A clear definition of emergy is missing, hampering the overall understanding of the analysis.

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the emergy definition from Line 124 to 127.

 

4. The definition is not entirely clear and contrasts with other similar concepts in the scientific literature, causing confusion to the reader. 

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the definition of intermediate and ultimate services value from Line 163 to 168.

 

5. Substantial editing of English language is required and the literature review in the Introduction misses most of the studies published so far on emergy and ecosystem services.

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the studies published so far on emergy and ecosystem services from Line 38 to 42.

 

6. The structure of the paper is over-schematic, almost resembling a list of bullet points.

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the details of emergy calculation method from line 123 to 142. And all bullet points explain the data and its source for each emergy, and it has correspondence with the contents in Table 1.

 

7. Discussion is missing, in particular regarding the assumptions and theoretical implications of using emergy for ecosystem service accounting. 

Thank you for your comment. We added the Discussion from Line 327 to 346.

 

8. Conclusions are very general and vague.

Thank you for your comment. We rewrote the Conclusions from Line 348 to 371.

Reviewer 2 Report

I would suggest the author to:

1.  update the literature in paragraph 1 because a lot of works from 2016 to  2018 address  the question of ES assessment in a dynamic way (see statement at line 45). For example:

 Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008

 

 2. Introduce, shortly in paragraph 1 and in depth in paragraph. 2.2.1, what is the emergy method by Odum. This could help non-expert readers in understanding the study structure and findings;

 

3. Clarify in paragraph. 2.2.1 why the Odum's method is the best for the Liahone estuarine wetland.

 

4. Make explicit in the conclusion the contribution of the study to the advancement of the research (novel and original elements introduced in the research design or in the Odum's method). Despite, the paper should state, since the title, that it is a case-study applying the Odum's method to a (new?) regional context.

 

5. Table 1.: add a column and insert in it the data listed in notes from 1 to 18. This could help the readers.

 

6. Typing mistakes at lines 49,86.

Author Response

1. update the literature in paragraph 1 because a lot of works from 2016 to 2018 address the question of ES assessment in a dynamic way (see statement at line 45). For example: Costanza, R., de Groot, R., Braat, L., Kubiszewski, I., Fioramonti, L., Sutton, P., Farber, S., & Grasso, M. (2017) Twenty years of ecosystem services: How far have we come and how far do we still need to go? Ecosystem Services, 28, pp. 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.09.008 Yes, you are right. We have updated the literature in line 38 and 42 in the Paragraph 1 and Reference list, and we also revised the introduction from line 45 to 102. 2. Introduce, shortly in paragraph 1 and in depth in paragraph. 2.2.1, what is the emergy method by Odum. This could help non-expert readers in understanding the study structure and findings; Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the emergy definition and details of emergy calculation method from Line 123 to 142. 3. Clarify in paragraph. 2.2.1 why the Odum's method is the best for the Liahone estuarine wetland. Thank you for your comment. We explained why the Odum's method is the best for the Liahone estuarine wetland from Line 85 to 92. 4. Make explicit in the conclusion the contribution of the study to the advancement of the research (novel and original elements introduced in the research design or in the Odum's method). Despite, the paper should state, since the title, that it is a case-study applying the Odum's method to a (new?) regional context. Thank you for your comment. We rewrote the Conclusions from Line 348 to 371. 5. Table 1.: add a column and insert in it the data listed in notes from 1 to 18. This could help the readers. Thank you for your comment. The format of Table 1 is required in the emergy research field using the footnote to explain the calculation process for each emergy. For your comment, do you mean we should move the footnote into the table ? 6. Typing mistakes at lines 49,86. Thank you for your comment. We have revised them in line 82.

Reviewer 3 Report

The manuscript is interesting because it assesses the estuarine ecosystem value by applying an unique method. However, I think the calculation process is unclear. Some revisions are necessary to make the process clear and improve the quality of the manuscript.    

L.49 emergy accounting method

Though this manuscript mainly uses “emergy accounting method”, most of the readers are not familiar to it. The authors should therefore briefly explain the concept of the method. Otherwise, readers cannot understand the appropriateness and usefulness of applying this method to assess ecosystem service value.   

L.54 What is “f types”?

L.68 Is it appropriate to change “structured the household survey” to “the structured household survey”?

L.86 …service value of (of) Liaohe estuarine wetland?

L.90 …difficult to monetize (of) wetland ecosystem service value?

L.94 …value flow is comprehensive(ly) considered?

L.131 What is “Odum energy language”? Brief explanation is necessary.

L.142 Calculation method of wetland ecosystem value

The process of calculation is not clear; how is energy flow converted to the value? For example, in the calculation of the value of material production, how is the final production converted to energy or value? Moreover, in the calculation of the value of scientific research and education, how is the number of published paper converted to the energy or value? 

L.143 …performed from (the) maintaining the system…?

L.188 …research and cultural (something is missing)…?

Relationships between ultimate and service values

There is no explanation about the relationships between ultimate and service values. How are they related each other. In addition, how are they linked in Figure 2?

3. Resutls

It is not clear how the value is calculated. For example, how is the total pages of papers converted to the value? Because the calculation process is not clear, it is difficult to evaluate the results. 

4. Conclusions

What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying this method? What are the issues and limitations of this research? What becomes clear and remains unclear by applying this method? Is this method applicable to other cases?

Author Response

1. The manuscript is interesting because it assesses the estuarine ecosystem value by applying an unique method. However, I think the calculation process is unclear. Some revisions are necessary to make the process clear and improve the quality of the manuscript.    

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the methodological details and explained the basis calculation method for each emergy from Line 123 to 142. And the footnotes in Table 1 explain the details of emergy calculation.

 

2. L.49 emergy accounting method

Though this manuscript mainly uses “emergy accounting method”, most of the readers are not familiar to it. The authors should therefore briefly explain the concept of the method. Otherwise, readers cannot understand the appropriateness and usefulness of applying this method to assess ecosystem service value.   

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the methodological details and explained the basis calculation method for each emergy from Line 123 to 142.

 

3. L.54 What is “f types”?

Thank you for your comment. That is a typing mistake. “f” has been deleted in line 49.

 

4. L.68 Is it appropriate to change “structured the household survey” to “the structured household survey”?

Yes, you are right. We have revised it in line 63.

 

5. L.86 …service value of (of) Liaohe estuarine wetland?

Thank you for your comment. That is a typing mistake. “of” has been deleted in line 82.

 

6. L.90 …difficult to monetize (of) wetland ecosystem service value?

Thank you for your comment. That is a typing mistake. “of” has been deleted in line 87.

 

7. L.94 …value flow is comprehensive(ly) considered?

Thank you for your comment. That is a typing mistake. We have revised it in line 90.

 

8. L.131 What is “Odum energy language”? Brief explanation is necessary.

Thank you for your comment. We have explained from line 147 to 152.

 

9. L.142 Calculation method of wetland ecosystem value

The process of calculation is not clear; how is energy flow converted to the value? For example, in the calculation of the value of material production, how is the final production converted to energy or value? Moreover, in the calculation of the value of scientific research and education, how is the number of published paper converted to the energy or value? 

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the methodological details and explained the basis calculation method for each emergy from Line 127 to 147. And then, all footnotes in Table 1 can explain the details of emergy calculation.

 

10. L.143 …performed from (the) maintaining the system…?

Thank you for your comment. We sup

 

11. L.188 …research and cultural (something is missing)…?

Yes, you are right. We have revised it line ?

 

12. Relationships between ultimate and service values. There is no explanation about the relationships between ultimate and service values. How are they related each other. In addition, how are they linked in Figure 2?

Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the explanations of the relationships between ultimate and intermediate service values from line 228 to 233.

 

3. Resutls

It is not clear how the value is calculated. For example, how is the total pages of papers converted to the value? Because the calculation process is not clear, it is difficult to evaluate the results. 

Yes, you are right. Thank you for your comment. We supplemented the methodological details and explained the basis calculation method for each emergy from Line 123 to 142. And then, all footnotes in Table 1 can explain the details of emergy calculation.

 

4. Conclusions

What are the advantages and disadvantages of applying this method? What are the issues and limitations of this research? What becomes clear and remains unclear by applying this method? Is this method applicable to other cases?

Thank you for your comment. We have rewrote the Conclusions from line 348 to 371.

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors clearly addressed most of my comments. However, some English editing is still needed, in particular in the newly added text. Furthermore, a clear definition of the classification used (into intermediate and ultimate services) is still missing. I believe this is particularly important to clarify, due to the fact that similar (but different) classifications are already present in the scientific literature. 

I could not find any integration of existing literature on emergy and ecosystem services at lines 38 to 42, as indicated by the authors. Beside expanding the possible outreach of the paper, and making the analysis more solid, a proper literature review could reinforce or confute the advantages/drawbacks and highlight the characteristics of emergy based evaluations of ecosystem services. The simplest way to improve the literature review with specific references is to search for "emergy" and "ecosystem services" in any scientific research repository.

Discussion is still very limited and should be more focused on the implications of the results and what can be the contribution of emergy in ecosystem services evaluations. 

  

Author Response

The authors clearly addressed most of my comments. However, some English editing is still needed, in particular in the newly added text. Furthermore, a clear definition of the classification used (into intermediate and ultimate services) is still missing. I believe this is particularly important to clarify, due to the fact that similar (but different) classifications are already present in the scientific literature.

Yes, you are right. We have redefined the intermediate and ultimate services from line 160 to 172.

 

I could not find any integration of existing literature on emergy and ecosystem services at lines 38 to 42, as indicated by the authors. Beside expanding the possible outreach of the paper, and making the analysis more solid, a proper literature review could reinforce or confute the advantages/drawbacks and highlight the characteristics of emergy based evaluations of ecosystem services. The simplest way to improve the literature review with specific references is to search for "emergy" and "ecosystem services" in any scientific research repository.

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the corresponding introduction part .

 

 

Discussion is still very limited and should be more focused on the implications of the results and what can be the contribution of emergy in ecosystem services evaluations.

Thank you for your comments. We have revised the corresponding part from line 327 to 353.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

The quality of the manuscript was improved. I consider it is qualified for publication.

Author Response

Thank you for your comment