Estimating the Past and Future Trajectory of LUCC on Wetland Ecosystem Service Values in the Yellow River Delta Region of China

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper reveals the current and future spatiotemporal change characteristics of land use and changes in ecosystem service value in the Yellow River Delta region. The overall structure is reasonable, but as  a very mature research topic, the author needs to further highlight the innovations of this article. It is difficult to attract readers’ interest simply by looking at land use changes and ecosystem service values.

Specifically:

(1) In the introduction, a more comprehensive review of land use change and its value to ecosystem services is needed to propose the innovations of this study.

(2) In terms of data sources, the introduction of land use data is insufficient, and further information such as data resolution and accuracy needs to be supplemented.

(3) The author introduced in the article that the equivalent coefficient has been corrected, but it does not seem to be reflected. How do the authors correct the coefficients on ecosystem service value?

(4) Land use simulation needs to move the accuracy and related indicators of the research results part to the corresponding part of the method.

(5) The titles "3.1. Spatial-temporal changes of land use" and "3.2. Spatial-temporal changes of land use" are repeated.

(6) The author’s result analysis needs to appropriately delete the content of spatiotemporal changes in land use and focus on ecosystem services and other content.

(7) The discussion section needs to add input and exploration into research methods, research topics, etc. Especially since this topic is very mature, how should we innovate it in the future?

(8) Significantly reduce the conclusion.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Check the full text in detail, especially if there are many horizontal lines similar to "exp-ploring" and "par-ticularly".

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript deals with a relevant issue in contemporary disciplinary debate about the estimation of the value and change in value of ecosystem services supply related to changes in land uses in river mouth areas. The basic idea behind this approach to estimating the value and changing value dynamics of ecosystem services supply is that it is deterministically related to classes of land uses.

The methodology is developed through the estimation of the value of ecosystem services "[...] generally considered as equal to one-seventh of the economic worth of grain harvested on a hectare of cropland at prevailing market prices, the main grain products in this study region are soybean, maize and wheat" (lines 147-149), thus referring to the geographic area in which the submitted manuscript estimates are developed, namely the Yellow River Delta Region in the People's Republic of China. A predictive model based on Markov chains and the Future Land Use Simulation (FLUS) model is implemented to estimate future changes in land uses and changes in the value of ecosystem services provided by soils.

The proposed study is very well structured, both in terms of its place in the scientific and technical disciplinary debate, the analytical description of the methodology, and the specification of data sources, population of variables, and description of results.

There are, however, some points that I would recommend that the authors address appropriately in a revised version of the manuscript.

First, I would consider it appropriate for the authors to highlight the reasons for the general interest of the spatial context of the Yellow River Delta Region in relation to the application of the methodology implemented in the manuscript. Although the choice of the Yellow River Delta Region may be motivated by the authors' familiarity with this spatial context, as, also, perhaps, by the availability of the source data, nevertheless, it is necessary for this spatial context to be compared with other similar areas in order to justify its interest to Sustainability readers.

There is a lack of operational guidance regarding the implications that can be inferred in relation to land policies aimed at increasing the availability and value of ecosystem services in wetlands located in the Delta Regions. I would recommend that the authors add a section devoted to these issues before the concluding section and make the reader aware of any peculiarities, related to these policy implications, related to the land-use planning practices of the People's Republic of China.

Finally, an additional problematic aspect that I would recommend the authors to carefully consider in a revised version of the manuscript is related to the aspects for and against the application of the methodological approach described and implemented in the proposed study to other contexts characterized by the presence of wetlands in the mouth areas of waterways, located in other international contexts, other than the People's Republic of China. This discussion would allow the value added of the submitted manuscript to be fully highlighted within the current disciplinary debate.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This study tried assessed the patterns and magnitude of land use land cover change on ecosystem service values under varying land development scenarios in the Yellow River Delta region of China and can significantly contribute to scientific communities.  However, before recommending this manuscript some minor corrections are required:

Introduction: Introduction is sound but the research gap is not well articulated.

Methodology is fine

Results:  the quality for figure 2, 3 and 4 will be improved.  It is good if the authors present the data of figure 2 in Table format.

The scale of the map for all figures (Figure 9 to 10) should be the same. Figure A1 can be corrected as Figure 11?

Conclusion can be improved. The authors should explain the main points and provide closure.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

It's glad to see the author's revision of the manuscript. There are no major problems in the structure and content of the manuscript. However, the author still has some shortcomings in written expression, such as:

“3.2. ESV changes characteristics in the past”, “3.4. Future ESV changes under four scenarios”, “the model should take into account several factors in the future" and so on, it is too colloquial to express. It is recommended to polish the sentences in the full text.

In addition, the decimal places of the data in Table 2 should be consistent.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

“3.2. ESV changes characteristics in the past”, “3.4. Future ESV changes under four scenarios”, “the model should take into account several factors in the future" and so on, it is too colloquial to express. It is recommended to polish the sentences in the full text.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

All the points raised in the first place are appropriately addressed in the revised version of the manuscript.

As a consequence, I would suggest Sustainability accept the study in its present version.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf