Basic Conceptual Structure for the Assessment of the Natural Services Provided by Hydroelectricity Projects
, Antonio Pulido-Alonso 1 and David Borge-Diez 2
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Accept
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper proposes a framework for the evaluation of hydropower projects, which can be introduced and applied to any location as long as its specific characteristics are taken into account. The framework can be used for assessments that do not have the necessary funding to identify all the benefits associated with local hydropower project. There are several points which need to improve:
1. The relationship of Table 3 in Section 3 and Table 4 need to be clearify. The category and type of the tables do not have a consistent. The advantages of this approach are not well illustrated in Table 3.
2. The application of "Benefit transfer" in this paper need to be explained more.
3. Lines 239~242 and lines 278~279 are the same. It needs to be simplifed.
4. Some grammer errors need to be revised, such as line 213~214.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
In the article, the authors propose a methodology to make an economic assessment of the ecosystem services associated with the hydroelectric generation, using secondary information. This proposal enables the economic valuation of multiple ecosystem services in a way that can be replicated in other contexts. Including the impacts associated with the project is relevant, especially in this type of project, which in other contexts generate rejection by society. The work is well-written and features an up-to-date and relevant background.
General comments
The relationship between the evaluated categories shown in Table 3 and those shown in evaluation matrices A and B is not clear, I do not know if this is due to the absence of Table 4, mentioned in the text but not included in the manuscript.
Although in the article the authors propose a methodology to standardize ecosystem services in the context of hydroelectric projects, these in the end test the model evaluating the impact associated with a specific project, however, the way in which this evaluation is done seems to be detached from the main objective. Similarly, when evaluating ecosystem services these are not necessarily the same as those presented in the matrix of evaluation, and from where the impacts are extracted is not clearly stated.
Specific comment
On lines 221-222 and 227-229, appears the same idea but is disconnected. I would suggest combining both paragraphs and rewriting them so that the idea is clear and better developed.
On line 231 “These publicly available results allowed us”: It shouldn't be "data" instead of "results"
In lines 245-247, the same idea is written both inside and outside the parenthesis.
A Table 4 is mentioned in line 259, however, this Table 4 does not appear in the text.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 3 Report
Although the authors argue the analysis carried out, in the manuscript, continues to be unclear. It is understood that they make the estimate through Benefits Transfer but I do not see the relationship with the evaluation matrices, or at least it is not clear in the text. Perhaps it should be clarified in the text this relationship, and how the categories "energy" and "externalities" are linked to the evaluation matrices exposed before, To effectively offer an approach that allows a uniform and standardized analysis of the costs and benefits of hydropower as proposed by the authors
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
