Land Use Changes and Ecosystem Services: The Case Study of the Abruzzo Region Coastal Strip
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
This manuscript analyzed the changes of ecosystem services in Abruzzo region coastal strip in 2012 and 2018 based on the existing tools and techniques. Although the author has done a lot of work, it is undeniable that there are still many problems in this manuscript. I don’t think this manuscript is suitable for publication in IJGI. The specific comments and suggestions are as follows:
(1) In the introduction, important research papers related to the research should be cited to explain the research status, point out the hot spots, key points, and limitations of the related research, and then highlight the innovation and pioneering of this research through comparison. At present, this manuscript only introduces the realistic background in the introduction section, but lacks the research progress and scientific problems of relevant research. Furthermore, the research content in this manuscript cannot reflect the scientific innovation and the regional practical problems to be solved.
(2) What is the scientific basis for selecting the range of 10km from the coastline as the study area and 1km as the buffer range. The formation of ecosystem service function depends on the ecosystem structure and process on a certain spatial and temporal scale. Only on a specific spatial and temporal scale can ecosystem service function show its significant leading role and effect. Whether the selection of the scope of the study area and buffer zone will have a greater impact on the research results in this manuscript.
(3) Adriatic Coast is mentioned in the results section many times, but its geographical location is not introduced in the study area section. Readers may not understand the relationship between Adriatic Coast and Abruzzo Coast.
(4) In the results section, it is suggested to analyze the results of this manuscript in sections. At present, authors only analysis the changes of ecosystem services. I think it is necessary to analysis the driving factors of ecosystem services changes quantitatively in combination with other data based on GeoDetector or other models. In the abstract, the author mentioned the scenarios analysis, while the author does not simulate or predict the changes of ecosystem services under different development scenarios in the results section. Whether the current research results can provide support for regional development remains to be discussed.
(5) In the discussion section, the author briefly discussed the results of this study, but there is a lack of comparison with similar research, which cannot reflect the innovation of this paper and the scientific and practical problems to be solved. It is suggested that the author increase the comparison between this study and the relevant studies, and strengthen the discussion on the advantages of this study, to clarify the research value.
(6) It is suggested that the author should enhance the drawing standardization of this manuscript.The ordinate title is missing in Figure 2, Figure 5 and Figure 6. If the author wants to reflect the change characteristics of land use structure with the change of buffer zone, it can consider to use the spatial distribution map of land use and the percentage stacked histogram of land use area instead of line chart, which may be more intuitive. In Figure 3a, the same land use type (Node) in 2012 and 2018 is suggested to use the same color. The paper pointed out that “The results are shown in Figure 6. On the left, there are the areas with a higher density of carbon sequestrated (more intense coloring), found in the municipalities of Tortoreto, Sant'Omero, Chieti, and San Giovanni Teatino. On the right, the carbon lost in the analyzed time is observed. Greater losses are found in the municipalities of Roseto, Atri, Pineto, and Scerni”. However, many place names are not marked in Figure 6. It is suggested to keep consistent in the presentation of the legends in Figures 6, Figure 7, and Figure 8.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
General
This paper studies the evolution of three ecosystem services (flood regulation, carbon storage and sequestration and habitat quality) in the Italian coastal region of Abruzzo which is subject to intensive urbanization. This topic deserves the full attention of scientific works. Nevertheless, my general impression is that many elements remain poorly argued and the contributions are not clear.
The following are a mix of both minor and more substantial issues that should be addressed.
Comments
1. In the introduction part, lines 51-53, the authors talk about policies and incentives that governments can implement. Can you elaborate and give some examples of tools? The introduction needs to develop the economic (what are the economic dynamics of the region) and ecological objectives and issues as well as for the stakeholders of the land use planning of the specific local and regional context.
2. It is necessary to justify why these three ecosystem services were chosen.
3. The methodological part is not sufficiently developed and explained. Many points need to be developed. (i) Why use InVEST for only two of the three ES? It seems that InVEST develops an interesting model for the study of runoff mitigation. (ii) The variables and parameters and their sources used for the three services estimation (the elements of equation (1), threat and habitat suitability tables for example) need to be described in detail. This last point may be the subject of an appendix.
4. The analysis mixes outputs in biophysical terms (runoff mitigation) and in economic terms (carbon sequestration). This would involve expressing all ES in biophysical or economic units or both. These multiple approaches lead to confusion in the analysis and therefore in the conclusions
5. The analysis of the LULCC and ES is done in two steps: the evolution of urbanization and in parallel the evolution of the three services. Thus, we do not have the possibility of analyzing the phenomena that operate on the territory: (i) link between urbanization and production of services, and (ii) links between production gain/loss of runoff mitigation services versus carbon sequestration versus habitat quality. It is necessary to carry out cross-data analyses (with trend and spatial correlation for example) as well as to study the correlations between service loss/gain and LULCC.
6. The discussion should be complemented by the study of trade-offs to guide the decision making.
Minor comments :
· L39-40: change the writing of the examples which is confusing. I suggest "(for instance in Tortoreto in 2021, Pescara in 2022 and Ortona in 2022)".
· L76-77: edit "ab/km?" Do you mean hab/km². It should be changed in multiple places.
· In the figure 2, it could be suitable to specify and interpret in reading note the regression displayed.
· The figure is not readable. Please edit.
Author Response
General
This paper studies the evolution of three ecosystem services (flood regulation, carbon storage and sequestration and habitat quality) in the Italian coastal region of Abruzzo which is subject to intensive urbanization. This topic deserves the full attention of scientific works. Nevertheless, my general impression is that many elements remain poorly argued and the contributions are not clear.
The following are a mix of both minor and more substantial issues that should be addressed.
Comments
In the introduction part, lines 51-53, the authors talk about policies and incentives that governments can implement. Can you elaborate and give some examples of tools? The introduction needs to develop the economic (what are the economic dynamics of the region) and ecological objectives and issues as well as for the stakeholders of the land use planning of the specific local and regional context.
Reply: Thanks for your comment.According to your suggestions, we have improved the introduction section.
It is necessary to justify why these three ecosystem services were chosen.
Reply: These ecosystem services were selected based on their importance in the area and their relevance to conservation planning. This sentence has been added in Material and Methods section.
The methodological part is not sufficiently developed and explained. Many points need to be developed. (i) Why use InVEST for only two of the three ES? It seems that InVEST develops an interesting model for the study of runoff mitigation. (ii) The variables and parameters and their sources used for the three services estimation (the elements of equation (1), threat and habitat suitability tables for example) need to be described in detail. This last point may be the subject of an appendix.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. The InVEST model for runoff analysis needs the precipitation and evapotranspiration data, but they are not available for the study area. Furthermore, the equation (1) is used for design sewer system and it has a central role for the aims of this work. Indeed, the equation (1) allows us to directly estimate the runoff. We have added an appendix with tables that contain all used parameters.
The analysis mixes outputs in biophysical terms (runoff mitigation) and in economic terms (carbon sequestration). This would involve expressing all ES in biophysical or economic units or both. These multiple approaches lead to confusion in the analysis and therefore in the conclusions.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. Our work analyses the changes in runoff based on LULCC. We do not have evaluated the economic costs for mitigation actions. Our aim is to analyse the LULCC and their impacts on habitat quality and carbon sequestration. Furthermore, InVEST outputs the economic evaluation only for carbon sequestration. We have improved both the Materials and Methods and Conclusions section.
The analysis of the LULCC and ES is done in two steps: the evolution of urbanization and in parallel the evolution of the three services. Thus, we do not have the possibility of analyzing the phenomena that operate on the territory: (i) link between urbanization and production of services, and (ii) links between production gain/loss of runoff mitigation services versus carbon sequestration versus habitat quality. It is necessary to carry out cross-data analyses (with trend and spatial correlation for example) as well as to study the correlations between service loss/gain and LULCC.
Reply: Thanks for your precious comment. We have carried out the correlation analysis and we have updated the Results section. Please, see lines 286-294
The discussion should be complemented by the study of trade-offs to guide the decision making.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. We have updated the discussion section.
Minor comments:
- L39-40: change the writing of the examples which is confusing. I suggest "(for instance in Tortoreto in 2021, Pescara in 2022 and Ortona in 2022)".
Reply: Thanks. We have done.
- L76-77: edit "ab/km?" Do you mean hab/km². It should be changed in multiple places.
Reply: Thanks. We have done it.
- In the figure 2, it could be suitable to specify and interpret in reading note the regression displayed.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. We have interpreted and specify the results of regression analysis displayed in figure 2. Please, see lines 206-209
- The figure is not readable. Please edit.
Reply: We have improved the figure.
Reviewer 3 Report
Dear authors,
I appreciated your manuscript and the overall structure.
I would appreciate a bit more details in discussions and conclusion, e.g. similar situation in other part of Europe/Italy.
Minor English edits are needed.
Overall, I liked the work!
Author Response
Dear authors,
I appreciated your manuscript and the overall structure.
I would appreciate a bit more details in discussions and conclusion, e.g. similar situation in other part of Europe/Italy.
Minor English edits are needed.
Overall, I liked the work!
Reply: Many thanks for your comments! We have updated both the discussion and the conclusion section.
Reviewer 4 Report
In the abstract section, the author should include the quantitative results.
The author should mention the resolution of satellite data used.
The author should write the full form of CORINE.
The introduction should be extended, and additional essential research sources should be cited.
The author should mention the North Arrow in Figure 1.
There is a typo errors in many places, the author should correct them.
The author should include the methodology framework graphically for this study for a better understanding of the flow of research work.
The author should mention the name of software’s/tools used for data analysis.
The conclusion section should be expanded by the author to include more logical explanations of the findings and recommendations.
Author Response
In the abstract section, the author should include the quantitative results.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. We have improved the abstract.
The author should mention the resolution of satellite data used.
Reply: Thanks for your comment but we do not have used satellite data. The coastal zones data are vector. We have described it in materials and method section.
The author should write the full form of CORINE.
Reply: Thanks. We have wrote the full form.
The introduction should be extended, and additional essential research sources should be cited.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. We have improved the Introduction Section
The author should mention the North Arrow in Figure 1.
Reply: We have updated the Figure 1.
There is a typo errors in many places, the author should correct them.
Reply: Thanks again. We have reread the text and corrected typo errors.
The author should include the methodology framework graphically for this study for a better understanding of the flow of research work.
Reply: Thanks. We have added a flowchart in Materials and Method section (Figure 2).
The author should mention the name of software’s/tools used for data analysis.
Reply: Thanks for your comments. We have added the name of used software in Materials and Method section.
The conclusion section should be expanded by the author to include more logical explanations of the findings and recommendations.
Reply: Thanks for your comment. We have improved the Conclusions section.
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The author has revised the article according to the revision comments. I have no other specific comments on this article now, but I think the figures in this article are lower than other papers in International Journal of Geo-Information in terms of quality and standardization. For example, the font format and size in all figures are inconsistent, and the girds and major ticks are inconsistent in Figure 3,4,5 and 6. It is suggested that the author improve the quality of figures in this article. Overall, my assessment of the article is positive. Nevertheless, I leave the final decision of its publication in International Journal of Geo-Information on the editor.
Author Response
Thanks fopr your precious comments. We have improved our figures.
